Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis „labui“ dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas DAIKTAVARDIŠKASIS IR POLINKSNIŠKASIS LABUI IN CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN (WRITTEN) LANGUAGE KEY WORDS: noun usufruct, desemantization, pronoun. This article, based on the material of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Textbook (CLT), deals with the noun and adverb use of labui. Based on the hierarchies, the study revealed that the good noun usufructuary usually goes as an object or circumstance in those cases where its servant is said to be the person-denoting noun (pronoun) ancestor (necessary for the good of society; created both for himself and for the good of other peoples). Such a noun for good actualizes the beneficial, and it also responds to the finite, patient, contentive, and indicates the way. The most important aspect of the construction of a subjunctive is the meaning of the object. Typical object-going pronoun-noun servile – abstract noun (necessary for the common good), circumstance-going pronoun-noun servile – lexically unlimited. INTRODUCTION The Great Lithuanian Dictionary (LKŽe) distinguishes three meanings of the masculine singular 1 noun labas: (1) “well-being, benefit” (see sentences 1–3), (2) “wealth, treasure, goodness” (see sentences 4–5) and (3) “greeting” (see sentence 6). The Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian (DŽe) and 2 the General Dictionary of Lithuanian Language (BŽe) provide the first two meanings – “well-being, 3 benefit” (see sentences 7–8), “wealth, treasure, resources” (see sentences 9–10). 1) You are not 4 well, and he is not good St. 1 The second volume of the Lithuanian language dictionary (C–F), edited by Jonas Kruopas, was published in Vilnius in 1969. 2 Plg. DŽe: gėrybė – good, well-equipped life: Material wealth lives – has everything. 3 Plg. DŽe: naudu – 1. what is useful, valuable, profitable: There will be great benefit from this work. 2. welfare, hello: Let's all work for the sake of the homeland. 3. positive, favourable result: The match ended in our team's disadvantage. Property 4: We have never had so many benefits. 5. cereals, grains: This year yields were good. 4 Abbreviations like LKŽe. LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 2 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 2) Visa geriausia <...> mes panaudojame liaudies labui sp. 3) Parents worked for the sake of the baby in their A1885.6. 5) But, to 4) Pilį sugriovė ir visą jų labą pasiėmė A1884,335. describe the good of the forest, it is necessary to explain what has been experienced there, see 6) For the good neither word, but eat no peshi PrLXVII26. 7) All my life I have worked for people. BG 8) Government should be guided by the common good. BŽe 9) This is enough for a lifetime. BŽe 10) That's all our good. BŽe 11) Later, I realized that he restrained the power of Seth, the immeasurable power of heaven, and used it for the sake of harmony, not chaos. DLKT 12) When the enemy surrendered Fort 5 shortly afterwards, the Gradgrouts decided that, given the dangerous lack of time, they would talk to the remaining gunmen themselves for the sake of the cause. In the DLKT 2 and 7 sentences the noun benevolence is used for the benefit of the object (cf.: All the best we use for the benefit of the people; I have worked all my life for the 5 benefit of people). Otherwise, 11– 12 sentences, where it becomes difficult to replace synonymous good for good (cf.:?Power used for the good of harmony, not chaos;?For the good of the cause with the remaining cannoniers will talk themselves). It is possible that nounality of labui – the clarity of the meaning “well-being, benefit” is related to whether the noun (pronoun) originator in its dependent object denotes a living or abstract object. Labui with a genitive, used in sentences 2, 11 and 7, 12, differ according to the necessity in the sentence: the first labui used with a genitive, which differ semantically, are valent actants of the verb, the second ones are not. The non-necessary construct labui su 6 nomininu in sentences 7, 12 can be compared with the objective preposition dėl construction in sentence 3 (see Balkevičius 1963: 226). The purpose is expressed by the noun labas in sentence 7 (see sentence 2), the preposition because of the construction in sentence 3 and the secondary preposition, more precisely, the subjunctive in favor of the genitive 7 5 See the example from the Textbook of Contemporary Lithuanian Language (DLKT): [Pliusnys] toliau žmonių gerovei. 6 Plg. Nijolės Sližienės (1998: 10) teikiamą naudoti „vartoti kaip priemonę, įrankį kokiam tikslui, taikyti dirbtųsi Kūrėjo garbei ir kur“ ([Pliusnys] would continue to work in the honor of the Creator and where), where the noun reflects the function of finite – goal, purpose (see Sližienė 1994: 23). 7 ,,Secondary (modern) prepositions are prepositions that can be associated with words of other parts of the language, mainly with adverbs” (Valiulytė in: DLKG 2006: 438). LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) in language | 3 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 construction (see Šukys 1998: 552; Kazlauskienė, Rimkutė, Bielinskienė 2011: 150–151) in sentence 12 8 (see sentence 11). According to the analogy of sentences 3 and 7 and taking into account the fact that the typical expression of the cause (in the narrow sense) is the preposition due to the construction, and the meaning of the cause is not characteristic of the noun beneficiary, it is also possible to assume that the construction and / or the preposition due with the adjective (may) denote the cause for the benefit of the subjunctive. What place do noun and adverb take in the expression of purpose and cause? Do they only tell these meanings? As will be seen, and others. Next (see chapter 2) the answer is sought to the question of what criteria can be used to establish the noun and the adverb of labui, or, otherwise, what influences and when the substantive of labui becomes (is) desemantic and acquires the status of adverb. It is possible to assume that, in kriterijaus, tam įtakos turi ir gramatinė funkcija: daiktavardžio labas naudininkas eina netipiško addition to the above-mentioned object of the beneficiary of vitality (additional), for example, in 9 the sentence All animals are useful for the benefit of man (cf. human well-being, human being), the construction of the objective – circumstance of the goal. On the other hand, here we should rather talk about objective and circumstantial meanings (of cause in the broad sense (inter alia Balkevičius 1963) or in the narrow sense – of (real) cause and purpose (inter alia LKG 1971, 1976; DLKG 2006; Labutis 1998)) marked by the more noun and more 10 casual good. Thus, the subject of this article is the noun and adverb used for good. The aim of this article is to discuss the hierarchical functions of good in a sentence. To achieve this aim, the objective is to identify the noun’s noun and uždaviniai: nepretenduojant į išsamią literatūros apžvalgą, trumpai minėti, kas rašyta apie its synonyms in the grammatical descriptions of the Lithuanian language (see chapter 1) and to summarize what it išanalizuoti (labiau) daiktavardiškosios ir (labiau) polinksniškosios labui vartosenos atvejus ir pagal means in the current (written) Lithuanian language (see chapter 2, as well as summary and conclusions). Descriptive analytical and interpretation methods are used. For example: "These prepositions, which have maintained clear etymological connections with those almost never go before the vowel, so they can be regarded savarankiškais žodžiais, iš kurių jie kilę“ (Valiulytė in: LKG 1971: 580). 