VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

Dana Šven čionien ÷

THE ENGLISH AND LITHUANIAN SYNTACTIC PREDICATES AND THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC REALIZATION IN TECHNICAL TEXTS

SUMMARY OF DOCTORAL DISSERTATION

HUMANITIES, PHILOLOGY (Linguistics 04 H)

Kaunas, 2009

1

The research was accomplished in the period from 2005 to 2008 at Kaunas University of Technology.

Research supervisor: Prof. habil. dr. Vitas Labutis (Vilnius University, Humanities, Philology, Linguistics 04 H) (in the period from 2005 to 2009)

Procedure consultant: Dr. Violeta Kal ÷dait ÷ (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Philology, Linguistics 04H) (in the period from 2008 to 2009)

The dissertation defence is held at the Scientific Board (branch of linguistics), Vytautas Magnus University .

Chairperson: Prof. habil. dr. Ineta Dabašinskien ÷ (Humanities, Philology, Linguistics (04 H), Vytautas Magnus University)

Members:

Dr. Jūrat ÷ Ruzait ÷ (Humanities, Philology, Linguistics (04 H), Vytautas Magnus University) Prof. dr. Axel Holvoet (Humanities, Philology, Linguistics (04H), Institute of the Lithuanian Language) Prof. habil. dr. Olegas Poliakovas (Humanities, Philology, Linguistics (04 H), Vilnius University) Doc. dr. Jolanta Vaskelien ÷ (Humanities, Philology, Linguistics (04 H), Šiauliai University)

Official opponents:

Prof. habil. dr. Aurelija Usonien ÷ (Humanities, Philology, Linguistics (04 H), Vilnius University) Prof. habil. dr. Aloyzas Gudavi čius (Humanities, Philology, Linguistics (04 H) Šiauliai University)

Language editor:

Dr. Carys Lloyd Jones (Education science (07 S), Philology (04 H), University of London, United Kingdom)

The defence session is to be held at 12 a.m. on 23 October 2009 at the public meeting of the Council of Philological Sciences of Vytautas Magnus University and the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in the room of Prof. M. Gimbutien ÷, at the Central Building of Vytautas Magnus University. Address: K.Donelaitis str. 52. LT-44246, Kaunas, Lithuania. Phone: (8 37) 32 78 30, fax: (8 37) 20 38 58

The summary of the dissertation was mailed on September 23, 2009. The dissertation is available at the M. Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania and the Library of the Institute of Lithuanian Language in Vilnius, as well as in the Libraries of Vytautas Magnus University and Kaunas University of Technology in Kaunas.

2

VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS LIETUVI Ų KALBOS INSTITUTAS KAUNO TECHNOLOGIJOS UNIVERSITETAS

Dana Šven čionien ÷

ANGL Ų IR LIETUVI Ų KALB Ų SINTAKSINIAI PREDIKATAI IR J Ų MORFO SINTAKSINIS REALIZAVIMAS TECHNINIUOSE TEKSTUOSE

Daktaro disertacijos santrauka Humanitariniai mokslai, filologija (04 H)

Kaunas, 2009

3

Disertacija rengta 2005–2008 metais Kauno technologijos universitete.

Disertacija ginama eksternu.

Mokslinis vadovas:

Prof. habil. dr. Vitas Labutis (Vilniaus Universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filologija 04 H) (konsultavo 2005–2009 m. m. )

Mokslin ÷ konsultant ÷:

Doc. dr. Violeta Kal ÷dait ÷ (Vytauto Didžiojo Universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filologija 04 H) (2008–2009 m. m.).

Disertacija ginama Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto ir Lietuvi ų kalbos instituto mokslo taryboje (filologijos kryptis).

Pirminink ÷:

Prof. habil. dr. Ineta Dabašinskien ÷ (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filologija 04 H)

Nariai:

Dr. Jūrat ÷ Ruzait ÷ (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filologija 04 H) Prof. dr. Axel Holvoet (Lietuvi ų kalbos institutas, humanitariniai mokslai, filologija 04 H) Prof. habil. dr. Olegas Poliakovas (Vilniaus universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filologija 04 H) Doc. dr. Jolanta Vaskelien ÷ (Šiauli ų universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filologija 04 H)

Oponentai:

Prof. habil. dr. Aurelija Usonien ÷ (humanitariniai mokslai, filologija – 04 H, Vilniaus universitetas) Prof. habil. dr. Aloyzas Gudavi čius (humanitariniai mokslai, filologija – 04 H, Šiauli ų universitetas).

Kalbos redaktor ÷:

Dr. Carys Lloyd Jones (Edukologija (07 S), filologija (04 H), Londono universitetas, Jungtin ÷ Karalyst ÷)

Disertacija bus ginama viešame Filologijos mokslo krypties tarybos pos ÷dyje 2009 m. spalio 23 d. (penktadien į) 12 val. Prof. M. Gimbutien ÷s auditorijoje. Adresas: K.Donelai čio 52, LT-44246, Kaunas, Lietuva. Tel.: (8 37) 32 78 30, faksas: (8 37) 20 38 58.

Disertacijos santrauka išsiuntin ÷ta 2009 m. rugs ÷jo men. 23 d. Disertacij ą galima perži ūr÷ti Nacionalin ÷je M Mažvydo bibliotekoje, Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto ir Lietuvi ų kalbos instituto bibliotekose bei Kauno Technologijos universiteto bibliotekoje.

4 INTRODUCTION

The translation from the English language into Lithuanian has been and will always be of great significance. It is especially topical nowadays when the European Union is expanding. The English language is important not only for communities who use it as the means of communication, but for international communication as well. The Lithuanian language is important for its users to preserve the culture and traditions as well as being the backbone of the nation’s identity. The significance of the Lithuanian language has been especially appreciated within diachronic comparative linguistics, typological linguistics, general linguistics and social linguistics. It is useful to observe how the Lithuanian language conforms to contemporary living and culture and how it realizes the potency hidden in the language system. The focus of the thesis. The chosen focus of the study is the syntactic predicate (hereinafter SP) and its morphosyntactic realization in technical texts in the English and Lithuanian languages. The study presents the basic notions of linguistic terms related to the concept of predicate used in English and Lithuanian grammars. Modern English grammar books often use the term predicate in more than one sense: the predicate is considered to be either one of the essential parts of a sentence (Onions, 1971: 4; Burton–Roberts, 1998: 35) or the grammatical centre of a sentence with its semantic units that the remaining syntactic elements of the structure ( construction ) can depend on (Jacobs, 1995: 12; Huddleston, Pullum, 2002: 50). The concept predicate (V) with the first meaning used in English grammars corresponds to what is defined by the concept tarinys predicate in the studies of Lithuanian syntax. Thus in order to compare the concept of predicate in both languages the modifier syntactic has to be added to the traditional concept of predicate (V) used in English linguistics. The concept predicate generally refers to predication . In modern Lithuanian linguistics, the concept predication is rather diverse and even ambivalent. Predication is treated as a general relationship of the sentence content with fact or reality and is expressed by the categories of modality, tense and person (Balkevi čius, 1963: 17). This sense of predication refers to the relationship between the subject and the predicate (Sirtautas, Grenda, 1988: 17; Ambrazas, red., 1996: 487; Labutis, 2002: 100). In a general sense, predication is regarded as a speech–act (Mork ūnas, 1999: 495, 496). Predicativity of a sentence is closely related to the grammatical categories of a verb that express tense, modality, mood, and convey the meaning. The verb forms of SP that organize English interrogative and negative sentences, conjugated verb forms with the participle, gerund or infinitive (aspect, voice, reflexivity, modal verbs with the infinitive or participle), the verb forms of be with the participle in the Lithuanian language (compound tenses of verb forms) are considered to be analytical. In the syntactic sentence structure (hereinafter SynSS), the morphosyntactic expression of SP is determined by the grammatical forms of verbs, which to a great extent influence types of relations

5 between words in the structure of SP in the English and Lithuanian languages. The grammaticality and the boundaries of verb forms composing the types of the English SP often do not correspond to the structural types of the Lithuanian SP. The study does not deal with the verb forms that do not express SP (e.g. the gerund in English, the participle in the attributive position in Lithuanian, the infinitive expressing purpose, the participle in the position of a modifier in Lithuanian as participles alone neither form the centre of a sentence nor form the predicate). The type of SP (V) of the analytical structure is very specific in the English language. This type of SP is composed of independent words as separate morphemes (e.g. auxiliary verb, modal verb, participle, gerund) (e.g. the verb forms of continuous [is working ] and perfect [have modified ], voice [is done ], future [ will arrive ]) and other affixes to indicate the grammatical meaning. In contrast to the English analytical verb form as SP, the Lithuanian SP is generally formed with the auxiliary verb be and the participle (e.g. you have emphasized: esate pabr ÷žęs; was closed: buvo uždarytas ) and by means of affixation. Therefore, the interface between syntax and morphology is included in this study. The study discusses the structural types of SP (V) that show the systemic correlation between the specificity of conjugated verb forms and grammatical expression of verb in the English and Lithuanian languages. The hypotheses of the thesis are as follows: 1. The syntactic data of the English language and their equivalents in Lithuanian are interpreted in a different way due to the different terminology established by the grammars of both languages. English grammar studies are rich in diverse linguistic trends and theories. Linguistic studies of Lithuanian grammar also draw on a variety of theoretical approaches. 2. SP (V) organizes the syntactic (grammatical) and semantic ( focus ) centre of a sentence whereas the morphosyntactic expression of a verb form and the structure inside SP is very complicated. An attribute or a quality implied by the predicate indicates the possessor of that quality (generally the subject). 3. The contrastive analysis of SP in English and Lithuanian reveals the systematic correlation between the grammaticalized verb forms and their expression, whereas the specificity of morphological and syntactic characteristics is determined by the language type. The interpretation of analytical verb forms depends on the perception of SP. 4. The degree of grammaticalization of verb forms composing SP in the English and Lithuanian languages refers to different levels based on morphological, syntactic and semantic criteria. Analytical verb forms (continuous, perfect ) of the English SP, that are comprised of separate words and morphemes ([ aux. v. + participle ]) to define the grammatical category, belong to the level of morphology, whereas their translation equivalents correspond to the Lithuanian simple predicate

