CORRELATION OF THE SEMANTIC STRUCTURES OF THE SENTENCE AND

HIERARCHY OF SEMANTIC FUNCTIONS

Summar y

The differences of the number of semantic functions that are provi- ded in different works are virtually related to the particularity of semantic correlations segmentation and depend on the researcher’s interests. If the research is focused on the classification of predicates, usually a list of a wider variety of functions is provided in order to inventory more or less all types of correlations by focusing on the conveyed situation, a smaller list of functions is determined, but those functions then tend to be of a wider scope with regard to the variety of correlations and usually include smaller functions. Such hierarchal distribution of the content of functions is related with not one type or another of the interpretation of the corre- lations within the semantic structure of the sentence, but with the more general or specific features of actual correlations, on the basis of which the semantic functions are defined.

Semantic functions may also be interrelated as unequal units due to the fact that structures are formed by conveying the same situation differently. One semantic structure conveys the reference roles of the situation direc- tly; another structure shows a different interpretation of the correlation between the participants in the situation or another perspective chosen by the former of the sentence structure. Due to the changes of the predicate in the linguistic attributes and the overall structure, that can be identified by comparing different interpretations of one situation, these structures may be related to the relations of derivation, and one of the structures may be underlying, the other – derivative. Semantic functions may be named accordingly. Semantic structures may be compared in this way with a view that a sentence referent is a specific reference situation, and that it is more the content of the saying than of the sentence that is taken into account. Otherwise, it makes no sense to discuss an alternative realization of the re- ferent roles through the semantic correlation between semantic parts of the sentence, as well as the speaker’s intention and the conveyed perspective.

There are different ways of conveying a perspective that are acting in cer- tain groups and fall into several different types according to their nature.

A different perspective of the perceived situation may be conveyed through the summary of direct correlations. Summary is realized through different level of changes: reformed lexemes of the predicate, alternated semantic functions and alternated set of semantic functions.

A more abstract, but conveying the same act of the situation (in a wide sense) meaning may be created with the prefix derivates (bėgti – apibėgti,

pilti – pripilti), prefix derivatives used together with a suffix (mesti – mėty-

ti), a more general lexeme (pridėti – paliesti, dėti – dengti), relative nomina- tion lexemes (by incorporating arguments: lakuoti, grybauti; by naming an action according to the wanted attribute, action, state and process: puošti,

lyginti, virkdyti, liūdinti, pūdyti).

Predicate alterations correlate with the typical changes of semantic functions. Alterations of semantic functions depend on the semantic types of predicates. The functions of the displacement predicates in the seman- tic structures remain the same, but the directive is supplemented with the meaning of the overall comprehension of the object, or a holistic meaning that is marked Dir_Hol. A holistic meaning is the result of the generalization of an action and appears in all the structures restructured on the basis of the generalization of correlations. A holistic meaning alternates the type of influence (the predicate moves to another influence subgroup) in the group of different correlation influence, thus the functions (their symbols) do not have the significant of such meaning (Hol). In summary, the func- tions of the semantic structures of the influence predicate groups alternate as follows: (Pt → I; Dir → Pt) or the set of the essential functions becomes less (P – Ag, Pt, I → PERSPP – Ag, Pt).

All the alterations in the derivative structures are marked by a perspec- tive indicator to the derivative predicate (PERSPP). It is a formal signifi- cant indicating the alternated predicate and structure, but not relating to the specific content of alterations in the specific structure. The generali- zation may be made step by step, through restructuring the predicate and a semantic structure; thus, only the first structure may be called a direct structure, as all the others are indirect. Further on a certain generalized structure may be a basis for another generalization and it could be called the basic structure, while the one derived from it – a derivative structu-

re. A step by step generalization with different generalization methods is characteristic of influence group structures. Such step by step restructu- rization may only be conveyed through the numeration of the perspec- tive indicator. It is possible to evaluate the derivative only through the assessment of the whole set of alteration attributes, as only the functions themselves may not reveal it – the function remains the same, while the referent is different, as the definition of the functions is too wide to reveal the differences of the perspective.

Reflexive predicates convey alterations of a different type that can be assigned to the perspective conveyance notion.

Derivative structures with those predicates include two adversative ac- tions or relations. They could be called symmetric predicates, and the conversions could be included in this group two. The predicate structures of adversative relation (reflexive – according to a morphological characte- ristic) have equivalent functions, even though they are conveyed through syntactically unequal components. They are marked as a combined se- mantic function with a sign of contraposition (contributing predicates: P – [Ag-B]_Contr, Pt).

A reflexive verb can convey an action that is oriented to the subject itself. Then there is no opposition, the structure does not change much, and the changes of the functions are not semantic, but mainly syntactic. In this case we should be talking not about a different perspective and a derivative structure, but about atypical, peripheral and mostly impact (causative) relations.

In the structures of substantive predicates a perspective is conveyed by reforming a verbal predicate into a more general verb and a noun na- ming the main part of the meaning. Such change is accompanied by a reforming of a structure, but the semantics does not change much. The changes are meant to give prominence to the topic conveyed through the predicate. The parts of the predicate take an important syntactical function of a direct object, so the relations conveyed through other components end up in a periphery of the structure: they can be even dropped out from the syntactic structure or transferred to the attributive structure, i.e. into a position independent from the predicate.

Although the structure itself is obviously derivative one, however, the changes of the semantic functions are not big: only some of them broaden with an additional meaning.

Anotacija

universiteto Lietuvių kalbos katedros profesorė. Moksliniai interesai: leksikologija, leksinė semantika, leksikografija, kalbos politika.

Adresas: Čiurlionio g. 86–24, LT-2009 Vilnius. El. paštas: [email protected]

Evalda Jakaitienė: Professor of Department of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius University. Research interests: lexicology, lexical semantics, lexicography, language policies.

Address: Čiurlionio g. 86–24, LT-2009 Vilnius. E-mail: [email protected]

Evalda Jakaitienė

D Ė L S I N O N I M I J O S I R

DaU g I a R E I K Š M I Š K U M O

S a N T Y K I Ų

Straipsnyje kvestionuojamas vienas iš šiuolaikinės leksinės semantikos teiginių, kad kie- kviena reikšme vartojamas daugiareikšmis žodis įeina į ne tas pačias leksines semantines paradigmas ir turi vis kitus sinonimus. Tyrimo objektas – semantinė daugiareikšmio veiks- mažodžio mesti struktūra, jos santykiai su įvairiais sinonimais.

PagRINDINIaI ŽODŽIaI: daugiareikšmis žodis, semantinė struktūra, sinonimai, seman- tiniai komponentai, veiksmažodžio valentingumas.

Abstract

This article deals with one of the most controversial issues of modern lexical semantics’ – relations between polysemy and synonymy. The subject of the research is the polysemous Lithuanian verb mesti, its semantic structure and relationship with various synonyms. The author questions the premise that the synomyms of each meaning of a polysemous word are always different.

KEY WORDS: polysemous word, semantic structure, synonyms, semantic components, verb valency.