8 Plg.: „Kai kurie prieveiksmiai taip pat gali būti vartojami kaip polinksniai, pavyzdžiui, labui, metu ir kt. Jie as consonants, e.g. : I did everything only for your sake” (Kazlauskienė, Rimkutė, Bielinskienė 2011: 150–151). There is one example where good is used as a preposition: That the affairs of the state are deteriorating and that without his intervention civil war, to the disgrace of all sensible and good people, will not cease forever. He intervened solely on behalf of those Roma who, under any circumstances, only want to work quietly and enjoy simple family happiness (DLKT). The use of such a prepositional benefit is influenced by the secondary accent of the indicative sentence. 9 The benefactor function is characteristic of living beings, especially individuals, for whose benefit or detriment what happens, happens. “Sometimes even inanimate objects and abstract things are perceived as beneficial, e.g.: put teeth in a rake, smoking is harmful to health” (see Sližienė 1994: 21). 10 Vaida Našlėnaitė-Eberhardt (2002: 17–18) speaks about six subcategories of cause: real cause (causative), hypothetical cause (condition), as a cause directed to the future (goal), unreal cause. To the relationships of the real cause, she (nuolaidos), motyvo (t. y. skatinančios priežasties), padarinio (pasekmės, rezultato). Priežasties semantiniams assigns the subcategories of real cause, motive and effect and states that the hypothetical causes are characterized (sąlygos), kaip į ateitį nukreiptos priežasties (tikslo), nerealiosios priežasties (nuolaidos) santykiai yra savarankiški, by a peculiar semantics and have a grammatical expression characteristic only of them. LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) in language | 4 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 To achieve this objective, material collected from the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Textbook (hereinafter – CLT), compiled by the Vytautas Magnus University Computer Linguistics Center, is sudaro rašytinės, dažnai redaguotos, skirtingų žanrų (publicistikos, grožinės, negrožinės ar used. Examples of oral language in DLKT constitute the lowest search criteria match). dalį. Straipsnyje remiamasi 1250 pavyzdžių, kur vartojamas labui. Tokie sakiniai, neskirstant pagal žanrus, eiliškumo tvarka atrinkti į DLKT išplėstinės paieškos laukelį įrašius žodį labui (naudojamas 1. USER AND ITS SYNONYMS IN GRAMMATIC DESCRIPTIONS OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE In order to specify the functions of the noun in a sentence, it is important to first of all briefly mention how the noun is understood in grammar and what its synonyms may be. 1.1. Adelė Laigonaitė, discussing the noun beneficial in Lithuanian grammar (hereinafter – LKG) (LKG 1965: 193t), states that “the verb-controlled usufructuary means a person or object to whom the action is addressed, in whose interest it is performed, which is affected in one way or another. Such a noun usufructuary can be called an object usufructuary. In the sentence, it acts as an adverb’ (see sentence 13). In cases where the verb-controlled participle indicates the purpose for which something is done or happens, it performs the functions of the circumstance of the purpose (see sentence 14). 13) The manufacturers are forced to raise the wages of the workers. (quoted from LKG 1965: 193) 14) The uncle lent her a couple of rubles for the trip. (quoted from LKG 1965: 194) Elena Valiulytė, in her grammar (LKG 1976: 29tt; DLKG 2006: 513t; cf. Šukys 1998: 147) discussing verb combinations with the noun, says that the noun most often denotes objective (sacrifices for children), less often – goal (prepares for sowing), quantitative (disappeared forever) and time (going out for winter) relations. The object noun with transitive verbs “has two more pronounced meanings – the addressee of the action and the purpose of the action. These meanings differ particularly clearly when both beneficials are used alongside the same verb, e.g. bought a yarn sweater for his daughter (addressee). The addressee is usually the person (or other living beings) who uses the noun (or pronoun). <...> The purpose is usually the user of object-denoting nouns. It indicates to whom an object said with another vowel dependent on the same verb (final or adjective) is assigned” (Valiulytė in: LKG 1976: 31t; see also DLKG 2006: 513t) (cf. sentences 15–16). Abstract meaning (often verb origin) nouns in sentences 17-18 indicate the verb notation language | 5 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 the purpose of the action (Valiulytė in: LKG 1976: 34). In other words, in the opinion of E. Valiulytė, in sentences 15–16 the noun is a complement of (addressee, purpose), and in sentences 17–18 – a circumstance of (purpose). Albertas Ružė LKG (1976: 517) considers the noun prakuras of the sentence Beržo tošes pasidžiauk prakurui as a circumstance of purpose (see sentence 16). Vitas Labutis shares similar opinions, who understands the noun beneficiary used in sentences 16-18 as a circumstance of the purpose – more precisely, the intended purpose (purpose), by which “we show 11 the purpose of the supposedly said attribute, which often also denotes the factor or complement of the said thing 176). Jonas Balkevičius (1963: 226) also discusses the circumstance of purpose and paskirtį“ (Labutis 1998: 302; panašiai Ružė in: LKG 1976: 517; Šukys 1998: 168t; dar žr. t. p.: 147, includes the beneficiary of spoken sentences in the broadly understood concept of circumstances aplinkybių skyriuje. Tačiau jis (Balkevičius 1963: 219), skirtingai nei V. Labutis ar A. Ružė, tikslo of cause. As Jonas Šukys (1998: 169) says, in sentence 16, the circumstance-user “also indicates an indirect object”, and in sentences 17–18, where there is “a more abstract noun, it usually has a 12 stronger shade of purpose” (cf. Rose in: LKG 1976: 517; 13 plg. p. 34, 87). 15 I built him a hill, but he dug a pit for me. (quoted from Šukys, 1998: 148) 16) I made the windows for the house myself. (quoted from LKG 1976: 32) 17) The rainbow gathers seven-flowers for their beauty? (quoted from LKG 1976: 34) 18) Using one’s power for evil is disgraceful. (quoted from LKG 1976: 34) Aldona Paulauskienė (1994: 120, see also p. 123, 173) maintains that “in all these cases of [additional, circumstantial] use, the user retains the general (invariant) meaning of purpose and 14 benefit/none-benefit” (see also Šukys 1998: 147). It turns out that the interpretation of the noun user is based on the distinction between sentence parts (grammatical functions) complement (indirect object) or circumstance and concrete (living or inanimate) or abstract object. Adjective is a noun that denotes specific living or inanimate objects (Valiulytė); circumstance – the noun’s usufruct denoting specific inanimate or abstract objects (Labutis, Balkevičius, Šukys). Based on the so distinguished 11 “The circumstance of the purpose is a secondary part of the sentence, showing the implied, in perspective, reason for which, to which the sign is expressed, is said in a preposition” (Labutis 1998: 300). For example: "The circumstance of the purpose denotes the purpose and purpose of the action or existence, answering the questions of what, at which ends it is going, occurring, aimed at or for whom, for which purpose what is or what is done" (Balkevičius 1963: 225). 