English Adverbials [Reprint 2017 ed.] 9783110818536, 9789027921468

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA edenda curai

C. H. VAN SCHOONEVELD Indiana Series

University

Practica,

125

ENGLISH ADVERBIALS by

DON LEE FRED NILSEN University of Northern Iowa

1972

MOUTON THE HAGUE · PARIS

© Copyright 1972 in The Netherlands Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated, or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers

L I B R A R Y OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 75 -173381

Printed in Hungary

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to thank Thomas Bever, Noam Chomsky, Charles Fillmore, Bruce Frazer, Μ. A. K. Halladay, Fred Householder, Harold King, Andreas Koutsoudas, Paul Postal, Syrell Rogovin, Peter Rosenbaum, and Robert Stockwell for the many important insights into the English adverbial system they have given to him through personal discussions and/or letters during the years 1963—1967. The writer wishes especially to thank James Downer, Peter Fodale, Alan Keiler, and Gene Schramm, who read this monograph in an earlier version, and offered detailed suggestions for its revision. The writer also wishes to thank Alleen Pace Nilsen for her helpful criticism throughout the preparation of this study.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

5

Introduction

9

I. Review of the Literature

11

I I . Manner Adverbials

74

I I I . Adverbs of Extent

99

IV. Adverbs of Cause, Adverbs of Reference, and Adverbs of Place . . V. Adverbs of Time, Sequence, Addition and Restatement VI. Adverbs of Affirmation and Adverbs of Negation VII. Verb-Adverb Combinations

118 141 156 160

VIII. Summary and Conclusions

179

Bibliography

188

Index of Names

193

INTRODUCTION

It was Charles C. Fries who first proposed that a distinction should be made between form words (which he designated by numbers: 1, 2, 3, and 4), and function words (which he designated by letters: a, b, c, d, etc.), and it was he who first explained the basic differences between form and function words. Although there is certainly adequate motivation for this form-word versus function-word distinction based on the observations set forth by Fries and other structuralists, he failed to mention perhaps the most important distinction of all, — that is that form words are capable of expansions while function words are not. Form-word classes are more interesting to the transformational linguist than are function-word classes because of three characteristics belonging only to the former. First, form words are capable of functional shift, not only in the sense that the same phonological shape (e.g. down) can be many different parts of speech, and in the sense that affixes can change an expression from one form class to another, but also in the sense that a particular transformation changes a word from one part of speech to another without changing the grammatical relationships among the various words in the sentence. For example, the action nominalization changes a manner adverbial into an adjective (Betsy rapidly made the flag => Betsy's rapid making of the flag). Second, form classes are open classes which are constantly being added to. These additions are in the form of new coinages, borrowings, new combinations of existing morphemes, and functional shift (mentioned above). And third, form classes can undergo an indefinite number of expansions^ With the category Adverb, for example, there are the recursive rules associated with Adverb itself, such as the well known rule usually represented as Adj (very) Adj. In addition, the Adverbial expansion (like Noun, Verb, and Adjective expansions) can contain not only the other form classes with all of the expansions and recursions associated with them, but it can also contain imbedded and attached sentences, and therefore all of the expansions and recursions possible anywhere in English. Traditional and structural grammar are incapable of adequately handling these

10

INTRODUCTION

expansions and recursions, so it is only recently that noun expansions, adjective expansions, etc. have been a central concern of linguists. At the time of the writing of these materials the situation is that, of the four form classes (as opposed to function classes), only the adverbial has not been studied as an autonomous part-of-speech category from the standpoint of expansions and relationships between various forms. Robert Lees 1 has a rather complete statement about English noun expansions. Robert Allen,2 Noam Chomsky, 3 a n d Paul Schachter 4 have rather complete statements about English verbal expansions. And Robert Lees 5 and Paul Roberts 6 have rather complete statements about English adjectival expansions. The fourth major part of speech (Adverbials), however, is seldom treated as an autonomous class, and when it is the result is usually a procedure for classifying adverbials on some basis or other. Thus, in the past, Adverbials have been classified according to affixes, function, meaning, distribution, and combinations of these. But in no study t h a t deals with the complete Adverb category has anyone dealt with reductions, deletions, expansions, and relationships between various expressions. The present study is an attempt to do exactly this.

1

Robert B. Lees, "The Grammar of English Nominalizations", International Journal of American Linguistics, X X V I (1960); hereafter cited as Lees, "The Grammar". 2 Robert L. Allen, The Verb System of Present-Day American English (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1966). 3 Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1957); hereafter cited as Chomsky, Syntactic Structures. And "A Transformational Approach to Syntax", ed. Archibald Hill (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1962), pp. 124 — 186; hereafter cited as Chomsky, "A Transformational Approach". * Paul Schachter, "Some Problems in the Transformational Analysis of English Verbs", (Unpublished mimeographed notes, University of California, 1961). 5 Robert B. Lees, "A Multiply Ambiguous Adjectival Construction in English", Language, 36, pp. 207 — 221. β Paul Roberts, English Syntax, Alternate Edition (New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1964); hereafter cited as Roberts.

I

R E V I E W OF T H E L I T E R A T U R E

There are a number of competing grammatical models in linguistics, and of course most of the studies concerning adverbs make use of the particular grammatical model in vogue at a particular time. By labeling the models as traditional, structural, transformational, tagmemic, etc., there is no implication t h a t any of these models have assumptions or procedures t h a t are entirely different from those of the other models; nevertheless, there is some value in grouping treatments under these four categories. For a general statement of the development of grammars in America, without special reference to adverbial constructions, see Chapter Six of Language, Today,1

A. T H E TRADITIONAL APPROACH

There are three German books written in the traditional approach which deal specifically with adverbs. The first is Eugene Borst's Die Gradadverbien im Englischen,2 which was published in 1902. This book is valuable only as background information because it is basically a citation dictionary of adverbs. Unlike the present study, it is historically based; it is interested in explaining meaning and changes of meaning through time; and those points about the structure of the comparative adverb t h a t appear in the book are elsewhere stated with more accuracy and in more detail. A second German book t h a t deals with adverbs is Richard Tourbier's Das Adverb als attributives Adjektiv im Neuenglischen.3 This eighty-page monograph was adapted from a P h D Dissertation, and is, to a large extent, a citation dictionary of single-word adverbs 1 Don L. F. Nilsen, "A Historical Survey of Grammars in America", Language Today, ed. by Mario Pei (New York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1967), pp. 128 — 149; hereafter cited as Pei. 2 Eugene Borst, Die Gradadverbien im Englischen (Heidelberg, Carl Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1902). 3 Richard Tourbier, Das Adverb als attributives Adjektiv im Neuenglischen (Friedrich — Wilhelms University, 1928).

12

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

which modify nomináis. The citations show the historical development of each individual expression. Although the study is highly restricted, it is fairly complete; it is, however, designed for a different purpose than is the present study A third German book that deals with adverbs is Gustav Kirchner's Gradadverbien im heutigen Englisch,4 This is a comprehensive but somewhat unsystematic presentation based on a random method of example-collection. As Kirchner himself states, "Ich habe keine systematische Darstellung angestrebt. Die hier gebotenen Beispiele sind mir in den letzten Jahren in der Lektüre begegnet". 5 In stressing the number of new expressions that he had considered, he says, "Mehr als hundert Ausdrücke konnten neu verzeichnet werden, das heisst fast so viel, wie Borst überhaupt an neuenglischen Gradadverbien zusammengestellt hat".® Kirchner set up seventeen unparallel and overlapping categories for his "Gradadverbien" (intensive or comparative adverbs), outlined as follows: I. Restrictives, e.g. almost II. Word placement (Intensives are generally before substantives, Adjectives and Adverbs, but sometimes follow), e.g. BEFORE: entirely, AFTER: enough III. Intensive prefixes, e.g. kerplunk IV. Adjective- and constructions, e.g. nice and, good and V. Given names, e.g. Christ-awful, Simon-pure VI. Present-participles, e.g. amazingly VII. Substantive with following adjective, e.g. bone-dry VIII. Substantive in the objective case used as an intensive adverb, e.g. a lot IX. Preposition plus a substantive used as an intensive adverb, e.g. by all accounts X. Substantive (or Adverb) plus preposition used as an intensive adverb, e.g. a good way from XI. Comparative A. Comparative with as, e.g. as nice as B. Comparative with than, e.g. more often than not C. Comparative with like, e.g. like mad XII. Shortened statement as a means of intensifying, e.g. of all things XIII. Intensifying by doubling or repeating, i.e. Word-multiplication, e.g. drip-drip-dripping XIV. Intensifying through syntactic means and emphatic stress, e.g. Boy, did I give her a bruise? XV. Piling on of intensive adverbs, e.g. out and away 4

Gustav Kirchner, Gradadverbien im heutigen Englisch (Halle [Saale], Germany, Max Niemeyer, 1955); hereafter cited ae Kirchner. 5 Kirchner, p. 6. s Kirchner, p. 6.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

13

XVI. Modal words, e.g. acutely XVII. Indigenously American intensives, e.g. furiously7 I n going over Kirchner's long lists of 'Gradadverbien', my immediate impression is t h a t there are a limited number of such words in formal English, but in very informal English, this seems to be an open and rapidly expanding class. I n addition, there are two German articles that are worthy of comment, both of which were written around the t u r n of the century. H . Eitrem wrote an article entitled, "Stress in English Verb-Adverb Groups", in which he discussed stress placement in verb-adverb compounds. Although he was able to make some generalizations, he cautioned t h a t there were many exceptions, and after reviewing the treatments of stress in Bradley, Century Dictionary, Webster, Flugel, Muret, and Oxford, he concluded t h a t "This discrepancy between the best pronouncing dictionaries shows t h a t the traditional stress as yet is very unstable, and in many cases determined by the rhythm of the sentence". 8 The second German article treating adverbs is "Some Remarks on the Use of English Adverbs", by August Western. Western believes that manner adverbiale can function with adjectives in a sort of coordinate way. "The words -proudly grave form a sort of loose composition, proudly-grave meaning the same as proud-and-grave, so t h a t the adverb does not really modify the adjective at all, but the two words together express a sort of mixed quality . . . I n . . . Romola was nervously anxious, it is difficult to say whether Romola was anxious because she was nervous, or nervous because she was anxious, and so we may conclude t h a t she was both nervous and anxious" ? Western (as many traditionalists) was interested in related structures, and he was also interested in co-occurrence restrictions. Instead of using a formal transformation to show the relationship between structures, however, Western made statements such as the following: " . . . word-modifying adverbs stand in the same relation to verbs and adjectives as adjectives do to nouns . . . " And lacking the formal machinery t h a t generative grammarians have at their disposal for showing co-occurrence restrictions, Western had to state co-occurrence restrictions indirectly, and awkwardly. I n discussing the possibly fatal effects, Western states, ". . . what is possible fatality? The adjective possible does not here stand in the same relation to the following substantive as in the expression a possible thing".™ Western (again, as other traditionalists) was interested in distribution, and how it affected meaning: " . . . as a general rule, word-modifying adverbs are 7 8 8 10

Kirchner, pp. 87 — 119. Englische Studien, X X X I I (1903), p. 76. Englische Studien, X X X V I (1906), p. 85; hereafter cited as Western. Western, p. 79.

14

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

placed after, sentence-modifying adverbs before the verb. But this rule is not without exceptions . . . " , n and actually, Sweet had said pretty much the same thing in 1947. Western was also interested in manner adverbials derived from verbs as in "He would have . . . laughingly laid the burden upon Ella herself". 12 He devoted a great deal of space to manner adverbials which function as predicate adverbs as do namelessly and noselessly in "There are senators namelessly, noselessly, noiselessly seated under archways". He states that "Even if it might be argued t h a t noiselessly characterizes their manner of sitting, and so belongs to the verb, there can be no doubt t h a t it is the senators themselves who are nameless and noseless". 13 Western concludes by commenting on the relative lack of structure of adverbs, but he says, " I t is largely to the free and easy use of the adverbs t h a t English owes it [sic] terseness and picturesqueness of expression, it is this willingness, so to speak, of the adverbs to do the same work as is done by whole phrases in other languages, as much as anything else, t h a t shows English to be, in every sense of the word, a living language". 14 There are three British traditional grammarians who have had something significant to say about adverbs: Henry Sweet, Harold Palmer, and H . V. George. Henry Sweet made a number of observations concerning word-order of adverbials. He noted t h a t not is attached to the auxiliary if there is one, and placed before a verbal if there is not one, as in "to be or not to be", or "not going was difficult". 15 He indicated that " I n a succession of adverbs and adverb groups those most intimately connected with the verb precede: Come up at once: we went to school together / 1 want to look about me a little". 16 He further indicated t h a t "When one of two modifiers is a lengthy group, the shorter verb-modifier is often allowed to precede even if it would otherwise follow, as in he heard again the language of his nursery he heard it again. . . . I n such cases it is felt t h a t the heavier modifier will easier bear separation from the verb". 1 7 I t should be noted t h a t these are not the Verb -f- Particle constructions that Noam Chomsky talks about in Syntactic Structures and elsewhere, but t h a t they behave syntactically in exactly the same way. Sweet also talks about what Chomsky in 1957 termed 'complements': ". . . in some cases, indeed, no other order is allowable, as in let him in [ I have left my umbrella behind". Sweet even goes so far as to suggest that I have left behind my umbrella is ungrammatical because it "appears to be that the adverb might be mistaken for a preposi -

11

Western, p. 76. Western, p. 91. Western, p. 96. 14 Western, p. 98. 15 Henry Sweet, A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical, Part II, (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1903), p. 19; hereafter cited as Sweet. 16 Sweet, p. 20. 17 Sweet, pp. 20 — 21. 12

