Statybos terminijos dūrinių klasifikacija pagal sintaksinius-semantinius sandų santykius

Classification of Construction Terminology Compounds According to the Syntactic-Semantic Relations Between Their Constituents LINA RUTKIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Vilnius Gediminas Technical University KEYWORDS: compound, generic term, relations between constituents, syntactic-semantic classification, construction sector INTRODUCTION As science rapidly globalizes and develops, an increasing number of new terms emerge. Among them, compounds are becoming especially numerous; they can be examined from various perspectives1, which determine their classification, a somewhat more complex undertaking than the classification of derivatives. One of the most popular approaches is the morphological approach, which became predominant in the works of scholars in the first half of the 20th century. The essence of the morphological approach, which is closely related to word formation, is to understand a compound first and foremost as a combination of morphemes. This approach also prevails in Lithuanian linguistics. In The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (hereafter DLKG 1997), the works of Stasys Keinys (1983, 2005), and Palmira Zemlevičiūtė’s (2016) monograph, compounds are first classified according to the parts of speech from which their constituents originate, and only then are the syntactic-semantic relations between the constituents of compounds mentioned. This classification is justified by the fact that “both the meaning of a compound <...> and its form depend greatly on the parts of speech of the words from which the compound is formed” (DLKG 1997: 150). In Lithuanian terminology, compounds used as terms in particular fields of science are also examined and classified from other perspectives: semantic (Auksoriūtė 2016; Gritėnienė 2006; Kač inaitė 2008; Gaivenis 1998), origin (Kaulakienė 1981; Stunžinas 2004), and prescriptive (Kaulakienė 1986, 1 From problems of classification raised in ancient Indian grammars, the field has moved on to modern neurolinguistic studies. For example, University of Cambridge researchers Lucy Jay MacGregor and Yury Shtyrov investigate how the human brain processes information expressed by a compound. Using electroencephalography, they record brain impulses in an attempt to determine whether a compound evokes in the human mind an image encompassing a single concept, or whether it instead evokes images encompassing both concepts (MacGregor, Shtyrov 2013). 164 Lina Rutkienė | Statybos terminijos dūrinių klasifikacija pagal sintaksinius-semantinius sandų santykius 1993; Keinys 1967; Gaivenis 1994), motivation (Sviderskienė 2017), although singling out one approach is not entirely accurate, since research most often combines several aspects. The syntactic-semantic approach to compounds is much less common in Lithuanian linguistics; discussion is usually limited to distinguishing determinative (subordinative) and copulative (coordinative) compounds, and the relations between the constituents of determinative compounds are not examined in greater detail (e.g., DLKG 1997; Gaivenis 1998). In discussing the formation of compound nouns, Vincas Urbutis explains that in determinative compounds one constituent describes the other, whereas the constituents of copulative compounds are related by simple coordination (Urbutis 1961). The essence of the syntactic-semantic approach is the recognition that a compound is a syntactic-semantic formation whose components are connected by certain relations. Hansas Marchand, whose book Categories and Types of Word-Formation in Present-Day English (English The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation) is considered to have had a major influence on word-formation scholarship in Western countries, argues that the meaning of all compounds can be explained on the basis of syntactic relations, which form the basis of word formation (Marchand 1969). This article will attempt to examine compounds specifically from a syntactic-semantic perspective. The syntactic-semantic approach to compounds has a very long tradition. It can already be found in ancient Indian grammars, where compounds are classified according to the relations between their constituents as determinative, possessive (bahuvrīhī2), and copulative (dvanda) (Schlücker 2012: 7). Linguists in many countries adopted this classification as a basis for their work. In Russian linguistics, compounds are commonly classified from a syntactic-semantic