RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

PRONOMINAL PARTICIPLES WITH DEPENDENT WORDS: THE CODIFIED NORM AND ITS AMBIGUITIES

KEYWORDS: pronominal form, pronominal participle, pronominal adjective, dependent words, modified word, modifier, noun.

ABSTRACT

The article examines a feature cited in discussions of pronominal forms: the pronominal form of a participle is not to be used if the participle has dependent words, understood as words connected to the participle by government or adjunction. The author reveals variations in how the criterion formulated in prescriptive works is defined and considers two principal questions raised by its formulation: the question of analogy between the use of pronominal forms of participles and adjectives, and ambiguities related to the use of participles in noun positions. To clarify the extent to which this criterion applies equally to adjectives and participles, the article draws on both prescriptive and descriptive studies, as well as syntactic descriptions.

INTRODUCTION

Combinations of words consisting of a pronominal participle (hereafter ĮD) with dependent words are used in Lithuanian, as the internet, which conveys a picture of widespread usage, would show. Its search engine Google would return entries for almost every ĮD in such combinations, e.g.: What measures can writers about stage tricks in these times dominated by innovation and social media? One of the extraordinary marvels of the twentieth century—the radio—has the voices of those speaking into a microphone; a middle-aged woman is the statistical portrait of a consumer taking out a loan; a portrait of women wishing to undergo this procedure free of charge must obtain a referral from law enforcement officers. However, the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian, which is oriented less toward language usage in general than toward standard-language usage, would reveal that ĮDs have dependent or attached words very rarely. For example, the participle writers occurs with such words only six times in the corpus’s non-fiction sources, which comprise 19 322 341 words; the speaker occurs three times, the borrower twice, while many participles, even those formed from transitive verbs (the giver

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351–7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 2

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

or those who give, the one who sees or those who see, the one who overcomes or those who overcome, etc.)—not even once¹. The fact that such cases are uncommon in the standard language is also confirmed by recent sources not included in the corpus.

A random selection of ten nonfiction books published over the past decade found participial forms with pronominal endings (ĮD) accompanied by dependent words in four²; no such instances were found in three³, and only two instances each were found in three⁴. Admittedly, the use of ĮD expanded by dependent words may be uncharacteristic of a book author's or translator's language; however, the complete absence of such instances in a substantial publication may also indicate that they are avoided by book-language editors who follow normative publications.

Indeed, some normative or norm-disseminating works identify ĮD accompanied by dependent words as unacceptable. Grammars explicitly identify as unacceptable only pronominal-form adjectives expanded by such words, but the model they apply to the description of pronominal forms allows us to assume that the analogy may also apply to participles. Descriptions of word combinations do not describe ĮD combinations, and descriptions of morphological structure are even less likely to discuss them; meanwhile, corrections show that ĮD containing dependent words often end up among the forms marked for correction, although the criterion for correction is formulated differently. All this may cause considerable uncertainty in usage, or even restrict it.

Of course, to determine whether codified norms actually restrict usage, one would need to investigate and compare both usage and the norms in depth. This, however, is not the aim of this article. Treating usage and norms as equally important objects of study, the article focuses solely on norms. More specifically, it seeks to examine the norm for using ĮD with dependent words as codified in normative and norm-oriented works, the uncertainties that arise in codifying it, and the deeper causes of those uncertainties. The article should be relevant from the perspective of codification, but it is also hoped that it may prove useful to language users seeking answers in normative works as to whether a participle may take a pronominal form when it has dependent words governed by it or attached to it.

¹ Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (http://tekstynas.vdu.lt) accessed on October 25, 2019.

J. Grigas. ²Following the paths of knowledge: looking counterclockwise, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 2013; V. Žutautas. In search of paradise on earth. Travel reports, Kaunas: UAB „Kriminalistika“, 2011; J. Grudzinskas. In search of lost paradise, Vilnius: Saulėle, 2015; E. Kuckailis. Quiet steps through the moss, Kaunas: Vox Altera, 2016.

³ D. Paluckas, J. G. Siaurukas. Socialdemokratija be socializmo, Klaipėda: Eglė, 2014; P. Pomerantsev. Niekas nėra tiesa ir viskas yra įmanoma: nuotykiai naujojoje Rusijoje, Vilnius: Sofoklis, 2015; V. Šmigelskas. Kur skraido liūdesio lėktuvai, Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2016.

⁴ A. Užkalnis. Prijaukintoji Anglija, Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2010; Tibetas: tolimas ir artimas, Laisvės byla, Vilnius: VšĮ „Aštuntoji diena“, 2018; B. Tiknevičiūtė. Tėvas Stanislovas – mažutėlių tarnas. Penktoji laida, Kaunas, 2016.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 3

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

The structure of the article is fairly simple. The first section examines the prescriptive criterion, which in one way or another stipulates that the pronominal form of a participle is not used when it is extended by dependent words; the next two sections address the ambiguities arising from the formulation of the criterion: the question of whether the use of pronominal forms of participles and adjectives is analogous (Section 2), and ambiguities related to the use of a participle in the noun position (Section 3). In examining these questions, the discussion draws not only on prescriptive works but also on studies of the morphology of pronominal forms; in the fourth section, this analysis is further supplemented by an examination of the syntactic account of participles used with dependent words. This should bring into focus both the problems facing codification and the question of whether all instances of participles used with dependent words should be evaluated in the same way.

Although the prescriptive criterion, as will be seen in the first section, is formulated differently in different sources, when it is formulated as the non-use of a pronominal word with dependent words, the phrase dependent words designates only words that are governed by, or linked through adjunction to, the pronominal word; in this respect, the phrase differs in meaning from the term dependent constituents used in the description of word combinations (the latter would also include words linked to the head constituent by agreement). The phrase dependent words will be used with this meaning in the present article as well, and hereafter it will be abbreviated as PŽ.

1. FORMULATION OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE CRITERION

PŽ is identified as a criterion for the non-use of the pronominal form of the participle in several works, and one of them also names its source.

In Arnoldas Piročkinas’s 1990 publication Administracinės kalbos kultūroje, it is stated: “If an adjective or participle has governed or adjoined words (nouns, pronouns, adverbs), then it is not appropriate to use the pronominal form, e.g.: highly esteemed= citizen (or simply: esteemed citizen)” (Piročkinas 1990: 87). To illustrate this claim with examples, a group of sentences corrected by Jonas Jablonskis is also given, such as The earth does not retain for long the heat received (=received) from the sun, People were appointed bishops who had managedto please the king in some way (=who had managed), The train, sent= (sent) to protect the railway point, was quickly stopped (Piročkinas 1990: 87); this would suggest that the formulation of the prescriptive criterion may be an extension of J. Jablonskis’s corrections.

That this is indeed the case is revealed by an earlier work by the same author, Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai., published in 1986. It mentions a translation review prepared by J. Jablonskis,

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 4

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

in which the reviewer, having corrected nine incorrectly used participles, stated: “Here, non-pronominal participles are required throughout: they are accompanied by so-called complements, adverbials dependent on the participles themselves... Why is a pronominal participle (adjective) used here?” (Piročkinas 1986: 141–142). Sentences corrected by J. Jablonskis are also presented, but they are taken not from the aforementioned review, but from other works by this linguist, for example: those who have more must sacrifice...those having more = those who have more; The train, the one dispatched (=dispatched) to protect... the railway station (=of the station), was quickly stopped; The Earth does not retain for long what is received (=received) from the sun heat [=heat – A. P]; (People were appointed as bishops) who were capable in some way (=capable of something) to please the king; (They) were the greater landowners, able to muster a larger army = (They) were the greater landowners (landholders, estate owners), able (those who could) to muster a larger army; From them arose used today (=used, used today, present-day usage) forms of those cases; Modifiers are agreeing and non-agreeing with the modified word = Modifiers are (can be) in agreement or not in agreement with the modified word. As can be seen, several of these sentences were later transferred to The Culture of Administrative Language. In discussing the participles corrected by J. Jablonskis, A. Piročkinas also points out that in one correction the linguist contradicted a rule he himself had formulated, thereby indicating that the rule had been formulated by J. Jablonskis.

