LTDinaminės prigimties jungtys pasidaryti ir tapti, kaip ir (pa)virsti ar tarmėse dar tebevartojama stotis / pastoti, lietuvių kalboje yra prisitaikiusios reikšti ingresyvinį pokyčio įvykio aspektą. Straipsnyje aptariamos jungčių pasidaryti ir tapti sintaksinės bei semantinės distribucijos vartosenoje tendencijos remiasi šių jungčių preterito formų kvantitatyvine analize "Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstyno" trijų registrų imtyse. Sintaksinės distribucijos analizė aprėpia ingresyvinio aspekto raiškos formų pasidarė ir tapo vartojimo tendencijas ir proporcijas askriptyvinėse, inkliuzyvinėse ir specifikacinėse jungties konstrukcijose. Semantinės kalbamų jungčių formų distribucijos analizė aprėpia jų sudaromų konstrukcijų designacijos zonų nustatymą: kiek šios zonos yra savitos ir kiek jos persikloja. Jungčių formų pasidarė ir tapo sudaromų konstrukcijų designacijos (kitaip — semantinės specifikacijos) didžia dalimi yra nulemtos jų akcionalinės prigimties (pirmuoju atveju turime vyksmo, antruoju — atsitikimo predikatą) bei paveldėtosios reikšmės pėdsako jų semantikoje. Veiksmažodžio tapti semantikoje šis pėdsakas dabar vargiai besusekamas, o veiksmažodžio pasidaryti semantikoje jis yra veiksnus dėl dar gyvai jaučiamo jo sudaromos jungties konstrukcijos darybinio ryšio su kilmės konstrukcija. Paveldėtosios reikšmės pėdsakas jungties pasidaryti semantikoje pasireiškia kaip agentyvaus ir / ar intencionalaus subjektinio referento presupozicija, arba reikalavimas, ir tai yra esminis semantinis požymis, skiriantis ją nuo jungties tapti.Pragmatiniu lygmeniu šis skirtumas pasireiškia kaip vidinės arba išorinės komunikatyvinės perspektyvos į profiliuojamą ingresyvinio pokyčio įvykį pasirinkimas. Galiausiai straipsnyje, griežtai laikantis semantinio ekvivalentiškumo kriterijaus, paskaičiuojamas galimo jungčių formų pasidarė ir tapo tarpusavio sukeičiamumo mastas tirtose tekstyno imtyse. Jis pasirodo esąs pakankamas, kad galima būtų teigti, jog šių jungčių formų sudaromos konstrukcijos esančios kalboje egzistuojančios bendresnės ingresyvinio aspekto raiškos konstrukcijos dvi atskiros instanciacijos. Raktažodžiai: atsitikimo predikatas, ingresyvinis aspektas, išorinė komunikatyvinė perspektyva, vidinė komunikatyvinė perspektyva, vyksmo predikatas. [Iš leidinio]
ENIn an earlier publication (Mikulskas 2018), a contrastive study of the syntactic and semantic properties of the copular verbs virto ‘turned into’ (lit. ‘fell over’) vs. tapo ‘became’, based on an analysis of the data of the Corpus of Modern Lithuanian, was presented. In the present article the author continues his investigation into the domain of aspectual copulas of dynamic origin with a study of pasidarė ‘became’ (lit. ‘made oneself’) vs. tapo. The final goal of this research is to show that all three copular constructions (henceforth — CCs), featuring the copular verbs virto, pasidarė and tapo, are different instantiations of the more abstract ingressive-aspect-expressing construction. The contrast between the CC featuring virto and the CC featuring pasidarė is discussed only sporadically in the present study, as the first has much less in common with the latter than the latter has with the CC featuring tapo: the main difference consists in that the copula virto selects for involuntary subject referents while pasidarė selects for agentive and / or intentional subject referents, as does, in most cases, the copula tapo. The sample for quantitative analysis was compiled from three different registers of the Corpus of Modern Lithuanian — fiction, non-fiction and mass media — each consisting of 100 running lines featuring one (or more) CC with the preterital verb forms pasidarė and tapo. In sum, the sample consists of 300 running lines featuring CCs for each copular verb under discussion. In section 2, a quantitative analysis of the syntactic distribution of two copulas — pasidarė and tapo — each within its own sample of 300 running lines, is presented. It shows that pasidarė occurs in CCs of the ascriptive type 4 times more often than in those of the inclusive type.For comparison, tapo occurs in a similar sample 2,8 times less often in CCs of the ascriptive type than pasidarė, but it is used there 3 times more often in CCs of the inclusive type. Within its own sample, tapo occurs in CCs of the inclusive type 2,2 times more often than in those of the ascriptive type. The relatively higher frequency of ascriptive CCs with pasidarė in comparison with inclusive ones in the sample (and in usage generally) can be accounted for by the previously established fact (Mikulskas 2018) that the other ingressive copula — virto, which also designates an incrementally developing change event, can be complemented by predicative adjectives only to a limited extent, so that in these cases it is apparently substituted for by the copula pasidarė, especially in the contexts where the agentivity and / or intentionality of the subject referent is not emphasized. In section 3 of the article a thorough study is offered of the semantic distribution of the copulas pasidarė and tapo in their respective samples. The possible designations of CCs with these two verbs are determined by the aspectual properties of the latter, which have established themselves in accordance with their inherited semantics. The preterite pasidarė designates an incremental durative change event and has a profile of the accomplishment type. Thus, with pasidarė, not just the completive-transitional stage of the ingressive-change event is included in the focus of the CC, but also (at least) the progression stage leading up to it. The preterite tapo usually designates an instantaneous change event (which has practically no duration) and has the profile of an achievement predicate. A CC with tapo focuses on the completive-transitional stage of the ingresive-change event.Despite the different aspectual profiles of their verbs, the designational zones of CCs with pasidarė and tapo intersect to a much larger extent than those of CCs with pasidarė and those with virto, both of which are based on predicates of the accomplishment type. The reason for this is that both copulas — pasidarė and tapo — predominantly select for agentive and / or intentional subject referents. But here also lies the main difference in the semantics of these two copulas. While in the case of the copula tapo the agentivity and / or intentionality of the subject referent is mainly implied by the wider context or the relevant cognitive model of the profiled event (as this verb has almost lost its original meaning), in the case of the copula pasidarė an agentive and / or intentional subject referent is always presupposed from the semantics of the verb. This presupposition is a vestige of the original semantics (backward pull; Traugott 2008: 34) inherited by the copular verb from its source construction. In previous research (Mikulskas 2020) it has been suggested that CCs with darytis / pasidaryti are anticausative counterparts of the so-called resultative constructions of culminative causation (abbr. RCCC) with (pa)daryti: the former were derived from the latter by means of the reflexive morpheme -si-. [...] Keywords: accomplishment (predicate type), achievement (predicate type), ingressive aspect, inner communicative perspective, outer communicative perspective. [From the publication]