6 which is analyzed on the syntactic level. The analytical verb construction of the Lithuanian SP (būti + participle: yra buv ęs = buvo ) has synonyms of a simple form of conjugated verb. The types of the Lithuanian SP composed of a modal verb with the infinitive ( mod. v. + inf .) as a verbal complement is considered to be the compound predicate and refers to the syntactic level. 5. The contrastive analysis of the structural types of the English and Lithuanian SP has revealed the diversity of approaches towards the expression of SP among Lithuanian linguists. The analyticity of verb forms and their relation to the type of SP, its pattern, and expression in the Lithuanian language is still under dispute. The analytical type of the Lithuanian SP may be regarded as an intermediate link between the simple predicate and compound predicate. The aim of the thesis is to explore the specificity of both morphological and syntactic characteristics of the verb as SP in the English and Lithuanian languages. The study will address this aim by seeking the tasks of the thesis: - to determine equivalents of the English linguistic terms in the Lithuanian language; - to present a brief overview of structural, functional and semantic analysis of syntactic sentence structure (SynSS) and the concept of SP in English and Lithuanian; - to generalize typological specificities of structure, form and morphosyntactic expression of SP and to determine the analyticity and variety of verb forms in SP; - to substantiate the specificity of expression of verb forms as SP and the relationship with the categories of tense, aspect, person, impersonality, mood, voice, transitivity and reflexivity in the translation of technical texts; - to overview the structural types of SP comprising of a linking verb and a verbal or nominal element and to discuss the tendencies of morphosyntactic expression in the translation of technical texts; - to review the specificity of correlation between form and meaning in subject–predicate agreement in the English and Lithuanian languages. The degree of investigation . English grammar studies are rich in diverse linguistic trends and theories. Linguistic studies of Lithuanian syntax also demonstrate a variety of approaches. Therefore, the trends and theoretical principles most appropriate for the tasks of this study need to be chosen and applied. The study is based on the works of modern descriptive grammar and approaches of traditional prescriptive grammar. Traditional descriptive and prescriptive grammars coincide to some extent, but they also have certain differences. They both explain grammatical structure using the same methods partly based on Aristotleian logic and partly on the meanings of language forms. Traditional grammar theory, which prevails in school textbooks on the Lithuanian language used in all normative grammar studies for language practice and teaching, is based on descriptivism. However, when languages

7 having different structures are involved, i.e. English and Lithuanian in this case, traditional grammar theory is unable to explain the specificity of language notions related to different traditions, lexis and analysis. Traditional grammar explores the grammatical concepts of subject, predicate, object, predicative (complement), and phrase that organize a sentence. Modern linguistic theories and language investigations enrich the so–called traditional grammar, which is generally related only to a mono-language study (Mork ūnas, 1999: 224). The theory of descriptive and prescriptive grammars is supplemented by the data of structural, semantic and functional theory studies. The study integrates morphology into syntax. The nature of relations between syntax and morphology in a contrastive analysis of SP and its expression reveals the specificity of morphological and syntactic characteristics determined by the language type. The study continues with a comparative typological investigation into the structure and meaning of the English and Lithuanian languages conducted by Lithuanian linguists. The typology of an English and Lithuanian sentence structure and sentence components, the role of word order in a sentence and the means of morphosyntactic realization are analyzed by drawing on the typological works of English grammarians. Therefore, the theoretical principles and approaches in comparative linguistics developed by English and Lithuanian linguists are applied. The present study analyses SP of the two different languages. The morphosyntactic expression of the structural types of SP, which constitute the basis of a sentence structure and content, has been researched at length and in depth in the works of English grammars, but is still little discussed in Lithuanian academic works, especially in those concerning scientific and technical texts. The analysed data have been compared typologically to determine how the equivalents of expression through SP are implemented in the translation of technical texts from English into Lithuanian and vice versa. Generally, SP performs certain functions. Therefore, the contrastive analysis is based on the approach from function to form and meaning . Such an approach helps to reveal the differences of the structural and morphosyntactic expression of SP in both languages. Research methods . The following methods are applied in the study: 1. The method of syntactic typology (Zaefferer, 1995: 1109–1110). A knowledge of syntax and morphology is essential in the typological characterization of SP of the English and Lithuanian languages. Thus the differentiation of syntax and morphology has become central to considering the structural description of these languages. 2. The method of contrastive analysis (Chesterman, 1998: 28; 2004: 95; Albrecht, 2004: 243– 247; Neubert, 2004: 330–335). Contrastive linguistics is related to the systemic level of a language where the cognitive experience of human interaction is encoded. Viewed theoretically, contrastive linguistics and translation studies are related disciplines: however translation is regarded as

8 supplementary to contrastive analysis. As the purpose of translation is to convey the intended meaning from a source text to a target text, it has the function of language activity on the text level. The equivalence of lexical and syntactic systems of the compared languages is determined by translation criteria. An analysis of contrastive method is used to compare the texts of languages; translation equivalents are investigated on the level of contrasting language systems. 3. Descriptive method (Ivir, 2004: 276, 278; Mork ūnas, 1999: 224). A descriptive method is used to describe the structure of the English and Lithuanian languages separately, invoking grammatical rules, principles and data used in prescriptive grammar. The grammatical expression of the English and Lithuanian SP is described by the interrelation of verb forms based on the analysis of the verb and its possible position that it may have with respect to other elements in the structure. 4. Statistical method (Richards, Schmidt, 2002: 243). This method is used to determine the frequency of structural types of SP in the English and Lithuanian languages. A thorough qualitative and quantitative study of the morphosyntactic expression of verbs forming the structural types of the English and Lithuanian SP is based on the analysis of scientific texts and text types. The relevance of the research topic and the novelty of the results of the investigation. Studying the English and Lithuanian SynSS it is relevant to observe, through the interference of these languages, whether the English SynSS is or is not adopted in Lithuanian sentences during translation. In English, being a non–inflectional type of language, the word order is fixed grammatically, nouns and adjectives are non–inflected or little inflected and the grammatical meaning is specified syntactically by word order or intonation ( What role does quality management play in your practice? Avoid breathing dust! ). In Lithuanian, being an inflectional type of a language, the word order is not so strict as in English. The grammatical meaning of words is determined via their forms expressed by inflectional and compositional affixes. For example, the grammatical meaning of the nominative case is determined by the syntagmatic relationship between the subject and the verb as SP (Elektros jungiklis veikia ir kaip avarinis stabdiklis [nom.]) and by its paradigmatic relationship with other cases (Užsegimo konstrukcija turi b ūti geros kokyb ÷s [gen.]. Geriausias b ūdas yra išlikti ramiam [dat.] etc.). A generalization of the specificity of the structural types of the English and Lithuanian SP and realization of morphosyntactic expression of verb can assist when translating from the source language into the target language. Sentences are investigated with regard to the content and form. Particular emphasis is given to the scientific text type to highlight its role in the realization and function of SP in the syntactic structures of both languages. The different characteristics of theoretical approaches in the expression of SP (V) have been evaluated. The relationship among various grammatical phenomena associated with the structural type of SP and its morphosyntactic expression is discussed. The comparison and translation of such texts, first of all, require clarity in determining adequacy conditions and preciseness of use.

9 The theoretical and practical value and the application of the study. The study overviews the systemic specificity of conjugated verb forms and morphosyntactic expression of the verb as SP. The evaluation of different linguistic approaches, related to the problems of expression of SP, is applied to the chosen study. The morphosyntactic expression of the structural types of SP and its forms as the dynamic language process is explored as well as the principles of patterning and analysis are applied in the study. Practically, the study could be of use for Lithuanian interpreters, translating scientific technical texts from English into Lithuanian and vice versa; for teachers of English and for students of philology who study the theory of structural syntax, the syntactic predicate and its morphosyntactic realization in the English and Lithuanian languages. The collected sample texts may be used for building a technical language corpus and finding term equivalents in both languages. Material sources . The sources used in the study comprise dictionaries, academic writing published matter such as scientific articles, a survey of the research on science and technology. The data used in the study come from a variety of texts comprising twenty–six items that produce more than eight thousand and forty (8040) of the English and Lithuanian sentence examples. Possible variants of sentences and SP, not found in translated texts, are provided. Mistakes found in some texts, which have no influence on the structure and its meaning of SP, are disregarded. In the study, the analyzed examples are grouped according to the composition of SP. Based on a contrastive analysis the differences in the morphosyntactic expression of the structural types of SP in both languages are revealed. The opposition of the compositions of a mono–verb form as SP and analytical verb form in the structure of SP, the tendencies of using such forms of SP are determined statistically. The translation strategy of alternative forms used is discussed. The SynSS of scientific technical texts is very diverse. Elliptical sentences are not common here. The word order is stylistically neutral. Therefore, a translator often needs to change a sentence and find a different structure for SP at the same time keeping close to the content of a text. In Lithuanian, the constructions of impersonal sentences using the passive voice are frequent in rendering logical information. The structure of the work . The thesis comprises the introductory section, the theoretical section, three investigatory sections, the conclusions, a list of abbreviations, a list of bibliographic and reference sources, data sources and appendices. Part One The theoretical background of the concept of syntactic sentence structure and its analysis outlines the theoretical assumptions of traditional and modern linguistics to the SynSS discussed in English and Lithuanian grammar books. This part provides a theoretical background for structural, functional and semantic approach to sentence analysis presenting the syntactic and

