Acta Linguistica Lithuanica
LXI (2009), 157–163
Santraukos
Summaries
MARIA TERESA ADEMOLLO GAGLIANO,
FRANCESCO PAOLO PARDINI
Lietuvių kalbos ‚maitinimo‘ terminai
Šiame straipsnyje, pradedant nuo žodžio menys (‚apeigos prie mirusio‘), veikiausiai kilusio iš veiksmažodžio šérti ‚duoti gyvuliui (visų naminiams keturkojams) ėsti‘ analizės, tiek diachroniniu ir istoriniu, tiek sinchroniniu požiūriu tyrinėjamos pagrindinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių ir daiktavardžių formos, kurių reikšmė yra ‚maitinti‘ ir ‚maistas‘ ( šérti
, , bei juos atitinkančios daiktavardžių formos pãšaras , pẽnas , žodynuose ir, sprendžiant iš vedinio
). Šérti – (XVI–XVII a.) aptinkamas tik buvimo, veikiausiai buvo vartojamas dar prieš dokumentinius šaltinius; todėl manytina, kad tai senesnė už baltų epochą veiksmažodžio forma bei veikiausiai pati seniausia lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio forma, turinti reikšmę ‚maitinti‘; dažnai aptinkamas tiek XVI–XVII a. tekstuose, tiek ir žodynuose ir susijęs tiek su žmonėmis, tiek su gyvuliais (taip pat reikšme ‚nupenėti‘),yra atsiradęs baltų epochoje; maitinti
– XVI–XVII a. aptinkamas tik žodynuose, panašiai kaip ir veiksmažodis šérti , ir siejamas tiek su žmonėmis, tiek su gyvuliais, šiuo metu tai labiausiai paplitusi ir pati bendriausia veiksmažodžio forma, turinti reikšmę
‚maitinti (žmones ir gyvulius)‘, kuri veikiausiai nėra senesnė už lietuvių epochą. Daiktavardinė forma pãšaras
, XVI–XVII a. aptinkama tiek tekstuose, tiek žodynuose, ji susijusi išimtinai su gyvuliais, todėl priskirtina baltų epochai; formos pẽnas ir – aptinkamos XVI–XVII amžiuje (pirmoji – tekstuose ir žodynuose, antroji – tik žodynuose), jos susijusios ir su žmonėmis, ir su gyvuliais, todėl neturėtų būti senesnės už lietuvių epochą. Kitos šiuo metu šiai semantinei sričiai priklausančios veiksmažodžių ir daiktavardžių formos dažniausiai neturi atitikmenų, vadinasi nėra senesnės už lietuvių epochą. Jeigu šios formos turi atitikmenų, tai jie greičiausiai yra poligenezės rezultatas. Šios terminologijos padėtis kitose baltų kalbose neabejotinai yra naujesnė už lietuvių.
ASTA BALČIŪNIENĖ
The segmentation of the Lithuanian subjunctive forms: a problem of synchronic morphology
The morphological segmentation of the Lithuanian subjective mood forms from a synchronic point of view is a problem for which no satisfactory solution has been proposed until now. The basic question is whether the subjunctive mood markers can be reduced to one morpheme with several morphophonological variants, or whether several allomorphs should be recognised.
The article discusses the views hitherto presented in the literature (Paulauskienė, VAleckienė, the Academy Grammar and the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian ).
The author points out that the synchronic analysis would be better served by positing a phonetically alternating t -/č
- (<* tj ) suffix. This would simplify the rules for derivation of the subjunctive forms. The assumption that there are two allomorphs, čia
-and – tų
/tum -, is more in agreement with diachronic analysis but poses morphophonological problems, as both the 2nd person eitum and the 3rd person eitų would have to be described as containing zero endings, which leaves the phonetic divergence unaccounted for.

GINA KAVALIŪNAITĖ
Rimties vietininkai Bretkūno ir kituose XVI –
XVII amžiaus lietuviškuose tekstuose
Straipsnyje analizuojama rimties vietininkų vartosena XVI–XVII amžiaus lietuviškuose tekstuose
(rašytuose Daukšos, Chylinskio, Bretkūno). Inesyvo ir adesyvo distribuciją lemia gyvumo hierarchijoje užimama vietovardžio vieta: vardažodžiai, gyvumo hierarchijoje užimantys aukštą vietą, turi tik adesyvo formą, o negyvų daiktų pavadinimai – tik inesyvo. Tokios nevienalytės frazės kaip žmogup atgimditame (DP) aiškiai rodo, kad abu šiuos linksnius sieja komplementarinės distribucijos santykis. Pasirodė, kad Bretkūno kalba šiuo požiūriu skiriasi nuo amžininkų: jis vienintelis vartojo 1 asmens inesyvą manyje (greta adesyvo manipi ). Jis abejojo rinkdamasis tarp musui ir musip ( i ), jusui ir jusip ( i ) bei saveie ir savip ( i ) ir šias formas dažnai taisė. Greta įprastos inesyvo formos jame
, Bretkūnas vartojo ir jamyje
(pagal analogiją tavyje , savyje ?). Straipsnyje teigiama, kad tokius inesyvus kaip manyje , Dieveie (vietoj Dievipi
) etc. Bretkūnas sukūrė ad hoc .