13

Syntax

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

15

tion if put before the noun-word".18 Although Sweet's reasoning appears at first to be valid, it fails to take into account that Verb -f Particle constructions occur very frequently with the noun phrase following the particle, although here also the particle is not a preposition, e.g. He waited on the new customer. Palmer says that there are five different ways in which adverbs can be classified: L. Formally, i.e. according as they are simple, derivative, compound or groupadverbs. 2. According to their meanings (manner, time, degree, etc.). 3. According to their manner of modification (epithets, complements or interrogatives, conjunctives). 4. According to their grammatical function (according to what parts of speech they modify, etc.). 5. According to the position they occupy in the sentence.19 In fact, between pages 186—195, Palmer uses a matrix to display 350—400 common adverbs, classifying each according to meaning, manner of modification, grammatical function, and position. Concerning classification according to meaning, Palmer says that " . . . adverbs may be roughly grouped into classes according as they may constitute answers to such questions as how, how much, when, how long, how often, where, etc. This, however, can be no more than an arbitrary classification, for two or more classes so shade one into another that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw a rigid line of demarcation between them". 20 Palmer pre-empts Fries by saying that adverbs can modify verbs (manner, time, place), adverbs and adjectives (intensives), nouns and their equivalents (e.g. only), sentences (e.g. perhaps); and can function as prepositions or as part of the predicate.21 Palmer also makes a distinction between adverbs used as epithets and those used as complements. He sets up the following contrasts: AS

EPITHETS:

He suddenly discovered the mistake. I naturally read the letter. I quietly went away. I immediately corrected it. We regularly enjoyed ourselves. He simply wrote the letter. 18

AS

COMPLEMENTS:

He discovered the mistake suddenly. I read the letter naturally. I went away quietly. I corrected it immediately. We enjoyed ourselves regularly. He wrote the letter simply.22

Sweet, p. 20. Harold Palmer, A Grammar of Spoken English on a Strictly Phonetic Basis (Cambridge, W. Heffer and Sons, 1927), p. 169; hereafter cited as Palmer. 20 Palmer, p. 171. 22 Palmer, p. 177. 21 Palmer, p. 176. 19

16

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

My own impression is that the distinction between epithets and complements is a false one. I believe t h a t the first, third, fourth, and fifth sets of examples are exact paraphrases of each other, and therefore belong to the same category, i.e. the so-called 'complement' constructions are transforms of the so-called 'epithet' constructions. The second and last sets of examples are not paraphrases of each other. The distinction between the first constructions: " I naturally read the letter", " H e simply wrote the letter", and the second constructions: " I read the letter naturally", and "He wrote the letter simply", will be pointed out in the discussion of manner adverbiale, to follow, as will Palmer's presently, directly, and hardly, which do not come from present, direct, and hard plus -ly.23 The third British traditionalist who has done important work with adverbials is H . V. George. He indicated t h a t {/-clauses could be conditional, hypothetical, or, with as preceding, comparative (these terms are mine). George discusses the structural signals which distinguish these various meanings, and indicates structure-meaning relationships. 24 There are four Dutch traditionalists who have had significant things to say about English adverbials: Henrik Poutsma, Etsko Kruisinga, P. A. Erades, and Reinard Zandvoort. Poutsma has made some significant statements in reference to two-word verbs. He listed the prepositions used in forming 'prepositional objects' as about, across, after, against, at, by, for, from, in, into, of, o f f , on, over, out of, round, through, to, towards, under, with, and without?5 He further indicates t h a t . . . prepositional objects are chiefly distinguished from adverbial adjuncts containing a preposition by the following features: a) The verb is so closely connected with the preposition as to express with it a sense-unit, which in many cases, either in the same language or in any of the kindred languages, may approximately be expressed by a transitive verb. Thus to speak about a subject differs but little from to discuss a subject. I listen to him answers to the French Je l'écoute ... b) The verb or adjective with which they are connected, readily suggests a certain preposition, or certain prepositions, used to the exclusion of all others. Thus the verb to listen is associated with the preposition to, and with none other. Compare with this the verb to go, which also is often followed by to. Here there is no such association, and a great variety of prepositions may be used after it. We may say He went TO the garden, but also He went ALONG (BEHIND, BEYOND, BY, INTO, PAST, ROUND) the garden. In I listened to him ... to him may, therefore, be called a prepositional object, He went to the garden the word-group to the garden an adverbial adjunct. 24 23

Palmer, p. 176. H. V. George, "If", English Language Teaching X X (1966), pp. 232—239; hereafter cited as George. 85 H. A. Poutsma, A Grammar of Late Modem English, Part I: The Sentence (Groningen, P. Noordhoff, 1904), p. 130; hereafter cited as Poutsma. " Poutsma, p. 177. 24

REVIEW

OF T H E

LITERATURE

17

Calling to him a word-group, functioning as 'prepositional object' illustrates one common weakness of the traditional grammarians in dealing with two-word verbs; they feel so strongly that such a word as to is a preposition (literally), that although their analyses would logically lead them to the point of saying that words in such constructions are co-occurring with the preceding verb, and are therefore 'postpositions', it seems that they cannot force themselves to analyze the constructions in this way. In other words, while Poutsma would break the construction listened to him into listened and to him, I would break the same construction into listened to and him, and ironically, on pretty much the same evidence as Poutsma cited above. As with other traditional grammarians, Poutsma's most significant classification of adverbials was by meaning, and he indicated that adverbial adjuncts could be divided into those of place, time, causality, and manner. He subdivided those of causality into those of cause, reason and ground, instrumentality, consequence and inference, purpose, condition and hypothesis, and concession; and he subdivided those of manner into quality, attendant circumstances, restriction and exception, quantity, degree and proportion, and mood.27 Kruisinga also classified adverbial constructions according to meaning. He classified adverb clauses as follows: 1. clauses of TIME. When you called me I was quite ready. 2. clauses of P L A C E . Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. 3. clauses of CAUSE. I am sure of it because he told me. 4. clauses of PURPOSE. I tell you all this that you may take your measures accordingly. 5. clauses of R E S U L T . He is so tired that he cannot speak. 6. clauses of CONDITION. If you have told him you should be ashamed of yourself. 7. clauses of CONCESSION. I will help you though you do not deserve it. 8. clauses of COMPARISON. It is not so easy as you think. It is easier than you think.28 Concerning the sixth category above, Kruisinga has this to say: Clauses of condition are of two kinds: 1. those which do not imply an answer to the question regarding the fulfillment of the condition (clauses of open condition). Poutsma, pp. 2 0 3 - 2 0 4 . Etsko Kruisinga, English Accidence and Syntax, Volume I I of A Handbook of PresentDay English, Second Edition (Over Den Dom to Utrecht, Kemink and Zoon, 1915), pp. 441—442; hereafter cited ω Kruisinga, 1915.

27

28

18

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

If you are right I am wrong. If he should come tell him to wait. If I have offended you by saying that I am very sorry. 2. those which imply non-fulfillment of the condition, or at least that fulfillment is (or was) unlikely (clauses of rejected condition). If I had time I should be pleased to go too. If I had had time I should have been pleased to go too.29 This illustrates another common tendency of traditionalists: they tend to make semantic statements without trying to analyze the structural signals which account for the semantics. I n this regard, George's statement on ifclauses was only slightly more complete t h a n the latter one. Kruisinga has rather good examples of adverbs being used as other parts of speech. As examples of adverbs being used as nouns he has "The ups and downs of life; Since then; I shall allow you to go this once". As examples of adverbs being used as adjectives, he has "outdoor games; indoor games; an inside job; the above remark (contrast the power/heaven/God above); a forewardmotion, a backward motion, a backward boy"; and indeed many constructions containing the suffix -ward.30 Zandvoort also gave some examples in this category such as up train, down train, off chance, uphill work, upstate + nominalization, eie.31 Kruisinga also discusses adverbs being used as conjunctions as in "Oh ! now I know my man, you may be sure I won't waste a word on him". 32 And finally he discusses adverbs being used as verbs, as in "to near a place", or " t o down an opponent". 3 3 These examples illustrate two difficulties. First, faulty analyses frequently occur, as in calling now a conjunction in "Oh, now I know my man . . .". Second, Kruisinga falls into the trap of confusing categories and functions. I t is not true t h a t these adverbs are being used as nouns, adjectives, conjunctions, and verbs. I t is only true t h a t in sentences they can function as subjects, DO's, OP's, modifiers, joiners, and predicates just as nouns, adjectives, conjunctions, and verbs can function as subjects, DO's, OP's, modifiers, joiners, and predicates. B u t the important point here is t h a t they still belong to the category 'Adverb' when they are functioning in such ways. This will be shown later when deep structures are indicated. I n Volume I, P a r t I of their An English Grammar, Kruisinga and Erades make some formal (though trivial) statements. For example, they say the following :

29

Kruisinga, 1915, p. 443. Kruisinga, 1915, p. 413. 31 Reinard W. Zandvoort, A Handbook of English Grammar (London, Longmans, Green and Company, 1957), p. 276; hereafter cited as Zandvoort. 32 Kruisinga, 1915, p. 413. 33 Kruisinga, 1915, p. 414. 30

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

19

As far as the form of adverbs is concerned we can distinguish four cases: a. those characterized by an ending -ly. . . b. those having an entirely different form from adjectives with related meaning . . . c. those having the same form for the adverbial and the adjectival. . . d. those having no corresponding adjectival words . . ,.34 They also say that "The practice followed in some grammars of distributing detached adverbs among the various notion categories — e.g. now is an adverb of time, slowly one of manner, etc. — is misleading. Adverbs, like all other words for that matter, are dependent for their meaning on a situation and context", 35 though the 'situation and context' to which Kruisinga and Erades here refer are social rather than linguistic. In Volume I, Part II of their An English Grammar, Kruisinga and Erades shed some light on negative constructions,3® indefinite adverbs,37 adverbs of extent, 38 and adverbs containing the suffix -ever Ρ All of these contributions will be discussed later. The last Dutch traditionalist whom I am going to consider is Reinard Zandvoort, who placed adverbs into twelve categories: time, place, cause or reason, purpose, result, condition, concession, comparison, manner, restriction, degree, and modality. Zandvoort's special contribution in discussing each of these categories will be discussed under the appropriate subject headings. Zandvoort did, however, comment that both negative and positive adverbs can function as pro-sentences. In "Did you kick him? — Certainly not". Certainly not is a pro-sentence standing for the entire sentence "Certainly I did not kick him". In "Did you kick him ? — Certainly". Certainly is a pro-sentence standing for the entire sentence "Certainly I kicked him", all of which is recoverable from the question. 40 Zandvoort also noted that the same adverb can be classified in different ways according to its linguistic context. Note that so that may express purpose . . ., result... or condition. In the first case so may be omitted, in the third case that. PUBPOSE: "Stand there, (so) that I may take a good look at you". RESULT: " I was so tired (that) I could hardly stand". 41 CONDITION: "SO (that) it is done, it matters not how". 34 Etsko Kruisinga and P. A. Erades, Accidence, Volume I, Part I of An English Grammar and Syntax, Eighth Edition (Groningen, P. Noordhoff, 1953), pp. 41 — 42; hereafter cited as Kruisinga, Erades, Volume I, Part I. 85 Kruisinga, Erades, Volume I, Part I, p. 45. 36 Etsko Kruisinga and P. A. Erades, Accidence and Syntax, Volume I, Part II of An English Grammar, Eighth Edition (Groningen, P. Noordhoff, 1960), p. 264; hereafter cited as Kruisinga, Erades, Volume, I, Part IP. 37 Kruisinga, Erades, Volume, I, Part II, p. 594. 38 Kruisinga, Erades, Volume I, Part II, p. 485. 39 Kruisinga, Erades, Volume I, Part II, p. 488. 10 Zandvoort, p. 246. 41 Zandvoort, p. 218.