10 morphological composition of a sentence, word order typology and relations between the main elements in a sentence in the English and Lithuanian languages. A language is considered to be a structural system based on the oppositions of concrete units that are the combinations of different structures (Bally et al., 1966: 107). Thus, every element in a language system is defined, and the importance of its relations with other elements in the construction of a sentence is determined. The process of syntax most often shows dependency between parts of a sentence. Traditionally, a sentence has the most general binary organization in the syntactic structure. Most English and Lithuanian linguists (Onions, 1971: 4; Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 5; Sirtautas, Grenda, 1988: 31, 50, 56; Burton–Roberts, 1998: 30–31, 35; Labutis, 2002: 202) recognize a grammatical subject and a predicate (and its groups) as a necessary prerequisite to a sentence. The theory of systemic functional grammar (Quirk et al., 1982: 19) treats the indication of the subject and the predicate as the traditional matter of agreement. However, to determine these constituents in an impersonal sentence is actually a very problematic matter. The functions of the grammatical predicate differ from those of the subject both by their role in a sentence, and by higher structural activity held by the predicate as the grammatical centre of a sentence. A sentence is defined a maximum syntactic unit, which has a more general function. This means that a sentence can express a statement, a question, a request or a command etc. (Matthews, 1993: 109). The grammatical form of a sentence and the semantic interpretation of its components have already been used to describe the relations of SynSS and semantics in the Lithuanian language (Ulvydas, ed., 1976). If a sentence has to be analyzed from the point of view of form and meaning, the equivalents of the syntactic categories are indicated (Sirtautas, 1978, 1980; Labutis, 1981). The grammatical and communicative characteristics of a sentence are assumed to be the most important on the level of sentence structure (Ambrazas, 1986: 4–5). The completeness of an English sentence is characterized by an independent verb with its subject. Morphological symbols are used to indicate classes of independent words. The binary structure of a simple sentence refers to the first level of sentence analysis (Jacobs, 1995: 51; Van Valin, LaPolla, 1997: 244; Burton-Roberts, 1998: 30–33; Huddleston, Pullum, 2002: 53; Biber et al., 2004: 122). Hence, some considerations about a sentence division into several layers are presented in this study: two layers refer to the semantic level; the third one refers to the syntactic or morphosyntactic level (Holvoet, Sem ÷nien ÷, 2005: 41). A primary nominal phrase NP and a verb phrase VP are determined on the first level of analysis. Such a primary analysis of a sentence is relevant to the very important oppositions of nouns and verbs in the theory of grammar. However, the borders of syntax and morphology become vague and undefined at this level The predicate expressed by the verb and the noun phrase are the basic grammatical components of the content in a sentence. The traditional description of syntax is supplemented by grammatical patterns based on theory.

11 The subject and the predicate are related to the NP and VP. A sentence as a structural unit comprises words as elements that are not isolated. In this respect, every sentence can have a deep structure and a surface structure according to its syntax. The elements of a sentence are related directly or indirectly and are interdependent. Hierarchical ranks are set in a sentence structure. The syntactic centre (grammatical) of a sentence organizes other elements in a sentence. Based on syntactic criteria the exceptional position is attributed to the subject. The basic idea of word order typology (Dryer, 1995: 1050) is based on the position of grammatical elements that deal with morphological characteristics. The principle word order of subject, verb and object (SVO) applies to both English and Lithuanian sentence structure. Syntactic relations, that are common to all the approaches, are identified as being the relations between the two constituents of a sentence, i.e. the subject and the predicate, that are supposed to have verb agreement with the subject. The typological investigation of the English and Lithuanian languages reveals differences in sentence constructions that differ by syntactic and morphological means. The concepts of syntactic categories (nouns, verbs) and syntactic relations (relations between nouns and verbs) refer to the theory of prescriptive grammar and they are very important in the analysis of syntactic sentence structure (Heringer, 1993: 298–345; Primus, 1993: 686–705). Grammatical relations are considered to be a part of traditional grammar. The relations between words are determined by a strict word order in an English sentence. The relations between the subject and predicate are very specific in a Lithuanian sentence. These relations are determined according to the forms of the principle components in a sentence and their role in the SynSS. The structure in SP is considered to be of great importance in contrastive analysis and is based on the relations of the verb with the subject and the object in both an English and Lithuanian sentence. However, the grammatical subject is not always evident and clear. This does not mean though that the grammatical subject is not a principle part of a sentence. In the Lithuanian language, where relations between words are indicated by word forms, the subject, having all the specific grammatical indicators, can actually take any position in the SynSS. In an English sentence, where relations between words are based on a strict word order, the subject position is always realized before SP. The study is based on the theory of SP, which is related to the category of verb, being the structural foundation of a sentence. The concept of predicate, which is equivalent to SP, has developed from ancient grammars, bringing about different interpretations of the notion, and a variety of theoretical approaches towards a sentence and its syntactic (grammatical) centre. In traditional analysis, English sentences generally are classified according to the forms of the predicate. Conjugated verb forms of the predicate are considered to be the grammatical criteria that determine the boundaries of a sentence in a text. In the verbocentric theory of a sentence structure the verb is regarded as the

12 main component of a sentence (Jacobs, 1995: 9). The binary structure of a sentence is accepted by some Lithuanian linguists (Jablonskis, 1957: 445; Sirtautas, 1978: 23; Sirtautas, Grenda, 1988: 56; Labutis, 2002: 202), however, the fact that a sentence can contain only one component is not rejected ( Rytas: It is morning. Lyja: It rains ) (Ambrazas, 1984, 1986: 15–16). A further consideration is the verbocentric conception of a sentence; i.e. the predicate as the verb organizes a sentence (Ambrazas, 1986: 18; 1996: 493; Balkevi čius, 1998: 18; Mork ūnas, 1999: 629). In Modern Lithuanian grammar studies, the predicate is treated as being the basis of the SynSS, which is understood via the SP. The SP expressed by the conjugated verb forms or VP actually is diverse, referring to syntax, morphology and semantics. The predicate performs the organizing role in a sentence, determines the case form (nominative case) to the subject and defines the subject (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 485). This study examines the nature of the interrelation between syntax and morphology in different languages: in particular, English and Lithuanian. The modern theory of morphology is based on Aristotle, who was the first to divide words into categories according to the meaning (Carstairs– McCarthy, 2000: 264–265). The morphological characteristics and lexical semantics of the verb are relevant to the morphological categories of the verb (Bybee, 2000: 795). Traditionally, the verb is treated as the lexical–grammatical class of words related to meaning and function. The study discusses the structure of SP, which is based on the grammaticalized elements of verb forms (auxiliary verbs, word–morphemes, flections etc.). The position of every verbal element and its role depends on its relations with other elements in VP. The structural type of SP expressed by the verb form determines the function of a sentence in the two contrasting languages, i.e. English and Lithuanian. In English, the analytical type of the verb as SP has analytical or compound tense forms. In synthetic Lithuanian, the predicate as the verb preserves the synthetic specificity of the language type, though it also has analytical structures as well, e.g. voice, reflexivity. The structure of SP cannot be approached only functionally. Morphologically, the characterization of the internal division and morphosyntactic structure of the verb as SP is quite challenging (e.g. the verb as the head and affixes as dependent indicators in the VP). This has a special impact on the features of SynSS. Furthermore, the arrangement of the constituents in the structure of the VP includes both morphological and syntactic characteristics that are determined by the morphology of the verb. Consequently, the lexical characteristics of the verb can determine the syntactic structure of a sentence. Modern English grammar studies, especially comparative studies in syntactic typology attempt to integrate morphology into syntax. At present, however, most of the English grammarians have started treating morphology as a separate part of grammar. Therefore, morphology and syntax are related grammars governed by the same principles, as they both deal with words: syntax organizes words into sentences; morphology determines the structure of words (Spencer, 2000: 313). Some syntactic and

13 morphological data coincide functionally and they become important as morphosyntactic phenomena (Van Valin, LaPolla, 1997: 2). The morphological expression of the verb form provides information necessary to the syntax. Thus, theoretical arguments about the necessity to define the morphosyntactic forms of the verb are discussed in the study (Matthews, 1972; Aronoff, 2000: 345–346). However, it is important to determine at what stage morphology interferes with syntax. Syntactically, words are organized into phrases and morphemes build words. English auxiliary verbs as functional words may lose word status and become phonologically dependent on the head word. The specific phenomenon of grammaticalization, which clearly derives from morphologization (auxiliary verbs as indicators of grammatical tense), is discussed in the study. The process of grammaticalization is indicated by the grammaticality of lexical morphemes or language structures (syntactic constructions, discourse structures). Syntactic constructions in a language cause changes in the data related to the basic linguistic structures (semantic, pragmatic, morphologic and syntactic) (Koefoed, Van Marle, 2001: 1582, 1584). The specific role of a language is related not only with the expression of a language but also with the expression of meaning, which is to do with linguistic competence. The grammar rules of an individual language determine the grammaticality of a sentence. Thus, grammar may be one of the principle means of expressing thought (Vendler, 1996: 1716). The expression and the content reveal the essential characteristics of the form indicator. The grammatical flexion is a part of morphology and can be relevant to syntax too (Booij, 2000: 367). Studies of the grammatical structure of the Lithuanian language are hardly possible without syntactic data while syntax is relevant to morphology. Therefore, linguistic studies of Lithuanian syntax (Jablonskis, 1957; Balkevi čius, 1963; Ulvydas, 1976; Sirtautas, Grenda, 1988; Paulauskien ÷, 1982, 1994; Labutis, 2002) cannot ignore morphology. On the contrary, syntax cannot function or be understood without morphology. However, these two parts of the grammar are often regarded as having their own boundaries and explained differently or independently of one another. The interrelations between The syntactic sentence structure (SynSS), the syntactic predicate (SP) with the semantic sentence structure (SemSS) and the semantic predicate (SemPred) are limited to general remarks and are not analysed in depth in the thesis. The meaning of a sentence is realized via the syntactic relations of word forms. The interdependence of syntactic and semantic elements in different languages, specifically English and Lithuanian, is not the same and it determines the specificity of a language structure. The same arguments apply to SemPred, which has different semantic functions. Semantic studies of sentences have revealed that SemPred determines the semantic roles of arguments in the English and Lithuanian languages. Part two The types of the English syntactic predicate and the Lithuanian simple predicate deals with the structural types of SP, the character of their morphosyntactic expression, as well as the

14 analysis of SP in English and Lithuanian. The problem of analyticity and the kinds of the verb as SP by its structure is discussed in the study. Traditional English and Lithuanian grammar works present the structural patterns of verb forms that correspond to SP. The structure of SP is expressed either by a conjugated verb form, or is linked to other word forms. Based on syntactic constructions, SP can contain a verbal group of one verb form or two elements, i.e. a verb or verb group with a complement. Furthermore, a predicate can contain two complements according to their position in a sentence, one of which is called the inner complement and the other is called the outer complement. According to modern Lithuanian grammar studies, the patterns and the structure of the predicate are determined by the grammatical verb forms. Lithuanian linguists use different criteria to determine the types of predicate, according to expression, structure and content. Some linguists (Jablonskis, 1957: 455, 459) classify predicates by their expression as simple, compound and some kind of compounding. Other linguists (Balkevi čius, 1963: 74) classify predicates by their composition and expression into simple predicates, compound verbal and nominal predicates, specific compoundings and mixed predicates (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 306). Some linguists differentiate the simple predicate according to its morphological structure (Sirtautas, Grenda, 1988: 61; Labutis, 2002: 229). The morphosyntactic expression of SP patterns is generally analyzed on the basis of morphology, syntax and semantics according to its position in a sentence. The structure of morphosyntactic expression and the boundaries of the English SP mostly do not correspond to the structural types of the Lithuanian SP. The problem arises when the structural type, morphosyntactic expression and boundaries of English SP have to be expressed by simple or compound predicates in Lithuanian. However, it is important to distinguish the grammaticalization of the verb forms of SP and determine the degree of analyticity and the specificity of compound tenses in English and Lithuanian. Analytical forms of SP are defined as combinations of verbs paradigmatically related to synthetic forms that generally organize the system of grammatical tenses. The analytical type of SP is composed of the auxiliary verbs be and have that are considered as separate word–morphemes to indicate the grammatical meaning of person, tense, aspect, voice and refer to the morphological level in the English language. In contrast to English, the Lithuanian SP of analytical type is generally formed by the auxiliary verb be and the participle . Lithuanian verb affixes (flexions) indicate tense, person and number; different suffixes indicate aspect and reflexivity and retain the synthetic character using the means of affixation (bound morphemes). Part three The structural types of SP and their relationship with the different categories discusses the relationship of the types of SP with the different categories of the verb that refer to tense, aspect, person, mood, voice, transitivity and reflexivity. The study concentrates on the realized translation of the aforementioned categories. It also focuses on the possibilities of indicating syntactic

15 and independent factors that influence the morphosyntactic interpretation of the verb as SP in the two languages, English and Lithuanian. The grammatical tense as a morphosyntactic category, expressed by the conjugated verb forms, refers to the structural type of SP. The term tense applies to a language system. The systemic correlation between the grammaticalized oppositions of tenses is indicated by verb forms in English and Lithuanian. The morpheme indicating the grammatical tense in English is considered differently when compared with the interpretation of the grammatical tense form in Lithuanian. The grammatical tense is perceived as a syntactic predicate category, which has the morphological expression of the conjugated verb (Paulauskien ÷, 1994: 326). The English language has two tense systems: past vs. present as well as perfect vs. non– perfect. However, the paradigm of grammatical tenses has been extended by the auxiliary verbs be and have . These verb forms with the participle compose the forms of aspect, which traditionally relates to additional grammatical tenses (Quirk et al., 1982: 40; Jacobs, 1995: 185; Huddleston, Pullum, 2002: 116). The Lithuanian language system has four grammatical tenses: present, past, past iterative and future. The syntactic temporality causes the appearance of the morphological form of a purely temporal character. The realization of different time with the different verb forms that indicate the grammatical tense distinctions of present, past and future vary in both languages. The translation of the English verb forms as SP into Lithuanian can be explained, if appropriate definitions of tense meanings are provided and syntactic factors or independent factors influencing the temporal interpretation are taken into account. Most grammarians state that such grammatical categories as tense, aspect and mood have a noticeable effect on each other; i.e. the expression of present and past time cannot be considered separately from aspect. Tenses and actual language forms of verbs are used to represent time reference notions (Lewis, 1991; Quirk, 1982; Yule, 1998). Futurity is expressed specifically in ways that do not allow for comparison in English and Lithuanian. In the English and Lithuanian grammar studies, the future is explained not as a tense but as a mood (Paulauskiene, 1979: 199; Comrie, 1995: 1245; Holvoet, Paj ÷dien ÷, 2004: 124). Systemic correlation between the grammaticalized opposition of futurity is encoded in verb forms lexically and morphologically in both languages. Grammaticalized future time reference satisfies the definition of tense. The problem is that no verb form in English is associated with future time. The future tense in English is not based on simple distinctions in time. Traditional grammarians have noted that the modal and auxiliary will could be used with a verb to refer to future time. However, will and shall are only two of the auxiliary verbs that occur in combinations used to refer to future time. The analysis shows that syntactic temporality in modal assessment causes the appearance of

16 morphological forms of the future and changes in a certain arrangement of an action when translating into Lithuanian because Lithuanian encodes morphological predication syntactically. The semantic peculiarities of futurity in syntactic structures are highlighted in the study. The study focuses on the internal temporal contour of verbs as predicates and on the importance of distinguishing continuative and perfective aspects, when translating from Lithuanian into English and vice versa, and indicating time references of tenses with their correct analytic and synthetic forms. Tense and aspect as the grammatical categories of the conjugated verbs, are perceived as syntactic–predicate categories in English and Lithuanian. They have the morphological expression of a conjugated verb and are treated as corresponding to the semantic properties of time reference. Both English and Lithuanian encode aspectual predication syntactically and locate it at the interface of inflectional morphology and lexical semantics. When dealing with aspect it is important to differentiate between grammatical and lexical expressions of the internal time concept of a situation. Thus, the conceptual distinction between the same grammatical forms of verbs of continuative aspect involves a different perspective and time references in both languages. In Lithuanian, aspect as a semantic and syntactic property of the verb is not morphologized. In Lithuanian, aspectual meanings of verb forms are expressed by prefixes and adverbs of time. Some verbs have dual class membership. For instance, a verb may denote an action and a process in different contexts. Prefixes change the aspectual character of a verb by modifying the verbal meaning in a variety of ways ( Lithuanian Grammar , 1997: 221). In English, the meaning of past iterativity can be indicated syntactically, e.g. would, used to, (aux. v. [have] + past particip.) , (aux. v. [be] + present particip.), and by lexical semantic means ( often, frequently, seldom , twice etc.). Iterativity does not have morphological indicators for the past. Some English verbs ( knock, jump etc.) have an inherent semantic meaning for iterativity (Huddleston, Pullum, 2002: 123). The Lithuanian past iterative tense differs from the simple past only by the character of the action as an aspectual variant of the past tense. However, some Lithuanian linguists regard it as a tense. Traditionally the time value of Lithuanian verb forms of the past simple and iterative tenses is the same. The past iterative tense and time paradigm refers to meaning which is due to traditional usage in Lithuanian (Holvoet, Čižik, 2004(b): 142). The category of person refers to an SP expressed by the verb form and its relation to the subject. The grammatical indicator of a person to the verb form indicates the relation of the action to the speech–act. The study overviews the specific English constructions It is and There is that are interpreted differently by English and Lithuanian linguists. Impersonality in a sentence is not strictly related to the absence of a grammatical subject as the subject position cannot be left empty in an English sentence (e.g. It‘s raining . There is a book on the table ). In the English language the concept of impersonality is

17 defined by the predicate. In an English sentence, it can replace the actual subject and therefore takes on the function of the subject in the structure. The position of the subject may remain empty in a Lithuanian sentence. The notion of impersonality depends on the structure of the language. Mood expressed by verb forms of SP refers to the category of predicativity in English and Lithuanian. Mood expresses modality, i.e., the speaker’s attitude towards the content of the utterance. Modality includes a number of meanings, which find expression in a variety of morphological, syntactical and lexical ways. The imperative and the subjunctive moods are not considered to have grammatical features of meaning. Mood is dependent upon the situation and intonation of the utterance. The speaker’s attitude of volition, expressed by the imperative mood, refers to an action, which is possible or desirable. The subjunctive mood has the semantic basis of unreality and it indicates action, which under certain circumstances would be possible or desirable in the present or in the future. The imperative and subjunctive moods in Lithuanian are not inflected for tenses, except that the distinction of temporal meaning within the subjunctive mood is based on its simple and compound forms ( Lithuanian grammar 1997: 254–258). The synonymic usage of the indicative mood semantically determines the imperative and the subjunctive moods. The opinions of English and Lithuanian linguists differ in regard to the number of moods in the two languages. Both languages have three moods: indicative, subjunctive and imperative (Huddleston, Pullum, 2002: 17; Paulauskien ÷, 1994: 310). Some Lithuanian linguists (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 304) include the oblique mood in the mood system because of its stylistic meaning. The oblique mood is expressed by participles indicating the nominative case and is used without any auxiliary verb. The verbs, composing the types of SP, refer to transitivity, which is considered to be a morphosyntactic and semantic category determined mostly by the meaning of the verb. In structural syntax, the transitive verb is related to the direct object, which is expressed by the accusative and by the genitive (in negative constructions) in the Lithuanian language. (In)transitivity is defined according to the interrelation with the direct object, i.e. the transition of the action into the direct object. Voice is a semantic, functional and morphosyntactic category; it refers to subject – object relations inside the syntactic sentence structure and changes the grammatical functions of the same element. Traditionally voice is related to SP, expressed by active and passive verb forms. The active forms of a verb involve a direct and indirect object and every direct object can take the subject position of a passive construction in a sentence. Such semantic categories as agent, patient or affected object are relevant to voice and can reveal the meaning of a sentence, events and specific order or hierarchy, which determines the relations between the agent and the patient. The relationship between active and passive in the syntactic structure is related to lexical valency. In the syntactic interpretation of a sentence , reflexivity is related to transitivity. It identifies an action directed to the object. The reflexive element is a semantic component in the grammatical

18 structure of a verb as SP. The lexical and grammatical part of a reflexive element is related to the verb; it organizes a sentence and also determines the meaning of a sentence. In English, as a non–inflected type of language, SP can contain reflexive meanings indicated syntactically. Reflexivity refers to the specific grammatical element in a sentence expressed by the pronoun, which has the same interpretation as the NP. In the modern English language the function of reflexivity is performed by personal pronouns formed by a reflexive affix (sg. -self, pl. -selves ). Reflexivity indicates the object of an action, which is the same performer of an action in a sentence. These pronouns indicate the category of voice, person, number and gender merely by being included in analytical constructions. Traditionally reflexivity is considered as a semantic, functional and morphosyntactic category related to SP, which is expressed by the oppositions of reflexive and non–reflexive forms of the verb in the Lithuanian language. Part four The types of the English SP and the Lithuanian compound predicates overviews the structural type of SP comprising a conjugated verb form and a verbal component as a complement: P(vf + inf . / gerund. ). The type of SP comprises the verb form as a linking verb and the nominal element as a predicative P(copula + predicat.[N / Adj.]). The concept predicative refers to the SP. The predicative, generally expressed by a nominal, defines a subject syntactically as well as comprising the structural type of SP and determines its meaning. The predicative attribute s perform the syntactic function. The predicative attribute is expressed by the participle and forms the type of the English SP, which is very problematic in Lithuanian. The study discusses the subject and verb in terms of SP agreement in the English and Lithuanian languages. Conclusions: 1. Typologically, grammatical verb forms determine patterns of word relations, the composition of SP and the variety of its types in the English and Lithuanian syntactic sentence structure. The role of the verb as SP in a sentence, the specificity and the degree of analyticity, and the equivalence of the compound tenses are determined by the specificity of the structure of the SP in both languages. 2. A variety of linguistic terms, related to SP and used in grammar studies, are very specific in meaning in both languages. 3. Morphological, semantic and syntactic characteristics of the types of SP, the tendency of grammatical expression of verb and the relation between forms of verbs are identified in the study. 4. The analytical verb form of SP – P(aux. v. + particip.) is a characteristic of the English language. Verb forms of the same structure in Lithuanian are either problematic, or they are expressed by a simple predicate P(vf) . The Lithuanian SP of the analytical structure can be regarded as an intermediate link between the simple and the compound predicate. Moreover, opinions differ with regard to analytical verb forms, the expression and structure of SP in English and Lithuanian.

19 5. The correlation between verb form as SP and the grammatical categories of tense, aspect, person and impersonality, mood, voice, transitivity and reflexivity often differ by their grammatical expression, indicators and structural interpretation in English and Lithuanian as follows: - Grammatical tenses of the English SP are determined by the systemic correlation between oppositions of grammaticalized tenses, encoded lexically and morphologically. Therefore, the translation of the English present, past and future into Lithuanian is based on semantic and syntactic factors influencing certain time interpretation. The verb forms composing the English SP type express the future semantically. However, the meaning of grammatical verb forms of the future has a greater variety of interpretations compared with the grammatical expression of SP, its form and meaning of the future tense in Lithuanian. The meaning of grammatical indicators of time has no influence on the interpretation of the future in a sentence. Structural types of the English SP comprising modal verbs with the infinitive can be translated into Lithuanian by means of the morphological form of the future tense, with certain time adjustments of meaning. Morphological indicators of flections, syntactic characteristics and lexical semantics determine the predication in the Lithuanian language. - The English types of SP composed of conjugated verb forms express grammatical tense and aspect syncretically. However, the nature and characteristics of the verb forms are the most discussed problems. The aspect in English shows the manner of the action expressed by morphological, lexical and syntactic means. The English continuous / non–continuous tense forms and the syntactic constructions of the conjugated verb form with the infinitive or gerund can be considered to have different aspects of action (the beginning of an action, continuous action, the end of an action). In Lithuanian, the grammatical aspect ( continuous and perfect forms) of verbs is expressed by various prefixes and suffixes that drive the semantics of SP. - In the Lithuanian language the past iterativity tense is a specific opposition of the past tense. It is equivalent to the verb forms of the simple past tense, present perfect tense that are expressed syntactically using adverbs of frequency, the auxiliary verb would , as well as the construction used to, in the English language. - The grammatical indicators of person of the English verb as SP are limited and differ from the expression of person in the Lithuanian language. The general tendency of specific cases in the usage of grammatical indicators of person is generally taken into account in translating from English into Lithuanian. - The concept of impersonality defines the predicate, but it does not define the sentence formed with it is or there is in the English language. The predicate centre (grammatical) of a Lithuanian impersonal sentence can be formed of a predicate alone expressed by an impersonal verb form, without any grammatical subject. Generally, the predicate centre (grammatical) of the

20 impersonal sentence is organized, using the forms of the principle components of a sentence that indicate the absence of a relation with the grammatical category of a person. - The English and Lithuanian mood is expressed by conjugated verbs and it creates the system of morphological forms (synthetic and analytical, i.e. grammatical tenses and aspect related to person and number). Verb forms of mood, composing a type of SP, show mismatches related to grammatical indicators and meaning in the two languages. The forms of infinitive, imperative and subjunctive mood do not possess specific morphemes to indicate the tense and, when used as predicates, they indicate time in both languages. The English and Lithuanian SP corresponding to the forms of the imperative mood, in the act of speech with respect to intonation, have a variety of modal aspects – from a categorical command to an obedient request. However, the modal meaning of the imperative mood depends largely on the context, speech tone and language type, but not on the grammatical form. The forms of irrealis ( subjunctive mood) are discussed and analyzed in relation to grammatical tense. The English SP types that are equivalent to the verb forms expressing the oblique mood in the Lithuanian language are already determined in technical texts. The forms of the oblique mood are often considered as the category of evidentiality . The conjugated verb forms of the simple and compound predicate correspond to functions of the oblique mood. The oblique mood has a specific meaning and morphological expression and it differs from the other moods. - The realisation of (in)transitivity refers to the morphosyntactic expression of verb forms as SP that depend on the internal semantic characteristics of the verb and the action directed to the object. - The passive voice of a verb as SP is used when the object, to which the action is directed, is either more important than the performer of an action, or when the performer of the action is unknown, or when there is no necessity to mention him / her in both languages. The passive voice assists in revealing and determining the nature of objectivity and personality in the language of science. - The realisation of reflexivity is based on the internal semantic characteristics of a transitive verb in English. In Lithuanian, SP is expressed by the grammaticalized forms of (in)transitive verbs that become clear in the syntactical and semantic interpretation of a sentence. 6. The type of English SP of the analytical structure can be composed of conjugated verb forms related either to the infinitive or the gerund as a complement P(mod. v. + inf.), P(vt + inf. / gerund. ). The other type of SP can comprise a linking verb with a noun or an adjective as a predicative P(copulative v. + N / Adj. / Pron. / Num.) . The English and Lithuanian SP has a variety of composition at different levels. The analytical verb forms are more specific for the English SP type, whereas the Lithuanian SP types are determined syntactically. The English SP types of the analytical structure,

21 corresponding to the Lithuanian compound verbal predicates , have lexical meaning and structural specificity (meaning of tense and aspect with specific indicators or clause). The syntactic form of the English gerund is neither conjugated, nor shows the number, whereas the Lithuanian participle as complement in the predicate is inflected and indicates grammatical tense, gender and number. - The type of English SP composed of modal auxiliary verbs with the infinitive corresponds to the Lithuanian compound verbal predicate . Comparing such types of SP, the differences related to the morphosyntactic and semantic specificity of modal verbs are highlighted in both languages. Conjugated verbs having the modal meaning with the infinitive comprise the type of the Lithuanian compound SP. Some of the English conjugated verbs do not show modality; therefore, they are translated into Lithuanian as verbs with modal meaning. The types of the Lithuanian predicates composed of modal verbs using the infinitive, i.e. structurally, are considered as compound verbal predicates. The semantic group of verbs, having the meaning of beginning, continuation or finishing etc., forms the characteristic type of SP expressed syntactically in the both languages. - The English and Lithuanian SP types comprising the conjugated verb form with the infinitive as an object, which is considered as independent verb, is also discussed. - The analytical type of English SP composed of a copula or other copulative verb with a nominal element as a predicative is generally equivalent to the same type of Lithuanian SP. The structure of a conjugated copulative verb related to a nominal complement determines the meaning and function of SP. The SP, containing a nominal predicative, is syntactically dependent on the linking verb because the background of a sentence cannot be organized independently by a nominal alone as it needs a verb. The English and Lithuanian SP comprising the copula be / b ūti with a nominal element can also have grammatical indicators of tense, aspect, mood and voice. Other English linking verbs are generally classified according to their meaning; they are distributed syntactically (according to their performed function) in Lithuanian grammar works. The English SP comprising a copulative verb relates a subject with a predicative. The English SP comprises a predicative, which can be expressed by a noun, a noun phrase or prepositional constructions, whereas a predicative as noun has grammatical indicators of different case forms as nominative, genitive, dative, instrumental in the Lithuanian language. 7. Agreement in person and number between subject and verb of SP depends on the structure of a subject and the nature of a predicate in the English and Lithuanian languages. Indicators of number and person in a verb are marked morphologically in the two languages. Agreement of the compound predicate with the subject is very specific in the Lithuanian language. A predicative expressed by an adjective agrees in number, gender and, sometimes, in case whereas a predicative noun agrees only in number and case.