perspective as subordinative (determinative) and coordinative (copulative) (Языкознание 1998: 468; Виноградов 1960: 271; Земская 2011: 284), but not all linguists agree with this classification. For example, Vladimir Arakin distinguishes the following groups of compounds according to the syntactic-semantic relations between their constituents: 1) predicative compounds, in which predicative relations emerge through transformation; for example, English sunrise (Lith. saulėtekis) is transformed into the phrase the sun rises; Russian снегопад (Lith. sniegokritis) is transformed into снег падает; 2) attributive compounds, in which the constituents are connected by attributive relations; for example, Russian чернозем (Lith. juodžemis); 2 Šis terminas vartojamas ir Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (DLKG 1997: 151). Terminologija | 2017 | 24 165 3) objective compounds, in which objective relations emerge through transformation; for example, English turnscrew (Lith. atsuktuvas) is transformed into that turns the screw; Russian пылесос (Lith. dulkių siurblys) is transformed into сосет пыль (Аракин 2005: 204–205). As the names of the groups show, copulative compounds are not included in the classification. This is probably because no relations are discerned between the constituents of these compounds. The German linguists continued the ancient Indian grammarians’ tradition of classifying compounds as determinative, possessive, and copulative; Jenny Larsson expanded it by identifying one additional group—governing compounds (Larsson 2003). Later, the Lithuanian scholar Dalius Jarmalavičius adopted J. Larsson’s classification of compounds in his dissertation on German compounds. Thus, J. Larsson’s classification of compounds, as adopted by D. Jarmalavičius (2014: 20–25), is as follows: 1. Determinative compounds. Their first constituent most often defines the second, narrowing its meaning; thus, the constituents are related by subordination. The constituent being determined is the head, from which the semantic and morphological properties of the compound emerge. 2. Copulative compounds. The constituents are related by coordination and are equally independent; even if their positions are reversed, the meaning changes very little. 3. Governing compounds. The second constituent is a deverbal noun; the relation between the constituents is like that between a predicate and an object. 4. Possessive compounds. These compounds have a figurative meaning and denote only a particular property. As can be seen, various classifications have been developed in foreign linguistics on the basis of syntactic-semantic relations between the constituents of compounds. Their terminology also varies, which complicates analysis of these classifications. The aim of this article is, after discussing the syntactic-semantic classification of compounds proposed by specialists in foreign and Lithuanian linguistics, to examine in greater detail the syntactic-semantic relations between the constituents of native and hybrid compounds in construction terminology. The subject of the article is Lithuanian construction terms from the 20th–21st centuries—native and hybrid compounds. The sources are 20th–21st-century scholarly and administrative construction literature (see the list at the end of the article). 166 Lina Rutkienė | Statybos terminijos dūrinių klasifikacija pagal sintaksinius-semantinius sandų santykius The main method used in the study is analytical-descriptive. The method of transformation, or syntactic paraphrase, is also applied to establish the relations between the constituents. SYNTACTIC-SEMANTIC RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CONSTITUENTS OF COMPOUNDS IN CONSTRUCTION TERMINOLOGY Nors DLKG (1997) dūriniai pirmiausia skirstomi pagal kalbos dalis ir akcentuojamas antrasis dūrinio sandas, šiame straipsnyje, siekiant, kad klasifikacija nebūtų formali ir pernelyg išplėsta horizontaliąja kryptimi, siūloma iš pradžių visus dūrinius skirstyti ne formaliai, o pagal sandų semantikos santykius, ir tik paskui žiūrėti, kokių kalbos dalių kombinacijomis tie santykiai realizuojami. Be to, tokia klasifikacija logiškai atitiktų terminų darybos kryptį – nuo reikšmės prie formos. Siūloma klasifikacija nesiremia nuostata, kad antrasis sandas svarbesnis už pirmąjį ir todėl klasifikuoti reikia remiantis antruoju sandu, – pagrindinis sandas gali būti tiek pirmasis, tiek antrasis arba jie gali būti lygiaverčiai. Syntactic-semantic relations between constituents may be established by applying the transformation