20

BEVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Although Zandvoort made some comments on the difference of syntax of these three homonomous so that's he failed to note that that was deletable from the result clause as well as from the condition clause. He also failed to notice some other facts about the different syntax of the three expressions. He did, however, list a number of adverbials that can be variously categorized in the same way that so that can: . . . as long as may introduce a clause expressing either time or condition; since, time or reason; when, time or concession;.. . i f , condition or concession; for all, concession or restriction; that, purpose, result or restriction . . .γas, time, reason, comparison, manner or concession.42 The American traditionalists who have made the greatest contribution to the understanding of adverbials are Arthur Kennedy, George Curme, and Ralph Long. These are all representatives of the so-called scholarly tradition as opposed to the school-grammarians. Although the latter group has made an important contribution, it is mainly in the presentation, of the work of the former group. They usually did not attempt to make original observations. Arthur Kennedy's treatment of verb-adverb combinations43 is very extensive, and rather competent. He considers the history, the distribution (including compounding), the semantics, and even some transformations of such constructions (He even uses the term 'transformation'). After a rather thorough and objective treatment of these constructions, Kennedy reacts to them as "proletarian . . . Teutonic . . . picturesque" constructions which nevertheless "weaken the individuality of verbs", "increase possibilities o f . . . misunderstanding", thereby "lessening . . . the capacity for precision", and "encouraging .. . linguistic slovenliness". Harlan Hungerford feels that Kennedy " . . . discusses the verb-adverb combination as an interesting but obnoxious and deplorable manifestation of colloquialism and slang", and adds that "Kennedy also fails to recognize the possibility of formal criteria for classification".44 Kennedy discusses the syntactic and meaning changes that result from the combination of a verb with an adverb:

42

Zandvoort, p. 220. Arthur G. Kennedy, "The Modern Eng'ish Verb—Adverb Combination", Stanford University Series in Language and, Literature I (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1920); hereafter cited as Kennedy. 44 Harlan H. Hungerford, "The Verb Head Construction and its Modificational Patterns in Present-Day English, with Special Reference to the Marked Infinitive and Single Word Adverbs", (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1949), p. 16; hereafter cited as Hungerford. 13

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

21

I. SYNTACTIC a. intransitive becomes transitive b. transitive becomes intransitive c. co-occurrence restrictions of verb with object change 'the object of the combination is . . . of a very different character from that of the simple verb'. d. active becomes pseudo-passive II. SEMASIOLOGICA!· a. meanings of separate parts remain unchanged b. perfective or intensive meaning results c. meaning becomes completely different from that of the separate parts d. particle carries little or no meaning (i.e. there is a redundancy) e. meaning becomes specialized to limited contexts.45 A topic which Kennedy treated, and which has recently been the topic of reinvestigation among transformationalists is the medio-passive construction. Kennedy indicates that, While the use of a verb of active form with the signification or connotation of a passive verb is general — and by no means limited to verb-adverb combinations, none the less the combination seems to lend itself to such usage rather freely. A bill will figure up to a certain amount, dirt on a garment will brush off or clean off or rub o f f , a chair folds up, fresh bone will grind up easily, school lets out, a piece of cloth will make up nicely, a sleeping person will rouse up, a clock winds up easily, a plan works out well, material works up well, etc. This use of an active verb as a passive is especially characteristic of those verb-adverb combinations formed with the perfective up, such combinations as cake up, clog up, cook up, dent up, kink up, scuff up, streak up, etc.46 A related topic which Kennedy treated, and which again has recently been the topic of reinvestigation among transformationalists (e.g. in Chomsky's Aspects) ,i7 is the pseudo-passive construction. About this Kennedy says that "In some instances a verb ordinarily intransitive becomes transitive through the addition of the particle. Examples of this change in syntactical relations are bawl out 'to name a person publicly', come by 'to acquire', cough up 'to pay', drum up (trade), look over or up, point out, run down 'to disparage', talk over, work out (a problem), work up, etc."48 Both medio-passives and pseudo-passives will be discussed in greater detail under the topic of Manner Adverbials. Curme defines an adverb as " . . . a word that modifies a verb, an adjective, or another adverb . . .",49 and a preposition as " . . . a word that connects a noun or pronoun with a verb, adjective, or another noun or pronoun by indi45

Kennedy, pp. 26—28. Kennedy, p. 27. " N o a m Chomsky, Aepecte of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Massachusetts, M.I.T. Press, 1965), pp. 104—105; hereafter cited as Chomsky, Aspects. 48 Kennedy, p. 26. 4 " George Oliver Curme, College English Grammar (Richmond, Johnson Publishing Co., 1925), p. 22; hereafter cited as Curme, College English. 48

22

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

eating a relationship between the things for which they stand". 5 0 Curme's definitions of verb and adverb are typical of definitions made by traditionalists. They illustrate the common error t h a t traditionalists make by using different criteria for categorizing the separate parts of speech (i.e. function for defining the adverb, and position for defining the preposition). The result of defining parts of speech in such a haphazard manner is especially misleading here, for prepositions are set up as a part of speech on the same level as adverbs. I t is not taken into account t h a t an adverb commonly contains a preposition, e.g. in the house, and therefore Preposition is not a category in the same sense t h a t Adverb is. Not realizing this, Curme makes such statements as the following: Very closely allied in nature to adverbs are prepositions, which, like adverbs, limit the force of the verb as to some circumstance of place, time, manner, degree, cause, condition, exception, concession, purpose, means. But a preposition and an adverb differ in this, that the latter limits the force of the verb in and of itself, while the former requires the assistance of a dependent noun or some other word.51 Even though Curme made some misleading statements about the adverbpreposition relationship, he also made some important statements about this same relationship, as when he discusses such contrasts as the following. " I threw the ball at the wall, but I threw too high and it went over". "John drew the heavy sled up the hill, then he and Mary rode down". "We soon reached the park and strolled through". 52 This statement hints at something t h a t Zellig Harris has written about in many articles — t h a t when all of the information is recoverable, it is very often possible to reduce (pronominalize) or delete items. Thus a gradual reduction of Curme's last example would yield: We soon reached the park and strolled through the park. We soon reached the park and strolled through it. We soon reached the park and strolled through. But calling the first through a preposition, and the last through an adverb is like calling a bean a bean, and a carrot a vegetable. Curme indicated t h a t adverbs could be classified according to either function or meaning, in the following way: I. Function a. Simple b. Sentence c. Conjunctive aa. Coordinate Conjunctive bb. Subordinating Conjunctive d. Interrogative 50 51

Curme, College English, p. 25. George O. Curme, Syntax (Boston, D, Ç, Heat-h apd Çol, 1931), p. 559; hereafter cited as Curme, Syntax.

S3 Çvirme, Si/ntax¡ p. §Ç§,

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

23

II. Meaning a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k.

Place, direction, arrangement Time Manner Attendant Circumstance Degree, restriction, extent, amount, number Cause Inference and result Condition or exception Concession Purpose Instrument, means, agency, association53

I n 1925, Curme had had only six meaning categories: 1. Place, direction, arrangement; 2. Time; 3. Manner; 4. Degree, amount, number; 5, Cause; and 6. Inference and result. 54 Concerning the freedom of movement t h a t adverbs have, Curme said; An adverb can freely stand in almost any position except between a verb and its direct object, where it is much less common than elsewhere: 'Yesterday I met your father', Ί yesterday met your father', Ί met your father yesterday', but not Ί met yesterday your father'. This usage rests upon the principle that an adverbial element is usually more important than a direct object and, like important elements in general, gravitates toward the end.55 The last statement is another example of t h e fact t h a t traditionalists seem to be compelled to state reasons why t h e language is as it is. I n m y opinion, it is a t least questionable t h a t " a n adverbial element is usually more important t h a n a direct object", either semantically or structurally and it is also questionable t h a t important elements in general gravitate toward the end of a sentence. Consider also, "Prepositions are often omitted in colloquial speech in set expressions since they are lightly stressed and of little importance to the thought: 'He must never treat you {in) that way again'". 5 6 I t should be noted t h a t prepositions are often omitted in standard speech and writing as well and also t h a t the reason they are often omitted is not as much because they are unimportant as it is because they carry redundant information. Curme also made some statements about double negatives, split infinitives, extent constructions, and adverbial compounding, each of which will be discussed in its appropriate section. Ralph Long considers t h e adverb category to be ". . . the most miscellaneous of the part-of-speech categories, including words characteristically used as 53

George O. Curme, Parts of Speech and Accidence (Boston, D. Ç, Heath and Co., 1936), pp. 73ff. 54 Curme, College English, pp. 24—25, 55

Curme, Syntax, p. 130. •'5 Curme, Syntax, p. 56(5,

24

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

adjuncts (as occasionally is used in I get to New York occasionally), as prepositive modifiers of adjectives and other adverbs (as quite is used in it wasn't quite right, and too in he makes his points too undiplomatically), and as prepositions (as through is used in the highway goes through Lexington)".57 But Long is reluctant to break up the adverb category into several part-of-speech categories of less miscellaneous nature because " . . . some of these would be quite small (and two or three of them would be closed as well), and they would not be syntactically as distinct as parts of speech should be". 58 Long points out that the ending -ly can be attached to many different kinds of adverbs, such as manner (thoroughly), attitude (unfortunately), time (lately), general frequency (occasionally), near negation (barely), comparison (badly), and extent (absolutely). Although Long does not mention Lees' work directly, this statement seems to be something of a refutation of the first p a r t of Lees' Phrase Structure Rule number 20:

Man

Adj + ly (along) with + Nom by -f means + of 1 with i Nom

50

for only with Manner Adverbials does Lees generate the -ly suffix. The question to be asked a t this point, then, is to what extent the -ly suffixes in Long's classifications are active, living suffixes, and to what extent they are not, and therefore belong in the lexicon rather than in the grammar of English. Long also thinks t h a t "The basic coordinators and, but, or, and nor are best regarded as a small but important subcategory among the adverbs", as well as "such clause markers as i f , then, when, and whether and such linking adverbs as consequently, nevertheless, and also, which neither subordinate nor explicitly coordinate". 60 I also would handle such words under the subject of adverbials, but I would consider them adverb markers rather than adverbs (in the same sense t h a t prepositions are often adverb markers), and since my analysis treats semantics as more inportant than punctuation, we cannot consider the coordinate conjunctions (or the others) as belonging to the same category. For example, I would put but and however into the same category (even though through some quirk of grammar the first is a coordinate conjunction and the second is a 57

Ralph B. Long, The Sentence and Its Parts: A Grammar of Contemporary English (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 269; hereafter cited as Long, The Sentence. 68 Long, The Sentence, pp. 2 7 0 - 2 7 1 . 59 Lees, "The Grammar", p. 14. 60 Long, The Sentence, p. 44.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

25

subordinate conjunction), and I would put but and and into different categories (even though they both happen to be coordinate conjunctions). The whole area of classification will be discussed in detail later. Otto Jespersen, from Denmark, has also made a number of keen observations about the adverb in English. He said that "The relation between in as used in the sentence Mary was in and the same word in the sentence Mary was in the house . . . is exactly the same as that between an intransitive and transitive verb".®1 This analysis seems to me to be correct, and we could therefore set up transitive, intransitive, and pseudo-intransitive adverbs perfectly analogous to transitive, intransitive, and pseudo-intransitive verbs. The in in Jespersen's example would be pseudo-intransitive, as the object is deletable. Jespersen carries his point further: We do not call believe one part of speech when it has no object, another when it has a word as object, and a third when it has a clause as its object; neither should we do so with after, as the cases are really parallel; compare for instance: (1) I believe in a Supreme Being/Jill came tumbling after (2) I believe your words/Jill came tumbling after Jack (3) I believe that you are right/He came after we had left.62 Jespersen also makes some comments about functional shift in adverbs. Some (but by no means all) adverbs can be used as adjuncts before substantives. This is especially the case with such short and everyday adverbs as have no corresponding adjectives; this accounts for the frequency of then in this employment as compared with the rarity of now, which has the adjective present to express the same notion.63 He gives examples of time, place, manner, and extent adverbs being used as noun adjuncts.64 He also gives examples of adverbs being used as substantives. 65 Jespersen notes that it is fairly common for adjectives to modify other adjectives, as in burning hot, scalding hot, icy cold, bitter cold, ashy pale, ghastly pale, snowy white, wide open, and wide awake. About such constructions he says, . . . the first adjective tends to become a subjunct to the second, and as it were, a mere adverb of degree. At first it can only be used as such before an adjective of related signification; but if it is used extensively in such combinations, it is by and by felt as signifying nothing else but intensification, independently of the meaning of the following, and may then be used before all kinds of adjectives. The development has been carried furthest in the case of the two words very and pretty.66 61

Otto Jespersen, Essentials of English Grammar (New York, Henry Holt and Co., 1933), p. 10; hereafter cited as Jespersen, Essentials. 62 Jespersen, Essentials, ψ. 15. 68 Jespersen, Essentials, p. 353. 61 Jespersen, Essentials, p. 290. 64 Jespersen, Essentials, p. 221. 86 Jespersen, Essentials. pp. 366—367.

26

BEVIEW OF THE LITEEATURE

Jespersen also made the interesting observation that adverbs can have plurals, and he cites as examples twice, thrice, more than once, now and then, sometimes, often, and always. This is an interesting observation, but probably not one that should be treated as part of the grammar. All of Jespersen's examples are frequency adverbiale, which are by definition plural (except those of zero frequency such as never). I n conclusion, the traditionalists have probably made more original statements about adverbs than have either the structuralists or the transformationalists. What is more interesting, they have made statements about distribution, substitution, strict subcategorization, and co-occurrence, and have even suggested some transformations, though these statements were made without the benefit of a complete and consistent formal model. The traditionalists are motivated primarily by logic and semantics (rather than by syntax), and their most important subcategorization of 'Adverb' is meaning based — place, time, manner, etc. The traditionalists often confuse category (part-ofspeech) information with functional information, and their definitions tend to be inconsistent and unusable. Nevertheless, they have made some significant statements about adverbs t h a t should be worked into a complete and consistent formal grammar of English. I t was the early traditionalists who were responsible for setting up the category we call 'Adverb', and it was the later traditionalists who developed the prescriptive rules for the 'correct' use of adverbs. B. THE STRUCTURAL APPROACH

1. Immediate Constituent

Syntax

I n his American English Grammar, Charles Fries makes a comment on two suffixes that are derived from adverbials: "Words like foremost, innermost, outermost, nethermost, eastermost, topmost with such parallels as innermore, outermore, nethermore seem to furnish evidence for a suffix -most for the superlative degree and a suffix -more for the comparative degree . . ." e7 Concerning prepositions, Fries found in his study t h a t 92.6% in Standard English and 88.4% in Vulgar English of the instances of prepositions are of the nine prepositions at, by, for, from, in, of, on, to, and with. H e indicates t h a t one of the reasons that these nine prepositions occur so frequently is t h a t each of these words has so many separate senses. "The average number of separately numbered senses recorded and illustrated by the Oxford Dictionary for each of these nine words is thirty six and a half". 68 Fries adds, however, that, 67

Charles C. Fries, American English Grammar (New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1940), p. 96; hereafter cited as Fries, American, 68 Fries, American, pp. 112 — 113,

BEVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

27

. . . the meanings displayed by the Oxford Dictionary are not in each of these words in themselves but lie rather in the whole context in which the words are used and depend upon the meanings of the words that are brought into relationship by these function words. This does not mean that these function words are interchangeable, but each one serves to connect nouns that are related to each other in a great variety of ways, and in many cases there are therefore such areas of overlapping that any one of several different function words might be used to connect the nouns.69 I n his Structure of American English, Fries is very careful to keep the concept 'modifier* separate and distinct from his categories (Class 3, 4, etc.). The following examples show how impossible it is to define adverb and adjective by what they modify: HEAD