12 “Usually such an object is represented by a rather specific noun” (Šukys 1998: 168). 13 "The most pronounced meaning of purpose is held by the user of verb nouns", for example, various furnaces are used for gas cementation (LKG 1976: 517). 14 “The circumstantial beneficiary retains the same basic purpose. <...> The circumstance of the purpose is also coupled with the meaning of the purpose” (Paulauskienė 2001: 173). LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) in language | 6 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 indirect object and circumstance user, it should be said that the noun user is an indirect object in the constructions sacrifices for children, bought thread for daughter, he piled the mountain and is different from the circumstance-going in the constructions sacrifices for children's sake (see welfare), bought thread for daughter's sake, he piled the mountain for his sake. Also important here are the semantic differences marked with the same expression: in constructions the person who makes a sacrifice for the children, bought yarn for his daughter, he is the beneficiary, and the person who makes a sacrifice for the children, bought yarn for his daughter, he is the beneficiary. Are the latter different? It could be any way. But, for example, in the sentence Friends, his experience will still be of use to us (DLKT), the benefit is rather close to the beneficiary’s indirect object, named the beneficiary (i.e., will be of use to us ≈ us; cf.:?will be of use to us for our benefit; cf. also: He bought yarn for his daughter’s sweater; He lent money for her trip) (see below). Therefore, we must look for other criteria to explain the differences. Axelis Holvoetas and Loreta Semėnienė (2004) assign grammatical degrees to linguices. Based on Veslava Čižik’s (2003) preliminary hierarchy of verbs: noun > suffix > noun > adjective (or adjective > adjective) > adverb, the authors (Holvoet, Semėnienė 2004: 33) states that “syllables are arranged on a scale according to whether they encode central or peripheral sentence functions”; The meaning of verbs "is very abstract and difficult to formulate in the case of verbs high in the hierarchy of verbs, but becomes the more concrete the lower the position of the verb in the hierarchy". The hierarchy of verbs according to their relative degree of grammaticity (proximity to the core of the sentence) or semantics (periphericity) is related to the hierarchy of grammatical functions according to their syntactic dependence (subject > modifier): 15 subject > direct object > indirect object > further objects (oblique) (shorter, subject > objects) > circumstances (Holvoet 2009a, 2009b). As A. Holvoet (2009a: 18) writes, “the hierarchy of nouns, which arranges the verb’s satellites in a certain descending order according to their degree of periphery or detachment from the pre-primary predicate, allows us to imagine a gradual transition of verb complements into the category of modifiers, while also providing for intermediate cases of this transition”. Thus, on the basis of hierarchization, the noun is a more semantic (less grammatical) verb, denoting more peripheral grammatical functions. The hierarchical differences can also be used as a basis for the use of laui: according to syntactic dependence, it denotes objects > circumstances (dedicates himself to the common good > will serve our good > works for the good of people > collects seven-flowers for the good of beauty). This also applies to nouns for the sake of themselves > 15 On the syntactic relationships – control and modification, subject and modifier, controlling word and modifier. modifikuojamojo žodžio sampratą, kuria čia remiamasi, plačiau žr. Holvoet, Judžentis (2003: 11–35; 2005: 11–38). Ten pat plg. ir tradicinę sintaksinių ryšių tipų apžvalgą. Apie papildinių ir aplinkybių skyrimo kriterijus, kuriais straipsnyje naudojamasi, plačiau žr. Holvoet, Čižik-Prokaševa (2005: 66–70). LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) in language | 7 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 funnyness (will serve for our good (cf. our well-being) > for the sake of beauty (*beauty for the sake of) seven-flowers collects). According to the semantic functions, the noun that is an indirect object correlates with the beneficiary, and the construct that is an circumstance correlates with the finite, 16 i.e. the expression of the purpose. As we have seen, in addition to such nounally or adverbially used labui, there are cases when labui is (more) a noun, but according to syntactic dependence is not a predicate (for his sake (see him, his well-being) I piled the mountain), and vice versa: labui is rather a adverb, but a predicate (used for the sake of harmony, not chaos). A. Holvoet and V. Čižik-Prokaševa (2005: 81–92) syntactically refer to the utilitarist, who does not take the position of argument, i.e. is not a subject of the predicate, as free and distinguish four types of it: dativus commodi (John brought wine to Anna), dativus sympatheticus (John shook the master’s hand), dativus ethicus (He will come to you!), dativus iudicantis (This picture is quite beautiful to me). The authors interpret the dativus commodi as the circumstance of the beneficiary (e.g., I covered him with a mountain), the dativus sympatheticus as a case of argument division, the dativus ethicus as the circumstance of the discourse and the time of the sentence, and the “dativus iudicantis is semantically required and syntactically controlled” (Holvoet, ČižikProkaševa 2005: 83, 86, 88, 90). The latter free noun is associated “not with the whole sentence (as a circumstance of the sentence), but only with the syntactic characteristics of specific words” (p. 91). Agnieszka Rembiałkowska, discussing free utilities, suggests that “classifying <...> should be based on the criterion of their scope”. Specifically, “the types of free nouns are distinguished primarily according to which part of the sentence they relate to, i.e., with which predicate level they form a closer unit and with which predicate level the effect of the predicate they express is limited” (Rembiałkowska 2009: 149–150). On its basis, “possessive meanings encoded by dativus sympatheticus are expressed at the level of core predication (see sentence 16), beneficent / malefficient meanings encoded by dativus commodi / incommodi” (p. 167– 168) “should belong to the level of extended predication” (p. 162) (see sentence 15), “dative at the level” (p. 168). Thus, A. Rembiałkowska (2009: 161–162, 168) bases the hierarchy of circumstance-driven free nouns on the criterion of coverage: iudicantis reikšmės [koduojamos] propozicijos lygmeniu, dativus ethicus – šnekos akto (sakinio) dativus sympatheticus > dativus commodi / section). From what has been said so far, it is clear that the su predikatu tiesiogiai nesusijusių laisvųjų naudininkų hierarchizuotus skirtumus. Kaip (ar) tokią use for the benefit of the dative sympatheticus is (may be) limited (e.g.: I made windows for the house,?I incommodi > dativus iudicantis > dativus ethicus, atliepia aptariamas labui, bus kalbama toliau (žr. 2 made windows for the house, but: I made windows for the house (i.e. for the house as a place of residence)) (see below). 