method (when a compound has a close relationship with the corresponding phrase) and/or on the basis of the compound’s derivational meaning, e.g.: butangė STŽT 39 ‘apartment opening’; darbadienis STŽ 102 ‘working day’; plonlentė STŽ 307 ‘thin board’. V. Urbutis emphasizes that, among all derivatives, compounds are most closely related to the corresponding phrases: “both their [the compounds’] constituents are based on independent words, which are connected to each other by syntactic relations. It is therefore hardly surprising that, since ancient times, it has been customary in linguistics to identify essentially the same relations between the constituents of a compound as between independent words in the corresponding phrases” (Urbutis 2009: 205). A total of 657 native and hybrid compounds functioning as generic construction terms were selected from 22 scholarly and administrative sources in the field of construction. Borrowed compounds are not the object of this study, since the derivational process did not take place in Lithuanian. According to the semantic relations between their constituents, all compounds can be divided into determinative and copulative compounds. DLKG (1997) likewise divides them into determinative and copulative compounds according to the parts of speech from which they are formed, although this classification could be further refined. As the material examined shows, determinative compounds functioning as generic construction terms form a particularly large group (632 of the 657 compounds are determinative), within which five types of relations between constituents have developed. In classifying determinative compounds Terminologija | 2017 | 24 167 the terms used by Jonas Balkevičius in discussing the semantic aspect of syntactic relations between the elements of a phrase are applied. J. Balkevičius (1998: 40) distinguishes attributive, subjective, objective, adverbial, comparative, and completive relations. No subjective compounds functioning as generic construction terms were found in the construction material examined. Thus, on the basis of the material collected and according to these relations, determinative compounds can be divided into five subgroups: attributive, objective, adverbial, completive, and comparative compounds. Few copulative compounds were found in the construction texts examined—only 25—and the relations between their constituents are not subdivided further, because copulative compounds are not based on a syntactic construction: they are formed from words that are not syntactically related, and therefore their constituents do not define one another but are of equal status. DETERMINATIVE COMPOUNDS As noted, 657 compounds functioning as generic construction terms were recorded in sources relating to construction. Most of them—379—are attributive compounds, while half as many (186) are objective compounds. Far fewer compounds were found in the other groups. It was observed that, in every group, a considerable number of clusters of related terms sharing the same constituent occur. Therefore, in the discussion that follows of syntactic-semantic relations between the constituents of compounds in construction terminology, attention will also be paid to productive constituents. Attributive compounds. Attributive relations mean that the dependent constituent (in this case, the first, qualifying constituent) expresses a feature of the denotatum named by the head constituent, which is the second one (following Balkevičius 1998: 40). The compounds in this subgroup belong to three derivational types: 1) noun + noun, 2) adj. + noun, and 3) numeral + noun. Compounds of the types noun + noun and adj. + noun predominate, e.g.: 1) akmenpjūklis STŽ 16; angokraštis STŽ 22; ardakartė, ardikartė STŽT 19; arklaedžios STŽT 21; avitvartis STŽT 27; bėgvinė STŽ 73; betoninė STŽ 77; bitbutis STŽT 32; butgalis STŽT 39; butsanga, butsangė STŽT 39; darbadienis STŽ 102; dar byst u bė STŽT 43; dūmavamzdis STŽ 130; dumblavietė STŽ 130; gaisrasienė STŽT 52; gipsatinkis STŽ 650; grindjuostė STŽT 61; kalkakmenis AP 27; kiauliadurės STŽT 82; klėtsanga, klėtsangė STŽT 89; kluongalis STŽT 91; kraiklentė STŽT 94; miestovaizdis AP 142; medvaržtis KMD 34; 168 Lina Rutkienė Statybos terminijos dūrinių klasifikacija pagal sintaksinius-semantinius sandų santykius ortarpis MSSA 145; parketplokštė STŽ 388; riboženklis ALKSTŽ 227; stalviršis IPS 89; stogagalis STŽ 583; stoglangis MK 75; stogvamzdis STŽ 585; tiesybvietė STŽ 643; vamzdžiara ketis ALKSTŽ 344; vandenkelis ALKSTŽ 10; vandentakis STŽ 691; vandenvietė ALKSTŽ 185; veidašalmis STŽ 700; vejalentė MSSA 139; vielokaištis ALKSTŽ 84; žvyrkelis STŽ 730. 2) aklidangtis ALKSTŽ 50; akytbetonis STŽ 74; aukštakrosnė STŽ 53; baltmolis ALKSTŽ 18; bendrabutis STŽ 73; dailylentė STŽT 42; dantytkrūjis ALKSTŽ 169; didgalis STŽT 44; didžianamė STŽT 45; drungtroba STŽT 46; drūtgaly s ALKSTŽ 241; geltonžemis STŽ 166; greitaeigė ALKSTŽ 313; greitvietė ALKSTŽ 59; grynaanglis GK 7; gyvatvorė STŽ 169; ilgasriegis STŽ 190; juodgrindės STŽ 227; juodlubės STŽ 228; laibraštis SM 339; laisvatarpis ALKSTŽ 155; plonlentė STŽ 307; raudonmolis STŽ 468; sauskelis MT 3; statr amstis MSSA 149; stor lentė STŽ 307; žaliaplytė ALKSTŽ 42. Compounds of the formation type numeral + noun make up only a small proportion of attributive compounds, for example: 3) dvigegnis STŽ 13; keturb riaunis STŽT 81; keturkojis STŽ 251; keturstubė STŽT 82; tridantis STŽ 255; trikojis STŽ 659; vienratis STŽ 710. Among attributive compounds, the components akla- (akladangtis STŽ 15; aklagatvis ALKSTŽ 304; aklakelis ALKSTŽ 304; aklavamzdis STŽ 16); ketur- (keturkojis STŽ 251; keturšakis ALKSTŽ 89; keturstubė STŽT 82); stog- (stoglangis STŽ 585; stoglatakis ALKSTŽ 168; stoglovis STŽ 585; stogvinė ALKSTŽ 229); vanden- (vandenkelis ALKSTŽ 10; vandenspara STŽ 691; vandentakis STŽ 691; vandentalpa STŽ 692; vandenvietė ALKSTŽ 185). Also noteworthy are variants of some attributive compounds that differ in the connecting vowel (e.g., ardakartė, ardikartė STŽT 19), in the ending, or simply in their unusual formation (e.g., butsanga, butsangė, butangė STŽT 39; klėtsanga, klėtsangė STŽT 89). Object compounds. Object relations obtain when the dependent component denotes a person, thing, or matter toward which the content of the action, state, or property denoted by the head component is directed (following Labutis 1998: 82). Among the defined compounds, as noted, object relations between components characterize 186 compounds. Most of these are 1) noun + verb compounds; a few are 2) compounds of the formation type pronoun + verb. The second component is the head, while the dependent component, which modifies the second, is the first: Terminologija | 2017 | 24 169 1) aplinkostaba STŽ 5; bangolaužis STŽ 70; betonmaišė STŽ 77; betontiekis ALKSTŽ 202; betonkrėtė STŽ 77; cementvežis STŽ 91; darbdavys STŽ 105; dulkėgaudis STŽ 129; dūmlaidis STŽT 48; dumblagaudė STŽ 130; dumblavalė STŽ 130; dūmtraukis SM 90; garalaidė STŽT 53; garotiekis KP 82; gegnešis STŽT 55; grudpilas PRAB 28; gruntatraukė STŽ 183; ižonėšis STŽ 222; lentpjūvė STŽ 308; lytlauža MT 204; medkirtys STŽ 330; medžiagotyra STŽ 334; orpūtė STŽ 374; pulpotiekis STŽ 461; puruogaudė STŽ 463; šaltnėšis ALKSTŽ 218; santvarvežis STŽ 500; šilumnėšis ALKSTŽ 149; skylmušys STŽ 536; smėliagaudė ALKSTŽ 26; smėliapūtė ALKSTŽ 36; strypapjovė STŽ 588; vamzdžiapjovė STŽ 691; vandenskrodis STŽ 691; vandentraukis SBTĮ 11; vejarodis STŽ 700; žaibolaidis ALKSTŽ 75; žemplukė KKG 2; žvyr(a)plovė ALKSTŽ 364. 2) savirašis STŽ 504; savitanka (susitankinimas) STŽ 504; savitrauka STŽ 504; savivartis ALKSTŽ 207. In construction terminology compounds of the formation type pronoun + verb functioning as generic terms always have savi- as their first component. The collected material clearly shows that certain first as well as second components of object compounds are productive. Among the first components, the most productive are nominal components denoting materials or raw materials beton- (betontiekis ALKSTŽ 202; betonkrėtė STŽ 77; betonvežis ALKSTŽ 207); dumbl(i)a- (dumblagaudė STŽ 130; dumblasiurbė STŽ 130; dumblavalė STŽ 130; dumbliagramdė STŽ 130); vanden- (vandenskyra ALKSTŽ 111; vandensvaidis ALKSTŽ 160; vandentraukis SBTĮ 11); žem- (žemkasė ALKSTŽ 160; žemlipė KKG 2; žemsemė ALKSTŽ 37; žemsiurbė STŽ 724). Among the second components, the most productive are verbal components denoting active actions: -matis (vėjomatis STŽ 700; vandenmatis STŽ 691; triukšmamatis ALKSTŽ 220; sukiamatis STŽ 594; slėgmatis STŽ 322; kuramatis STŽ 294); -gaudė (dumblagaudė STŽ 130; žvyr(a)gaudė STŽ 729; smėliagaudė ALKSTŽ 26); -tiekis (vandentiekis STŽ 692; šilumotiekis STŽ 614; pulptiekis ALKSTŽ 247); -traukis (dūmatraukis STŽT 47; viniatraukis ALKSTŽ 60; vandentraukis STŽ 692); -vežis (cementvežis STŽ 91; betonvežis ALKSTŽ 207; šilumvežis STŽ 614). Adverbial compounds. The adverbial relations expressed by the dependent member are varied in meaning. They characterize the content of the “expressed by the head component…” 170 Lina Rutkienė Statybos terminijos dūrinių klasifikacija pagal sintaksinius-semantinius sandų santykius …the space or time of existence, the manner or extent of manifestation, the cause of occurrence, the condition, or the purpose” (Balkevičius 1998: 41). In the construction publications examined, 26 compounds were found whose constituents are related by adverbial relations. These compounds belong to the following formation types: 1) noun + verb, 2) adverb + noun, 3) adverb + verb: 1) garvežys STŽ 162 ‘moves by means of a steam engine’ (the first constituent elliptically indicates how the object named by the second constituent is propelled); 2) pusgaminis STŽ 463 ‘semi-finished product’; pusmišinis STŽ 465 ‘semi-mixture’; visureigis STŽ 716 ‘that goes everywhere.’ 3) greitaveika STŽ 174 ‘to act quickly’; pusiausvyra STŽ 463 ‘to tilt halfway.’ The position of the head and dependent constituents in adverbial construction-terminology compounds can vary. The examples show that when the second constituent is verbal (garvežys, greitaveika, pusiausvyra), the first member is the modifier. When the second constituent is nominal, the second member is the modifier (pusmišinis, pusgaminis). Only the adverbial first constituent pus- (half-pusmišinis STŽ 465; pusfabrikatis ALKSTŽ 216) is productive; the other constituents either do not recur or recur too infrequently for general conclusions to be drawn. Completive compounds. The head constituent of completive compounds (a noun, adjective, numeral, or adverb) denotes the extent of the denotatum, while its semantic content is revealed by the dependent constituent, which in transformation becomes a genitive noun (Balkevičius 1998: 42). Approximately as many such compounds were found as adverbial ones—25. In all of them, the head constituent is the first, defined by the second; this first constituent is either an adv. many or a noun: half: many-axled STŽ 107; polygon ALKSTŽ 257; many-branched ALKSTŽ 144; half-truss ALKSTŽ 297; mezzanine STŽ 463; half-column STŽ 464; semi-trailer STŽ 464; half-margin STŽ 464; half-arch ALKSTŽ 297; half-slope STŽ 464; half-strut STŽ 464. All compounds functioning as generic construction terms were found only in the 1993 and 2002 construction terminology dictionaries. In older publications, for example in Valdemaras Michalauskas’s 1978 dictionary of construction terms, which records terms from the spoken language, only adjectives formed in this way are listed (e.g., many-walled STŽT 43), while no nouns were observed. Examination of still more sources and examples will make it possible to confirm or refute the idea that completive compounds functioning as generic terms… Terminologija | 2017 | 24 171 terms is a relatively recent phenomenon in terminology. Moreover, a more detailed analysis should be carried out in the future of completive and adverbial compounds whose first constituent is pus-, since the boundary between these compounds is a matter of debate. Comparative formations. Comparative relations between constituents are the rarest of all. Such relations hold between the constituents of a compound which, when transformed into a phrase or when its derivational meaning is identified, yields a head element with the comparative particle “like”: like: earthworm-wheel ALKSTŽ 370 ‘a wheel like a (crawling) earthworm’; mill-wing STŽ 322 ‘wings like those of a mill’; crossroad STŽ 291 ‘a road like a cross’. Although these compounds, too, were found only in the 1993 and 2002 construction terminology dictionaries, there are too few of them (only the three mentioned were found) to hypothesize that comparative compounding is a new way of expanding terminology. COMPOUND DETERMINATIVE COMPOUNDS In the construction-related texts examined, 38 appositional compounds functioning as generic construction terms were found. The constituents of appositional compounds are equally independent and do not define one another. They all represent the formation type noun + noun. Geert Booij notes that appositional compounds form a special class of compounds because both constituents of these compounds are heads (Booij 2007). Their word-formation meaning is the sum of the meanings of their constituents. Appositional compounds were found only in texts specializing in construction materials, which show that these compounds denote materials whose two main components are named by the constituents of the compound in question, e.g.: gelžbetonis SM 242 (iron + concrete); medbetonis ALKSTŽ 75 (wood + concrete); plienbetonis STŽ 421 (steel + concrete); putbetonis STŽ 465 (foam + concrete); putsilikatis SM 278 (foam + silicate); sierbetonis STŽ 511 (sulfur + concrete); stiklaplastikis DP 282 (glass + plastic), stiklobetonis ALKSTŽ 162 (glass + concrete); žvyrbetonis ALKSTŽ 72 (gravel + concrete). As the examples show, many appositional compounds share the same second constituent, -betonis. The construction term betonas denotes one of the most important construction materials; efforts are continually made to improve its properties and make it more aesthetically pleasing. It is therefore understandable that many compounds in construction terminology are formed with this noun—not only appositional compounds, but also, as mentioned, object compounds (betontiekis ALKSTŽ 202; betonmaišė STŽ 77; betonkrėtė STŽ 77), as well as attributive compounds (betoninė STŽ 77; akmenbetonis STŽ 74; akytbetonis STŽ 74). 172 Lina Rutkienė Statybos terminijos dūrinių klasifikacija pagal sintaksinius-semantinius sandų santykius CONCLUSIONS 1. In foreign linguistics, compounds are commonly examined from a syntactic-semantic perspective, and various classifications have been developed based on syntactic-semantic relations between compound constituents. In Lithuanian linguistics, compounds are generally divided from a syntactic-semantic perspective only into determinative and appositional compounds. This classification can be expanded by subdividing determinative compounds further, taking into account the diversity of semantic relations between their constituents. An examination of the relations between the constituents of compounds functioning as generic construction terms established that five types of relations are possible between the constituents of the determinative compounds mentioned above: attributive, objective, adverbial, completive, and comparative. However, with regard to ordinary compounds (not terms), it should be noted that their classification according to semantic-syntactic relations between constituents should not be limited to these five groups (further research is needed to establish the relations between the constituents of ordinary compounds). 2. The study revealed that in construction terminology, the second constituent is the head in attributive, objective, and comparative compounds; in adverbial compounds, either the first or the second may be the head; and in completive compounds, the first constituent is always the head. 3. Attributive compounds make up the largest group of determinative compounds: 379 were found in construction-related sources. A total of 186 compounds functioning as generic construction terms were recorded in the objective group, 26 in the adverbial group, and 25 in the completive group. Comparative compounds functioning as generic construction terms make up the smallest group: only 3 such terms were recorded. Perhaps a more detailed semantic analysis in future research will clarify the boundary distinguishing completive and adverbial compounds whose first constituent is pus-. 4. The study showed that all groups contain larger or smaller sets of related terms sharing the same constituent. The constituents akla-, beton-, daug-, dumbl(i)a-, ketur-, -matis, pus-, -tiekis, -traukis, savi-. stand out for their productivity. 5. Relatively few appositional compounds functioning as construction terms were found compared with determinative compounds—38. They all occur in texts specializing in construction materials, and denote composite construction materials. ŠALTINIAI ALKSTŽ – Anglų–lietuvių kalbų statybos terminų žodynas. Atsak. red. A. Kudzys, Vilnius: Technika, 1993. AP – Gaudutis E., Parasonis J., Šipalis J. Aukštybiniai pastatai, Vilnius: Technika, 2008. Terminologija | 2017 | 24 173 BRGKP – Juocevičius V. Bendrieji reikalavimai gelžbetoninių konstrukcijų projektavimui pagal euronormas, Vilnius: Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universitetas, 2007. DP – Zaliekienė E. Degimo procesai, Vilnius: Technika, 2009. GK – Grinkevičius S. Geležinės konstrukcijos, Kaunas: Akc. „Spindulio“ B-vės spaustuvė, 1933. IPS – Kizinievič O., Žurauskienė R. Inovatyvios polimerinės statybinės medžiagos ir dirbiniai, Vilnius: Technika, 2012. KKG – Kaip ir iš ko galima statyti pigius ir tvermingus ūkio trobesius. Iš rusų k. vertė J. Bražinskas, Vilnius, 1910. KMD – Gailius A. Kompozicinės medžiagos ir dirbiniai energetiškai efektyvių pastatų statybai, Vilnius: Technika, 2012. KP – Pavaras A. Konstrukciniai plienai, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1978. MK – Vaitkevičius V. Metalinės konstrukcijos, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1984. MS – Reisonas K. Molio statyba, Kaunas: Žemės ūkio rūmų leidinys, 1928. MSSA– Spelskis A. Miestų sodybinės statybos architektūra, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1955. MT – Grinkevičius S. Mediniai tiltai, Kaunas: Akc. „Spindulio“ B-vės spaustuvė, 1929. PRAB – Perlojos RKB aukų bažnyčios statybai rinkimo apskaitos knyga. 