22 ĮVADAS

Vertimas iš angl ų kalbos į lietuvi ų kalb ą ypa č aktualus dabar, ple čiantis ES, kurioje norima išsaugoti net ir mažos tautos tradicijas ir kalb ą. Angl ų kalba yra reikšminga ne tik ši ą kalb ą kaip pagrindin ę komunikacijos priemon ę vartojan čioms bendruomen ÷ms, bet šiuo metu ir tarptautiniam bendravimui. Lietuvi ų kalba yra svarbi ir kaip tautos viena iš tapatyb ÷s išlaikymo atrama. Lingvistikoje lietuvi ų kalbos reikšm ę ypa č išk ÷l÷ istorin ÷ lyginamoji kalbotyra, bet j ą tiria ir kalb ų tipologija, bendroji kalbotyra, socialin ÷ lingvistika ir kitos kalb ų studijos. Naudinga steb ÷ti, kaip lietuvi ų kalba prisitaiko prie nauj ų gyvenimo s ąlyg ų, kaip ji gali realizuoti sistemoje slypin čias potencijas (abstrakcijoms reikšti, suaktyvinti kai kuriuos žodži ų darybos modelius). Darbo tyrimo objektas. Darbo objektu pasirinktas sintaksini ų predikat ų (toliau tik SP, arba tariniai) tipai ir j ų morfosintaksinis realizavimas angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalbose. Darbe neišvengiamai susiduriama su pagrindini ų termin ų skirtyb ÷mis. Dabartiniuose angl ų kalbos gramatikos darbuose dažnai terminas predikatas (ang. predicate) vartojamas ne viena reikšme: predikatu čia vadinama viena iš pagrindini ų sakinio dali ų (Onions, 1971: 4; Burton-Roberts, 1998: 35) arba vienintelis pagrindinis sakinio centras ir semantiniai vienetai, nuo kuri ų gali priklausyti potencial ūs ir realizuoti visi kiti sintaksin ÷s strukt ūros (konstrukcijos) elementai (Jacobs, 1995: 12; Huddleston, Pullum, 2002: 50). Pirm ąja reikšme vartojamas predikatas angl ų kalbos darbuose atitinka tai, kas lietuvi ų kalbos sintaks ÷se vadinama tariniu . Tod ÷l, norint abej ų kalb ų darbuose šias s ąvokas gretinti, tenka angl ų kalbotyroje įprastiniam terminui predikatas prid ÷ti modifikatori ų (pažymin į) sintaksinis . Predikato s ąvoka paprastai siejama su predikatumu. Lietuvi ų kalbotyroje įsigal ÷jusi predikacijos sąvoka suvokiama įvairiai ir gana skirtingai: predikatumu laikytas bendrasis sakinio turinio santykis su tikrove, reiškiamas modalumu, laiko ir asmens kategorijomis (Balkevi čius, 1963: 17), ar veiksnio ir tarinio tarpusavio santykis (Sirtautas, Grenda, 1988: 17; Ambrazas, red. , 1996: 487; Labutis, 2002: 100). Predikacija suvokiama apibendrinta prasme ir siejama su kalbos aktu (Ambrazas, 1999. In: Mork ūnas, 1999: 495, 496). Sakinio predikatyvumas yra glaudžiai susij ęs su veiksmažodžio gramatin ÷mis kategorijomis – laiku, modalumu, nuosaka – ir jų reikšme. SP sudaran čios angl ų kalbos sakinio klausimo ir neigimo veiksmažodžio formos, asmenuojam ųjų veiksmažodži ų formos su dalyviu / gerundijumi, bendratimi (aspekto, r ūšies, refleksyvo, modalini ų veiksmažodži ų su bendratimi / dalyviu), o lietuvi ų kalbos veiksmažodžio būti formos su dalyviu (sudurtini ų laik ų veiksmažodži ų formos), vadinamos analitin ÷mis. Sintaksin ÷je sakinio strukt ūroje (toliau SinSS) angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP formas s ąlygoja veiksmažodžio gramatin ÷s formos, kurios nemažu mastu lemia žodži ų tarpusavio ryšio modelius bei

23 sandaros tipus. Angl ų kalbos SP sudaran čių veiksmažodži ų form ų gramatiškumas ir j ų apimtis dažnai nesutampa su lietuvių kalbos tarini ų strukt ūriniais tipais. Darbe SP netapatinamas su veiksmažodžiu, nes jis gali tur ÷ti form ų, kurios neina SP (plg. angl ų kalbos gerundij ų, lietuvi ų kalbos dalyv į atributin ÷je pozicijoje, bendrat į tikslo aplinkyb ÷s pozicijoje, padalyv į ir pusdalyv į, niekada nesudaran čius atskiro sakinio centro ir neinan čius tariniu). Angl ų kalbai b ūdingas analitin ÷s strukt ūros SP tipas, sudaromas iš atskir ų žodži ų ir morfem ų (pagalbinio veiksmažodžio, dalyvio ar bendraties) (t ęstin ÷ forma [ is working ], atliktin ÷ forma [ have modified ], r ūšis [ is done ], ateities laiko forma [ will do ]) bei kit ų rodikli ų (afiks ų), kurie žymi gramatin ę reikšm ę. Gretinant angl ų kalbos SP analitin į veiksmažod į su lietuvi ų kalbos tariniu (you have emphasized: esate pabr ÷žęs, was closed : buvo uždarytas ), matyti, kad lietuviškasis analitin ÷s strukt ūros atitikmuo paprastai sudaromas su asmenuojamuoju veiksmažodžiu būti ir dalyviu su afiksais. Taigi darbe neišvengiamai tenka atsižvelgti į sintaks ÷s ir morfologijos santyki ų sand ūras. Darbe aptariami angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP strukt ūriniai tipai, kurie susieti su savita vienos ir kitos kalbos sistemine asmenuojam ųjų veiksmažodži ų form ų raiškos ir sandaros specifika. Ginamieji teiginiai: 1. Angl ų kalbos sintaks ÷s faktai ir j ų atitikmenys lietuvi ų kalboje yra aiškinami skirtingai d ÷l skirtingos t ų kalb ų darbuose įsitvirtinusios terminijos. Teorini ų savitum ų gausu įvairiomis kryptimis pl ÷tojamuose angl ų kalbos gramatikos tyrimuose, ta čiau teorini ų poži ūri ų įvairov ÷s jau nestokoja šios srities darbai ir lietuvi ų kalbotyros. 2. Sintaksinio centro viduje strukt ūriškai aktyvesnis yra SP. Tariniu (SP) priskiriamas požymis nurodo to požymio tur ÷toj ą – paprastai subjekt ą (veiksn į). 3. Angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP gretinimas atskleidžia sistemin į ryš į tarp asmenuojam ųjų veiksmažodži ų sugramatint ų form ų ir j ų raiškos, o morfologini ų ir sintaksini ų požymi ų savitum ą lemia kalbos tipas. Veiksmažodžio analitišk ų gramatini ų form ų vertinimas priklauso ir nuo SP sampratos. 4. Angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP, reiškiam ų veiksmažodžiais, gramatinimo laipsnis grindžiamas morfologiniu, sintaksiniu ir semantiniu kriterijumi. Angl ų kalbos SP sudaran čios analitin ÷s veiksmažodži ų formos su pagalbiniais veiksmažodžiais, lemian čiais gramatines savybes, priklauso morfologijos lygmeniui, lietuvi ų kalboje jas paprastai atitinka vientisinis tarinys. Lietuvi ų kalbos analitin ÷s veiksmažodži ų konstrukcijos gali tur ÷ti paprast ųjų form ų sinonim ų aiškioms vientisin ÷ms asmenuojamosioms veiksmažodži ų formoms. Lietuvi ų kalbos tariniai, sudaryti su modaliniais veiksmažodžiais ir bendratimi, strukt ūros atžvilgiu paprastai laikomi sud ÷tiniais tariniais ir priklauso sintaksiniam lygmeniui. 5. Gretinant angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP strukt ūrinius tipus, matyti, kad kalbos specialist ų poži ūris į SP raišk ą n ÷ra visai vienodas. Lietuvi ų lingvistikoje vis dar diskutuojamas veiksmažodži ų analitiškumas, nevienodai siejamas su strukt ūriniu tarinio tipu, jo modeliu ir raiška. Lietuvi ų kalboje

24 analitin ÷s raiškos tarinys gali b ūti laikomas tarpine grandimi tarp vientisinio ir sudurtinio tarinio. Tai lemia vien ų ar kit ų tip ų tarinio ribas. Darbo tikslas – ištirti angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų įvairi ų SP strukt ūrini ų tip ų, morfologini ų ir sintaksini ų požymi ų savitum ą, nustatyti ir įvertinti gramatini ų form ų raiškos polinkius. Darbo uždaviniai . Tiriant angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP strukt ūrinius tipus, j ų morfologinius ir sintaksinius ypatumus, keliami šie uždaviniai: - nustatyti angl ų kalbos lingvistinių termin ų atitikmenis gretinamojoje lietuvi ų kalboje; - aptarti teorin ÷s SinSS analiz ÷s ir SP sampratas strukt ūriniu, funkciniu bei semantiniu poži ūriu; - apibendrinti tipologinius angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP strukt ūros ir morfosintaksin ÷s raiškos savitumus, nustatyti SP analitiškum ą ir SP sandaros įvairov ę; - pagr įsti angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP santykius su laiko, aspekto, asmens ir beasmeniškumo, nuosakos, r ūšies, tranzityvumo ir refleksyvo (sangr ąžos) kategorijomis, aptarti su SP susijusi ų gramatini ų kategorij ų ir form ų realizacijos savitumus, išryšk ÷jan čius ver čiant techninius tekstus iš angl ų į lietuvi ų kalb ą; - apžvelgti angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP strukt ūrinius tipus, sudaromus su jungtimi ir veiksmažodiniu bei vardažodiniu komponentais, aptarti j ų sandaros morfosintaksini ų form ų polinkius ver čiant techninius tekstus iš angl ų į lietuvi ų kalb ą; - apžvelgti angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP derinimo su veiksniu savitumus. Ištyrimo laipsnis. Teorini ų savitum ų ypa č gausu įvairiomis kryptimis pl ÷tojamuose angl ų kalbos gramatikos tyrimuose. Taigi tenka atsirinkti ir nuspr ęsti, kuri ų kryp čių ir kokie teoriniai principai labiausiai tinka sprendžiant pagrindinius šio darbo uždavinius. Darbe remiamasi naujausiais deskriptyvin ÷s (aprašomosios) ir normin ÷s (preskriptyvin ÷s) krypties gramatik ų darbais ir poži ūriais. Aprašomoji ir norminamoji, t.y. tradicin ÷, gramatikos iš dalies sutampa, ta čiau turi ir tam tikr ų skirtum ų. Jose naudojamasi nuo antikos laik ų susiformavusiais gramatin ÷s sandaros aptarimo b ūdais, paremtais iš dalies Aristotelio logika, iš dalies – kalbos form ų reikšm ÷mis. Tradicin ÷s gramatikos s ąvoka, vyraujanti ir lietuvi ų kalbos mokykl ų vadov ÷liuose, remiasi deskriptyvizmu, vartojamu visose normin ÷s gramatikos darbuose kalbos praktikai ir mokymui. Tradicin ÷ gramatika laikoma pagrindu dabartin ÷ms lingvistin ÷ms teorijoms ir gramatikoms, ta čiau tiriant kitokios strukt ūros angl ų kalb ą, tradicin ÷s gramatikos teorijos nepakanka: ji negali paaiškinti skirting ų angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų strukt ūros, t ų kalb ų s ąvok ų specifikos, siejamos su skirtingomis tradicijomis, žodynu ir analize. Tradicin ÷ gramatika tiria sakin į sudaran čias s ąvokas: veiksn į, tarin į, papildin į, predikatyv ą (papildym ą arba vardin ę tarinio dal į), fraz ę ir kt. Dabartin ÷s lingvistikos teorijos ir j ų kalb ų tyrin ÷jim ų analiz ÷s papildo vadinam ąją tradicin ę gramatik ą, kuri paprastai siejama tik su vienos kalbos studija. Tačiau deskriptyvin ÷s (aprašomosios) gramatikos poži ūris daug kur papildomas ir strukt ūrini ų,