16 Finityvas „būdingas daiktams bei reiškiniams, kurių siekiama, kuriems skiriamas veiksmažodžio žymimas action, e.g.: teams are competing for first place, farmers are preparing for sowing” (Sližienė 1994: 23). LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) in language | 8 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Jurgita Kerevičienė (2008: 117tt), applying the theoretical assumptions and methods of cognitive grammar, proposes to distinguish the functions of the user not according to syntactic (controlled or uncontrolled), but according to semantic criteria. The linguist interprets the utilitarist as a kind of network, a set of meanings that are interrelated. In this article, the noun usufruct is considered as a member of the hierarchies designed by the authors mentioned (Holvoet, Semėnienė, Čižik-Prokaševa, Rembiałkowska). In this case, it is used to indicate whether the object is (more) substantive (has a meaning) or adverbial (is desemanticized). It is discussed regardless of its syntactic dependence: whether it is controlled by the verb or not is taken into account. A good noun-user or a noun-modifier is a circumstance (see sentences 7, 12) (see section 2 for more details). 1.2 Furthermore, taking into polinksnio labui konstrukcija su kilmininku yra objektas (papildinys) (žr. 2, 11 sakinius), account Vytautas Ambrazo (2006: 307)’s idea that “the preposition dėl(ei) with the genitive penetrates into the sphere of the usage of the purpose and purpose-use beneficiary, especially when talking about specific things related to the purpose, e.g.: paliko pomidorus sėklai → dėl sėklos, pasidėjo pieną vaikams → dėl vaikų, <...> displaces the purpose-use beneficiary expressed by abstract verbs, e.g. Balkevičius 1963: 226 and sentences 17–18), it is briefly mentioned what else, apart from the beneficial, is used to denote the circumstance of the purpose and how it is related to the typical expression of the cause – the 17 constructions of the preposition because. Pavyzdžiui, A. Ružės nuomone, be jau minėto naudininko, tikslo aplinkybe eina adverbs, noun adjectives, adjectives with the prefix dėl, adjectives with the prefix su 1976: prielinksniais į, už, veiksmažodžio bendratis, siekinys, frazeologizmas ir žodžių junginys (LKG 514tt; plg. Balkevičius 1963: 221t), o priežasties aplinkybe – prieveiksmis, daiktavardžio įnagininkas, 18 kilmininkas su dėl, iš, nuo ir dėka, galininkas su prielinksniais per, už, įnagininkas su prietarų išsižadėjau gražiausio jausmo – meilės (plg. 3 sakinį) (LKG 1976: 516–517; dar žr. The LCG for the final prielinksniu su, frazeologizmas ir žodžių junginys, pvz.: Dėl tėvų įnorio, dėl tamsuolių fanatikų part with the prefix za or the noun, plg. : Because, while you were still in school, you already 1965: 194). Kilmininkas su prielinksniu dėl dažnai būna sinonimiškas tikslo funkciją turinčiam fought for Lithuanianness (cf. for Lithuanianness); Fights are hunted for the barbecue (see 19 barbecue) (Ružė in: LKG 1976: 518). 17 Plg. Šukis (1998: 169)’s opinion on this issue: “Instead of the purpose [i.e., the goal] of the beneficiary, the preposition is usually not very suitable because of the construction, e.g.: dėl sėklos pasilikom; for bread I will earn; borrow for the trip." 18 For a description of causal relationships in the most important Lithuanian linguistic works see Našlėnaitė-Eberhardt (2002: 8– 12). 19 The purpose preposition behind the constructions are used "at verbs, the action of which expresses some aim (to fight, to die, to die, to raise, etc.)" (Ružė in: LKG 1976: 518). LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) in language | 9 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 E. Valiulytė, DLKG (2006: 543) discussing the causal verbs per, with a subjunctive without a junginius, teigia, kad „priežastį žymi junginiai su prielinksniais iš, nuo, dėl, už, rečiau – su dėka, preposition, with adverbs” (see also Valiulytė 1998: 337–410). How far further is the meaning of a nagrinėdama tikslo raišką, ji (DLKG 2006: 551) laikosi nuomonės, kad „veiksmo tikslą bei paskirtį nobleman and a servant (alone or with a companion), a companion, the construction of prepositions [because, to, into with a nobleman]”, e.g.: fights for freedom, asked out of curiosity (also cf. 302). Prielinksnis dėl, vartojamas „reiškiant veiksmo tikslą, dažnai susipina su priežasties reikšmės Labutis 1998: atspalviu“ (LKG 1971: 590; similarly Ružė in: LKG 1976: 518; also see Valiulytė 2001: 201, 222). 20 21 Išsamiai aprašiusi dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksinius sinonimus, kalbininkė apibendrina: “the main means of expressing causal relationships are the constructions fromKilm, fromKilm and because ofKilm” (Valiulytė 1998: 406), and “the central place in the system of means of meaning of the goal [more specifically, the aim] is occupied by communicating – alone and with the adjective, and the prepositional [to, to, because of] constructions form the periphery of that system” (Valiulytė 2001: 222; for a similar opinion see also Labutis 1998: 300). J. Šukis (1998: 380; see also 1978: 31) believes that “the general meaning of the preposition because – cause with a shade of purpose – is quite clear and without a sentence”. “When the construction of the preposition because denotes a fairly clear purpose [i.e. aim], it has a closely related purpose-use, but it is not necessary to change it, nor is it desired to maintain the shade of cause. Mother for her child (cfr. her child) gives the last piece of bread. However, instead of such a preposition denoting purpose, because of the construction, where the shade of the cause cannot be seen, the usual preposition of purpose is more suitable. We bought potatoes for seed" (Šukys 1998: 380t). E. Valiulytė (1998: 376) states that the meanings of the preposition because – cause, purpose, objective, concession – “are very close: they are united by a common semantic feature, which can conditionally be called a ‘logical basis’. … there are such instances 22 of use that it is difficult to say what meaning to attribute to the design in question’. From what has been said, it is clear that, despite the typical meaning of the preposition due to the construction – the cause – it is polymorphic: it also tells other – non-cause (purpose, objective, etc.) 20 ,,Prepositions because, because of are used to indicate the cause of an action (as well as a state, an active characteristic)” (Valiulytė in LKG 1971: 590), a goal, a concession, an object of thought or speech, strengthening the meaning of another word, e.g., Because of kindness he is good (for kindness he is good) (Valiulytė in DLKG 2006: 441). In the opinion of E. Valiulytė (1998: 381), in combinations with verbs denoting active, voluntary actions, the construction of the preposition dėl also has the meaning of purpose, e.g.: atjojo dėl merglės (for more details see LKG 1976: 87). Such compounds can be transformed into compound object sentences, e.g.: atjó, hogy látta a virágot. 