MODIFIER 1

2 3 4 Function Word 5 2

1

2 2 2 2

2 3 4 Function Word

2

5

3 3 3 3 3 3

1 2

4 4 4 4 6>

3 4 Function Word 5 1

4 Function Word 5

EXAMPLE automobile license burning fire messy room study abroad anything of importance men who came early 70 worked a little while came running remain loyal usually runs will begin at twelve-thirty come after your meeting is over 71 paper thin freezing cold icy cold entirely wrong awfully glad bigger than he can manage 72 somewhat late farther over pretty soon faster than he did in the first73

Fries, American, p. 113. Charles C. Fries, The Structure of English, An Introduction to the Construction of English Sentences (New York, Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1952), pp. 207 — 212; hereafter cited as Fries, The Structure. 71 Fries, The Structure, pp. 227 — 232. 72 Fries, The Structure, pp. 233 — 236. 7' fries. The Structure, pp. 2 3 6 - 2 3 $ , 70

28

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Thus, it can be seen t h a t Nouns, Adverbs, F u n c t i o n Words a n d Sentences can m o d i f y a n y of t h e four m a j o r p a r t s of speech, a n d t h a t Verbs a n d Adjectives can modify t h r e e of t h e four m a j o r p a r t s of speech (all b u t adverbs). On t h e basis of such evidence as t h a t above, Fries criticizes t h e following traditional definitions: An adjective is a word used to modify (describe, limit, or qualify) the meaning of a noun or pronoun. An adverb is a word used to modify {i.e., describe, limit, or qualify) a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. His criticism is t h a t traditionalists go in t h e wrong direction with their definitions of modifiers: According to the usual application of these definitions any word that modifies a "noun" or "pronoun" is an "adjective"; all other modifying words are "adverbs". The difficulty here lies in the fact that the units are defined in terms of the structure. We need rather to describe the structure in terms of the units. 74 B u t Fries went much f u r t h e r t h a n merely criticizing the. old definition of Adverb; he developed a new definition t h a t was based on whether or not t h e words could fill particular slots in carefully selected linguistic frames. Using this test, Fries broke t h e category Adverb into eight subcategories. I n his Linguistics and English Grammar, H e n r y Gleason indicates t h a t one of these categories was a form word category (Class 4, based on t h e f r a m e s (The) 3 1 is/was 3 4; (The) 1 remembered (the) 1 4; or (The) 1 went 4); 75 while the other seven categories were function word categories: Group Group Group Group Group Group Group

C. containing only not, t h e Negator D . containing words like very, Intensifiera H . containing only there, a n Expletive I . containing words like when, where, why, Interrogators J . containing words like nevertheless, therefore, Connectors K . containing well, oh, now, Attention Signals L . containing yes and no, Responses 76

Concerning this new classification, Gleason states, Fries' work was in the right direction, but some details must be corrected, and the direction pursued much further. The aim must be a system of word classes characterized by maximum homogeneity within the classes. 74

Fries, The Structure, pp. 204 — 205. Fries, The Structure, pp. 83 — 84. 76 Henry A. Gleason, Jr., Linguistics and English Grammar (New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1 965), pp. 129— 130, hereafter cited as Gleason, Linguistics. 75

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

29

Three moderate-sized groups of "adverbs" must certainly be separated out from the class if it is to be made workable. They are better treated as independent parts of speech rather than as subdivisions of a comprehending "adverb" class.77 His first subdivision is INTENSIFIERS, such as very, extremely, and rather, which modify Adjectives and Adverbs but not Nouns or Verbs. The sentence "He is very interesting", contrasted with *"He is very coming", illustrates the syntax of the adjective interesting as contrasted with the syntax of the participle coming. But interesting can also be an participle, as in the following sentences: " H e is intéresting a client in some insurance", and *"He is very interesting a client in some insurance". The second sub-division would be LIMITERS, such as only, just, even, which "modify phrases of all kinds, noun phrases as well as others"; and the third is SENTENCE INTRODUCERS, such as nevertheless, however, and furthermore.178 Gleason relates the old category of adverb with the new formulation by saying, After these excisions what remains of the old adverb class is very much more homogeneous, but not yet entirely satisfactory. Lacking anything better, the term "adverb" can be retained for this class. These words largely modify verbs or verb phrases, whole predicates or whole sentences.79 As justification for retaining (at least as part of our vocabulary) not only the term 'Adverb', but the old concept of adverb as well, Gleason states, . . . we cannot simply dismiss "adverb" or its traditional delimitation. For one thing all the dictionaries label items "adv.", following the older formulations. Students must understand this in order to use the dictionaries. And, of course, they must understand the limitations of the term. The old labels, when they must be abandoned, must still be taught, not as facts of grammar, but as facts of the history of grammar. The inclusive "adverb" must disappear from our curriculum as a working part of speech, but the old scheme must be understood in much the same way that Ptolomaic [sic] astronomy must be understood.80 I n his Two Word Verbs, A Study in Idiomatic English, Charles Staubach uses meaning to define two-word verbs, as follows; "For the purposes of the present discussion, a two-word verb is one in which a 'function word', used after a common verb, emphasizes or changes the meaning of the verb in such a way that the two words together constitute a new meaning unit . . . We exclude from the definition combinations of a verb and a function word when the meaning of the expression is clearly the sum of the parts". 8 1 Staubach classifies two-word verbs in the following way: 77

Gleason, Linguistics, p. 130. GJeason, Linguistics, p. 130. Gleason, Linguistics, p. 131. 80 GJeason, Linguistics, p. 133. 81 Charles N. Staubach, Τ wo Word Verbs, A Study in Idiomatic English, (Bogota, Publicación del Centro Colombo—Americano, 1951), p. 5; hereafter cited as Staubach. 78 79

30

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

1. Transitive (Separable) verbs; function word may be a. adverbial b. prepositional (including two function words) 2. Intransitive (inseparable) verbs; function word may be a. adverbial b. prepositional (including two function words)82 Staubach indicates t h a t the function word in two-word verb expressions is one which is normally an adverb or preposition. As examples he lists up, down, on, o f f , in, out, through, around, to, away, over, back, together, across, along, by, like, and with?3 H . D. Streatfeild indicates that when there is a long direct object, and when there are particular verbs, ". . . it is in many cases quite permissible to place an adverb or adverb phrase between a transitive verb and its object; b u t in an even larger number of cases it is not permissible to do so . . ," 84 "The difference", he says, "seems to depend on the particular adverb in question", b u t he adds that there seems to be no ". . . intelligible rule by which we may classify those adverbs which may precede the object . . . and those which may not in any circumstances appear in this position". 85 Harlan Hungerford defines adverb as " . . . a word t h a t modifies either a finite verb or an infinitive t h a t is included in the verb head construction". 86 I n discussing the relative positions of adverbs, Hungerford cites the unlikely sentence, "The man went there rapidly once more", and says of it, "Of course, no single sentence is likely to contain such a string of consecutively placed adverbs, but when adverbs appear in groups of more t h a n one, they seem to appear nearly always in the order indicated above". 87 Although Hungerford's dissertation examines a number of single-word adverbs, especially as they relate to various infinitives and verbs, it is an attempt mainly to analyze the direction of modification only in Nom V Adv Inf constructions, i.e. to determine when the adverb modifies the preceding verb, when it modifies the following infinitive, and when it could be taken to modify either, i.e. when the modification is ambiguous. There are three structuralists who have investigated the distribution of single adverb-prepositions. I n 1951, K u o Ping Chou wrote a dissertation entitled, f ' The Uses of the Function Word at in Present-day Standard English' ' .88 82

Staubach, p. 9. Staubach, p. 5. 84 H . D. Streatfeild, "Notes on the Position of the Adverb", English Language Teaching I I I (1948), 41; hereafter cited as Streatfeild. 85 Streatfeild, p. 42. 86 Hungerford, p. 40. 87 Hungerford, p. 40. 88 K u o Ping Chou, "The Uses of the Function Word at in Present-day Standard English" (unpublished P h D dissertation, University of Michigan, 1951). 83

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

SI

Two years later, Edward Anthony wrote a dissertation entitled, "Test Frames for Structures with up in Modern American English". 89 These two dissertations were both done at the University of Michigan. I n 1960, Abdul Karim Taha wrote an article entitled, "The Structure of Two-Word Verbs in English", for Language Learning, which was based mainly on his P h D dissertation at the University of Texas, and which dealt almost exclusively with the word down.90 Hans Marchand, in 1957, wrote an article entitled "Compounds and PseudoCompound Verbs in Present-day English". Marchand defined compounds as ". . . units consisting of independent morphemes, i.e., words (such as rainbow, color-blind)". And he added, Such combinations are necessarily based on a determinant/determinatum relationship: rain determines bow, as color determines blind . . . . If now we look for verbal compounds, applying the criterion just stated, it will be clear from the outset that the only type of verbal compound fitting the description is a verb with a locative particle for a determinant (as overdo, outstare, underestimate). Not all locative particles form verbs. Those which have derivative force are over, under, and out.91 Marchand then treats compounds with over, under, and out, but he does not indicate the synchronic derivation of such constructions, but rather treats the variation of the meaning of the same particle in different expressions, and also treats meaning differences through time. The rest of the article is not concerned with adverbs at all, but is rather concerned with verbs that are compounds based on other parts of speech. Donald Lloyd and Harry Warfel classify adverbs by the affixes t h a t can be attached: WORD-CLASS Adjective Noun Noun Noun Adverb Noun Pronoun Noun

AFFIX -iy

-iy

a-time -ward(s) -way(s) -where -wise

EXAMPLES annually, badly, gladly, hopefully, gradually, stingily daily, monthly, hourly, weekly, yearly afoot, ashore, aside anytime, dinnertime, mealtime, sometime backward(s), onward(s) sideway(s), lengthway(s) somewhere, anywhere crosswise, edgewise

To these, Lloyd and Warfel add another category where the adverb is the same as the preposition (what I have decided to call pseudo-intransitive adverbs): 89

Edward Anthony, "Test Frames for Structures with up in Modern American English" (unpublished P h D dissertation, University of Michigan, 1953); hereafter cited as Anthony. 90 Abdul Karim Taha, "The Structure of Two-Word Verbs in English", Language Learning X (1960), pp. 115 — 122. 91 Hans Marchand, "Compounds and Pseudo-Compound Verbs in Present-day English", American Speech X X X I I (1957), p. 83.

32

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

aboard about above across after against along around aslant athwart

before behind below beneath beside between betwixt beyond by down

in inside like near off on out outside over past

since through throughout to under underneath up upon within without92

Lloyd and Warfel explain the function of the English Adverb, and relate this to the fact that its position is often not fixed: The adverb steers and guides the sentence and cuts down the potential of meaning in the verb. It can affect the utterance largely and grandly or pinpoint narrowly a specific segment of it. I t is not bound to the fixed order of the noun-cluster and verb cluster; at any point where these show a chink, the adverb can do its work. It is the movable, the wandering, the free-wheeling unit in the utterance.93 Lloyd and Warfel contrast the distribution of adverbs with the distribution of adjectives in the following way: We recall that the adjective function was carried by phrases and clauses but not in the same positions; we built up the noun-cluster by recognizing that single-word adjectives commonly precede their nouns: fresh milk, and adjective phrases commonly follow their nouns: fresh mille in clean bottles. The adverb is different. Adverb phrases sit where the single-word adverbs do when they are doing the same modification, as in He went hurriedly and He went in a hurry .94 I n his Structure of American English, Nelson Francis quite well develops the concept of qualifier. H e first separates those qualifiers which cannot occur with comparative constructions from those that can. Those that can include the following: very, quite, rather, pretty, mighty; somewhat, a bit, a little, so, too; more, most, less, least; enough, and indeed, and those that cannot include the following: rather, somewhat, no, still; much, lots, a (whole) lot, a (good) bit; a goodjgreat deal, a little, even.K Concerning qualifiers, Francis makes statements about positioning, i.e. that "enough always follows the adjective with which it appears except when the adjective is a base adjective in the comparative degree" as in " T h e music was enough louder so that it could be heard", while "indeed may either precede or follow its adjective". 96 Francis sets up a formal test for distinguishing between qualifiers and adverbs of degree: 92 Donald J. Lloyd and Harry R. Warfel, American English in its Cultural Setting (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 274; hereafter cited as Lloyd. " Lloyd, p. 151. M Lloyd, p. 149. 9i W. Nelson Francis, The Structure of American English, (New York, The Ronald Press Co., 1958), pp. 278-279. 88 Francis, The Structure, pp. 278-279.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

33

On the basis of function and meaning, it is impossible to draw the line between . . . qualifiers and adverbs expressing degree, such as exceedingly, enormously, infinitely, fairly, moderately, infinitesimally, and many others. But we can exclude these from the category of qualifiers on the ground t h a t they are marked as adverbs by the adverbial suffix {-lyi} and can appear in positions regularly occupied by adverbs. This gives us a formal distinction which permits a clear-cut separation of qualifiers from adverbs. 97 F r a n c i s f u r t h e r indicates t h a t qualifiers c a n m o d i f y in t h e following w a y s : a) All adverbs in -ly and a few others, such as often and alive, may appear with any of the list of qualifiers . . ., as in very easily, more slowly, rather often, alive enough. b) Many adverbs in group 7 (the "preposition-type" adverbs) and some in group 3 (formed with {a-}) use far or much as a qualifier: far ahead, far down, much alive. c) Adverbs in the comparative degree, whether formed with the inflectional suffix {-er} or with the qualifier more, may use the same set of qualifiers t h a t comparative adjectives use . . ., as in lots oftener, still more eanly, a little slower. d) Some of the adverbs of groups 7 and 8 use right as a qualifier, as in come right in, he drove right past, I want my dinner right now. e) Older English used well and full as qualifiers. The latter survives in the phrase know full well.98 F r a n c i s also discusses a d v e r b s as n o u n modifiers a n d a d v e r b s as heads in m o d i fication s t r u c t u r e s . A b o u t t h e first h e says, "Adverbs a r e relatively r a r e as noun-modifiers, seldom c o n s t i t u t i n g m o r e t h a n 2 p e r cent of t h e single-word modifiers of n o u n s in o r d i n a r y prose. W h e n t h e y do a p p e a r in t h i s role, a d v e r b s always come i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e n o u n which is t h e h e a d . " A b o u t a d v e r b s as h e a d s in modification constructions, he says, " W h e n a d v e r b s a p p e a r as h e a d s of s t r u c t u r e s of modification, t h e y m a y be modified b y qualifiers, o t h e r a d v e r b s , nouns, or prepositional p h r a s e s " . 1 0 0 I n his The English Language, An Introduction, Background for Writing, F r a n c i s m a k e s a n i m p o r t a n t p o i n t a b o u t prepositional-phrase a m b i g u i t y , which is of i n t e r e s t t o us because m o s t prepositional phrases are a d v e r b i a l : When two prepositional phrases come in succession after a noun head, there is always a possibility of ambiguity. Since the object of the first preposition is usually a noun phrase, it is possible for the second prepositional phrase to modify its head only, rather than the whole preceding noun phrase . . . Usually it is possible to tell from the meaning which construction is intended, but sometimes ambiguity is complete:

97

Francis, The Structure, p. 279. Francis, The Structure, pp. 286-287. 99 Francis, The Structure, p. 304. 100 Francis, The Structure, p. 323. This is the same as what Fries indicated in The Structure, pp. 236 — 238, except that Fries has sentence instead of prepositional phrase. Actually, the two statements are probably identical, eis can be seen from the following example: "He is faster than (he was) at first". 98

34

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

There is a picture of a dish on a table [Is the picture or the dish on the table ? ] The house had a garage with big doors in back [Are the doors in the back of the garage ? ] 101 I n t h e same book, Francis indicates t h a t t h e adverb modification in "he went back then quickly" is not coordinate, b u t rather t h a t " . . . the verb phrase and its nearest modifier make up a modification construction which itself becomes t h e head of a larger modification, and so on until t h e last adverb has been included. he

ι

went

back

then

quickly

pred

This sentence illustrates the usual, though not absolutely obligatory, order of adverbs according to meaning: place or direction first, then time, and finally manner". 1 0 2 The first objection I have to this statement is t h a t such categories as place or direction, time, a n d manner are meaning categories. There is a great deal of syntactic evidence to justify these three categories, and a great m a n y of the other so-called meaning categories. Second, I believe t h a t the adverbs in the example cited are indeed coordinate a n d are perfectly parallel to adjective modification in such a construction as " a tall, young, handsome, intelligent man". 1 0 3 Charles Hockett sets u p seven m a j o r p a r t of speech categories which are motivated by the fact t h a t particular words can belong to more t h a n one p a r t of speech. Thus he has Ν, A, V, NA (noun-adjective), NV, AV, and N A V a s his m a j o r parts of speech, and to this he adds an eighth, PARTICLES, which has m a n y syntactically determined subclasses. He indicates t h a t even particles function as nouns, adjectives and verbs: . . . thus up and down are particles in He went up, He walked down (adverbs) ; He went up the street, He fell down the Mil (prepositions) ; but verbs in He upped the price, He downed the medicine and nouns in We all have our ups and dotons. The seven major ιοί \γ j j e i a o n Francis, The English Language, An Introduction, Background for Writing (New York, W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1965), p. 44; hereafter cited as Francis, Background. 102 Francis, Background, p. 57. 103 On page 196 of Aspects, Chomsky says, "It has sometimes been claimed that the traditional coordinated structures are necessarily right-recursive (Yngve, 1960) or leftrecursive (Harman, 1963, p. 613, rule 3i). These conclusions seem to me equally unacceptable. Thus to assume (with Harman) that the phrase 'a tall, young, handsome, intelligent man' has the structure [[[[tall young] handsome] intelligent] m a n ] seems to me no more justifiable than to assume that it has the structure [tall [young [handsome [intelligent man]]]]. In fact, there is no grammatical motivation for any internal structure, and . . . the assumption that there is no structure is also supported on grounds of acceptability . . .".

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

35

classes are all quite large; the class of particles is relatively smaller and its subclasses smaller still.104 However, he does not set u p P N , PA, or P V classes. I t is difficult to know what Hockett means by saying t h a t his class of particles is "relatively smaller" t h a n t h e other classes, when this class contains Adverb as a subset, and adverb in t u r n has as a subset manner adverbials which can be derived from virtually all adjectives. Hockett also talks about "pro-adverbalization" : Part of the classification of English pronouns into types reappears for substitutes with other sorts of domain-ties. Thus here, now, there, then are of the type of the demonstrative pronouns, but their domains are adverbs and adverbial expressions of time and place: John is here: John is in the room; I did it then: I did it last night. Where, when, and why are interrogatives, but not pronouns; nowhere, never are negative adverbial substitutes; anywhere, somewhere, indefinites; everywhere, always, ever, inclusives. So functions as an adverbial substitute (He did it so: He did it poorly), but also as a clause substitute: If so, we must get out of here: If that is the case, we must get out of here. The second members of pairs of correlatives (if . . ., then . . .) are clause substitutes, with the subordinate clause as antecedant: If so, then we must leave.105 I n his Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, Gleason sets up paradigms for nouns, personal pronouns, verbs, and adjectives, i.e. all of the m a j o r parts of speech classes except Adverb, and indicates, "These four paradigms define four paradigmatic classes. The remaining parts of speech, so far as t h e y have a n y validity, are of a different sort. They are classes or words which occur in t h e same or comparable environments in English utterances. They are syntactic classes". 106 I n his Linguistics and English Grammar, Gleason talks about some of the difficulties of cross classification, and indicates t h a t traditional grammars partially resolve t h e problem ". . . b y using labels like 'interrogative adverb' and 'interrogative pronoun'", b u t he adds t h a t ". . . unfortunately, they do not regularize it, and do not exploit the possibilities fully". 1 0 7 Like Hockett, Gleason indicates t h a t it is possible to handle the fact t h a t particular words can belong to a number of different parts of speech by setting up new categories for each possible combination, e.g. N, NV, NVA, etc. Gleason, however, indicates some important difficulties with such a classification system : It would soon be found unworkable. There would be too many such combination classes. Moreover, every grammatical statement would be excessively complicated by the new classes. Plural formation would have to be described for nouns, words of

104

Charlea F. Hockett, A Course in Modern Linguistics (New York, The MacMillan Co., 1958), p. 227; hereafter cited as Hockett. 105 Hockett, p. 258. 106 Henry A. Gleason, An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics (New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961), p. 95. 107 Gleason, Linguistics, p. 130.

36

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

the class of run [verb-noun-adjective], words of the class of out [adjective-preposition-noun-adverb], and many others. Though occasionally proposed in the literature, this solution can be eliminated as a possibility.108 Gleason distinguishes between adverbial complements, direct objects, and middle-verb objects by reacting to the sentence "Jim walked miles" in the following way: Traditional grammars (the more thorough ones at least) treat the last element in such sentences as an 'adverbial objective'. There are many kinds of these; this type is perhaps best designated 'complement of measure'. Such a complement cannot be confused with a direct object because of the lack of passive. The pattern differs from... She resembles Jane . . . in that very different assortments of forms can occur in the two complement positions.109 Gleason therefore distinguishes between adverbial complements and direct objects by whether or not the passive transform can apply; he distinguishes between adverbial complements and middle-verb objects by co-occurrence restrictions — "very different assortments of forms can occur in the twocofmplement positions". It is difficult to know why Gleason did not use a tra nsormational test to distinguish between adverbial complements and middle-verb objects. For example we can say "Jim slowly walked five miles", but not "Jim slowly resembled his brother", and we could therefore use the manner-adverb addition as a test. Another type of test would be to see what kind of pronoun the complement would become under the relative transformation. If the pronoun is when, where, how far, etc., the complement is an adverbial complement; if it is whom, or what, it is not. Contrast"... how far Jim walked" with "... who (m) Jim resembled". Henry Lee Smith Jr. discusses relative pronouns, and indicates that he feels there should be a distinction between items such as who and whom on the one hand and when and where on the other, " . . . since these latter forms do not enter into prenominai constructions or constructions with nouns. That is, we do not say when books, or where books in the same way that we say whose books. We can, on the other hand, say how many books, how much butter, so that constructions like how many, how much are syntactically like pronominale, actually relative pronominale, in such sentences as Ί saw how many books were sold' ", 110 Although I feel that the distinction between who relatives and when relatives is an important one, I feel that Smith's test for distinguishing between the two categories makes little sense. And when his test classes how many and how much in the who category rather than in the when category, I feel that we have a strong motivation NOT to use his test. 108

Gleason, Linguistics, pp. 123 — 124. Gleason, Linguistics, p. 308. 110 Henry Lee Smith, Jr., "Syntactic Analysis and a General Theory of Levels", Third Texas Conference of Linguistic Analysis in English, ed. Archibald Hill (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1962), p. 106. 109

87

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In his "Affixal Negation in English and Other Languages", Karl Zimmer points out that there are two kinds of negation. One kind of negative merely means not the positive, and is called 'contradictory'. The other kind of negative means the opposite of the positive, and is called 'contrary'. An example of an expression contradictory to "All men are mortal" would be "Not all men are mortal", and an example of a contrary statement would be "No men are mortal". Zimmer lists the negative affixes of English as follows: a-/an-, dis-, in-/il-/im-/ir-, non-, and un-. 111 The most complete treatment of adverbials made by a structuralist which the author has been able to locate is Adverbial Positions in English by Swen Jacobson. Although this dissertation was written as late as 1964, the only transformational materials which appear in the bibliography112 are Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures, Robert Lees' review of Syntactic Structures, and Zellig Harris' "Co-occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure' '. In Chapter 1, Jacobson lists the test frames for various types of adverbial constructions, thereby classifying the adverbials by position. The second chapter tells how the positioning of adverbs is determined by different types of word order and structures. In Chapter 3, Jacobson, ". . . investigates more thoroughly and comprehensively than any previous work the factors which influence the placement of the major adverbial categories".113 And this is followed by Part II, which is ". . . probably the only word-order dictionary that has so far been published. Its main purpose is to show how individual adverbs are actually placed by present-day writers and only in exceptional cases are related adverbs treated together in groups". Jacobson sets up eleven frames for distinguishing eleven sub-classes of Adverb, all of which are distinguished from each other on the basis of distribution, i.e. potential for occurrence in a particular frame. The eleven categories of Adverb which Jacobson suggests are based on the following frames: 1. H e gave her the money immediately [somehow, back, 2. H e did not sleep (intr. verb) quietly [again, anywhere, 3. He always [certainly, chiefly, only, also] spoke

nevertheless] either]

4. They loved both [equally, respectively] the brother and the sister 5. H e needs [personally,

too, however] must do it

6. He came at two o'clock sharp [exactly] 7. It will be very [quite] good (or: much [far] better) 8. It was done extremely [awfully] well (or: still [even] better) 9. And altogether [then, therefore] he took six of them. 111 Karl E. Zimmer, "Affixal Negation in English and Other Languages: An Investigation of Restricted Productivity", Word, X X (1964), pp. 21 — 45. 112 Swen Jacobson, "Adverbial Positions in English", (unpublished PhD dissertation, Uppsala University, 1964), pp. 367 — 371. 113 Jacobson, p. 365.

38

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

10. But intellectually [admittedly, otherwise, laterJ he was a rebel. 11. (And) neither [nor, soJ did he.114 Here again, the frame test has been applied objectively and consistently, y e t the resulting categories are not as homogeneous as they should be. I t is difficult, for example to know what quietly, again, anywhere, and either have in common, except that they happen to occur in the same slot in frame 2. Either the test frames should be more carefully chosen (which no one seems to be able to do), or else other information, e.g. transformational information, must be considered if categories of Adverb are going to have any significance. I n 1966, Charles Kreidler wrote an article entitled "English Prepositions", indicating t h a t a preceding verb, noun, or adjective can determine the choice of a preposition. I n this article, Kreidler divided just under two hundred verbs into twenty-four groups according to which preposition follows. The cooccurrence relations he was investigating were of the capitalized words in the following formula: VERB ( + preposition) + (pro)noun -f PREPOSITION + (pro ) noun.115 2. Phonological

Syntax

Certain structuralists have developed grammars based on the assumption t h a t the phonology is central and should be resolved before morphological or syntactic problems are dealt with. Furthermore, they assume t h a t many syntactic problems can be resolved by referring to the phonology. The first thorough statement of phonological syntax was in Trager and Smith's Outline of English Structure,116 and was further refined and developed in Archibald Hill's Introduction to Linguistic Structures,111 and Henry Lee Smith's "Syntactic Analysis and a General Theory of Levels". There are three statements t h a t deal with twoword verbs and t h a t are based on the assumptions of phonological syntax. The first was written as early as 1903 by H. Eitrem, and is entitled, "Stress in English Verb-Adverb Groups". The second was written in 1956 by Edith Crowell Trager, and is entitled, "Superfix and Sememe: English Verbal Compounds". 1 1 8 And the third was written in 1960 by Abdul Karim Taha, and is entitled, "The Structure of Two-Word Verbs in English". All three of these studies have been discussed earlier. There are two basic assumptions of the 114

Jacobson, p. 19. Charles W. Kreidler, "English Prepositions", English Language Teaching, X X , Number 2 (1966), pp. 119 — 122; hereafter cited as Kreidler. 116 George L. Trager and Henry Lee Smith, Jr. An Outline of English Structure (Washington, American Council of Learned Societies, 1957). 117 Archibald A. Hill, Introduction to Linguistic Structures, from Sound to Sentence in English (New York, Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1958). 118 Edith Crowell Trager, "Superfix and Sememe: English Verbal Compounds", General Linguistics II (1956), pp. 1 — 14. 115

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

39

approach of the phonological syntacticians t h a t make their theory incompatible with the present study (while the work of traditionalists and Fries-Harris structuralists is not incompatible); they are the insistence on a separation of levels, and the assumption t h a t the phonological level is more basic than the other levels. I t is in fact assumed in this text that such things as stress assignment and therefore vowel reduction, etc, are generally controlled by (and therefore do not control), the syntax. As Robert Lees indicated in his review of Syntactic Structures, " . . . even if one did establish an order of discovery, and phonemic analysis were prior to syntactic analysis, any dependence of the latter upon the former would, ipso facto, imply a corresponding relation in the opposite direction . . ." 119 Thus I am not saying that phonology is unimportant, nor that we do not react to phonologic signals. I am only saying that the simplest overall grammar of English would seem to begin at the syntactic level, and that from there the surface structure will resolve many phonological problems while the deep structure will resolve many semantic problems. The phonetic realizations, although they are important, will not be considered in this particular study, in the interest of space and clarity. 3. Dialect Differences For the same reason, dialect differences 120 will not be dealt with in this study. The English treated in here is Standard Formal Written English. Any forms that belong exclusively to other social, geographical, or formal levels have been excluded from consideration. 4. The Transformational

Approach

1957 seems to have been a year of significant contributions in linguistics. This was the year t h a t Martin Joos published his excellent compilation of structural articles entitled, Readings in Linguistics, and it is the year that Trager and Smith published their Outline of English Structure which was later to have such a far-reaching effect (especially in phonology). But more importantly, this was the year of the transition from structural to transformational linguistics. Zellig Harris' very important article in Language entitled, "Co-occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure" was partially responsible for the transition, but Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures was even more responsible.

119

Robert B. Lees, "Review of Syntactic Structures", Language X X X I I I , No. 3 Part I (July-September, 1957), pp. 3 7 5 - 4 0 8 . 120 For example see Virginia McDavid, "To as a Preposition of Location in Linguistic Atlas Materials", Publication of the American Dialect Society, No. 40 (1963), pp. 12 — 19.

40

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

As far as adverbials are concerned, Noam Chomsky in his Syntactic Structures did such things as setting up the first negative transformation t h a t could fit at all well into an overall grammar; setting up a separation transformation, and telling when it was optional, and when obligatory; 121 setting up a generalized transformation to handle coordination of adverbial constructions correctly; 122 and formalizing the relationship between active and passive constructions. 123 Chomsky pointed out not only t h a t the separation transform could be applied to what he called verb plus particle constructions while it could not be applied to verb plus complement constructions, b u t also t h a t the separation transform becomes obligatory when the direct object following a verb plus particle construction is a pronoun, while the separation transform cannot apply if the direct object following a verb plus complement construction is a pronoun. Thus his grammar in Syntactic Structures distinguishes between particle and complement in the following way: PARTICLE 1. transitive verb plus particle: 2. separation transform 3. No. 1 with pronoun direct object 4. No. 2 with pronoun direct object

He tried on the shirt He tried the shirt on *He tried on it He tried it on

COMPLEMENT 5. transitive verb plus complement 6. separation transform 7. No. 5 with pronoun direct object 8. No. 6 with pronoun direct object

He called on the student *He called the student on He called on him *He called him on124

I n Syntactic Structures, Chomsky also discusses another kind of complement construction: By studying the grammatical passives . . . we determine that "John found the boy studying in the library" . . . is analyzable ambiguously as either NP— Verb—NP, with the object "the boy studying in the library", or as NP—Aux + V—NP—Comp, a transform of the string . . . which has the complex Verb "found studying in the library". "John knew the boy studying in the library" . . . however, has only the first of these analyses.125

121 122 123 124 125

Chomsky, Chomsky, Chomsky, Chomsky, Chomsky,

Syntactic Syntactic Syntactic Syntactic Syntactic

Structures, p. 112. Structure, pp. 35 — 36. Structures, p . 112. Structures, p. 112. Structures, p. 82.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

41

Chomsky discusses this same example in his "A Transformation Approach to Syntax", 1 2 6 and discusses the effect of the passive transformation in distinguishing between such pairs. The passive transformation thus offers a criterion for assigning constituent structure in these cases. That is, the whole grammar is simplified if these sentences are assigned phrase structure in such a way that an unmodified passive transformation will form from them just those sequences that are in fact English sentences. The question of how sentences behave under transformation is, I believe, one of the most effective considerations that can be brought to bear in determining their phrase structure. It is important to note, however, that this "criterion" for constituent analysis is just a special case of a general, systematic criterion of simplicity.127 I n this same article, Chomsky explains the ambiguity of "They kept the car in the garage" by indicating that the sentence can have either of the following constituent structures: (a) they — kept — the car — in the garage (NP — Aux + Vi — NP — Comp) (b) they — kept - the car in the garage (NP — Aux + Vi — NP)128 There is one further point t h a t should be made about Chomsky's treatment of adverbiale in "A Transformational Approach to Syntax". He distinguishes between Adv and Adv1 in the following way: be 2. VP

Pred AdVj

VPX 5. Adv

at 3 o'clock, in the morning, etc. yesterday, every morning, etc. Advx

6. Advi •

in the house, at the theatre, etc. there, away, home, . . ,129

This formulation indicates that a word like "home" is both Adv and Advv while a word like "yesterday" is only an Adv. This distinction is motivated by the fact that "home" since it is an Adv1 can occur as a subjective complement (see Transform 2 above), while "yesterday" cannot. I t should be noted here, however, that certain time adverbiale can be used as subjective complements with be. Consider, for example, " J o h n is early/on time/late/ . . ." 130 Consider Chomsky, "A Transformational Approach", p. 150. Chomsky, "A Transformational Approach", p. 155. 128 Chomsky, "A Transformational Approach", p. 150. 129 Chomsky, "A Transformational Approach", p. 138. 130 Don L. F. Nilsen, "Review of English Syntax by Paul Roberts", Linguistics, International Review, XLV (1968), p. 116. 127

An

42

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

also Lees' examples which are even more directly relevant to the item at hand: "The parade is at three", "My appointment is tomorrow". 131 Most relative clauses are adverbial in function. Therefore statements concerning relative clauses are of interest to us. In his Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Chomsky indicated ". . .we can have the interrogative 'he saw the man read the book that was on what ?', but not *'what did he see the man read the book that was on' ; and we can have 'he wondered where John put what ?', but not *'What did he wonder where John put . . .' ".132 The restraint that when the relative transformation applies twice, the second application does not take the pronominalized element to the beginning of the clause, must, therefore, be written into a grammar of English adverbials. In his Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Chomsky derives adverbials in the following way: (i) S — NPTredicate-Phrase (ii) Predicate-Phrase — Aux~VP (Place) (Time)

(iii) VP -

be Predicate (NP) (Prep-Phrase) (Prep-Phrase) (Manner) Adj S' (like) Predicate-Nominal

(iv) Prep-Phrase -

Direction Duration Place Frequency etc.

One difficulty with this formulation is that it permits exactly (no more and no fewer than) two prepositional phrases; another is that it does not specify that the prepositional phrases must be of different sorts. Thus, this grammar allows *"He came on Tuesday on Monday". One of the motivations for setting up this formulation is to generate adverbial words in a different way than adverbial prepositional phrases are generated, i.e. prepositional phrases have an intermediate node, Prep Phrase, that words do not have. Since the syntax of adverbial words and of adverbial prepositional phrases are so similar (if not identical), it is difficult to see the motivation for such a distinction, and I would therefore prefer Lees' formulation (to follow) on this point. 134 131

Lees, "The Grammar", p. 26. Noam Chomsky, Current Issues in Linguistic 1964), p. 44. 133 Chomsky, Aspects, p. 102. 134 Lees, "The Grammar", pp. 13 — 14. 132

Theory. (The Hague, Mouton & Co.,

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

43

Later in Aspects, Chomsky points out another difficulty with this formulation in t h a t it does not indicate the restrictions between verb and manner adverbial correctly (the formulation, in fact, does not show any restriction at all). Lees had pointed out in his Grammar of English Nominalizations that characteristically those verbs which can not be made passive (Intransitive and Middle Verbs) cannot accept the Manner Adverbial. 135 Based on this observation, Chomsky says "One of the elements that must be internal to the VP . . . is the marker for passi vization, since it plays a role in strict sub categorization of the Verb". Furthermore, the marker for passivization is associated with the presence of the Manner Adverbial, whch is internal to the VP by the strictly local subcategorization principle". 136 Chomsky outlines the advantages of this last proposal as follows: First of all, it accounts automatically for the restriction of passivization to Verbs that take Manner Adverbiale freely . . . Second, with this formulation it is possible to account for the derived Phrase-marker of the passive by the rules for substitution transformations . . . Third, it is now possible to account for 'pseudo-passives', such as 'the proposal was vehemently argued against', 'the new course of action was agreed on', 'John is looked up to by everyone'. In the earlier formulation it was necessary to treat pseudo-passives by a new transformation. 137 Chomsky elaborates on the effect on pseudo-passives by saying ". . .if passivization is determined by a Manner Adverbial, as just suggested, then V . . . can be quite free, and can be an intransitive as well as a transitive Verb. Thus 'John is looked up to' and 'John was seen' are formed by the same rule despite the fact t h a t only in the latter case is John the Direct Object of the deep structure". 1 3 8 Although I do believe t h a t the Passive formant should be dominated by Manner Adverbial, I do not feel t h a t Chomsky's last point is an important motivation for such an analysis. I believe that considering John the deep structure Direct Object in " J o h n is looked up t o " is a perfectly tenable stand. Such expressions as look up to, argue against, and agree on can be thought of as transitive verb complexes, and if they were thought of as such, no one would be surprised to find the passive transformation being applied to such expressions. There is still another inaccuracy in the formulation just proposed, and t h a t is there is no indication t h a t many of the adverbials generated are derived from underlying sentences. Chomsky discusses the fact that Manner and Place Adverbials can have underlying sentences as follows: . . . underlying the sentence "John gave the lecture with great enthusiasm", with the Adverbial "with great enthusiasm", is the base string "John has great enthusiasm" 135 136 137 13R

Lees, "The Grammar", p. 8. Chomsky, Aspects, p. 105. Chomsky, Aspects, p. 104. Chomsky, Aspects, p. 105.

44

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

(note that " w i t h " is quite generally a transform of "have"), with the repeated N P "John" deleted, as is usual. . . Similarly, Place Adverbials (at least those which are V P complements) must sometimes, or perhaps always, be regarded as Sentence Transforms (so that for example, " I read the book in England" derives from an underlying structure very much like the one that underlies " I read the book while (I was) in England".139 Chomsky comments on the present state of research in regard to Manner Adverbials by indicating that some (but not all) purely Middle-Verb constructions can be made passive (e.g. " A good time was had by a l l " or "Recourse was had to a new plan"), but we don't know exactly which ones. Furthermore, " . . . the locution 'take Manner Adverbials freely' requires considerable further analysis and clarification . . . as does the distinction between Adverbials that qualify the Verb and those which might more properly be said to qualify the Subject". 1 4 0 For example, in "John cleverly stayed away yesterday", cleverly modifies John — John was clever — while in "John laid his plans cleverly", cleverly merely modifies the verb. Chomsky also talks about particles b y saying " I t is well known that in Verb-Prepositional-Phrase constructions one can distinguish various degrees of 'cohesion' between the Verb and the accompanying Prepositional-Phrase". 141 H e indicates the problem something as follows: To some extent, the Particle is a fairly free "Adverbial" element, as in " I brought the book (in, out, up, down.)" Often however, the Verb Particle construction is (distributionally as well as semantically) a unique lexical item (such as "look up", "bring off", "look over"). In all cases, however, the syntactic structure is apparently the same, with respect to the possibility of applying familiar transformational rules. I see no way, for the present, to give a thoroughly satisfactory treatment of this general question.142 H e then adds, In these close constructions, the choice of Particle is often narrowly or even uniquely constrained by the choice of Verb . . . . W e must therefore indicate in the lexical entry for such words as decide, argue, that they take certain particles and not others, as, in fact, is commonly done in dictionaries . . . . One possibility is to develop the Adverbial freely and to assign a contextual feature to the Verb (for example, to decide the contextual feature [—on^"NP], to argue the feature [—with^NP^about NP]). 143 This last suggestion seems to be the one followed by Charles Kreidler in his "English Prepositions" which has already been discussed.

139 140 141 142 143

Chomsky, Chomsky, Chomsky, Chomsky, Chomsky,

Aspects, Aspects, Aspects, Aspects, Aspects,

p. p. p. p. p.

219. 218. 101. 190. 191.

45

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In an Aspects-model paper written by Peter S. Rosenbaum and Dorita Lochak entitled, "The IBM Core Grammar of English", the authors state the following phrase structure rules for deriving manner adverbials:

VP -»• (have en) (be ing)

S V « { - } , « { PP ) (MAN) be (ADJ)

PP — P R E P NP MAN — P R E P Ρ Although the Ρ of P R E P Ρ is not later expanded in their article, it is assumed that at this point they are merely attempting to keep manner prepositional phrases distinct from other prepositional phrases.144 However, the authors later caution that "The nature of the procedure for introducing prepositions into the underlying structure has not yet been determined".145 The passive transformation suggested by Rosenbaum and Lochak is as follows: # 1 1

(PRE) NPX AUX 2

3 2

4 7

5 4be-fen+ 5

Y (PREP) NP 2 X P R E P Ρ 6 6

7

8 0

9 8

9

10 3

Y

#

11 11

12=> 12

Condition: 3=^7 which has the effect of moving NP 2 to subject position, moving ΝΡΧ to OP position, and adding been. A later transformation substitutes by for P R E P in slot 9,146 even though it has been demonstrated by Fraser and others that by is not the only preposition marking the agent phrase of a passive construction. The most complete and accurate statement about negatives in English was first presented by Edward Klima in a series of lectures at the Symposium on Transformational Analysis at the University of Pennsylvania in November of 1959. Klima indicates that the negative can be represented in various parts of speech (NOUN: none, V E R B : doubt, ADJECTIVE: few, and ADVERB: rarely), and therefore he poses the question of whether or not there is ". . . any reason to consider the intuited shared negativeness a single feature from a formal

D. Lieberman, ed., Specification and Utilization of a Transformational Grammar (Bedford, Massachusetts: International Business Machines Corporation, 1966), p. 5; hereafter cited as Lieberman. 145 Lieberman, p. 15. 146 Lieberman, pp. 35 and 51. 144

46

REVIEW

OF T H E

LITERATURE

point of view". 147 Klima sets up four transformations as basic in determining whether negation is of the sentence variety. 1. S a : Nominal-negative pre-verb—Aux-MVl S b : Nominal 2 -Predicate J

S b -and-S a -either

2. S a : Nominal-not-even-X — —Ζ S b : Nominal-negative pre-verb-X [ {indef} ]

S b , not-even-Y x γ« ζ

1

3. wh-neg-Nominal-aux -X => Neg-Nominal-Aux 1 -X-wh-Pro + Nominal-aux 1 If a sentence contains sentence-negation, it can be used as the imput sentence of S a in transformation 1, S b in transformation 2, or in transformation 3. Such sentences as The writers will

not, never, scarcely, hardly, believe the boy. 1 rarely, seldom, barely, little

therefore qualify as containing sentence-negation as we also have the sentences

The writers will

not, never, scarcely, hardly rarely, seldom barely, little

believe the boy and the

producers won't either.

The writers will

not, never scarcely, hardly rarely, seldom barely, little

believe the boy, not

even when he tells the truth. The writers will

not, never scarcely, hardly rarely, seldom barely, little

believe the boy, will they?

117 Edward S. Klima, "Negation in English", The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, ed. Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 250; hereafter cited as Klima. 118 Klima, p. 254.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

47

Klima makes the distinction between strong and weak sentence negation. If a negative construction can hold u p under the three previous transformations (either-conjoining, not-even-conjoining, and positive tag addition), then the sentence contains a weak-sentence negative construction. I n order to contain a strong-sentence negative construction, it must in addition be capable of undergoing t h e neiiAer-conjoining transformation: S a : Nominal-negative pre-verb-Aux 1 -X S b : Nominal 2 -negative pre-verb-Aux 1 -X

Sb-and-neither-Aux 1 Nominal!

Thus the fact t h a t we can say "The writers will not/never believe the boy, and neither will the producers", while we cannot say *"The writers will scarcely/ hardly/rarely/seldom/barely/little believe the boy, and neither will the producers", indicates t h a t not and never are sentence negators of the strong variety, while scarcely, hardly, rarely, seldom, barely, and little are negators of the weak variety. On this point, Klima takes dialect differences into account by indicating t h a t some people consider the last example to be grammatical. I n this case, t h e tests for sentence negators remain the same; however, there would no longer be the need for the distinction between weak and strong sentence negators. The purpose of Klima's article is to indicate the various syntactic origins of t h e negative component, and to indicate if and when in the derivation this negative component becomes incorporated into the unit it is negating. I n conclusion, he indicates, "The scope of negation varies according to the origin of the negative element in the sentence (over the whole, over subordinate complementary structures alone, or only over the word containing the negative element.)" 149 I n his Grammar of English Nominalizations, Robert Lees dealt with some, b u t not all, of the subcategories of adverbial prepositional phrases. His gramm a r generates locative (He stood on the corner), accusative (He jumped on(to) the horse), time (He came on Monday), and manner (He walked on his hands); and it shows some of the relationships between kernels containing these types of prepositional phrases and pronominalized transforms: KERNEL He stood on the corner. He jumped on(to) the horse. He came on Monday. He walked on his hands.

Twh where he stood . . . where he jumped (to) when he came . . . how he walked . . .

Twh and Tq Where did he stand ? Where did he jump (to) ? When did he come ? How did he walk ?

Lees makes some gross comments about some compounds t h a t are derived from adverbial expressions. He lists: 149

Klima, p. 316.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

48

airmail bankroll body blow body fluids brain storm book matches birch tea calendar year coastline cordwood country club dream castle

drug addiction earmark fairtale [sic] farm boy farmhand floorshow foothill footlight footnote garden party ground water head lettuce

headline heart attack hillbilly jail bird lake dwelling land breeze language difficulty leaf tobacco logwood love song lump sugar Passion play

pig iron raincheck roller-coaster ranch house sideline sideshow sidestreet sinus trouble spot light waisteline[sic] wall flower

as being derived in the following way: Noun 1 from/in/on/at/eic. Noun 2 Noun 2 -Noun 1 . 150 I n other words, these compounds are derived from locative, ablative, or accusative adverbial prepositional phrases. This last category of compounds is interesting from the point of view that Lees sets up a separate category for ablative that are derived as follows: Noun x from Noun 2 - * Nouna-Nou^ which will actually generate a subset of the words generated with the last transformation. H e lists the following as examples: apple sauce bean curd blood sausage cheese spread

coaltar product elderberry wine fish cake grape sugar

gum drop lamb stew oatmeal peanut butter

potato chip rootbeer rose water wood alchohol151

Lees also treats adverbials that are derived from adverbs of accompaniment as follows: Noun x with Noun 2 —»• Noun 2 -Noun 1 . As examples of this last type of compound, Lees lists the following: apple cake cookie butter dill pickle

egg-roll gingerbread plum cake

shortening bread152

Lees also comments on locative adverbials by indicating that they occur only with 'non-inherent' adjectives. Thus we have, "John is popular in America", but not *"John is wise in America"; we have "John is happy in his new home", but not *"John is tall in his new home"; and motivated by this restriction, Lees says, "There is thus at least a small promise that some gram150 151 152

Lees, " T h e Grammar", p. 158. Lees, " T h e Grammar", p. 171. Lees, " T h e Grammar", p. 172.

REVIEW ΟΓ THE LITERATURE

49

matical basis can be found for an important philosophical distinction between 'inherent' and 'accidental' properties". 153 However, in his review of Grammar of English Nominalizations, Archibald Hill points out some difficulties with this last suggestion: Page 25 discusses a possible counter example, He is tall in Japan, and avoids the difficulty by saying that it is possible to take the sentence as a variant of if he were in Japan, he would be tall, or that is should be rendered counts as. Other counter examples can be supplied — The buildings are tall in New York, and John is wise in his new office. Yet one of Lees's examples is unsatisfactory for me, as it is for him, *J ohn is skinny in his new home. The rule seems to reflect some sort of difference in co-ocurrence classes of adjectives, but as it is stated, it does not work perfectly.154 Hill goes on to list some of the reasons t h a t Lees' 'inherent' versus 'accidental' categories need to be redefined. One reason it does not work perfectly is that adjectives can vary in meaning between the inherent and accidental. Wise seems to me to vary in that way. Another is that prepositional phrases may have the form of locatives without being so in fact. For instance, if we substitute bathing suit for home in the sentence described above as ungrammatical, the result is quite satisfactory. Since there is uncertainty in each half of the frame, it would seem that it is not a very good diagnostic for the philosophical distinction that Lees was searching for. A less uncertain frame, for me at least, is one containing, in the second half, adverbial phrases indicating intermittent occurrences, as on Tuesdays or every fifteen minutes.155 Hill says, however, that a sentence like *"He is tall every fifteen minutes" would be all right if the "ontological conditions are changed". Thus, this sentence would become possible for Lewis Carroll's Alice. Hill's last statement is beside the point, and should not affect the grammar, because in such pieces as "Alice in Wonderland", it is the very non- or semigrammaticalness of such sentences t h a t gives them their special effect. Lees also made some interesting statements about middle verbs such as have, cost, weigh, resemble, mean, etc. He indicated t h a t although they are followed by objects, they ". . . d o not have passive transforms nor manner adverbiale". He also indicated t h a t these middle verbs do not transform into action nomináis with of, as do other transitive verbs : *His resembling of his mother.. ," 15β But Lees was not satisfied with his analysis of middle verbs, and he indicated t h a t they " . . . will surely require some further subdivision and refinement. E.g., while resemble is certainly not an absolute transitive, and a nominal after it is not a predicate noun, it may be followed by some manner adverbials, as

153

Lees, "The Grammar", p. 12. Archibald A. Hill, "Review of 'The Grammar of English Nominalizations' ", Language X X X V I I I (1962), p. 436; hereafter cited as Hill, "Review". 154 Hill, "Review", p. 436. 158 Lees, "The Grammar", p. 8. 154

50

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

in: He resembled her completely". I n m y opinion, it is not only the middle verb t h a t needs further clarification in such constructions; it is also the Manner Adverbial. Lees sets up a number of categories in his Grammar of English Nominalizations which are directly relevant to the concept of adverbial. 157 CATEGORY Adv a Neg Ρ P Aco Pioc P0s Prt Va Vb Vu A¡2 Vx

EXAMPLES

ENVIRONMENT

quite, rather, too, very hardly, never, scarcely, seldom after, at, before, by, during, for, in, near, of, on, over, through, to, toward, with, under into, onto, to at, in, on almost, always, often, probably, sometimes across, away, down, in, out, over, under, up aim (at), drive (into), put (onto), throw (toward) bring (up), put (away), take (over) he» stand glance, go, look, run, sneak flirt (with), look (at), object (to), step (on), talk (about)

// — (Acc)

// — (Prt) // — Loe // — Acc ¡I - (P)

Probably the most complete and accurate statement on comparative constructions is t h a t written by Robert Lees for Word in 1961. 158 I n this article, Lees sets up a formal mechanism for handling the following: CONSTRAINT ungrammatical input; therefore ungrammatical output derivable in more than one way; therefore ambiguous two sentences have similar surface structures but different deep structures input adverbs from different classes; therefore ungrammatical output negative possible in first clause only

EXAMPLE John is more amazed than the table I speak Spanish as well as French He comes here as frequently as John vs He comes here as frequently as every day He was as tall as I was a new arrival I don't know him better than she does vs *I know him better than she doesn't

Lees also notes t h a t ' 'any number of A U X members m a y be retained [in the verb cluster of the second clause of a comparative construction] by deletion in order from the right-hand side: 187

Lees, "The Grammar", p. 6 — 23. Robert B. Lees, "Grammatical Analysis of the English Comparative Construction", Word. X V I I : 2 (1961), pp. 171 — 186; hereafter cited as Lees, "Grammatical Analysis".

158

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

51

He would have been talking louder than I would have been talking. H e would have been talking louder t h a n I would have been. He would have been talking louder than I would have. He would have been talking louder than I would. He would have been talking louder than I " , and builds this information into his formal machinery. 159 I n his "Transformation Grammars and the Fries Framework", Lees considers a kind of adverbial complement t h a t is similar to, but not, a manner adverbial. The construction is derived in the following way: "Napoleon compelled + Complement the enemy.] The enemy retreated. Napoleon compelled to retreat the enemy => Napoleon compelled the enemy to retreat". 1 6 0 Lees further indicates t h a t verbs t h a t take complement constructions of this type include (in addition to compel), ask, force, (would) like, "persuade, suppose, tell, urge, want, wish, etc. In his "The Grammatical Basis of Some Semantic Notions", Lees develops the thesis that " . . . the concept of 'modifier* is not a semantic notion, but a purely grammatical one". 161 I n support of this thesis, he indicates t h a t considering "all so-called adverbial expressions to be modifiers . . . seems to be at least somewhat counter-intuitive", and he adds, "There are at least . . . five types of adverbial expression which, on this view, would be attributive to a major sentence-constituent", rather than being modifiers. The five examples which Lees mentioned (some of them with subtypes) are as follows:162

159

However, consider a sentence which also contains the passive verbal expansion, such as "He could have been being trained by the dog catcher longer than I could have been being trained by the dog catcher". Although this sentence is reduceable by Lees' rules, there is no sentence, *"He could have been being trained by the dog catcher longer than I could have been being", which would seem to be possible by an extension of Lees' reduction generalization. 160 Robert B. Lees, "Transformation Grammars and the Fries Framework", Readings in Applied English Linguistics, ed. Harold B. Allen (New York, Meredith Publishing Co., 1964), p. 143. 161 Robert B. Lees, "The Grammatical Basis of Some Semantic Notions", Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics X I I I (Washington, D. C, Georgetown University Press, 1962), p. 18; hereafter cited as Lees, "The Grammatical Basis". 162 Lees, "The Grammatical Basis", pp. 13 — 15.