The rule in question is formulated in the 1922 Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje, where it is stated that pronominal adjectives cannot express the “distinctive quality” of things in a comparative manner, that is, they are not used with so and very, for example, very good, so good, so holy, very (quite) red clover, the so-called master; things that are paid for so dearly must surely be good (RR 1957: 415). Having noted this feature of the language, the text goes on to state that pronominal adjectives “generally speaking, do not take adverbials or complements of the kind required by their use,” and to illustrate this formulation it gives almost exclusively participial examples⁵, showing that when a participle occurs with PŽ, it is used only in the simple form. Participles are presented not only with adverbs expressing comparison (People, having worked so hard, must rest), but also with other words (A person, having worked all day, can rest in the evening; Why are you going into the house, are there no longer even mice living here now?); and what most strongly links the examples is that, with the exception of two sentences (The men, having sold the rye, went home; Having not worked in summer, what will you live on in winter?), they are restrictive postpositive attributes (RR 1957: 414–416). However, when the rule is formulated once again, the criterion mentioned is not this position, but certain words dependent on the participle: “Pronominal adjectives cannot have in speech complements or

⁵ Only one adjective example is given here: We must distinguish those things from otherthings resembling them things (RR 1957: 415).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 5

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

aplinkybės žodžių“ (RR 1957: 415). Nors 1922 m. išleistoje J. Jablonskio gramatikoje daugiausia pateikiama tik postpozicinių pažyminių pavyzdžių, vis dėlto iš minėtosios recenzijos matyti, kad vienoda klaida kalbininkas laikė ir prepoziciniais pažyminiais einančių dalyvių įvardžiuotinę formą (Čia pat ir laukiantieji savo laimės kandidatai), o kartu ir daiktavardžio pozicijoje vartojamų dalyvių įvardžiuotinę formą, pvz.: Norinčiųjų būti konsuliais pasirodydavo nedaug; Patarnaus žmogui ir išbrauks jį iš mokančiųjų duoklę sąrašo; Toliau ėjo bičiuliai ir priskirtieji prie pretoriaus... (RR 1959: 265).

A. Piročkinas takes up the rule formulated by J. Jablonskis for discussion, that is, he raises the question of why a complement or an adverbial cannot be used together with the pronominal form (Piročkinas 1986: 142–143). Having described the question as “the greatest problem among all corrections involving pronominal and non-pronominal forms,” he first draws on an explanation from an article by Adelė Valeckienė: “when a noun stands next to an adjective, it explains and extends the meaning of the adjective and distances it from the word it modifies” (Valeckienė 1957: 220). In that article, the author examined only the use of pronominal adjectives; thus, on the basis of its conclusion, an analogy is drawn between the use of the pronominal forms of adjectives and participles. That this analogy is being applied is also clear from A. Piročkinas’s own attempt to explain the rule formulated by J. Jablonskis: a pronominal participle, like a pronominal adjective, having expressed a marked property of an object, is followed by a complement or an adverbial that likewise indicates a property; however, language avoids marking a phenomenon twice, and therefore the non-pronominal participle form is used (Piročkinas 1986: 143).

J. Jablonskis, however, also applied this analogy. Although the rule in question is formulated in a grammar chapter entitled Pronominal adjectives, its opening states that the term pronominal adjectives is used throughout the chapter to include other parts of speech that can have pronominal forms, including participles: “When discussing pronominal adjectives, we shall also have in mind throughout the other pronominal words (participles, ordinal numerals, and certain pronouns)” (RR 1957: 414). Consequently, the rule—which is formulated as a prohibition on using the pronominal form of an adjective with “complements or adverbial words”—applies equally to participles. As early as the 1901 grammar, participles were mentioned alongside pronominal adjectives in the discussion of the latter: “This dualized meaning of adjectives can, of course, also be acquired by dualized verbs (participia), that is, adjectives made from verbs or verbal agents” (RR 1957: 86). However, that grammar did not yet formulate a rule prohibiting the pronominal form with “complements or adverbial words.” In formulating this rule in the 1922 grammar, it appears that the point of departure was the particularities of adjective use, especially the avoidance of pronominal adjectives with adverbs expressing comparison, but the examples given are essentially only

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 6

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

participles. The review mentioned above, too, corrected only participles, and A. Piročkinas, when discussing J. Jablonskis’s corrections, mostly gives examples of pronominal participles. In discussing the adjectives corrected by J. Jablonskis, two sentences related to the use of the pronominal form are not cited, namely The less talented (=where not so, not so talented...) are still forgotten and there are also such very talented among them = there are such very talented people, and among the talented (Piročkinas 1986: 116), but, as can be seen, both relate to the expression of degree, and this factor may be precisely what has an influence. Thus, it seems that although the rule is formulated mainly on the basis of adjectives, even J. Jablonskis more often had to correct participles.

The claim that both parts of speech are equally unable to take the pronominal form when accompanied by dependent words is also made in an article by Elena Oginskienė published in 1993. In discussing the use of the pronominal form of the adjective, the article states that it is unnecessary when the meaning of the adjective is defined by dependent words, for example: When employees responsible for record-keeping change, files are transferred under an act (Oginskienė 1993: 37). Regarding participle use in this form, it states: “The pronominal form is not used if its meaning is narrowed by dependent words or if the participle follows the modified word: The question of foreign activities prohibited and restricted for investment is under consideration. For documents sent abroad, forms are printed in two languages” (Oginskienė 1993: 40). As in J. Jablonskis’s work, the dependent-word criterion is also applied to participles occupying the noun position—they are recommended in their simple form, for example: Those wishing to farm are invited to listen to advice on agricultural matters; Those building garden houses receive a loan; courses are organized every year for those entering higher education institutions (Oginskienė 1993: 38).

Even earlier than E. Oginskienė, A. Valeckienė had mentioned the dependent-word criterion. In an article published in Language Culture in 1961, after discussing in detail the meanings of pronominal adjectives, she noted that pronominal participles are used in a similar way to pronominal adjectives, and mentioned a couple of cases of inaccurate use of the pronominal form. One such case was specifically identified as “a strong tendency to use pronominal forms of participles expanded by other words and functioning as attributes” (Valeckienė 1961: 15). The tendency is described as strong, which would seem to confirm that there is a greater inclination to use pronominal participles expanded by dependent words than pronominal adjectives. Moreover, the article mentions as improper not all participles, but only those functioning as expanded attributes; thus, the criterion seems to be intended more narrowly.

In formulating the criterion in Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (hereafter DLKG) and Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter LKG), the attributive position is not in any way singled out. The criterion is formulated as follows: “Pronominal forms of adjectives do not take dependent words” (DLKG 1997: 176); “Adjectives expanded by nouns and adverbs do not have pronominal forms

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 7

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

arba neapibrėžiamuoju įvardžiu toks“ (LKG 1965: 513). Vis dėlto pateiktoji formuluotė LKG iliustruojama tik tokiais pavyzdžiais, iš kurių matyti, kad įvardžiuotinė forma nevartojami tik išplėstais pažyminiais einantys būdvardžiai: Krūmai, žole barzdoti, kraštais mišką rėčia; Nors kalnas aukštas ir status buvo, bet pilnos džiaugsmo žmonių akys žiūrėjo į jo viršūnę kaip į saulę, ir daugelis jau rengėsi lipti; O gyveno jis jau devintą dešimtį metų, tebeturėjo dar pilną burną dantų, blaių protą ir nuostabiai giedrą atmintį...; Dangiškai žydros jo akys, apvestos tamsiais antakių lankeliais, pridengtos ilgomis blakstienomis, žiūri prieš save. Dar vienu sakiniu iliustruojamas teiginys, kad įvardžiuotine forma nevartotini būdvardžiai, einantys su įvardžiu toks: Buvo šaltas, apniukęs rytas, ir ant viso miesto gulėjo toks storas rūkas, kad už kelių žingsnių nebuvo žmogaus matyti (LKG 1965: 513). O daiktavardžio poziciją užimančių būdvardžių pavyzdžių nepateikiama. DLKG formuluotė išvis neiliustruojama pavyzdžiais. Taigi, iš gramatikų neaišku, ar formuluotės apie įvardžiuotinės formos nevartojimą su PŽ taikomos tik pažyminiu einantiems būdvardžiams, ar ir vartojamiems daiktavardžio pozicijoje. Tačiau iš šių gramatikų neaišku nė tai, kiek toks kriterijus taikytinas dalyviams. Tiesiogiai įvardijamas būdvardis, bet ir formuluotės pateikiamos būdvardžio skyriuje. Vis dėlto įvardžiuotinės formos išsamiai ir teaptariamos tik būdvardžio skyriuje, o tai leidžia kelti prielaidą, kad čia išsamiai aprašytos reikšmės ir vartojimo ypatumai laikomi bendrais ir kitoms kalbos dalims, bet jų skyriuose vengiama kartoti informaciją.