21 “The prepositional construction [for with the nobleman] in the meaning of the circumstance of the purpose is not būdinga. Be to, kilmininko su prielinksniu dėl tikslo reikšmė ne visada aiškiai atribojama nuo priežasties reikšmės“, very suitable for literary language, for for courage he put his father’s long Damascus dagger on his belt, took the staff, and went out; For fun, one can be invited, but nothing else (LKG 1976: 518). 22 Balkevičius (1963: 225; see also at p. 226; for a similar opinion see Labutis 1998: 293, 300) says that “the circumstance of the object from the circumstance of the acting cause is distinguished by a different causal and temporal relationship with the predicate of the sentence: the circumstance of the acting cause in real reality arises before the predicate or accompanies the predicate, while the circumstance of the object is only a possible or expected result of the action or state of the predicate”, or, in the words of Našlėnaitės-Eberhardt (2002: 17), the object in question is a cause directed towards the future. LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) in language | 16 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 and the actualization of the benefit to the possessor – beneficiary interpretation. Such a noun-like labui is close to the dative commodi, especially in cases where labui with a noun is separated from the possessive with a suffix and moved to the beginning of the sentence, as in sentence 52 (see Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2006: 171–172). There are no sentences such as 50-52 among the available DLCT examples. There are also no sentences where labui is used as a maleficient circumstance (see Rembiałkowska 2009: 154). The maleficient (failure) beneficiary (mom) of sentence 53 is replaced in sentence 54 with a construction that would assume its interpretation as a dative commodi in favor of mom: mamai gerai / laimėjo, kad šią kartą pyragas nepasisekė; she so wanted (cf. : For the sake of my mother, the cake didn't work). Because of the same interpretation as “benefit, welfare”, it is not suitable in sentences with a dativus iudicantis, which denotes subjective assessment (see Rembiałkowska 2009: 156–157, 163; see sentence 55). In other words, the dativus iudicantis is related to the percipiento (see Sližienė 1994: 20–21), and the labui to the beneficiant function. On the other hand, in the 56th sentence, where “the free usufructuary can be understood both as a dativus iudicantis and as a dativus commodi” (Rembiałkowska 2009: 157), one could expect a construction that actualizes the beneficial for the benefit of the nobleman. 50) He washed the passenger's legs. (quoted from DLKG 2004: 514) 51) Washed his feet for the benefit of the passenger. 52) For the passenger's sake (cf. for the passenger's sake, for the passenger) the master washed his feet. 53) This time the cake didn't work for mom. (quoted from Rembiałkowska 2009: 154) 54) This time the cake did not succeed for my mother’s sake. 55) So for you (cf.?your good) maybe the monitor is a display yet? (quoted from Rembiałkowska 2009: 155) 56) Studying for me (see For my sake) has become what working a teapot is for the old cinema. (quoted from Rembiałkowska 2009: 156) Finally, the context of the 57th sentence allows us to speak about the way or meaning, the designation for noun purposes. 57) The decision shall be taken by a simple majority of the votes cast after two members have spoken in favour and two against. We can solve this question now (HOW?) for your benefit. DLKT LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) in language | 17 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 From what has been said about labui as a noun form, it becomes clear that it is used with its dependent element – (rarely) a conjugable adjective or (usually) an inconjugable noun (pronoun) – as a predicate subject or modifier. The noun labui with the conjugative participle goes in the sentence as an object or circumstance. Because of its lexical abstractness, the good utility man, as an object, represents an atypical benefactor (who devotes himself to the common good) or patient (whose investigations help the common good). The objective is marked by the circumstantial noun labas with the conjunctive (for the common good moved). The objective noun is close to the preposition for construction (for the common good (well-being) moved). In the case of a noun, the servile is usually the pronoun of the noun denoting living (persons) or (rarely) abstract objects (to serve marriage and family). Considering the clarity of the lexical meaning of the noun labas itself and based on its incoordinate dependent element, it can be summarized as follows: the objective good noun user actualizes the beneficial (necessary for the benefit of society) or responds to the patient, the contentive (contradicts for the benefit of the individual), the finitive (use for the benefit of people), the circumstance-going usually corresponds to the actualized beneficial (created not for himself, but for the benefit of nations), sometimes it tells the way (solve for your benefit). The noun-used good has syncretic (beneficial and purpose) meanings (to take care of the good of the lynx, I did all this for your good). In such cases, when the circumstantial construction of the noun (pronoun) with the person-denoting adjective is understood as a purpose, the meaning of the self-benefit becomes more pale (see sends me for my benefit) (see below). 2.2. The casual for the good There are more examples in the DLKT where the meanings of the noun labas are less clear and it becomes obvious that labui with adjective is used (more) as a subjunctive construction. This is related to the abstraction of the servant, named nobleman, for the benefit. For example, based on sentence 58, where the beneficiary of the abstract noun (sveikatai) goes to the beneficiary object, it is possible to assume that the beneficial can be actualized by the beneficiary of the abstract noun labas, similarly to Bad mood harms your good (tau). However, sentence 59 shows that the use of labui with the genitive of an abstract noun becomes more complicated (?žeidžia sveikatos labui). It would seem that an abstract noun that goes with an object weakens the noun for its own benefit. But it is used in sentence 60, where it goes with a finite object. In sentences 61–64, the beneficiary or finite object is marked for the benefit of the subjunctive with the construct of the abstract noun, which is synonymous with the beneficiary controlled by the verb or adjective. LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) in language | 18 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 58) Bloga nuotaika, susierzinimas kenkia sveikatai. (cituojama iš Sližienė 1994: 343) 59) ?Bloga nuotaika, susierzinimas kenkia sveikatos labui (plg. ?sveikatos gerovei). 