Normų nestabilumo priežastys būvio konstrukcijose su veiksmažodžiu tapti
Reasons for instability of norms in phrases with the verb tapti expressing state

Summary/Abstract: The article analyses the reasons why norms concerning phrases with the verb tapti (‘to become’) or the semantically contiguous verbs darytis (‘to turn’) and virsti (‘to convert, to become’) expressing state are not well-established. Four factors which in general determine the norms of expression – choice of the case used with various verbs – are indicated and illustrated with examples: 1) semantics of the verb and its forms; 2) expression of state using adjectival and nominal words; 3) the character of the state (permanent or temporary); 4) syntactical position. These factors interacting in various ways, complementing each other and intersecting create a space open for variations and make the system of norms complicated and difficult for language users to understand.The unsteadiness of norms concerning the expression of state is influenced not only by the difference between nominal and adjectival expression shown in works of linguistics, but also by the distinctive semantics of the verb tapti, by particularly strong competition in usage between adjectival instrumental (seen as the result of the influence of Slavic languages) and alternative cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and locative) and by the instrumental in the position of ordinary attribute as the real but not codified norm.The fourth factor – syntactical position – is proposed in this article as hypothetical. There are some cases in usage when the phrase expressing state is not in the position of predicate or predicative attribute, but in the position of ordinary attribute (cf. Mugė tapo tradicinė and Vėl surengta tradicinė tapusi mugė). Use of the instrumental in the position of attribute (second example) as well as in other phrases expressing state with the verb tapti is treated as a mistake, although alternative cases used in phrases with a double case in the position of an attribute could be viewed as prospectless codification. Double cases here look artificial: this is acknowledged by language users who ignore such codification as well as by language specialists. Therefore having in mind the semantics of the verb tapti (clear meaning of transformation, moving into a different state similar to the meaning of the verb virsti which is used only with the instrumental) two questions could be raised: 1) are there any arguments which would justify and validate the instrumental denoting state with the verb tapti in the position of an attribute? 2) what consequences could this have for the whole system of norms applied to phrases expressing state with the verb tapti or with other verbs?The reasons for varying expression of state with the verb tapti suggest that there are inner preconditions for the statement of structural changes in the system of the language, therefore there is a basis for reconsidering codification in some cases.In the new works of codification (for instance in Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian) which is being prepared) or in the new editions of existing works the verb tapti ought to have a more precise semantic description and a greater variety of examples of grammatical expression. After consideration of possible consequences a decision about a milder evaluation of some cases and a correction of the norms might be made.

• Details
• Contents