In the Language Advice books published in 2002 (hereafter KP), participles functioning as expanded attributes are corrected. The pronominal form of participles occurring in a detached attribute is judged unacceptable (People with one or another disability, having (=having) disabilities, form organizations; Posters have been put up urging (=urging) people to take part in the spring work bee), whereas the pronominal form of participles included in an expanded attribute is considered inadvisable (The party governing (=governing) the country elected a new leader; Patterns that impeded (–impeded) production were identified) (KP 2002: 27–28); this defines all cases of participles used as adjectives with dependent words. However, KP also corrects some participles used in the noun position, including pronominal ones: in the section on Nominal Use, present active participles used to name persons by their duties are judged unacceptable (KP 2002: 43–44), while present active participles used to name persons by their ongoing activity are considered inadvisable (KP 2002: 44–46); among the cases corrected are also many examples of pronominal participles used with dependent words: The chairing person (=chairperson) of the meeting gave the floor to the guest; Lithuania’s image abroad is also shaped by young people studying there (–studying (pursuing studies)); A club for checkers and chess players (–players of checkers and chess) began operating in the town, and so forth (KP 2002: 44–46). Such participles tending to become nouns

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 8

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

vartojimas neigiamai vertinamas ir kitur (Pupkis 1980: 137–138; Banevičienė 1992; Brūzgienė ir kt. 2013: 151), bet būdvardžių daiktavardėjimo polinkiai niekur nevertinami neigiamai, ir tai skatintų kelti klausimą, ar įvardžiuotinės formos vartojimo analogija taikoma šiuo atveju.

The KP also specifies three cases of use of present-tense active participles, one of which is their use “to name a person acting at the moment in question (temporarily)” (KP 2002: 46)⁶. Mentioning such a case would already prompt the question of whether this analogy exists, since this case could not be characteristic of adjectives. It is true that the examples illustrating it show only pronominal-form participles without dependent words, such as Those waiting look curiously at us and The candidates were handed examination slips, and thus no answer is given to the question of whether a participle used in the position of a noun can occur with dependent words. A dependent word might perhaps be found in the sentence They called to the meetingthose working with adolescents, but it can also be interpreted as an indivisible phrase indicating that both the workers and the adolescents were invited. In any case, a single instance, which can moreover be interpreted in two ways, does not confirm that a participle used in the position of a noun can occur with dependent words.

Kalbos kultūros ir morfologijos vadovėliuose tarp taisymų daugiausia atsiduria tik pažyminiu einantys ĮD, pvz.: Surasti sąmokslininkus demaskuojantieji (=demaskuojantys) dokumentai; Į Akademiją priimami asmenys iki 35 metų, baigusieji (=baigę) vidurinį mokslą ir išlaikiusieji (=išlaikę) stojamuosius egzaminus (Paulauskienė 1994: 223; 2004a: 206–207; 2004b: 310). Tiesa, taisymų kriterijus čia formuluojamas kitoks. Dviejuose Aldonos Paulauskienės parengtuose kalbos kultūros vadovėliuose tokių pavyzdžių pateikiama iliustruojant teiginį, kad įvardžiuotinė forma nereikalinga, kai nėra apibrėžimo ar išskyrimo (Paulauskienė 2004a: 207; 2004b: 310), kitur tokiais pavyzdžiais kaip Surasti mokslininkus demaskuojantieji (=demaskuojantys) faktai ir mokslieiviai ir visi norintieji (=norintys) mokytis grindžiamas teiginys, kad įvardžiuotinės formos nevartotinos, „kai nereikia ypatybės kaip nors išskirti, pabrėžti, individualizuoti kalbamą dalyką“ (Pupkis 1980: 136). Taigi, iškeliamas reikšmės kriterijus, o ir teiginiams paaiškinti dažnai pasitelkiama ne tik išplėstų pažyminiu einančių dalyvių pavyzdžių: Pastebėti svarbiausieji (=svarbiausi) organizmo pokyčiai; Romanas į lietuvių kalbą išverstas pirmąjį (–pirmą) kartą (Paulauskienė 2004a: 206). 1976 m. išleistuose Kalbos praktikos patarimuose tokia sintaksiškai skirtingų pavyzdžių grupė iliustruojama, kad įvardžiuotiniai žodžiai nevartotini paprastai daikto ypatybei apibūdinti (KPP 1976: 114). Viename morfologijos vadovėlyje beveik tik išplėstais pažyminiais einančių ĮD pavyzdžiais

⁶ Besides this case, the use of the present active participle is also mentioned when there is no noun of corresponding meaning to refer to a person (believer, drowning person), as well as its use as a modifier (A police patrol car with a on-duty police officer soon appeared at the scene; A year later I became a player coach; The number of people suffering from respiratory diseases) (KP 2002: 46).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 9

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

The claim is illustrated that “[P]eople, unable to sense the difference between the simple and pronominal forms, do not know how to use pronominal forms where they seem actually to be needed, and use them where they are unnecessary” (Paulauskienė 1994: 223), suggesting that this group of examples may be the result of a certain generalization. In any case, such corrections also imply that an analogy is being drawn between the use of the pronominal forms of participles and adjectives.

Overall, it becomes clear that works on language standardization and the dissemination of norms envisage different criteria for dependent words: in some works they encompass both participles and pronominal adjectives, while in others only the latter are explicitly mentioned; in some, the criterion is applied only to participles functioning as expanded modifiers, while in others it also applies to those used in the position of a noun. Nevertheless, corrections focus predominantly on participles (both those functioning as expanded modifiers and those used in the position of a noun), which prompts the supposition that there may be reasons why participles are more inclined than pronominal adjectives to occur with dependent words, and hence a complete analogy between the use of the pronominal forms of adjectives and participles may not exist. However, such suppositions are neither raised nor considered in works on language standardization. Here, an attempt will be made to consider the question of the analogy between the use of the pronominal forms of adjectives and participles, on which depends the unclear answer in standardization works to whether participles may be used with dependent words.

2. THE QUESTION OF ANALOGY IN THE USE OF PRONOMINAL FORMS OF ADJECTIVES AND PARTICIPLES

Pronominal words are discussed in a separate section only in some morphology and language-culture textbooks. A different model for their morphological treatment is more usual: the section on adjectives describes the meanings and usage features of pronominal adjectives, while sections on other parts of speech merely mention that these parts of speech can also have pronominal forms and, if the description of the language structure is comprehensive, indicate their declension and accentuation.

For instance, the section on numerals in LKG merely states that ordinal numerals can have pronominal forms, that their declension does not differ from that of pronominal adjectives, and that they more often have an emphatic meaning (LKG 1965: 628–629). The section on pronouns lists the pronouns that can have pronominal forms, discusses their declension, and states that the pronominal form emphasizes the object designated by the pronoun (LKG 1965: 664–665). The section on adjectives, however, includes a detailed subsection Meanings of Pronominal Adjectives, which gives a detailed account of emphatic and attributive meanings; the latter is divided into three subtypes (distinguishing objects, denoting a kind of object, and indicating objects), which are further subdivided (LKG 1965: 505–

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 10

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

510). Thus, a comprehensive, multilevel classification of meanings is presented, and the meanings are abundantly illustrated with examples of usage. After discussing them, the text also mentions the “definiteness–indefiniteness correlation” formed by definite-form adjectives alongside their simple forms, and identifies its exceptions and other features of the use of definite forms (LKG 1965: 510–514); in listing these, it also formulates the claim that a definite-form adjective should not be used if it is expanded by other words. This presentation of the information would encourage the assumption that the meanings and usage features of definite forms across different parts of speech are considered analogous, and that the meanings and usage features are described in detail only in the adjective section for the sake of brevity.

However, the information provided in the section on participles would at least prompt doubt about whether their meanings coincide. The meanings of definite-form participles are not discussed separately here, but are mentioned in the description of participial meanings—more precisely, of the attributive use of participles⁷. For instance, in discussing present passive participles in attributive use, the text mentions not only the marking of a feature arising from an action taking place in the present, but also of a persistent feature arising from a habitual action; it also identifies such meanings as possibility, purpose, and suitability, and lists various types of logical-semantic relations between a participle and the word it modifies, such as indicating the action or location expressed by the participle, among others (LKG 1971: 337–346). In listing all this, the text sometimes adds that participles associated with the modified word through one meaning or another, or through one relation or another, may also be definite forms. For example, after stating that participles with the meanings of purpose and suitability, in describing the purpose of things, also distinguish them from other similar things and indicate their kind, it adds that these participles, like many adjectives denoting kind, are usually definite forms and are used to form terminology in various fields (drinking water, dairy cow, prefabricated structures); thus, one subtype of the identifying meaning—the indication of an object’s kind—is mentioned (LKG 1971: 339). However, when discussing the indication of an instrument of action, it is merely stated that definite forms of participles defining the concept of an instrument “often serve as terms in various fields of science and craft in the literary language” (sewing, cutting, printing machine, ploughing straps) (LKG 1971: 340); when discussing the expression of the logical subject of an action or state, definite forms are likewise described merely as widely used in forming new concepts and terms (relapsing fever, combustible gases, corresponding editor) (LKG 1971: 342). Thus, the description of participles mentions only one subtype of identifying meaning and the associated

⁷ LKG distinguishes three main types of participial use: attributive-predicative (attributive-predicative) and predicative use of participles (LKG 1971: 332). This article uses the morphologically simpler adjective attributive.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 11

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

the function of the definite form to mark a term. Neither the emphatic meaning nor such subtypes of identifying meaning as distinguishing objects or indicating objects are mentioned, still less are the usage features of definite-form participles discussed. This raises the question of whether the meanings described in the adjective section are characteristic of participles and, more generally, whether there is an analogy between the use of definite forms of adjectives and participles.

Even DLKG does not answer this question. It applies essentially the same model for describing definite forms, with the new feature that definiteness is explicitly distinguished. However, it is distinguished in the adjective section, and the text also states directly that the category of definiteness consists of definite forms of adjectives contrasted with their simple forms (DLKG 1997: 174). The subsection Definiteness also presents a classification of meanings, though these are now discussed as ways of expressing definiteness, with the emphatic meaning set aside (DLKG 1997: 174–177). The classification of meanings is similar to that given in LKG, except that it distinguishes two subtypes of marking definiteness (distinguishing objects and indicating objects). As in LKG, the definite forms mentioned in the description of participles are mainly associated with terminology (DLKG 1997: 369–372), but in this grammar participles in attributive use are now termed participles with the meaning of a quality⁸.

Neither grammar makes it possible to resolve the question of analogy not only in meanings but also in the usage features of definite forms. Such features, too, are listed only in the adjective section: both grammars first state that the opposition between definite and non-definite forms is not firmly established, and then mention cases in which the definite form of an adjective tends not to be used or is not used at all (LKG 1965: 511–514; DLKG 1997: 175–176). These include some features of syntactic use, including the fact that definite forms of adjectives do not have PŽ. The cases listed suggest that some of them could certainly also apply to participles—for example, the possibility of replacing a definite form with a combination of a simple adjective and a demonstrative pronoun, or the tendency in dialects not to add the pronominal particle to superlative adjectives (LKG 1965: 511); and the exception whereby definite forms of several adjectives modifying the same word are not used if those adjectives name separate, independent features (LKG 1965: 513). The statement that in a sentence definite words usually function as modifiers (LKG 1965: 512) could also apply to participles in attributive use. But would the statement “In some dialects, definite forms are disfavored for expressing highly specific distinguishing and classificatory modifiers that can distinguish objects by their lexical meaning alone,” illustrated by examples such as black fallow, really apply to them?

⁸ DLKG distinguishes not types of participial use but meanings: the meaning of a quality, the meaning of a secondary action, and the meaning of a main action (DLKG 1997: 369).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 12

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

kanapėta višta (LKG 1965: 511), ar teiginys „Neturi įvardžiuotinių formų taip pat kai kurių būdvardžių leksinės reikšmės, paprastai tokios perkeltinės būdvardžių reikšmės, kurios yra atitrūkusios nuo pagrindinės būdvardžio reikšmės ir jau žymi ne pačią daikto kokybę, bet jos įvairius atspalvius“, pavyzdžiui, Marčiai reikėjo baisios (didelės) kantrybės ar Neturiu panašios (geros, riebios) vištos pjauti (LKG 1965: 512), matyt, reikėtų tirti atskirai. Kai kurie minimieji ypatumai, kaip antai galūnės -is vedinio, priesagos -opas, -a, -okas, -a vedinių, mažybinių būdvardžių nevartojimas įvardžiuotine forma (LKG 1965: 512; DLKG 176–177), išties jau gali būti būdingi tik būdvardžiams, o toks ypatumų kontekstas daro neaiškų ir tarp jų minimo PŽ nevartojimo kriterijaus taikymo dalyviui klausimą.

The same model for describing definite forms is applied in some morphology textbooks as well (Jakaitienė et al. 1976: 72–73; Paulauskienė 1994: 220–225; Ružė 2008: 73), but some morphology or language-culture textbooks discuss definite forms or definite words separately (Brūzgienė et al. 2003: 150–152; Šukys 2003: 112–114; Paulauskienė 2004a: 203–207; 2004b: 309–312; Kazlauskienė et al. 2011: 101–102). In such textbooks, emphatic, definite, distinguishing, and other meanings are identified as meanings characteristic of all definite words, and definite forms are illustrated not only with examples of adjectives but also with participles and other parts of speech. No meanings or usage features specific only to definite-form participles or only to definite-form adjectives are mentioned, suggesting that an analogy is assumed both for meanings and for usage features.

Jau minėtame A. Valeckienės straipsnyje, paskelbtame 1961 m., įvardijamas tik panašumas – aptarus įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių reikšmes nurodoma, kad „[P]anašiai, kaip įvardžiuotiniai būdvardžiai, vartojami ir įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai“ (Valeckienė 1961: 15), o ir ID vartojimas su PŽ vertinamas ne itin griežtai: „Taip pat galima pastebėti didelį polinkį vartoti įvardžiuotines formas dalyvių, išplėstų kitais žodžiais, ir einančių pažyminiais. Šiuo atveju irgi nereikėtų daryti apibendrinimų. Kai išplėstiniai pažyminiai neišskiria žinomo daikto iš kitų į jį panašių daiktų, o tik parodo jo ypatybę, smulkiau detalizuodami pačią daikto sąvoką, visiškai galima išsiversti be įvardžiuotinių formų, pvz.: Taip pat surasti sąmokslininkus demaskuojantieji (=demaskuojantys arba demaskuoja) dokumentai. Visi kalbėjo, kad miesto gatvėse išlipinti ir išmėtyti lapeliai, raginantieji (raginantys; kuriuose buvo raginama) nuo 12-os valandos pradėti visuotinį streiką“ (Valeckienė 1961: 15–16). Kita vertus, toks vertinimas pateikiamas aptarus įvardžiuotinius būdvardžius, o tai reiškia, kad remiamasi jų vartosena.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 13

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

The authorship of the article under discussion and of the adjective section in both grammars coincides⁹, which would encourage examining the question of analogy in the use of pronominal forms of adjectives and participles by drawing on other works by the author as well. Such an analogy is mentioned in some of them. For instance, in A. Valeckienė’s Functional Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, published in 1998, pronominal forms are likewise described in the section on adjectives; definiteness is also discussed here (Valeckienė 1998: 261–270). After this discussion, however, it is stated that active and passive participles used as modifiers have the same category of definiteness and likewise perform both a specifying and an emphatic function (Valeckienė 1998: 269–270)¹⁰. A. Valeckienė had already raised the idea of definiteness in her 1986 article, in which participles are also mentioned. More precisely, having noted that a category of definiteness can be distinguished in Lithuanian, she states that this subsystem consists of pronominal forms of adjectives (participles) in relation to their corresponding simple forms; a footnote adds: “Hereafter, ‘pronominal adjectives’ also means pronominal participles” (Valeckienė 1986: 169). The article also discusses the meanings of pronominal adjectives, which suggests that it envisages an analogy in meaning as well. After discussing definiteness, the commonality of this category in adjectives and participles is noted once again: “The category of definiteness/indefiniteness is characteristic not only of adjectives but also of attributive participles” (Valeckienė 1986: 176).

Thus, the commonality of both meaning and definiteness in pronominal adjectives and pronominal participles is stated, but it is unclear to what extent the various features and exceptions in the use of pronominal forms are shared by adjectives and participles—for example, the already-mentioned tendency not to use pronominal forms for an attribute expressing a highly specific meaning, which can distinguish objects by its lexical meaning alone. A. Valeckienė’s 1986 article also mentions various features and exceptions in the use of pronominal forms, most of which could equally well apply to participles, such as the non-use of the pronominal form when a demonstrative adjective-pronoun occurs alongside it or when the adjective is in the superlative degree (Valeckienė 1986: 171–172). However, the Functional Grammar of the Lithuanian Language also mentions exceptions that cannot be applied to participles, for example, that diminutive adjectives or adjectives denoting an indefinite degree of a quality and formed with the prefixes apy-, po- (apygeris, -ė; podelis, -ė) do not form pronominal forms (Valeckienė 1998: 268). Yet it is precisely when listing such exceptions that this grammar states that pronominal adjectives do not have PŽ (Valeckienė 1998: 268).