60) „Šiuo pakvituoju, kad maloningasis Utenos dvaro ponas Balcevičius lenkų revoliucijos for the good of the Polish revolution (see for the good of the Polish revolution; for the Polish atlygins Dievas ir laisvoji Žečpospolita. Pasirašė revoliucijos pasiuntinys Smilga“. DLKT revolution) donated three hundred rubles. To him 61) The peasantry and the craftsman by providing material goods, the clergyman by prayer and religious rites, and each class by doing its work. For the sake of the common good, it is necessary that such a system should have a ruling part, just as the soul rules the body or the higher nature rules the lower one. DLKT 62) Multiplying victims of political greed and crimes, using power not for the common good (see common good), but for the benefit of some party or the leaders themselves. DLKT 63) Regardless of what some would like, it is not possible to forget, because we, people, can do just that, remain silent, fear, think in numbers, sacrifice means for the sake of goals (cf. for goals, for goals), reluctantly smear our hands with blood, but if someone else does it on our behalf, we turn our eyes away or shout out our approval. DLCT 64) Dear ones, your priesthood is a gift from God for the sanctification of His people. The abstractness of the noun Labui in the subordinate participle loses its distinctive power (noun > adverbial) in cases where Labui is a circumstance of the object with the genitive or can be interpreted as such (see sentences 47–49). In the case of the subjunctive used in the sentences 63-68, the genitive is lexically unrestricted: it is said by a noun denoting concrete ((non)living) and abstract objects. According to V. Apresiano (1995: 18), such constructions of the objective meaning for the sake of the participle with the genitive are to be interpreted as “that P would be found”. Valuulytė 1998: 369): according to the principle of economy, the construction for the sake of the subjunctive is chosen instead of the secondary sentence (cf.: (67) Tie išleido mažiau prakaito dėl nemokamo mobiliojo telefono ≈ išleido mažiau prakaito tam, kad gautų / įsigytų nemokamą mobilųjį telefoną). These constructs for the benefit of the pronoun are synonymous with constructs for the purpose of the adjective. In addition to such clear cases, there are also ambiguities: the circumstance-going-for-the-good used in sentence 71 can also be interpreted as a noun, i.e. actualizing the beneficent (let’s do not for ourselves LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) in the language | 19 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 [B], and for the sake of men ≈ for men), and as a more funny, i.e. aim-marking (let’s do not 65) ataskaitoms [Fin], o žmonių labui ≈ dėl žmonių) (dar žr. 46–47 sakinius). God competes with men: Abraham offered a mortal son to God, but he did not need to die; For God gave up his immortal Son for men. What shall we say to this? DLKT 66) Hardly you, hardly, he could have lived for the sake of people and the city (?people and the city he will heal. DLKT gerovei; dėl žmonių ir miesto), bet gi va, nebūna taip, kaip tu nori. Bet galgi Dievas susimils ir 67) Nusiuntė „špargalką“. Tad tie, kurie sekė paskui ausinėmis apsirūpinusį akcijos dalyvį, shed the least sweat for the sake of free mobile phone. The destroyers expected confusion. DLKT 68) People who are caged have only one need to imagine the seriousness of their life: to go to school, to get an education, to have children, to work for the cage, to speak two languages, literally and figuratively, as necessary. DLKT 69) They rule with regard to what is best for the state and for all who belong to it, and when the majority rules for the common good, [such an order] is called by the common name of all orders, the politeia. DLKT 70) Why did you call me, Ophir? I don't really like it. “I dare to invite you, sir, because I am always working for our cause. You will not be disappointed. “I hope so. DLKT 71) Let us not reform for ourselves [B], not for reports [Fin], but for the people [B/Fin]. The DLKT progenitor has syncretic Aplinkybinė polinksnio labui konstrukcija su konkrečių ir abstrakčių daiktavardžių meanings in sentences 72-75: in sentences 72-73 the purpose is intertwined with the cause, in sentences 74-75 – with the cause and the condition. 72) Explain what it is made of, but the horse will eventually decide for itself when it is time to drink. Be vigilant and do not use force. For the sake of your child, do not rush things. Time itself does not heal the emotional wounds left by loss, so we must allow children to sort their emotions individually. DLKT 73) All-round state support for youth housing construction associations. For the sake of the nation and the country’s well-being, let us forget ambitions, let us forget the saying “two Lithuanians – three parties”, let us join a coalition. DLKT in the language | 20 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 74) Already lost, because he had driven him out of his own free will, he called himself an idiot in his mind and wanted to break his forehead. But spoonfuls after lunch, you won't change anything. For the sake of truth (see Seeking Truth; If We Want Truth) we must say that although the sight of a jis gana greitai kompensavo prarastį. DLKT beautiful body lost hurt Eduard, 75) Moreover, after the horror film ends, he experiences real Todėl žmogaus sveikatos ir kišenės labui (plg. dėl žmogaus sveikatos ir kišenės; jei norime, horror when he sees an empty refrigerator! that...) it's better to show as many slow motion movies as possible, and not squeal! By the way, many creators have understood this and are working fruitfully in this direction. DLKT The purpose with the cause is also said in cases where the subject of the demonstrative pronoun used cataphorically is the origin of the subjunctive. The pronoun of the generalised indication, as seen in sentence 76 or 77, replaces the broader context. The context of sentence 78 allows us to talk about the causal significance of the constructive marking of a subjunctive. 76) The Renaissance had a fatal influence on the liturgy, relating sacredness to what is beautiful in the eyes of man. He has been seduced by the greatness of man: he takes himself so seriously that he forgets that life has a shade of play. DLCT 77) Asceticism is “re-evaluated” for the sake of what is considered to be “the most fundamental premises of life”. DLKT 78) It is therefore obvious that, four or five years after this age, it is already necessary to renounce having children and to continue to live together solely for reasons of health (see for reasons of health) or for any other reason. kitos panašios priežasties. DLKT From what has been said, it is clear that (more) the adverbial labui is used in those cases where it objektu ir jo kilmininko valdinys pasakomas abstrakčiu daiktavardžiu (būtina bendro gėrio labui). goes with the circumstance. The typical meaning of the adverbial labui construction going with su kitomis reikšmėmis. Polinksnio labui konstrukcija pasakoma ir priežastis. the circumstance is the purpose, sometimes intertwined and interrelated with the „vartojamas reikšti kalbančiojo gyvą emocinį santykį su aptariamais dalykais“ (Holvoet, Čižikcircumstance. Syntactically, such a discourse-related benefit to the 2nd-person pronoun user is a circumstance of the sentence, not a predicate (cf. Holvoet, Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 88). Dera in LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) language | 21 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 pripažinti, kad šis tavo labui gali būti interpretuojamas ir kaip artimas dativus commodi (plg.: (79) did not do for your good ≈ you). 