1909–1927 m. Perlojos Švč. Mergelės Marijos ir Šv. Pranciškaus Asyžiečio Romos katalikų bažnyčia, 1927. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.epaveldas.lt/object/recordDescription/ARCH/1592/1/19. SBTĮ – Statybos ir butų tvarkymo įstatymai, taisyklės. Parengė K. Zubauskas, Kaunas, 1922. SM – Ščesnulevičius S. Statybinės medžiagos, Vilnius: Mintis, 1966. SPGMS – Lakiūnas G. Statybinių plieno gaminių mažasis sortimentas, Kaunas: Technologija, 1992. STŽ – Statybos terminų žodynas. Parengė A. Kudzys, A. Rosenas, B. Kudzienė, Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslas, 2002. STŽ – Michalauskas V. Statybos terminų žodynas. Trobesiai, Vilnius: Vilniaus inžinerinis statybos institutas, 1978. LITERATŪRA Auksoriūtė A. 2016: Lietuviški blakių pobūrio vardai. – Terminologija 23, 175–194. Balkevičius J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos predikatinių konstrukcijų sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Booij G. 2002: The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology. 2nd Edition, New York: Oxford University Press Inc. DLKG 1997: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Gaivenis K. 1994: Technikos terminijos norminimo mažmožiai. – Terminologijos vagos 1, 32–40. Gaivenis K. 1998: Apie dvi lietuviškų sudurtinių terminų serijas su tais pačiais sanda(i)s. – Lituanistica 2(34), 98–102. Gritenienė A. 2006: Augalų pavadinimų motyvacija šiaurės panevėžiškių patarmėje. Monografija, Vilnius: Logotipas. Jarmalavičius D. 2014: Vokiečių kalbos dūrinių daryba XV–XVIII a. rankraštiniuose dvikalbiuose baltų kalbų žodynuose. Daktaro disertacija, Vilniaus universitetas. Kačinaitė D. 2008: Lietuvių sudurtinių oronimų darybos bruožai. – Baltistica 43, 275–288. Kaulakienė A. 1981: Sudurtiniai vertiniai lietuvių politechnikos terminijoje. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai, A serija 1(74), 73–83. Kaulakienė A. 1986: Elektrokal(t)kalvis ar šaltkalvis elektrikas? – Vakarinės naujienos, birželio 2. Kaulakienė A. 1993: Mikrobanginis ar mikrobangis prietaisas? – Kalbos kultūra 65, 81–82. Keinys St. 1967: Dėl sudurtinių terminų darybos. – Mokslas ir technika 4, 58. Keinys St. 1983: Lietuviškų sudurtinių terminų daryba. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 22. Lietuvių kalbos specialioji leksika, 70–123. Keinys St. 2005: Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Labutis V. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Larsson J. 2003: Studies in Baltic Word Formation, University of Copenhagen. MacGregor L. J., Shtyrov Y. 2013: Multiple routes for compound word processing in the brain: evidence from EEG. – Brain and Language 126(2), 217–229. 174 Lina Rutkienė | Statybos terminijos dūrinių klasifikacija pagal sintaksinius-semantinius sandų santykius Marchand H. 1969: The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation. A Synchronic-diachronic Approach, Munich: Beck. Schlücker B. 2012: Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache. Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte, Berlin, New York: De Gruyter (= Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 46). Stunžinas R. 2004: Sudurtiniai elektrotechnikos terminijos būdvardžiai. – Terminologija 11, 52–69. Sviderskienė D. 2017: Sudurtinių Marijampolės apskrities helonimų motyvacija. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 75, 243–274. Prieiga per internetą: http://lki.lt/acta-linguistica-lithuanica-75. Urbutis V. 1961: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sudurtinių daiktavardžių daryba. – Dabartinė lietuvių kalba, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 65–121. Urbutis V. 2009: Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Zemlevičiūtė P. 2016: XVII–XVIII amžiaus Mažosios Lietuvos žodynų terminologinė medicinos leksika. Monografija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Аракин В. Д. 2005: Сравнительная типология английского и русского языков. Учеб. пособ., Москва: Физматлит. Виноградов В. В. 1960: Грамматика русского языка. В 2-х томах, Москва: Издательство Академии Наук СССР. Земская Л. С. 2011: Современный русский язык. Словообразование. Учеб. пособ., Москва: Флинта. Языкознание. Большой энциклопедический словарь. Гл. ред. В. Н. Ярцева, Москва: Большая Российская энциклопедия, 1998. CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID COMPOUNDS IN TERMINOLOGY OF CONSTRUCTION ACCORDING TO SEMANTIC-SYNTACTIC RELATION OF COMPONENTS The rapid development and globalization of science as well as formation of language varieties related to professional activities, the main layer of which is terminology, makes research into terminology very important. There is a noticeable tendency in recent years to create compounds which adhere to the principles of language economy, precision of naming, monosomy and logicality perfectly well. Compounds are researched in various aspects including semantics, word-formation, motivation, origin and standardization. One of the most popular aspects was the morphological aspect of research, which prevailed in the works of Lithuanian linguists of the first half of 20th century. This aspect is closely related to word-formation and its essence is the understanding of a compound as a combination of morphemes. This point of view is still predominant in Lithuanian linguistics. For instance, in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika (Grammar of Modern Lithuanian) compounds are classified firstly according to the parts of speech from which their components are derived. In foreign linguistics it is common to research compounds from the semantic-syntactic point of view; there are various classifications based on semantic-syntactic relationship of components of compounds. In Lithuanian linguistics the analysis of solid compounds from the semantic-syntactic point of view is less frequent. Usually compounds are classified into subordinated and copulative compounds without going into more detailed research of the relations between components of subordinated compounds. This paper researches solid compounds from semantic-syntactic point of view. Solid compounds in Lithuanian terminology of construction have been selected as the object of research; due to their abundance and tendencies of development, these terms can to a certain extent represent general regularities of the development of Lithuanian solid compounds. After an overview of the semantic-syntactic typology of compounds by foreign researchers and the point of view in Lithuanian linguistics in regard to re- Terminologija | 2017 | 24 175 lations between components of solid compounds, the paper presents a more detailed analysis of relations between components of compounds which function as generic terms in the terminology of construction. It is suggested to widen semantic-syntactic classification and to classify subordinated compounds further taking into account the variety of relations between components. The suggested semantic-syntactic classification would be less formal and wide than morphological and in addition it would focus less on the second component of the compound (as is common in morphological classification). The research revealed that the second component is the main component in attributive compounds, object-denoting compounds and comparative compounds, whereas adverbial compounds can have either the first or the second component as the main component and in amount-denoting compounds the main component is always the first. The analysis of relations between components of solid compounds which are generic terms of construction showed that there could be five types of relations between components of these determinative compounds: attributive, object-denoting, adverbial, amount-denoting and comparative. Attributive compounds make the largest group of determinative compounds – there were 379 such compounds found in 22 sources. Among the generic terms of construction researched there were also 186 object-denoting compounds, 26 adverbial and 25 amount-denoting compounds. The comparative compounds make the smallest group – only 3 such terms were found. The research also revealed that in all groups there is a certain number of terms having the same main component. The most productive components are akla-, beton-, daug-, dumbl(i)a-, ketur-, -matis, pus-, -tiekis, -traukis, savi-. In comparison with subordinated compounds, copulative compounds are rather rare – 38 terms were found. All such compounds were found in texts about construction materials and they name composite materials. Gauta 2017-11-03 Lina Rutkienė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universitetas Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected] 176 Lina Rutkienė Statybos terminijos dūrinių klasifikacija pagal sintaksinius-semantinius sandų santykius