Matyt, panašiai Bretkūnas vartojo ir inesyvą jamyje , sukurtą kaip atsvarą įprastam jame .
KRISTINA LENARTAITĖ
Diathetic alternations in different theoretical frameworks
The article presents a brief overview of the treatment of diathetic alternations, such as active vs. passive alternation, applicative alternation, locative ( spray / load ) alternation, dative alternation
( dative shift ) etc., in a number of different theoretical frameworks. These frameworks can be divided into two groups: (i) constructional approaches (Goldbergʼs Constructional Grammar and
Iwataʼs Lexical-Constructional Approach); and (ii) other grammatical theories, i. e. Generative
Grammar, Relational Grammar, and the so-called Lexical Rule Analyses (Lexical-Fuctional
Grammar, Levin & rappaport Hovavʼs and Pinkerʼs approaches). The main difference between these two groups of approaches is their recognition or rejection of the derivational view of diathetic alternations. In Generative and Relational Grammar as well as in the Lexical Rule approaches, derivational processes are assumed at different levels: at the syntactic level in generative and relational approaches and at the semantical leveli n the Lexical Rule approaches; in the latter, two lexical-semantic representations are allowed to be derivationally related only indirectly, through lexical rules. Lexical Rule approaches are thus monostratal from the point of view of syntactic representations, whereas generative and relational approaches are multistratal. Thus, the term
‘derivational’ as a cover term for these divergent approaches calls for certain reservations.
Derivational approaches face many challenges, such as accounting for the direction of derivation etc. In comparing generative and relational approaches with the constructional model it is hard to find common elements, whereas the Lexical Rule models can be compared to constructional approaches in that (i) both look for a common basis underlying different representations at the semantic level and recognise only monostratal syntactic realisations, and (ii) both assign different meanings to alternating realisations (though in the Lexical Rule models meaning is associated with a particular verb whereas in the constructional approaches meanings are associated with different constructions enabling different realisations). In principle, the difference between them is accounted for by the fact that in the Lexical Rule approaches the lexical-semantic representations of alternating structures are systematically related through lexical rules, whereas in the constructional models different syntactic representations are related merely to the same verb, whose role, however, is severely restricted under the constructional approaches. It is clear, then, that the phenomena in question cannot be seen as diathetic alternations when viewed from the perspective of constructional models. The final part of the article present certain considerations in favour of the derivational view, based mainuly on Shaumyan’s Universal Applicative Grammar and on Mel’čuk’s ideas on the nption of voice.

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS
Copular constructions and their grammatical context
In an attempt at providing a maximally adequate classification of copular constructions, this article singles out and discusses the syntactic and semantic aspects of these constructions that are relevant to their classification. As has become customary in the literature, copular constructions are contrasted with other constructions based on the verb ‘beʼ. This entails discussing together the existential and locative constructions, the now archaic possessive construction of the ‘mihi estʼ type and the possessive ‘belongʼ- construction; attention is also paid to active perfect and passive perfect and imperfect constructions with predicative participles, as these can occasionally be interpreted as copular.
At the start, it is pointed out that the verbo-centric clause model advocated in dependency grammar affords little hope for an adequate classification of copular constructions because of the semantic poverty of verb ‘beʼ. Without the semantic support of a nominal predicate or a predicative modifier this verb is frequently unable to Express an autonomous sentential predication. Apparent exceptions are those of existential constructions and possessive ‘mihi estʼ constructions, but even here the semantic interpretation is highly dependent on the characteristic word order proper to the construction and on the corresponding pattern of unmarked topic-comment structure. When the predicative verbʼs need foe complementation results not from its lexical meaning but from the lack of such a meaning, its syntactic frame (or argument structure) cannot be predicted from verbal semantics. In other words, a semantically deficient verb cannot betreated as a semantic functor. The dependency relations between the verb and the remaining elements are not sufficiently differentiated to underly a typological classification. In some cases the typological parallels established in the course of such asemantic analysis may even be at odds with the function the construction performs, and thus obscure its typological character. For instance, one could be tempted to describe the possessive ‘belongʼ- construction as a variety of the locative construction. It is intuitively clear that the ‘lexical meaningʼ of the verb būti can be articulated only in connection with the function of the whole construction. This function determines the configuration of syntactic entities characteristic of the construction and the semantic character of the verbʼs complements.
Thus, if notion of dependency is at all applicable in such constructions, it would be more accurate to speak of an interdependence.