79) Wait, what hasn’t Anupras done for you yet (see what hasn’t Anupras done for you yet), colleague? The head didn't work. He pulled out a bottle of ginseng from his pocket, turned off the lid and drank... Link the bottom. DLKT 80) The Seimas is about to burst into tears over the Farm Law, the Government is raising the price of fuel for your sake (see you) and immediately rewards you (nice smuggling!) – slam your nose, man, to the rulers and those who gracefully squeeze their noses. DLKT SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The study revealed that in the present (written) Lithuanian language, it is used both as a noun and as a conjunctive for the sake of form. In some cases, the noun good serves a clear meaning (to serve the general good; to work together for the common good of all), in others – a more vague one (sends me for my good). Similarly, with constructs for the sake of a subjunctive: there are cases where there is no doubt (necessary for the sake of the common good), there are cases where labui can be understood both as the form of an abstract noun and as a subjunctive (I did all this for your sake). Based on the clear and recognizing the less clear (transitional) cases, the use of nouns and adverbs is based on a hierarchical basis, where the designated member is represented by a clear (typical) noun or adverb. The criterion of vitality, i.e. person > abstract object, is significant for the interpretation of good usage. This relates to Michael Silverstein’s (1976) or Robert Dixon’s (1979: 85) (i) hierarchy of vitality, in which the distinguished features of vitality correlate with (ii) 27 hierarchies of semantic, (iii) grammatical functions and their (iv) morphosyntactic notation 28 (Hentschel 1992; cf. Giv'on 1984: 239tt; Dik 1989: 269–270; Holvoet 2009a, 2009b). (i) person > living creature (non-person) > inanimate concrete thing > abstract thing (ii) A > P > Rec 29 > Ben > I > L > T 27 The hierarchy of vitality in later works is divided into (i) hierarchies of persons (participants in communication), (ii) hierarchies of vitality (in the narrow sense) and (iii) hierarchies of awareness (see Croft 1990: 111; 127; Comrie 1989: 128, 185). Alan Timberlake (1986) distinguishes a hierarchy of individuation according to the characteristics of vitality (in the narrow sense), definition, number, specificity and other characteristics. 28 For a critical view on the question of the hierarchy of semantic functions, see Croft (2012: 175tt) and the literature discussed there. 29 ,,The morphosyntactic marking of the semantic role recipient is the prototypical Dativfunktion. <...> Ein typischer Rezipient ist eingebunden in eine Transferhandlung. Ein Objekt wechselt den LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) in language | 22 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 (iii) subject > object > complement (circumstance). (iv) Nom > Acc > Dat > prepositional constructions. Grammatical (or structural) verbs – of the nominative and adjective – are chosen for the syntactically and semantically salient members of the sentence – the subject of the agent and the direct object of the patient (John [A] builds a house [P]), while other verbs are chosen for less salient (grammatical and semantic) functions. The good noun of the abstract noun discussed in this article correlates with the less prominent functions of the nucleus of the sentence or the free members of the sentence – supplements (i.e., predicate or circumstances of the sentence). Based on the usage of the noun and the adverb, the hierarchy of grammatical functions (iii) can be supplemented with the hierarchy of free nouns (Rembiałkowska 2009) and we can talk about the fact that the usage of the noun and the adverb correlates with the following hierarchy of grammatical functions: object > complement (circumstance): dativus sympatheticus > dativus commodi > other circumstances (purpose, cause) > dativus ethicus. This also reflects the hierarchical differences in syntactic dependency (component > modifier). See the hierarchies person > abstract object and noun for good > verb for good correlation, where the good goes to the object: the good noun usufructuary typically controls the person-denoting noun (or the pronoun that substitutes it) (necessary for the good of the society), verb for good – the abstract noun usufructuary (necessary for the good of the common; use of power for the good of the common). Although there is more fluctuation between the noun and the pronoun in laby, a similar correlation exists in cases where the laby is a circumstance: the noun in laby is usually used with the person-describing pronoun (noun) subject (dedicate their life to the family; created for themselves and the nation), in the pronoun subject the subject of the pronoun is often expressed by an abstract noun (or a pronoun that represents it) (invited for their own brighter future; for the sake of beauty they gather seven-flowers), but due to syntactic condensation the pronoun may also denote living objects (given to death for the sake of people). The good noun of the object corresponds to the beneficiary or finite function; there are cases where it correlates with the patient or contentive. The good noun of a noun, passing by circumstance, usually denotes a beneficial, sometimes a way. Polinksnio labui su owner, from the pre–owner to the post–owner. The recipient is the post-possessor after a successful transfer transaction. The verbs of the ‘give / take’ field form the background for this prototypical determination of recipienthood: Klaus gave his brother a book” (Bartels 2005: 105; plg. Hentschel 2001: 181tt, nominative. The recipient is usually a person, e.g. : The child [Rec] received a gift [Con] (cf. : To 196–197). Plg.: Valeckienė (1998: 36): ,,Recipientas [Rec] yra ko nors gavėjo, ėmėjo funkcija. Jis dažniausiai pasakomas the child [B] gave the genitive of constructions going by object, denoting finite or beneficial, going by circumstance dovanų [Con]).“ LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 23 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 – tipiškai tikslą. Subjunctive constructs for the benefit are synonymous with constructs for the beneficiary and/or prepositional constructs for the benefit (necessary for the common good (see common good); sacrifice for the sake of goals (see goals, for goals); works for the cause (see for the cause)). The noun labui with the pronoun of the noun or pronoun denoting persons differs from the beneficiary beneficiary: labui emphasizes the semantic feature of benefit – good doing to the person (necessary for the public good (see society); created for the benefit of other nations (see other nations)). The construct for the sake of the subjunctive with the genitive, as having fewer meanings, i.e. more clear (transparent), penetrates (becomes more predictable) into the expression of the beneficiary of the object (i.e., into the valencial structure of the predicate – the nucleus of the sentence), pushes the circumstantial beneficiary of the purpose out of such sentences: So may the “nation standing for life” grow ever more, may a new culture of love and solidarity develop for the true good of the whole human society (DLKT), and changes the constructions of the preposition for the purpose because of the latter’s multifunctionality. ŠALTINIAI DLKT – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas, sud. Kauno Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Kompiuterinės lingvistikos centras. Prieiga internete: http://donelaitis.vdu.lt. BŽe – rengiamas Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Redaktorių kolegija: Danutė Liutkevičienė (vyr. redaktorė), Gertrūda Naktinienė, Ritutė Petrokienė, Dovilė Svetikienė, Klementina Vosylytė, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Programuotojas Vikis Satkevičius. D. 1: Įvadas, B, C, H, J, O. – Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2013. D. 3: Č, E, Ę, Ė, F, Z. – Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2014. Prieiga internete: http://bkz.lki.lt. DŽe – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyriausiasis redaktorius Stasys Keinys. – 7-as patais. ir papild. leid. – Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2012, XXVI, 969 p.; elektroninis variantas, 2015. Prieiga internete: http://lkiis.lki.lt. LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (t. I–XX, 1941–2002): elektroninis variantas. Redaktorių kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. redaktorė), Jonas Paulauskas, Ritutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. – Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005 (atnaujinta versija, 2008). Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt. LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 24 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LITERATŪRA Ambrazas V. 2006: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė sintaksė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Apresian V. J. 1995: Апресян В. Ю. Для и ради: сходства и различия. – Вопросы языкознания 3, 17–27. Balkevičius J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Bartels H. 2005: Dativ oder Präposition: Zur Markierungsvariantion im Kontext adjektivischer Prädikate im Deutschen, Russischen und Polnischen. Oldenburg (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 12). Comrie B. 1989: Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology, 2 edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Basil Blackwell. Croft W. 1990: Typology and Universals. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. Croft W. 2012: Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Čižik V. 2003: Linksnių atrakcija lyginamosiose konstrukcijose. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 48, 1–17. Dik S. C. 1989: The Theory of Functional Grammar 1. Berlin etc.: Mounton de Gruyter. Dixon R. M. W. 1979: Ergativity. – Language 55 (1), 59–138. DLKG 2006: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. V. Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Gaivenis K., Keinys St. 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa. Givón T. 1984: Syntax. A functional–typological introduction 1. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hentschel G. 1992: Konstanten der Kasusvariation. Zum Nominativ–Instrumental– und Akkusativ–Genitiv–Wechsel im Russischen. Habilitationsschrift. Göttingen (rankraštis). Hentschel G. 2001: Dative or prepositional marking of noun phrases in the context of Russian adjectival experencier predicates. – Variierende Markierungen von Nominalgruppen in Sprachen unterschiedlichen Typs, Hrsg. Winfried Boeder, Gerd Hentschel. Oldenburg (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 4), 171–200. Holvoet A., Čižik-Prokaševa V. 2005: Papildiniai ir aplinkybės. – Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 3), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 65–92. Holvoet A., Judžentis A. 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tipai. – Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 1), red. Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–35. LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 25 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Holvoet A., Judžentis A. 2005: Sintaksinės priklausomybės tipai: papildymai ir patikslinimai. – Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 3), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–38. Holvoet A., Semėnienė L. 2004: Linksnio teorijos pagrindai. – Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 2), red. Axel Holvoet, Loreta Semėnienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–31. Holvoet, A. 2009a: Argumentų hierarchijos ir gramatinės funkcijos. – Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (Acta Salensia 3), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, asociacija „Academia Salensis“, 1–36. Holvoet, A. 2009b: Difuziniai subjektai ir objektai. – Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (Acta Salensia 3), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, asociacija „Academia Salensis“, 37–67. Kazlauskienė A., Rimkutė E., Bielinskienė A. 2011: Bendroji ir specialybės kalbos kultūra, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Prieiga internete https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/bitstream/handle/1/219/ISBN9789955126553.pdf?sequence=1 & isAllowed=y Kerevičienė J. 2008: The Lithuanian Dative and its English Counterparts (a Case Study in Cognitive Grammar). Doctoral dissertation, Kaunas. Labutis V. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. LKG 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1. Fonetika ir morfologija. Red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis. LKG 1971: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2. Morfologija. Red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis. LKG 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3. Sintaksė. Red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis. Našlėnaitė-Eberhardt V. 2002: Priežasties santykiai įvairiose lietuvių kalbos sintaksės pakopose. Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius. Paulauskienė A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija. Paskaitos lituanistams, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Paulauskienė A. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos kultūra, Kaunas: Kauno technologijos universitetas. Rembiałkowska A. 2009: Lietuvių kalbos laisvieji naudininkai ir predikacijos lygmenys. – Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (Acta Salensia 3), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, asociacija „Academia Salensis“, Asociacija „Academia Salensis“, 147–168. Silverstein M. 1976: Hierarchie of features and ergativity. – Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. Robert M. W Dixon. Canberra, 112–171. Sližienė N. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir