Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas (red.). „Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška“

A. HOLVOET, R. MIKULSKAS. Nature and expression of grammatical functions 337 AXEL HOLVOET, ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS (RED.) AND RESOLUTION Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, Asociacija „Academia Salensis“, 2009, 202 (+2) p., ISBN 978-9955-33-466-8 [Acta Salensia 1] The collection of articles prepared by Axel Holvoet and Rolandas Mikulskas fills the gap in theoretical research on the grammar of the contemporary Lithuanian language, which arose after the 2006 discontinuation of the series of books on the grammar of the Lithuanian language. The articles published in the journal are based on papers read in the section of theoretical grammar of the Summer School of Linguistics held in the village of Salų manor in Rokiškis district in the summer of 2008. The collection consists of six articles by five authors. They refine and develop the concept of the description of the grammatical structure of Lithuanian language set out in the textbooks of Lithuanian language grammar works. The articles are written on different theoretical bases, but they are united by the theme of sentence parts and the attempt to update the methodology of research of the current Lithuanian language. In the introductory article of Axel Holvoet „Hierarchy of arguments and grammatical functions“ the general theory of sentence parts is linked to the current problems of sentence parts in Lithuanian language, the main terms are discussed. Instead of the term of sentence part, which is usual in Lithuanian linguistics and which is “too general and ambiguous” (p. 1), the term of grammatical function is chosen and used in the collection (although it is not convenient in all respects). The basic concepts of adjective, noun, sentence, the relationship of grammatical functions with semantic and pragmatic functions are discussed. There are several types of grammar functions: some are considered primary, non-derived (the author calls them primitive), and others are derived. The definitions and derivation rules of the latter depend heavily on more general theoretical views. Next, the author reviews several concepts of grammatical functions offered by different schools of theoretical grammar: configurational (primarily represented by generative grammar), empirically oriented (Lucien Tesniere’s structural syntax, relational grammar, prototypical definitions, noun accessibility to syntactic functions, etc.). 338 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 accessibility based) and semantic functions based. After this brief, but very informative overview of the general theory of sentence parts, the author returns to Lithuanian linguistics and briefly discusses the problem of sentence parts in previous works on Lithuanian syntax. The main focus is on the grammar of contemporary Lithuanian language. Critically discussed are the concepts of syntactic relationship and coordination of interconnection, on which the classification of sentence parts is based in these works. Next, the article focuses on the concept of sentence parts and its theoretical foundations, which are presented in the series of works on Lithuanian grammar, especially on grammatical functions1. At the end of the article, the most relevant questions of the study of sentence parts are raised: the distribution of indirect object, subject and object characteristics, the difference between central and peripheral grammatical functions. The second article by Axel Holvoet, “Diffuse Subjects and Objects”, is closely related not only to the first one, but also to the aforementioned collection of works on the grammar of the Lithuanian language devoted to the problems of sentence parts. Initially, the article discusses several cases of the subject represented by the adjective that give rise to discussion (the adjective subject that does not conjugate with the denominator and the latter’s relationship with the further object). Similar cases of uncertainty of the function of the direct object in the sentence (direct parent object, uncertainty of the final quantificator or independent object and secondary direct object in transitive constructions) are discussed below. The question of the status of indirect objects in Lithuanian language is raised and examined separately. In solving it in undefined cases of object assignment – in ditransitive sentences – it is proposed to distinguish between primary and secondary (or degraded) objects, the characteristics of the latter are discussed. Subordinate entities shall be designated accordingly. Subjects expressed by nouns and denoting arguments of verbs are proposed to be called quasi-subjects. For example, in the sentence Jonui pagailo draugo it is suggested to distinguish the quasi-subject of the intransitive verb Jonui, marked with a noun, and the secondary subject, marked with a genitive, draugo. The only non-subjective arguments of a verb expressed by a noun, such as the noun in John helps his parents, are called quasidirect objects. The article contains many new, unusual and unexpected interpretations in Lithuanian linguistics. They are presented very concisely, often using 1 Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas (ed.). Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 2005 [Lithuanian Language Grammar Works 3]. A. HOLVOET, R. MIKULSKAS. The nature and expression of grammatical functions 339 typological arguments, therefore, are not always clear enough and should be further substantiated and verified in the future. Kristinos Lenartaite’s article “Direct objects and the question of ditransitive constructions in Lithuanian language” deals with similar issues as the previously reviewed article by A. Holvoet, but it is based on different theoretical bases, and therefore the conclusions are different. First of all, the article discusses the concept of direct object and its determination criteria in Lithuanian linguistics. The analysis presented is concise, but accurate and insightful. Unlike Vytautas Ambraz, who once demanded a strict distinction between the syntactic and semantic structures of sentences2, the object (and sentence parts in general) is proposed to be understood as a grammatical function encompassing two areas of language analysis – semantic and morphosyntactic (expressions) (cf. p. 71). Based on the applied grammar of Sebastian Shaumyan, direct objects are proposed to be distinguished according to the transitivity of the predicate, which participates in the process of basic predication and allows to formulate the laws of sentence formation. The author distinguishes several predicate classes – and this is related to the layered semantic structure of the sentence in Simon Dick’s functional grammar, presented in Agnieszka Rembiałkowska’s article. Doubts were raised by the analysis of the sentence Vaikas gerai valgo košę (p. 78): the author distinguishes the operand eats and the resultant eats well and the operand porridge (and not eats porridge) and the resultant eats porridge well. Furthermore, the article explains the differences between the concept of direct object in English and the concept of indirect complement in Lithuanian. Indirect objects in Lithuanian language are not examined as thoroughly as direct objects, so this study should be considered preliminary. Nevertheless, the opinion about the unnecessary need to distinguish between transitive constructions in Lithuanian language is convincing. At the end of the article, several more difficult cases of assignment of sentence parts in Lithuanian are examined on different theoretical bases. The author answers negatively to the question whether a predicate can allow a dual choice of the direct object, but such an answer does not seem sufficiently justified. The author’s decision to support the analysis of syntactic phenomena of Lithuanian language with typological data is welcome. Although Rolandas Mikulskas’s article “The role of noun apozition in the expression of secondary predication” is presented by the author as a discussion about prepositional noun phrases with a conjunction as references and functions, 2 Plg. Vy t a u t a s A m b r a z a s. Units of the Syntactic and Semantic Structure of the Lithuanian Sentence. – Lithuanian Linguistics Issues 25: Studies of Lithuanian Language Syntax, 1986, 4–44. 340 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 but it deals with a much broader problem – the typology of prefixes in Lithuanian language, the interaction of semantics, pragmatics and syntax. Criticism of the traditional concept of preposition in Lithuanian linguistics is presented, justifying the choice of the term opposition. Based on the works of Western linguists, two types of noun apostrophe are distinguished – close and loose, the reference of each of them, the functions of the elements and their mutual syntactic relationships, assignation to the part of the sentence are examined. The article is relevant and innovative in many respects. The author had to overcome a lot of difficulties in translating the English special terminology into the Lithuanian text, perhaps because of this the text is difficult to read in places. This article in the collection is particularly closely related to previous publications and discussions of the new school of Lithuanian grammar. Perhaps the least theoretical considerations in Jurgis Pakerio article “The marking of imperative predicatives in Lithuanian language action name constructions”. Based on the data of the Textbook of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, it examines the competition of noun suffixes -imas / -imas derived from predicates of the factor or complement, verbs. It was found that the strategy of combining with the verb of a factor or adjective, which is considered normative in common language, is the weakest. Most often, the investigated predicates are expressed by a suffix according to the example of communicative constructions or because of the tendency to generalize the suffix as a special verb of predicates. The work was carried out methodically, the conclusions are well-founded. Agnieszka Rembiałkowska’s article “Lithuanian free nouns and predicate conjunctions” provides a good overview of the interpretation of Lithuanian free nouns in previous and recent studies. One must agree with the author that “a comprehensive analysis, on the one hand, encompassing all free nouns as a certain morphosyntactic phenomenon, and on the other hand, differentiating the types of free nouns not only on the basis of contractual ‘meanings’, is very lacking” (p. 149). Furthermore, the theoretical basis of free utilitarist interpretation is explained – the concept of layered semantic sentence structure, taken from Simon Dick’s functional grammar. Finally, the article turns to the application of the discussed methodology to determine the types of free users of Lithuanian language. Unfortunately, this part of the article is very dull. Empirical procedures – nine kinds of tests are discussed in detail, and some of them (relativization and licensing) remained completely unexplained. There is a great lack of examples of the tests. Perhaps that is why the article has no conclusions, only concluding remarks. They state that the types of Lithuanian free-users A. HOLVOET, R. MIKULSKAS. The nature and expression of grammatical functions 341 can be related to different layers of sentence predication. To substantiate this statement and describe it in detail is the task of future works. One of the most acute problems of theoretical grammar works written in Lithuanian is terminology. There are many new terms in the reviewed book. The indexes of Lithuanian, Latin and English terms inserted after the general list of literature of all articles help to find them. In most cases, the terms are well chosen. Some of them were already used in previous works by the same authors. However, one other equivalent of English terms raised doubts. The term primitive semantic functions (p. 5 et seq.) seems inappropriate because of the negative connotation of the word primitive in Lithuanian. Perhaps in this case primary, basic semantic functions would be better suited? For the same reason, the syntactically degraded prediction (p. 34) does not seem to be the appropriate equivalent of the term downgraded prediction. Perhaps a predicate of a lower level (or rank) would be appropriate here, finally, a secondary (or secondary) predicate (in the case of a compound sentence); also cf. the “degraded” intransitive subject (p. 63) and so on. The international words controlling, controlling in Lithuanian have acquired meanings that do not fully correspond to the English meanings of to control, controller, so I would suggest changing them in such statements as “[subjective users] control reflexivization” (p. 61) and “does not indicate the aforementioned control of reflexivization characteristic of quasi-subjects” (p. 63). Perhaps in these cases it would be sufficient simply to say “they can be reflexivized” or “they form reflexive constructions” and “quasi-subjective reflexivizations” or “quasi-subjective reflexive constructions”. In Lithuanian, it is not easy to write that the secondary function is “added” to the primary one (p. 81, from there on without quotation marks). The English term deputative beneficiary is incorrectly translated as substitute recipient (p. 154), the term is corrected in the index: substitute beneficiary (p. 199). Edward Keenan and Bernardo Comrie’s proposed equivalent to the term obliqueness hierarchy, noun hierarchy, is too general and therefore inaccurate (see p. 15, 37), and the direct equivalent (of nouns) to the term noun phrase accessibility hierarchy (p. 15) seems missing – the concept of accessibility has to be explained (accessibility to various syntactic operations, see p. Throughout the book, the name of the semantic function (or verb) is used as experienceris (p. 48 and elsewhere): perhaps the Lithuanian linguist would be better suited to experient (cf. patientas, beneficientas...)? The term predicate frames (angl. frames) is given (p. 160), but here also frame is written: this noun in Lithuanian is used in the meaning of “degree, limits” only 342 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 plural forms, so even when one verb is in mind, frames are used. In introducing S. Dik’s functional grammar, the author has made clever use of the terms of Vito Labutis, who had written about it earlier: some of them have been taken over (e.g., extended prediction), others have been refined, e.g., instead of cortex predication, core prediction has been proposed, instead of the state of things – the elementary situation (e.g., state of affairs). The terms operators and satellites are introduced, but the latter is no longer used – the direct loan satellite is used. The extent of the representative and interpersonal plan of Kees Hengeveld’s terms’ Lithuanian equivalents (semantic equivalents) remained unexplained (p. 160). It is not surprising that all these terms of functional grammar have not been included in the index. The collection of articles is well prepared. However, there is also undesirable variation of terms, e.g.: secondary double function and secondary double layer function (p. 84). Some terms are incorrectly written in quotation marks in some cases and without them in others. Finally, footnotes (and there are many of them in this collection) and page numbers are printed in very small font – this makes it difficult to read. The book The Nature and Expression of Grammatical Functions provides many new ideas to the reader interested in the theoretical grammar of the Lithuanian language, and its discussional nature encourages polemics, searching for new solutions, checking and rejecting or re-justifying previous ones. This collection of articles is intended to start a new series of publications dedicated to theoretical linguistics, Acta Salensia. We wish that the other books of the new series will be as interesting and of such a good scientific level as the one briefly reviewed here. Received 11/12/2009 THE MOTION OF ARTHUR Institute of Lithuanian Language P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]