⁹ Kad būdvardžio skyrių parengė A. Valeckienė, nurodoma pratarmėje (LKG 1965: 6; DLKG 1997: 8).

¹⁰ It is stated here that the function of the pronominal forms of ordinal numerals and certain pronouns is more emphatic; they generally do not have a specifying function, and their category of definiteness is weak (Valeckienė 1998: 270).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 14

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

Pronominal forms were examined most comprehensively in A. Valeckienė’s 147-page article The Use of Pronominal Adjectives in Contemporary Lithuanian, published in 1957 (Valeckienė 1957). However, as the title alone shows, this work covers only pronominal forms of adjectives; participles are not even mentioned. It also discusses in detail the non-use of the pronominal form of an adjective with PŽ. As A. Piročkinas noted, this is indeed explained mainly by detachment. More precisely, after examining adjective phrases with nouns in the section on the extended attribute (The bushes, bearded with grass, curl the woods around their edges; Although the mountain was high and steep, people’s eyes, full of joy, looked at its summit as at the sun, and many were already preparing to climb) and adjective phrases with adverbs (Sky-blue his eyes, framed by dark arches of eyebrows and shaded by long eyelashes, gaze straight ahead), she draws separate conclusions: PŽ accompanying an adjective explain and expand its meaning and detach it from the word it modifies; the expanded adjective, together with the noun it governs, forms a separate, independent attribute group; therefore, adjectives governing a noun or an adverb are not expressed in the pronominal form (Valeckienė 1957: 220, 221, 223). Noun phrases with pronouns are examined separately, and one pronoun is singled out from among them—toks; it is stated that the pronominal form of the adjective accompanying it is likewise not used (Valeckienė 1957: 230). Comparing these conclusions with the already-cited statement in LKG concerning PŽ, it can be seen that the latter is, as it were, a summary of such conclusions. The classification of the meanings of pronominal adjectives presented in the article and in LKG also almost completely coincides, as do the features listed. The common authorship makes these correspondences easy to explain, and they in turn allow the hypothesis that the study published in 1957 influenced the description of pronominal forms of adjectives in the first volume of LKG, published in 1965. Comparing the idea raised in the 1986 article—that a category of definiteness and indefiniteness could be distinguished on the basis of pronominal adjectives—with the subsection Definiteness included in the adjective description in DLKG, one could hypothesize that the description in DLKG resulted from the development of that study; more generally, one could hypothesize that the model for describing pronominal forms presented in both grammars was likely determined not only (or not so much) by a desire for concision, but also (to some extent) by the level of research into the linguistic phenomenon—pronominal forms of adjectives are precisely what have been studied most comprehensively in Lithuanian linguistics.

To summarize the discussion presented here, it becomes clear that some normative works do not identify an analogy in the use of pronominal adjectives and participles, while others apply one; research-oriented works, however, focus mainly on pronominal forms of adjectives, and their conclusions—including the conclusion concerning PŽ—are drawn primarily on that basis. Although some research-oriented works identify the category of definiteness as common to

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 15

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

participles, the analogy between the features of pronominal-form use in participles and adjectives has neither been investigated nor identified. Without identifying it, the question of applying the PŽ criterion to participles is also insufficiently clear.

3. THE USE OF PRONOMINAL PARTICIPLES IN NOUN POSITION AND ANALOGY

Even if some studies also apply to participles the criterion of non-use of the pronominal form (PŽ), it is generally difficult to avoid examples showing that pronominal participles (ĮD) with PŽ are nevertheless used. The examples that occur are not entirely alike and are interpreted differently, but they all relate to the use of ĮD in noun position.

E. Oginskienė’s article gives two such sentences. An attempt is made to link one of them to terminological usage: “In certain cases, pronominal forms (ĮF) are used in more terminologized constructions with PŽ: A portion of the earnings is credited to the those serving a sentence personal account” (Oginskienė 1993: 38). In another sentence—The present state border almost coincides with the one marked on the map—the use of a pronominal form is explained by ellipsis: when the word modified by the participle is omitted, the pronominal form is preferable (Oginskienė 1993: 40). A sentence of this kind also appears in A. Valeckienė’s article, published in 1961: Mother had looked after the clothes—mended and washed them, sometimes even sewn new ones, because those given by the manor (the clothes) were not bought for the dog. The author notes that in this case the pronominal form is not merely appropriate but necessary, explaining this not by ellipsis but by its delimitative meaning: “a participle expanded by another word singles out a known thing from other similar things; therefore its pronominal form is necessary” (Valeckienė 1961: 16). The isolated examples that occur suggest that ellipsis of this kind is not confined to participles. For instance, grammars also give the sentence Not even a moment had passed when, among the moving kerchiefs, he saw the blue one with white stripes and immediately recognized it and picked it out from among all such or at least similar ones (LKG 1965: 506; DLKG 1997: 174). There are also further examples of pronominal adjectives used without the noun they modify, although the adjective most often appears without PŽ: It is unsettling, because he feared the vengeance of the old gods and did not trust the new power (DLKG 1997: 174); Lovely flowers grew in the garden, and next to the prettier ones silver bells had been tied (Valeckienė 1998: 265). In general, however, the isolated examples that occur suggest that there may be an analogy between the use of pronominal forms of participles and adjectives in this case, but neither this analogy nor such cases of ellipsis are discussed. Descriptions of pronominal forms also include examples with the simple form of the adjective

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 16

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

such as Gather the larger potatoes, and leave the smaller ones behind (Valeckienė 1998: 265), which would indicate that marking ellipsis is not a function characteristic only of the pronominal form.

Another kind of ellipsis is also mentioned, but usually only in discussions of participle use. A. Pupkis’s language-culture textbook refers to the omission of specific nouns. More precisely, in discussing the substantivization of active present-tense participles, it notes that in colloquial speech and standard-language usage the non-pronominal forms are more common in such cases (Thecreaking collapses, while the standing one), and adds: “Pronominal forms are used only where the noun meaning ‘person,’ ‘man,’ ‘child,’ ‘woman’... is clearly omitted” (Pupkis 1980: 137–138). One example illustrating such ellipsis shows the use of ĮD with PŽ: Those who went around the small towns with barrel organs usually carried parrots.

This example is also given in the chapter on participles in LKG¹¹. After describing the meanings of participles used attributively, the chapter discusses their substantivization; beforehand, however, it mentions attributive participles used without the noun they modify and explains: “An unexpressed modified noun (usually denoting a general concept—person, man, woman, or the like) is understood from the meaning of the utterance or its context” (LKG 1971: 349). In illustrating this usage without a modified noun with examples of both pronominal and non-pronominal participles, the chapter gives three sentences in which ĮD is used with PŽ: Those who went around the small towns with barrel organs usually carried parrots; In that those living in the bottle were all young people; and The sisters did all they could to care for the children and wives of those called to war. Another example—Aniems by only from the one cast away from the eyes—is given later, in the discussion of past passive participles that have become nouns. It illustrates the claim that some feminine pronominal forms of past passive participles can also be used with the meaning of nouns, but it is added that such forms occur mostly in phraseological units and expressions that are more or less fixed (LKG 1971: 350). Substantivization of participles is discussed here separately from their use without a modified noun, but it is stated that pronominal present passive participles used without a modified noun often become substantivized, thus indicating a connection between the two types of use in noun position (LKG 1971: 349).