25 semantini ų bei funkcini ų pakraip ų įvairi ų darb ų duomenimis. Sujungti įvairi ų poži ūri ų sprendimus į vien ą visum ą – vienas iš sud ÷tingiausi ų gramatikos teorini ų uždavini ų. Darb ą praple čia morfologijos integracija į sintaks ę. Šiame darbe t ęsiama Lietuvos lingvist ų angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų gretinamieji tipologiniai tyrin ÷jimai strukt ūros bei semantikos atžvilgiu. Remiantis angl ų gramatik ų tipologiniais darbais bei gretinamosios krypties angl ų ir lietuvi ų gramatik ų principais ir poži ūriais, tiriama angl ų ir lietuvi ų sakini ų sandaros tipologija, sakinio d ÷men ų tipologija, žodži ų tvarkos vaidmuo sakinyje, morfosintaksin ÷s realizacijos b ūdai sintaksiniu, semantiniu ir morfologiniu aspektu. Šiame darbe analizuojamas sakinio sandaros ir turinio pamat ą sudarantys dviej ų skirtingo tipo kalb ų SP ir j ų strukt ūrini ų tip ų morfosintaksinis realizavimas daug tyrin ÷tas angl ų kalbos gramatikos darbuose, ta čiau ligi šiol mažai aptartas lietuvi ų kalbos moksliniuose techniniuose tekstuose. Analiz÷s duomenys lyginami tipologiškai ir nustatoma, kaip tų raiškos atitikmen ų laikomasi praktiškai ver čiant min ÷tus tekstus iš angl ų kalbos į lietuvi ų kalb ą ir atvirkš čiai. SP priklauso funkcij ų klasei. Taigi abiej ų kalb ų gretinimo kryptis remiasi poži ūriu nuo funkcijos prie formos ir reikšm ÷s tyrimo – tai padeda aiškiau atskleisti abiej ų kalb ų strukt ūrines ir morfosintaksin ÷s sandaros SP tip ų skirtybes. Darbe taikomi pagrindiniai tyrimo metodai : Sintaks ÷s tipologijos metodas (Zaefferer, 1995: 1109–1110). Angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų tipologijoje sintaks ÷s ir morfologijos informacija yra ypa č svarbi tiriant SP, o sintaks ÷s ir morfologijos išskyrimas atsižvelgiant į ši ų kalb ų strukt ūrin ę sandar ą tampa centriniu aspektu. 2. Kontrastinis metodas (Albrecht, 2004: 246–249). Kontrastin ÷ lingvistika siejama su sisteminiu kalb ų lygiu, kuriame yra užkoduota žmogaus tarpusavio ryšio kognityvin ÷ patirtis. Kontrastin ÷ analiz ÷ ir vertimo studijos teoriniu poži ūriu susij ę tyrimai, ta čiau kontrastin ÷je analiz ÷je vertimas suvokiamas kaip papildomas tyrimo metodas. Vertimas siejamas su teksto reikšm ÷s perteikimu į kit ą kalb ą. Tod ÷l vertimo funkcija suprantama kaip kalbin ÷ veikla teksto lygmenyje. Gretinam ų kalb ų leksini ų ir sintaks ÷s sistem ų ekvivalentiškum ą lemia vertimui b ūdingi kriterijai (Neubert, 2004: 330–335). Kontrastiniu metodu paprastai tiriami vertimo ekvivalentai kalb ų sistemos lygmenyje, gretinant skirting ų kalbų tekstus (Chesterman, 1998: 28; 2004: 93–100). Išeities tašku imami angl ų kalbos SP ir j ų lietuviškieji tarini ų atitikmenys, gretinamuoju tipologiniu poži ūriu nustatomas abiej ų kalb ų gramatin ÷s raiškos, j ų sandaros savitumas. SP tipai grindžiami ir strukt ūra, ir semantika, ir teksto specifika. Skirting ų angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP strukt ūroje gramatin ÷s formos ir reikšm ÷s santykis ypatingas. 3. Deskriptyvinis metodas (Ivir, 2004: 278; Mork ūnas, 1999: 224). Deskriptyviniu metodu aprašoma atskirai kiekvienos kalbos SP tip ų strukt ūra, pasitelkiant gramatikos taisykles. Angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP, j ų morfosintaksini ų strukt ūrų norminimas ir svar ūs kontrastin ÷s analiz ÷s tyrimai

26 grindžiami normin ÷s gramatikos principais ir j ų faktais bei stiliaus įvairove. Aprašant angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP gramatin ę sandar ą pagal form ų tarpusavio ryšius, remiamasi veiksmažodžio apsupties tyrimu. SP apib ūdinamas pagal visum ą pozicij ų, kurias jis gali tur ÷ti kit ų element ų atžvilgiu, nustatomos ir tiriamos form ų klas ÷s, tipai, j ų strukt ūra. 4. Statistinis metodas (Richards, Schmidt, 2002: 243). Šiuo metodu nustatomi angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP strukt ūrini ų tip ų dažniai. Remiantis mokslini ų techninini ų tekst ų bei t ų tekst ų tip ų analize, darbe atliktas angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SP veiksmažodži ų morfosintaksin ÷s raiškos strukt ūrini ų tip ų, j ų form ų polinki ų nuodugnus kokybinis ir kiekybinis tyrimas (žr. priedus). Darbo aktualumas ir naujumas. Aktualu ištirti angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų SinSS ir suvokti, ar vykstant kalb ų interferencijai lietuvi ų kalbos sakinys nesupanaš ÷ja su angl ų kalbos SinSS modeliais. Nefleksinio tipo angl ų kalboje žodži ų tvarka yra gramatiškai fiksuota: daiktavardžiai ir b ūdvardžiai nekaitomi ar mažai kaitomi, gramatin ÷ reikšm ÷ nusakoma sintaks ÷s priemon ÷mis – žodži ų tvarka, kuri ą gali koreguoti sakinio tipas ir jo funkcija ( What role does quality management play in your practice? Avoid breathing dust!). Lietuvi ų kalba, b ūdama fleksinio tipo, žodži ų tvark ą turi palyginti ne toki ą griežt ą. Žodži ų gramatines reikšmes rodo pa čios žodži ų formos – jas fiksuoja gal ūn÷s, kaitybos ir darybos priesagos: pvz., vardininko linksnio gramatin ÷ reikšm ÷ išryšk ÷ja iš jo sintagminio (linijinio) ryšio su veiksmažodžiu ( Elektros jungiklis veikia ir kaip avarinis stabdiklis [nom]) ir iš jo paradigminio ryšio su kitais linksniais ( Patariama prieži ūros etiket ÷je paaiškinti š į ženkl ą [acc.]. Užsegimo konstrukcija turi b ūti geros kokyb ÷s [gen.]. Taigi geriausias b ūdas yra išlikti ramiam [dat.] ir kt.). SP, jo strukt ūrų ir morfosintaksin ÷s sandaros realizacijos savitumo apibendrinimas angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalbose gali pad ÷ti ver čiant iš vienos kalbos į kit ą. Sakiniai tiriami turinio ir formos aspektais, ypa č pabr ÷žiamas teksto vaidmuo SP analiz ÷s įprasminimo realizacijai, kalbos reiškini ų sintaksini ų strukt ūrų funkcionavimui. Analizuojant mokslinio techninio stiliaus kalbos priemones, stengiamasi suderinti aprašomosios, norminamosios, kontrastin ÷s, strukt ūrin÷s, semantin ÷s ir funkcin ÷s teorij ų koncepcijas, įvertinti ši ų skirting ų teorij ų poži ūrius į SP, atskleisti d ÷snius bei santykius tarp įvairi ų gramatini ų reiškini ų, siejam ų su SP strukt ūriniu tipu ir morfosintaksine jo sandara. Gretinant ir ver čiant tokius dviejų kalb ų tekstus su SP, pirmiausia nustatomi adekvatumo s ąlygos ir vartosenos tikslumo, aiškumo reikalavimai. Teorin ÷ ir praktin ÷ darbo vert ÷ ir pritaikymas. Darbe apžvelgta su SP strukt ūrini ų tip ų, siejam ų su savita sistemine asmenuojam ųjų veiksmažodži ų form ų raiškos ir morfosintaksin ÷s sandaros specifika, su šiomis problemomis susij ę poži ūriai, įvertinti ir pritaikomi prie bendrosios pasirinkto darbo krypties. Tiriama tiksli kalbos kaip dinaminio proceso SP strukt ūrini ų tip ų, jo form ų morfosintaksin ÷ sandara, taikomi nagrin ÷jimo ir analiz ÷s bei modeliavimo principai. Praktiškai šis darbas gal ÷tų b ūti naudingas vert ÷jams, ver čiantiems mokslin ę technin ę literat ūrą

27 iš angl ų į lietuvi ų kalb ą ir iš lietuvi ų į angl ų, angl ų kalbos mokytojams, d ÷stytojams bei studentams filologams, studijuojantiems strukt ūrin ę sintaks ę, SP ir j ų morfosintaksin į realizavim ą angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalbose. Surinkt ų pavyzdži ų tekstai gali b ūti panaudoti kuriant mokslin ÷s technin ÷s kalbos tekstyn ą ir ieškant dviej ų kalb ų terminijos atitikmen ų. Fakt ų šaltiniai. Angl ų kalbos SP strukt ūrini ų tip ų ir j ų morfosintaksin ÷s sandaros atitikmenys lietuvi ų kalboje nustatomi, remiantis angl ų kalbos moksliniais techniniais tekstais jų vertimais į lietuvi ų kalb ą ir – atvirkš čiai. Išanalizuota daugiau kaip septyni t ūkstan čiai aštuoni šimtai keturiasdešimt anglų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų sakini ų. Tiriamoji medžiaga apima dvidešimt šešis skirtingų tip ų tekstus – dokument ų, technini ų instrukcij ų, mokslo populiarinimo, mokslini ų tyrim ų apraš ų, mokslini ų straipsni ų, metodikos. Darbe panaudoti trys šimtai šešiasdešimt penki angl ų kalbos sakini ų pavyzdžiai ir j ų atitikmenys lietuvi ų kalboje. Pasitaiko t ų pa čių sakini ų pavyzdži ų su SP tipais, ta čiau jie analizuojami atsižvelgiant į skyriaus tem ą (su laiko, aspekto ar derinimo). Nurodomi ir galimi sakini ų, ir SP variantai, neužfiksuoti vertim ų tekstuose. Atsiribojama nuo tekstuose pasitaikan čių kalbos kult ūros klaid ų, kurios neturi įtakos SP strukt ūrini ų tip ų realizavimui. Atskleidžiant abiej ų kalb ų strukt ūrines ir morfosintaksin ÷s sandaros SP tip ų skirtybes ir remiantis kontrastine analize, darbe pavyzdžiai tiriami ir grupuojami remiantis SP strukt ūra, aiškinami abiej ų kalb ų SP tip ų ir j ų morfosintaksin ÷s raiškos form ų skirtumai, ver čiant siejami su reikšm ÷s ekvivalentiškumu. Statistiškai nustatomos gryn ųjų ir analitini ų form ų opozicijos, t ų form ų vartojimo polinkiai. Aptariamas vertimo strategijos alternatyvi ų form ų pasirinkimas ir tendencijos. Mokslinio techninio teksto SinSS įvairi, ta čiau jam neb ūdingi nepilnieji sakiniai. Sakiniuose žodži ų tvarka paprastai stilistiškai neutrali. Dažnos lietuvi ų kalbos beasmen ÷s sakini ų konstrukcijos ir neveikiamosios r ūšies konstrukcijos įprasminamos perteikiant informacij ą, čia pasitelkiama specifin ÷ terminija ir loginio pob ūdžio sintaksin ÷ raiška. Darbo strukt ūra. Darb ą sudaro įvadas, teorin ÷ dalis, trys sintaksini ų predikat ų analiz ÷s dalys, išvados, literat ūros s ąrašas ir priedai. Darbo pradžioje pateikiamas įvadas. Įvade apibr ÷žiamas disertacijos tiriamojo darbo objektas, ginamieji teiginiai, tyrimo tikslas ir uždaviniai, ištyrimo laipsnis, tyrimo metodai, nurodomas darbo aktualumas ir naujumas šiuolaikin ÷je kalbotyroje, teorin ÷ ir praktin ÷ darbo vert ÷ ir pritaikymas, aprašoma pasirinkta mokslinio techninio stiliaus tiriamoji medžiaga ir fakt ų šaltiniai, darbo strukt ūra, darbo aprobavimas bei disertacijos tema skaityti pranešimai konferencijose. Pirmojoje dalyje Teoriniai sintaksin ÷s sakinio strukt ūros sampratos ir analiz ÷s pagrindai apžvelgiama SinSS sampata (žr. 1.1.), SP ir sakinio strukt ūros samprata (žr. 1.2.), SP ir veiksmažodžio kategorijos samprata (žr. 1.3.), sintaks÷s bei morfologijos santyki ų pob ūdis (žr. 1.4.). Ribojamasi tik

28 bendromis pastabomis apie sakinio sintaksin ÷s strukt ūros (SinSS) ir sintaksinio predikato (SP) santyk į su semantine sakinio strukt ūra (SemSS) ir semantiniu predikatu (SemPred) (žr. 1.5.). Antrojoje dalyje Angl ų kalbos sintaksini ų predikat ų tipai ir lietuvi ų kalbos vientisiniai tariniai apžvelgiami apibendrinti SP strukt ūriniai tipai, j ų morfosintaksin ÷ raiškos pob ūdis, SP skirstymas angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalbose (žr. 2.1.). Svarstoma SP analitiškumo problema (žr. 2.2.) ir SP r ūšys pagal sandar ą. Čia nurodomi angl ų kalbos SP tipai, atitinkantys lietuvi ų kalbos vientisinius tarinius (žr. 2.3.). Tre čiojoje dalyje Sintaksini ų predikat ų tipai ir j ų santykis su įvairiomis kategorijomis atskleidžiamas SP tip ų santykis su veiksmažodžio kategorijomis: su laiko kategorija (dabarties, praeities ir ateities laiko realizavimas, žr. 3.1.). Apžvelgiama aspekto kategorija (ir realizavimas, žr. 3.2.), diskutuojamas praeities laiko iteratyvumas (ir realizavimas, žr. 3.3.). Aptariama asmens kategorija (ir realizavimas, žr. 3.4.), atskirai apžvelgiami specifini ų angl ų kalbos sakini ų It is / was ir There is / are SP ir juos atitinkantys lietuvi ų kalbos beasmeni ų sakini ų tariniai (ir realizavimas, žr. 3.5.). Aptariami SP tipai ir j ų santykis su nuosakos kategorija ( įvairi ų nuosak ų realizavimas, žr. 3.6.). Svarstomas SP santykis su tranzityvumo kategorija (tranzityvumo realizavimas, žr. 3.7.), su r ūšies kategorija (aktyvo ir pasyvo realizavimas, žr. 3.8.). Atskleidžiamas SP santykis su refleksyvo kategorija (refleksyvo realizavimas, žr. 3.9.). Ketvirtojoje dalyje Angl ų kalbos sintaksini ų predikat ų tipai ir lietuvi ų kalbos sud ÷tiniai tariniai trumpai apžvelgiami angl ų kalbos SP ir lietuvi ų kalbos sud ÷tiniai tariniai (žr. 4.). Ketvirtosios dalies pirmajame skyriuje Sintaksini ų predikat ų strukt ūriniai tipai su veiksmažodiniu d ÷meniu (žr. 4.1.) aprašomi SP strukt ūriniai tipai su modaliniais veiksmažodžiais (ir realizavimas, žr. 4.1.1.), su faziniais veiksmažodžiais (ir realizavimas, žr. 4.1.2.), tai pat su subjekto b ūsen ą reiškian čiais veiksmažodžiais (ir realizavimas, žr. 4.1.3), su objektine konstrukcija (ir realizavimas, žr. 4.1.4.). Ketvirtosios dalies antrajame skyriuje Sintaksini ų predikatų strukt ūriniai tipai su vardažodiniu d ÷meniu (žr. 4.2) aptariamas SP tipas su jungtimi (žr. 4.2.1.), SP strukt ūrinio tipo jungtis be / būti , jų formos (ir realizavimas, žr. 4.2.2.) ir su jungt į atstojan čiais kitais veiksmažodžiais (ir realizavimas, žr. 4.2.3.). Aptariami SP tipai su vardažodiniais komponentais – predikatyvais (žr. 4.2.4.), su daiktavardiškaisiais (žr. 4.2.5.) ir b ūdvardiškaisiais žodžiais (j ų realizavimas, žr. 4.2.6.). Atskirai aptariamas SP d ÷men ų derinimas su veiksniu ir derinimo realizavimas anglų ir lietuvi ų kalbose (žr. 4.3.).

29 PUBLIKACIJOS DISERTACIJOS TEMA

Straipsniai recenzuojamuose tarptautiniuose, užsienio ir Lietuvos periodiniuose, t ęstiniuose arba vienkartiniuose leidiniuose, įtrauktuose į Lietuvos mokslo tarybos patvirtint ą tarptautini ų duomen ų bazi ų s ąraš ą

1. Šven čionien ÷, D. (2006): Morphologically encoded aspect and synthetic and analytic predication. Kalbotyra . Nr. 56(3). * Linguistics . 142–146. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. ISSN 1392–1517. MLA Modern language Association International Bibliography http://www.mla.org 2. Šven čionien ÷, D. (2008): Angl ų kalbos sintaksiniai predikatai ir juos atitinkantys lietuvi ų kalbos vientisiniai tariniai. Kalb ų studijos. 2008. Nr. 12. * Studies about languages . 11–15. Kaunas: Technologija. ISSN 1648–2824. MLA Modern language Association International Bibliography http://www.mla.org

Straipsniai kituose tarptautiniuose, užsienio ir Lietuvos recenzuojamuose periodiniuose mokslo leidiniuose

1. Šven čionien ÷, D. (2006): Morpho-syntactic and semantic analysis of futurity. Kalbos vienet ų semantika ir strukt ūra, 187–192. Klaip ÷da: Klaip ÷dos universiteto leidykla. ISBN 978-9955-18-171-2.

Apie autori ų Dana Šven čionien ÷ (g. 1955) 1976–1982 m. studijavo angl ų filologij ą Vilniaus universitete ir įgijo angl ų kalbos ir literat ūros d ÷stytojo kvalifikacin į laipsn į. 1986–1991 m. dirbo KPI Užsienio kalb ų katedroje d ÷stytoja valandininke. 1992–1998 m. dirbo Kauno J. Jablonskio vidurin ÷je mokykloje angl ų kalbos vyr. mokytoja. Nuo 1998–2002 m. dirbo asistente Kauno technologijos universiteto Humanitarini ų moksl ų fakulteto Užsienio kalb ų centre. 1999–2001 m. dalyvavo moksliniame tyrime: Test ų sudarymas bei j ų efektyvumo tyrimas, vadovas lektorius V. Raila, UKC. Nuo 2002–2005 m. tyrin ÷jo Predikatini ų sintaksini ų konstrukcij ų, vertimo iš angl ų į lietuvi ų kalb ą, problemas, konsultant ÷ prof. hab. dr. A. Paulauskien ÷, KTU. 2005–2008 m. tiria angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų sintaksinius predikatus ir j ų morfosintaksin į realizavim ą techniniuose tekstuose, konsultantas prof. hab. dr. V. Labutis, VU. 2008–2009 m. m. D. Šven čionien ÷ priimta į VDU doktorant ūrą eksternu ginti parengt ą filologijos krypties darb ą Angl ų ir lietuvi ų kalb ų sintaksiniai predikatai ir j ų morfosintaksinis realizavimas techniniuose tekstuose, mokslinis vadovas prof. hab. dr. V. Labutis, VU, konsultant ÷ doc. dr. V. Kal ÷dait ÷.

30