The question arises, of course, whether a classification of copular and related constructions can be based on the lexical meanings of the verb ‘beʼ if we are unable to define this meaning in isolation from the construction. It is to the possibility of articulating the meanings which the verb
‘beʼ has or acquires in the individual constructions that the second section of this article is devoted.
As our analysis show, it is only in such constructions as
Stalčiuje
/ prie knygos yra sąsiuvinis
‘There is a copy-book in the drawer/next to the bookʼ and
Vaikui yra sloga/ temperatūros ‘The child has a cold/a temperatureʼ that we can ascribe to it the relatively autonomous meaning of ‘existenceʼ. But that is about the only element the two constructions have in common. In fact, only the first construction is adapted to the purposes of existential propositions (and therefore accurately call existential), whereas the function of the second is to predicate a possessive relationship (and is therefore accurately classified as possessive). A certain ‘structuralʼ meaning of ‘identityʼ could be ascribed to all three varieties of the copular construction (
Jonas yra liūdnas
‘John is sadʼ, Jonas yra mokytojas ‘John is a teacherʼ,
Jonas yra tas mokytojas, kuris mums įdiegė meilę gimtajai kalbai
‘John is the teacher who instilled in us love of our native languageʼ). The essence of the term
‘copulaʼ, used to describe the verb used in these constructions, is the statement of an identity between two entities. The possibility of singling out a specific meaning proper to copular verbs is

also suggested by an analysis of alternative interpretations of this verbʼs combinations with predicative participles. When the participle gets a dynamic inetrpretation, the verb ‘beʼ aquires the features of an auxiliary verb (neutral with respect to perfectivity/imperfectivity distinctions). If, on the other hand, the participle is interpreted statively, the verb becomes a copula, with the imperfective semantics proper to it. Locative consructions ( Sąsiuvinis yra stalčiuje / prie knygos ‘The copy-book is in the drawer/next to the bookʼ), and possessive ‘belongʼ-constructions (
Ši kepurė yra
Antano ‘This cap is Anthonyʼsʼ), the verb can be characterised as locational or possessive respectively, according to the semantic nature of the complemen (which reflects the function of the consruction), but such a ‘lexicalʼ definition is both ad hoc and uninformative, and therefore yields little for the classification of these constructions. The situation is admittedly somewhat better in the case of the locative construction: with regard to the obvious common ontology of existential and locative consructions the latter verb could be viewed as an instance of a more general meaning of
‘localised existenceʼ.
The complements tell us much more about the nature of the constructions under discussion than the verb itself. It is on these complements that attention is focused in the third section of the article, which deals with the classification of copular construction. As long as the emphasis is on the structural function of the verb used in copular constructions (the statement of identity between two entities), we can regard all of them as instances o fone common identity archetipe. A large portion of the sentences representing this archetipe consists of copular sentences with predicative adjectives. Because of their inherently relational character, adjectives are predisposed toward the predicative function, so that their ability of expressing the main predication in copular constructions is not subject to doubt. As in sentences of this type the adjective assigns a feature to the subject referent, the type of copular constructions subsuming them can deservedly be called ascriptive.
Copular constructions with predicative nouns either express the inclusion of the subject referent into a larger class of referents (defined by the predicative noun), or an equative relationship between the referents of the subject and the predicate nominal, according to the referential properties of the latter. Unlike adjectives, nouns are not predisposed toward the predicative function because of their inherently referential nature. They acquire this function by virtue of occupying the postverbal
(predicative) position in a copular structure. In such a construction, the relation of identity is predicated between the subject referent and a predicate nominal referen conceived as an indefinite
(freely chosen) or definite instantiation of a certain type. In other words, a predicate nominal with specific reference inevitably points to the type description it represents and so it is relational in character, which enables it to express a predicative relationship just as the adjective does. All copular constructions with predicative nouns can be subsumed under the type of identity constructions, and their varieties expressing inclusion or equation can be described as subtypes instantiating the common type. In the third section of the article attention is also paid to those copular sentences in which the position of predicate nominali s occupied by a proper name. All these sentences can be classified either with the equative, or with the inclusive subtype.
In the closing part of section three, the above assumption that all copular constructions can be regarded as instances of a common structural archetipe, dedicated to the expression of the identity of two entities, is argued in greater depth. Without this common semantic element, the different copular constructions with their common structure but divergent purposes could at best be described as homonymous. The element of ‘identityʼ is easily traceable in inclusive, and still easier in equative constructions with predicative nouns. But in ascriptive copular constructions as well, the ascription of a feature to the subject referent is achieved through the statement of a relation of identity, with the sole difference that one of the terms of this relation is the referento of the noun implied by the predicative adjective, instantiated not in reality, but in the mental sphere of implications. Thus, copular constructions, in contradistinction to other constructions based on the verb ‘beʼ, can be generally characterised as constructions expressing identity. This common meaning uniting copular constructions does not preclude their functional differentiation, which

depends essentially on the semantic and/or referential properties of the predicatives occurring in them.