However, the adjective chapter in LKG does not mention use without a modified noun; it discusses only the substantivization of adjectives. More precisely, the section Substantivization of Adjectives separately describes simple and pronominal substantivized adjectives (LKG 1965: 529–534). This difference would seem to point to a distinctive feature of the use of the pronominal form of participles: pronominal participles

¹¹ As a source for the chapter on the transition of one part of speech into another, A. Pupkis’s textbook cites LKG (Pupkis 1980: 138).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 17

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

They occur both used without a modified noun and as fully substantivized forms, whereas pronominal adjectives occur only as fully substantivized forms. Nevertheless, the description of fully substantivized adjectives given in LKG makes clear that “fully substantivized adjectives” are not all alike. At the very beginning of the section, it is stated that not all pronominal adjectives that have the functions and meaning of a noun are substantivized to the same degree; subsequently, independent and dependent fully substantivized pronominal adjectives are distinguished. The dependent ones are described as forms that can be used both as adjectives and as nouns, and both of the aforementioned subgroups are also associated with the designation of persons: one is described as fully substantivized pronominal adjectives denoting a defined group of persons (The Alliance was ruled not by the powerful, but by the people’s chosen ones¹²; It is good for an old man to lie to the young, when they do not know it; Along the winding Nemunas path, thread after thread retreats – pedestrians’ paths), the other as fully substantivized pronominal adjectives denoting a generic person or simply a living being (The observant one would have discerned in him great intelligence, but there was no one to discern it; The industrious one finds work, the talkative one finds talk, and the lazy one a den) (LKG 1965: 531). It would seem, then, that it is only the label “fully substantivized” that is misleading, and that in fact pronominal adjectives, too, occur both as fully substantivized forms (the independent ones) and used without a modified noun (the dependent ones). Nevertheless, it is finally mentioned that ordinary adjectives are often used alongside the dependent ones in the same context (Only the strong reach freedom; First he would go to strangers to work), and it is only of these that it is said that, although they perform a noun’s syntactic function, they are not considered substantivized (LKG 1971: 531–352). No such remarks are offered about pronominal adjectives, which would indicate that all the pronominal adjectives discussed in LKG’s section on fully substantivized adjectives are considered substantivized in one way or another, and that adjectives used in the position of a noun differ in this respect from participles—the latter, as suggested by the characterization in the section on participles of pronominal participles used without a modified noun as “often becoming substantivized,” may also remain unsubstantivized while being used without a modified noun. In any case, the relationship between participles and adjectives used in noun position is rather unclear in LKG.

The relationship is stated more clearly in morphology textbooks, where substantivization is discussed as a component of word formation without formatives, or of functional word formation (Paulauskienė 1983: 40–49; 1994: 38–46). They distinguish substantivization (the transformation of words denoting a property into words denoting an entity, i.e. nouns; becoming a noun) from substantival (nominal) use (merely being used in a noun position), and the latter is explicitly identified

¹² Although the entire chapter on substantivized adjectives is illustrated exclusively with examples of adjectives, it also includes one example of a participle.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 18

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

also as a property of adjectives, though only ordinary adjectives are mentioned: Young people dance—the walls shake; old people dance—their teeth chatter; It is easy for a bald man to walk, for a rich man to ride, but for an old man to lie (Paulauskienė 1983: 43). Another work concludes that in certain situations any words denoting a property may be used as nouns, including participles and adjectives (Paulauskienė 1994: 39). However, these textbooks explain the relationship between substantivization and substantival use even less clearly than LKG does. On the one hand, it is asserted that using a word as a noun does not yet indicate that it has become a noun; on the other hand, certain stages are mentioned: 1) the same word, freely used as an adjective, also occurs in a noun syntactic position, but its substantivization cannot yet be said to have taken place (The blind lead the blind not far); 2) an adjective or participle has become an independent word—a noun (bedroom, smoking room) (Paulauskienė 1994: 39–40). Be that as it may, both the association between two kinds of use identified in LKG and the analogy between the use of adjectives and participles in noun position proposed in morphology textbooks would seem to contradict prescriptive works, which reveal a tendency to curb the substantivization of present active participles. In actual usage, as the survey of substantivizing participles in Algirdas Malakauskas’s 1987 article would suggest, there would seem to be a tendency to apply the analogy. That article records a fairly large number of such substantivizing participles and concludes that it is difficult to explain this usage solely through the influence of other languages (Malakauskas 1987). Still, one possible explanation can be found in works concerning language norms: when Juozas Balčikonis began correcting nouns formed irregularly with respect to the vernacular, such as sukilėlis – sukilusysis, pasiryžėlis – pasiryžęs, pasiryžusysis, and others, standard-language usage itself rejected the participial form, expanded a type of word formation uncommon in dialects, and retained the nouns (Pupkis 1990: 138).

Having examined the usage of substantivizing participles, A. Malakauskas notes that present-tense participles sometimes occur in place of nouns together with a modified noun (PŽ), and gives as many as seven examples of pronominal participles (ID) used with a modified noun (PŽ): Although much has been achieved in treating people suffering from diabetes, for now the disease still cannot be cured completely; Those applying for the directing program, he would ask not why they wanted to become directors, but what they wanted to say to people; Applicants to all programs are admitted if they are working in their field, etc. (Malakauskas 1987: 125–126). However, from the way they are presented, it is unclear whether these examples are associated with the substantivizing participles under discussion or with the use of a participle, also mentioned in this article, to designate a specific person or group of people by an action being performed at present or at the time discussed in the sentence (Malakauskas 1987: 122). A morphology textbook uses one such example to illustrate substantival use: Those who arrived from foreign lands did not know what our customs were (Paulauskienė 1994: 39).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 19

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

Be that as it may, examples in which ADs with dependent words (DWs) are used in a noun position do occur, but in discussions of nominal use or nominalization processes, examples in which an agreeing adjective accompanies a DW are entirely absent, apart from the already discussed case of a different kind of omission. The only example of an agreeing form used with a DW included in a comprehensive study of the use of substantivized agreeing adjectives is likewise a case of an AD used with a DW: The Alliance was ruled not by the powerful, but by the people’s elected representatives (Valeckienė 1957: 242; LKG 1965: 531)¹³. By contrast, examples of this kind are unavoidable in discussions of participle use, and this alone would suggest that there may be no complete analogy between adjectives used in a noun position and participles used in a noun position.

This is also confirmed by the formulation mentioned above, which KP uses to describe one of the uses of present active participles—to refer to a person acting at the time of speaking (temporarily) (KP 2002: 46). A. Malakauskas’s article, as just noted, also mentions participles associated with time (Malakauskas 1987: 122). Although both the article and KP associate with time only the use of present active participles (since only these participles are discussed), other participles are also associated with the indication of time, as grammars state; this reflects their verbal nature. For instance, in discussing the attributive use of the past simple active participle (LKG 1971: 332–346), LKG also mentions cases in which it, like an adjective, denotes permanent properties not associated with time. However, this participle is generally described as denoting properties arising from an action that took place in the past or before the time referred to in the sentence, and many cases are cited in which its verbal properties are particularly prominent (LKG 1971: 334–337). Attributive adjectives have no temporal meaning, and thus cannot refer to a person who acted (temporarily) at the time of speaking or in the past. Moreover, although adjectives too exhibit stronger or weaker valency (LKG 1976: 235–262), at least the property of governing complements should be more characteristic of a participle as a verb form. The descriptions of attributive participle use also give a fair number of indications that such a participle can govern or attach words (LKG 1971: 333, 335, 336, 337, 338, 344). The more frequent use of DWs with ADs may also be related to these differences.

4. SYNTACTIC INTERPRETATION

¹³ In A. Valeckienė’s article, this sentence is used to illustrate the nominalization of an adjective, and only the adjective is indicated: The Alliance was ruled not by the powerful, but by the people’s elected representatives (Valeckienė 1957: 242). LKG, however, also identifies a participle (The Alliance was ruled not by the powerful, but by the people’s elected representatives (LKG 1965: 531). The example is also included in the description of agreeing forms in DLKG (DLKG 1997: 176).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 20

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

Descriptions of word combinations give no examples of agreeing adjectives or ADs used with DWs (Balkevičius 1963; LKG 1976; Sirtautas, Grenda 1988; Labutis 1994a, 1994b, 1998; DLKG 1997). However, neither do they provide examples of non-agreeing participles used with DWs, since participial combinations are not described. In descriptions of Lithuanian syntactic structure, the part of speech is regarded as the starting point for classifying word combinations; one might therefore assume that participial combinations are not described because of the morphological analysis of the participle: in Lithuanian grammars, the participle is considered not a separate part of speech, but merely a verb form¹⁴. However, reasons are also stated explicitly, making clear that there is no point in describing such combinations: participles govern words in the same way as the corresponding verbs, so the information given in the section on verbal combinations would be repeated: “When classifying verbal combinations, there is no need to take into account the form of the head, since it has been observed that a change in the form of the head of a word combination does not affect the form of the dependent member (e.g., to read a book, reads a book, will read a book, etc.). Moreover, active participles, gerundial forms, and half-participles have exactly the same government properties as the verb” (Grenda 1964: 138).

Nevertheless, descriptions of not only word combinations but also many sentence elements do not indicate the possibility of ĮD being used with PŽ. When describing the attribute, expanded attributes are mentioned, but examples are generally given only of cases in which the participle is used in its non-pronominal form: Only the heart is alone, full of longing, filled with sorrow, will remain alone; Gathered around the campfire the shepherds told frightening stories (Labutis 1994b: 87–88). In *The Syntax of Contemporary Lithuanian*, The Syntax of Contemporary Lithuanian, when discussing such attributes as complex, Jonas Balkevičius revealed the necessity of certain PŽ by indicating that complements and circumstantial components of a complex attribute have become complements and circumstances of the predicate (Children return from school → It could be heard returning from school children’s voices; The beehives were full of industrious bees → The beehives, full of industrious bees, buzz in the garden) (Balkevičius 1963: 156); he even distinguished participle-governed attributes (Balkevičius 1963: 161–164), but provided examples only of expanded attributes formed by non-pronominal participles¹⁵.

Nevertheless, the description of sentence constituents in LKG does contain a couple of sentences in which an AD accompanied by a DW functions as an attribute: They all ended up in one corner—Kurmelis with Zolis and two neighbors, the one talking about them; Oh, she wept and wept, our little sister, so far away, abandoned (LKG 1976: 415). As can be seen, these

¹⁴ The participle is described as an inflected form derived from a verb stem and having properties of both verbs and adjectives (LKG 1971: 311; DLKG 1997: 354), as a non-finite form of the verb (Valeckienė 1998: 162), as an inflected verb form (Paulauskienė 1983: 273; 1994: 273), or simply as a verb form (Paulauskienė 1994: 351). For the proposal not to treat the participle as a verb form, see Šveikauskienė (2018).

¹⁵ Except for the sentence In those days the very beautiful and luxurious houses had been set back several decades, or even completely demolished, and new houses built in their place... (Balkevičius 1963: 163), the use of agreeing adjectives with the words pats, visų (visu) was already mentioned by J. Jablonskis (RR 1957: 87, 415).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 21

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

ADs are used in such positions that they become quite close to substantivally used participles, and more examples of ADs used with dependent words are provided when discussing them. Thus, in the section on attributes, when listing the parts of speech that can function as modifiers, “substantivized adjectival words—most often the pronominal forms of participles” are mentioned, and modifiers are illustrated with the sentence It was not the mighty who ruled the Alliance, but the people’s chosen ones (LKG 1976: 398). In the next sentence, the dependent word is a genitive pronoun: It was already late when our acquaintances, having emptied the redcaps they had brought and their pockets, decided to return home. Before mentioning adjectival words that function as modifiers, substantivized adjectives are also noted, and one example is given of an adjective used with a pronoun: I stole at least an hour for myself, although to cross the field with my fairest... (LKG 1976: 398). As these examples might suggest, the use of dependent words in these cases is associated with substantivization.

LKG also gives examples of expanded ADs with dependent words in its discussion of adverbials and objects, since in this grammar an adverbial and an object are considered sentence constituents related not only to the predicate (LKG 1976: 454, 479). It is true that the object is described as a sentence constituent that usually attaches to the predicate, but objects attached to other sentence constituents are also listed (LKG 1976: 457–45). In discussing them, the example The calling of the forester echoed for a long time, drawn out, like a shepherd’s horn (LKG 1976: 457) is provided; in discussing adverbials, the example is Those walking through the small towns usually carried parrots with their barrel organs (LKG 1976: 479), though such usage is not linked to substantivization. Incidentally, one example of an expanded attribute has also found its way into the section on adverbials, with an AD used with a dependent word: Farmers living by the woods and marshes had enough meadows and pastures and made their living from livestock farming (LKG 1976: 480). Discussing the participles corrected by J. Jablonskis, A. Piročkinas has mentioned a tendency noted in grammars and linguists’ works for the subject to be expressed by pronominal words governing objects and adverbials (Piročkinas 1986: 143), but this tendency does not emerge in LKG—no such examples are given in the section on the subject.

Nevertheless, in J. Balkevičius’s Syntax of Contemporary Lithuanian, a subject expressed by a phrase governed by a participle or a verbal noun is distinguished as a separate subtype of compound subject, and it is illustrated with examples that also contain such phrases with governed words— in other words, examples of ADs used with dependent words, such as Those sitting around the table burst out laughing or Those disrupting the state order are punished with the full severity of the law (Balkevičius 1963: 87–88). At least the first example would suggest not so much substantivization of the participle as its use to designate a group of people acting at the time in question (temporarily). On the other hand, the examples given make it clear that the boundary between designation associated with the time in question and generalized designation, unrelated to a particular time, is not especially clear.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 22

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

and this is precisely what may lead in usage to uncertainty over the use of present active participles, which normative works tend to correct. The subject distinguished by J. Balkevičius is described as one expressed by a governed phrase, and his explanation of it also suggests that dependent words are needed for certain sentence constituents as complements or adverbial components: “A compound subject is expressed by participles and verbal nouns with complements and adverbial components attached to them, which are not true complements or adverbials because they are not related to the predicate of the sentence” (Balkevičius 1963: 87).

Thus, descriptions of syntactic structure would suggest that, whatever model is applied for cataloguing facts of syntactic usage, it is inevitable to mention governed or closely associated words as dependents of ADs. This accords with the conception presented in morphology sections of the participle as a verb form that preserves verbal properties, including the capacity to govern or take the same cases or prepositional constructions as the corresponding verb. Moreover, in describing the attribute, it is emphasized: “As a verb form, the participle very often takes other words and constructions” (LKG 1976: 414).

As can be seen, examples of dependent words used with a pronominal form that occur in descriptions of syntax mostly involve participles used in a noun position. Examples of adjectives of this kind are almost absent even from descriptions of syntax, which would also suggest that adjective and participle usage associated with a noun position—including the use of the pronominal form—does not fully coincide. An indication of such a discrepancy is also provided by the claim in a historical study of participles that participles are not very inclined to become nouns: “When used in noun positions, they generally retain verbal features, case and preposition government, or approach nouns in only one meaning (cf. adult, dining room, etc.)” (Ambrazas 1979: 65).

Since the morphology sections of the grammars explicitly identify only the non-use of the pronominal form of adjectives expanded by dependent words, the examples found in the syntax section of LKG do not contradict the morphology section. DLKG does not provide examples of ADs accompanied by dependent words in its description of sentence syntactic structure; thus, it all the more clearly does not contradict the claim formulated here that the pronominal form is not used with dependent words. However, the description of syntactic structure in this grammar is based largely on descriptions of word combinations; the traditional account of sentence constituents is omitted, to avoid repeating information given in the section on word combinations, and the description of the sentence covers only sentence patterns and their expansion (DLKG 1997: 587–678).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 23

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

Thus, the absence of examples of expanded ĮD in PŽ in this grammar may be related not so much to their being atypical of the language as to the model chosen for describing the syntactic structure of the language.

Moreover, descriptions of syntactic structure do not specify the function of the pronominal forms of participles or adjectives used in noun position, since it is customary to distinguish such functions and discuss pronominal forms in descriptions of morphological structure. These descriptions, as well as some articles, mention a highlighting meaning in such cases. For example, the sentence Not even an hour had passed when, among the moving kerchiefs, he saw the blue one with white stripes and immediately recognized and distinguished it from all such or at least similar ones is cited in DLKG to illustrate the distinguishing of objects (DLKG 1997: 174). The case of ĮD used with PŽ is also explained as distinguishing in the example Mother had looked after the clothes—mended and washed them, sometimes even sewing new ones, since those given by the manor were not fit for a dog to wear in A. Valeckienė’s 1961 article. In A. Valeckienė’s 1957 article, the sentence The Alliance was ruled not by the powerful, but by those elected by the people is included in the discussion of substantivized adjectives, and all non-autonomous substantivized adjectives are characterized here as having a distinguishing meaning (Valeckienė 1957: 244, 246). The meaning of autonomous substantivized adjectives is not specified in that article; in the 1961 article, it is identified as emphatic, with the statement that substantivized pronominal adjectives retain the same meanings (Valeckienė 1961: 15).

As already discussed, in more than one study cases of the use of definite forms in a noun position are also called ellipsis, although it becomes clear that this ellipsis is not uniform: in one case a previously mentioned sentence constituent is omitted, in another a word inferred from the meaning of the utterance or from context is left out. The description of syntax reveals the connection between these omissions, which are somewhat different in nature. For instance, the section on attributes in LKG mentions two kinds of omission of the head word: when a previously mentioned head word is not repeated alongside the attribute (But he lacked the strength to lift the pot full of gold, so he gathered upmoney, as much as he could carry,...and the rest he buried again carefully), and when a word inferred from context or the meaning of the sentence is omitted, usually referring to a person or some generic thing (You will wear the mended one, rather than the new one) (LKG 1976: 399). Admittedly, both cases are illustrated only with examples of indefinite participles, but only one example of participles in general is provided. This account of cases of omission is very similar to the explanation of demonstrative meaning given in descriptions of definite forms. In LKG it is explained as follows: “Things are indicated in this way. When an object is mentioned for the first time, its individual feature is expressed by the simple

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 24

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

(LKG 1965: 508)¹⁶.

CONCLUSIONS

The criterion for avoiding the pronominal form with PŽ, formulated as early as by Jonas Jablonskis, is understood to have varying scope: in some accounts it covers both pronominal adjectives and ĮD, while in others it covers only the latter. Thus, the formulations of the criterion raise the question of an analogy between the use of pronominal forms of adjectives and participles. In J. Jablonskis’s works, where the criterion was formulated, the analogy was applied; it is also applied in some morphology and language-culture textbooks, as well as in prescriptive works and works concerned with disseminating the norm. However, neither of the two comprehensive descriptions of the grammatical structure of the language—which are also prescriptive works—explicitly identifies such an analogy. This may be influenced by the model for describing pronominal forms adopted in these accounts.

Descriptive works are directly related to research-oriented works, while the latter focus essentially only on pronominal forms of adjectives and draw conclusions on the basis of their use. Thus, the treatment of pronominal forms in grammars may have been determined not only by the chosen descriptive model but also by the degree to which the linguistic phenomenon has been investigated—that is, by the fact that it is precisely pronominal forms of adjectives that have been studied most extensively.

When the analogy between the use of pronominal forms of participles and adjectives is not explicitly identified, the application to participles of the PŽ criterion mentioned in the adjective sections of grammars remains rather unclear. It is true that some works note an analogy, but only an analogy in meanings and in the expression of definiteness; the correspondence of features or exceptions in the use of pronominal forms has nowhere been examined or specified. The features listed suggest that some could also characterize participles, while others cannot apply to them. The criterion for avoiding PŽ is formulated as one such feature, so the question of its application to participles is also unclear.

Although the criterion is applied to participles in some prescriptive works and works concerned with disseminating the norm, even these contain isolated linguistic facts showing that ĮD is used with PŽ more often than pronominal adjectives are. Such examples are mostly associated with the use of a participle without a modified word—that is, its use in noun position. Although this usage is described rather unclearly in accounts of grammatical structure and elsewhere,

¹⁶ Substitutive pronouns that stand for nouns or an entire noun group (that, this, and others) are explained similarly: they indicate “a person, animal, object, or phenomenon that is known, has already been mentioned, or is mentioned after these pronouns” (Valeckienė 1998: 146).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 25

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

Moreover, the relationship between substantival use and substantivization is unclear; discussion or assessments of uses connected in one way or another with the noun position would show that, in this case, there is no complete analogy between the use of the pronominal forms of adjectives and participles. This is related to the differences between adjectives and participles as parts of speech of verbal origin, which retain both the meaning of tense and the verb’s patterns of government.

Descriptions of the syntactic structure of language also show that it is unavoidable to mention PŽ as modifiers of participles, including pronominal participles.

Attempts are made to explain the pronominal form of participles used in the noun position either by an identificational meaning, which would be a morphological explanation, or by ellipsis, which would be a syntactic explanation. The boundaries drawn between the morphological and syntactic levels in descriptions of language structure do not allow these explanations to be linked; however, the explanation of cases of ellipsis presented in descriptions at the syntactic level is very similar to the explanation of demonstrative meaning given in descriptions at the morphological level.

LITERATŪRA

Ambrazas V. 1979: Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Balkevičius J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Banėvičienė N. 1964: Dalyvis ar daiktavardis? – Kalbos kultūra 63, 62.

Brūzgienė R., Čekmonienė I. E., Žemienė A. 2013: Specialybės kalba, Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas.

DLKG 1997: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Red. V. Ambrazas, 3-iasis patais. leid., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Grenda Č. 1964: Dėl veiksmažodinių junginių klasifikacijos. – Kalbotyra 10, 137–141.

Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Kazlauskienė A., Rimkutė E., Bielinskienė A. 2011: Bendroji ir specialybės kalbos kultūra, 2-asis patais. leid., Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas.

KP 2002: Kalbos patarimai 1: Gramatinės formos ir jų vartojimas. Sud. R. Miliūnaitė, teksto aut. R. Miliūnaitė, A. Paulauskienė, vyr. red. A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

KPP 1976: Kalbos praktikos patarimai. Sud. A. Paulauskienė, Vilnius: Mokslas.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 26

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

Labutis V. 1994a: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė 1, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Labutis V. 1994b: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė 2, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Labutis V. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. 3-iasis patais. leid., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

LKG 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1: Fonetika ir morfologija. Vyr. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis.

LKG 1971: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2: Morfologija. Vyr. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis.

LKG 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3: Sintaksė. Vyr. red. K. Ulvydas, V. Ambrazas, A. Valeckienė, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Malakauskas A. 1987: Veikiamosios rūšies esamojo laiko dalyviai sintaksinėje daiktavardžio pozicijoje. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai: Lietuvių kalbos sandaros tyrinėjimai 26, 122–127.

Oginskienė E. 1993: Įvardžiuotinės formos kanceliarinėje kalboje. – Kalbos kultūra 64, 34–42.

Paulauskienė A. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos morfologijos apybraiža, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Paulauskienė A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija: paskaitos lituanistams, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Paulauskienė A. 2004a: Lietuvių kalbos kultūra, Kaunas: Technologija.

Paulauskienė A. 2004b: Teisininkų kalba ir bendrosios normos, Vilnius: Justitia.

Piročkinas J. 1986: Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Piročkinas J. 1990: Administracinės kalbos kultūra, Vilnius: Mintis.

Pupkis A. 1980: Kalbos kultūros pagrindai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

RR 1957: J. Jablonskis. Rinktiniai raštai 1. Sud. J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

RR 1959: J. Jablonskis. Rinktiniai raštai. Du tomai. Sud. J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Ružė A. 2008: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2008.

Sirtautas V., Grenda Č. 1988: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Šukys J. 2003: Kalbos kultūra visiems, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Šveikauskienė D. 2018: Kokia kalbos dalis yra dalyvis? – Bendrinė kalba 91, 1–19.

Valeckienė A. 1957: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių vartojimas. – Literatūra ir kalba 2, 161–328.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 27

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

Valeckienė A. 1961: Įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių reikšmės ir keletas įvardžiuotinių formų netikslaus vartojimo atvejų. – Kalbos kultūra 1, 12–16.

Valeckienė A. 1986: Apibrėžtumo / neapibrėžtumo kategorija ir pirminė įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių reikšmė. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 25, 168–189.

Valeckienė A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Gauta 2019 08 11

Priimta 2019 12 18

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotiniai dalyviai su priklausomais žodžiais: kodifikuotoji norma ir jos neaiškumai | 28

doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.01

PRONOMINAL PARTICIPLES WITH DEPENDENT WORDS: THE CODIFIED STANDARD AND UNCERTAINTIES SURROUNDING IT

Summary

The paper discusses the peculiar use of the pronominal form envisaged by Jonas Jablonskis: the pronominal form of the participle, as well as that of the adjective, shall not be used where that participle has dependent words. The uneven coverage of this criterion is revealed, which calls for discussing the issue of the analogical use of the pronominal form of participle and adjective. It turns out that some works of a research nature do indicate the analogy, yet at the same time they present peculiarities in the use of the pronominal form that cannot be applied to the participle; such context also makes unclear the issue of the application of the dependent words criterion to participles mentioned among those peculiarities. The issue of the application of this criterion to participles used as nouns is unclear in particular: while, in some works, the criterion is applied to participles used as nouns, the examples occurring in discussing the participle, and the formulations provided in the assessment of participles that turn into nouns or of participles used in the position of a noun in addition, nevertheless, show that the use of the participle in the position of the noun and the use of the adjective in the position of the noun do not quite match. This would be in line with the concept of participle, as a part of the language of verbal origin, characterised by the denotation of time and verbal government features. It is these differences between the adjective and the noun that the irregularities in the use of the pronominal form could be related to, confirmation of which would be the discussion of parts of the sentence provided in some descriptions of syntax composition. Those descriptions reveal that mentioning of some additional components of the subject, object or circumstantial adverb, or examples where the words governed by or contiguous with the participle function as such components, cannot be avoided.

KEYWORDS: pronominal form; pronominal participle; pronominal adjective; dependent words; attribute; noun.

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204