52

REVIEW 0 Γ THE LITERATURE

NAME

EXAMPLE

1. Sentence-Adverbial 2. Preverb 3a. Locative 3b. Time 4a. Instrumental 4b. Concomitive

certainly almost in town tomorrow with his hands with his cousin carefully quite extremely

4c. Other AdvMManner anner

5a. Attributive 5b. Attributive which is Aa + Ly

ADVERB

EXAMPLE

SENTENCE

This is certainly true We are almost finished I'll meet him in town tomorrow I'll meet him in town tomorrow John drove it in with his hands John drove in with his cousin John drove carefully John is quite careful John is extremely careful

Like Robert Lees, Carlota Smith also dealt with comparative constructions. She considered three alternative analyses. According to her first analysis, ". . . the components of every complex (embedded) comparison are a comparative conjunction and a containing sentence, the two sharing a noun phrase". 163 She considers this first analysis to be the correct one. An analysis that she rejects is that ". . . ALL comparative sentences are conjunctions". She rejects this on the basis that "We would need different rules for different schemata if all comparisons were to be treated as conjunctions; therefore the simplicity of such a hypothesis is only apparent". 164 If this analysis were adopted, a separate rule (one not motivated elsewhere in the grammar) would have to be set up to generate even the simplest of complex comparatives, such as "John has a bigger car than Bill has". Even additional rules would have to be set up for such complex comparatives as "George climbed a higher mountain than Everest", and "I want a house bigger than the one you bought". Therefore, Smith rejects this proposal. Another proposal that Smith rejects is that "For every embedded comparison there is a corresponding Ν is A conjunction with complex nouns". This generalization ". . . i s based on the assumption that a complex comparative conjunction is prior to every embedded comparison". 165 This would mean that underlying "Bill has a bigger car than John (has)", is the sentence "The car Bill has is bigger than the car John has". One of the important difficulties with this proposal is that a nominalization early in the derivation must later be denominalized. So this proposal must also be rejected on the basis of economy. Smith therefore rejects the proposal that "John has a bigger car than Bill has" underlies "The car John has is bigger than the car Bill has". And she also rejects the proposal that "The car John has is bigger than the car Bill has" underlies "John has a bigger car than Bill has". 166 She states that the relation161 Carlota S. Smith, "A Class of Complex Modifiers in English", Language Number 1 (1961), 351; hereafter cited as C. Smith, "A Class". C. Smith, "A Class", pp. 3 5 2 - 3 5 3 . " s C. Smith, "A Class", p. 354. iM C. Smith, "A Class", pp. 3 5 4 - 3 5 7 .

XXXVII,

REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE

53

ship between these two sentences is not that one underlies the other, but rather that they both are derived from a common source. Concerning this conclusion, she indicates, "Each of the alternative solutions . . . attempts to cover all comparisons by one general hypothesis, seemingly a simpler way to deal with the problem. But both, when put into specific rules and derivations, would actually add more complexity to a grammar of English than the solution proposed here". 167 In her "Determiners and Relative Clauses in a Generative Grammar of English", Cariota Smith indicates that " . . . if there is grammatical previous mention, the determiner the must be interpreted as anaphoric; if not, it may be interpreted as either generic or anaphoric". 168 And then she goes on to indicate, "Sentence adverbials of certain types frequently allow generic interpretation. Thus the following sentence is usually not taken as generic; but when it has adjoined to it one of the sentence adverbials Usted below it, it is usually taken as generic. 1.The cocker spaniel hunted for food. 2. In olden times, 3. Before house pets became fashionable, 4. When not fed at home, 5. During . . In fact it seems that almost any sentence can be made a possible generic sentence by the addition of one of these sentence adverbials".169 The situation is that the adverbial expression can rule out a particular cocker spaniel, for example, thus making the determiner generic. Or it can POTENTIALLY rule out a particular cocker spaniel, thus making the determiner potentially generic, as in "Earlier, the cocker spaniel had hunted for food alone". In his "The Position of Embedding Transformations in a Grammar", Charles Fillmore orders the transformations in such a way that no matter how many times structures are embedded or conjoined, they are still amenable to the passive transformation (and of course object deletion transformation) if they have the proper constituent structure. Thus his grammar will take the active sentence "Somebody has murdered the butler", and make it passive: "The butler has been murdered (by somebody)". His grammar can then embed this second sentence into "The detective believes COMP", to yield "The detective believes the butler has been murdered". And Fillmore's grammar C. Smith, " A Class", p. 352. Carlota S. Smith, "Determiners and Relative Clauses in a Generative Grammar of English", Language·, X X X X , Number 1 (1964), p. 51; hereafter cited as C. Smith, "Determiners". 188 C. Smith, "Determiners", p. 51. 167

168

54

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

will go on to make this sentence passive: "The butler is believed to have been murdered (by the detective)". 170 Fillmore also uses the passive to resolve the ambiguity of such expressions as " I heard the girl playing my song", by saying that if it has the structure Noun — transitive verb — noun -f restrictive modifier, the passive is "The girl playing my song was heard", whereas if it has the structure Noun — transitive verb -f- Complement — Noun, the passive is "The girl was heard playing my song". 171 In 1965, four years after Cariota Smith's "Class of Complex Modifiers in English", Herbert Pilch wrote an article which also dealt with English comparative constructions. Mr. Pilch sets up the following categories and subcategories: Β I. 1. big car 1.1. a big car 2. a big car 3. a big car II. 4. the car is big 4.1. the car is big 5. the car is big III. 6a. big 6b. big IV. 7.1 bought a big car

a a a a

bigger car than a Cadillac bigger car than my neighbor has car more big than comfortable car bigger than a bus

the car is bigger than a Cadillac the car is bigger than the one which my neighbor has the car is more big than comfortable bigger than you imagine bigger than is safe I bought a bigger car than my neighbor

V. 8 . 1 bought a big car today I bought a bigger car today than yesterday I am more honest than you are mad VI. 9 . 1 am honest 9.1.1 am honest I am more honest than you are VII. 1'. the big car 4'. the car runs fast 5'. he drives fast

the bigger car of the two the car runs faster than a Cadillac he drives fast rather than dangerously172

Pilch indicates, that contrary to what is taught in most Freshman Composition classes, "The comparative element . . . does not necessarily presuppose the comparative expansion. The expression a bigger car is current English". 173 Pilch also indicates that the comparative element is not recursive, making such constructions as *a biggerer car than aCadillac than aCadillac impossible. Charles J . Fillmore, " T h e Position of Embedding Transformations in a G r a m m a r " , Word X I X , Number 2 (1963), pp. 213 — 215; hereafter cited aa Fillmore, " T h e Position". Fillmore, " T h e Position", p. 218. 17a Herbert Piloh, "Comparative Construction? in English", Language X X X X I , Number 1 (1965), p. 43; hereafter cited a,s Pilçh, l " Pilçh, ρ, 44,

170

55

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Pilch indicates the justifications of the above classification system, and indicates the restrictions on the various categories. He feels especially motivated to justify the category 1 as distinct from 7, 9 as distinct from 8, and 5 as distinct from 9 and 6; and he justifies these distinctions by noting that less can be substituted for more in "I bought a more comfortable car than John did"(l), but not in "I bought a more comfortable car than John"(7): that there is a "I drive dangerously today rather than yesterday" similar to "I drive more dangerously today than yesterday",(8) but not *"I drive dangerously today rather than I did yesterday" similar to "I drive more dangerously today than I did yesterday"(9); and that there is an -er comparative for "The car is more expensive than it is comfortable"(9) and for "The car is more expensive than is comfortable"(6), but not for "The car is more expensive than comfortable"^). 1 7 4 In contrasting his analysis with that of Smith, Pilch indicates that, She accounts, in her framework, for my constructions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, but does not distinguish between 1 and 3. She casually touches on 1.1, 4', 4.1, 5', and 9. She does not mention constructions 1', 6, and 8. She also omits the subclass of 9 in which A9 and E9 differ by more than one constituent, and the subclass of 1.1 represented by the phrase I bought a bigger car than my neighbors expected me to.1'5 The transformational grammarian who has probably done the most work with adverbial constructions is Bruce Fraser. In Chapter Two of his dissertation, 176 Fraser sets up a series of eight transformations to determine the amount of cohesion between a verb and a following particle. The transformations which he uses are stated below, but have been reorganized in the interest of clarity: TRANSFORMATION

EXAMPLE WITH TWO-WORD VERBS

1. Relative & *Up what did he look ? Question 2. Manner In- *He looked quietly up the sertion Beinformation tween V & Prt 3. Object re- *He looked up it duction 4. PP Conjunc- *He looked up the date and tion up the time of the event 171

EXAMPLE WITH PREPOSITIONAL

PHRASE

At what did he look ? He looked quietly at the table

He looked at it He looked at the table and at the chair

Pilch, p. 53. »« Pilch, p. 66, James Brace Fraser, "An Examination of Verb-Particle Constructions in English", (unpublished PhD dissertation, Massachusetts lííStit'tft'e QÍ Technology, 1965); hereafter citeçl a? fraser» Oferertotton·

56

BEVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

5. Action 6. Separation

His looking up of the infor- *His looking at of the table mation He looked the information *He looked the table at "Ρ He looked up, without a *He looked at, without a reply, the table reply, the information

7. Manner Insertion Between Prt & Ν 8. Reduction He looked it up & Separation

*He looked it at

These eight tests are all support for saying t h a t the up in " H e looked up the information" is co-occurring with the preceding verb, i.e. looked up = transitive verb + particle construction and information is the direct object; while the at in "He looked at the table" is co-occurring with the following noun, i.e. at the table is a prepositional phrase (Adverb of direction). Transformations 1, 2, and 4 have the effect of keeping the particle with the following noun, while separating it from the preceding verb. For these three transformations; therefore, the example with the two-word verb is ungrammatical while the example with the prepositional phrase is not. Transformations 5 and 7 have the effect of keeping the particle with the preceding verb, while separating it from the following noun; therefore, the example with the prepositional phrase is ungrammatical while the example with the two-word verb is not. Transformations 4, 6, and 8 (reduction and separation transformations) are actually used to separate the so-called separable two-word verb construction, e.g. call up, from the non-separable kind, e.g. wait on.111 I n his paper read at the Summer-1964 LSA Convention, 178 and in his P h D Dissertation, Fraser sets up basically the following tree diagram for adverbial constructions:

V

177

PRT

NP

PP

Prep

NP

Man

Dir

Loc

Time

Purp

...

Bruce Fraser, "On Particles in English", (unpublished paper presented at the LSA Summer Meeting: 1964). 78 Fraser, Dissertation, p. 7.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

57

He distinguishes between Manner and Directional Adverbiale on the one hand and Locative, Time, and Purpose Adverbiale on the other by the fact t h a t the former but not the latter have a role in the strict subcategorization of the verb. The Directional Adverb is dominated by MV because of such constructions as "He put it on the table", "She drank him under the table", and "She darted toward the gunman". The Manner Adverbial is dominated by MV because Manner Adverbials (including Passives) do not occur with all verbs — i.e. they do not occur with Middle Verbs, Copulative Verbs, etc. I n referring to the above diagram, Fraser indicates t h a t Noun Phrases dominated by MV can be the subject of Passive, while those dominated by ADVB cannot; e.g. the clock strikes on the hour, but not *The hour is struck on (by the clock) ; t h a t those dominated by MV cannot precede S, while those dominated by ADVB can; e.g. They talked over the problem, but not *Over the problem they talked; 179 t h a t those dominated by MV must precede ADV, while those dominated by ADVB must follow MV; and t h a t those dominated by MV have less freedom of movement t h a n do those dominated by ADVB. Fraser indicates t h a t there are six patterns of verb -f- particle constructions: PATTERN Verb Verb Verb Verb Verb Verb

Prt Prt Prt Prt Prt Prt

EXAMPLE

NP

Prep Ph NP Prep Ph AdvD¡r NP Adv Dir

The gun went off He looked up the information The politician spoke out about the issues They filled in the boss on the details The man set off up the mountain The president threw out the ball to the waiting players180

As to how to account for the close relationship between verbs and particles in the generation of particles, Fraser makes the following suggestion: ". . . it seems t h a t the particle with which a given verb combines and the type of relationship shared by the two elements must be stated as a part of the lexical entry of the verb". 1 8 1 Based on meaning, Fraser sets up three categories of Verb + particle constructions: Literal, e.g. took up; Completive, e.g. stir up; and Figurative, e.g. look up. Based on co-occurrence restrictions, he sets up two categories: Systematic, e.g. shake (up); and Unsystematic, e.g. look up. " . . . a verb-particle relationship is systematic if the co-occurrence relations of the verbal element remains unchanged by the presence or absence of the particle". 182 He indicates t h a t most Verb + Particle - constructions are Figurative and Unsystematic, 179 180 181 182

Fraser, Fraser, Fraser, Fraser,

Dissertation, Dissertation, Dissertation, Dissertation,

pp. 8 — 9. p. 25. p. 71. p. 38.

58

BEVIEW o r THE LITERATURE

and he further indicates t h a t those constructions t h a t are Literal or Completive are apt to be Systematic. Concerning the length of these constructions, Fraser concludes, "Whether the verb-particle relationship is literal, completive, or figurative and systematic or unsystematic, with the exception of a handful of verbs, all verbs are monosyllabic or bisyllabic stressed initially". 183 But actually Fraser feels t h a t monosyllabic verbs are the only ones that freely enter into Verb + Particle constructions. "We find t h a t while there are numerous phonetically bisyllabic verbs occurring in verb-particle combinations, almost all of these cases are to be analyzed as phonologically monosyllabic. I n particular, these phonologically monosyllabic verbs contain a final syllabic liquid or nasal /l/, /r/, ¡ml, /η/". 184 Fraser provides transformations for generating verbs of the outclass and overthrow types, the first of which is derived from a comparative construction: NP + Aux - [ + V] - Δ-er + than - NP => 1 -out + 2 - 0 - 0 - 5 _ 2 - 3 — 4 - 5 1 Condition: Adj > 3 and the second of which is derived from an intensive construction: NP + Aux - [ + V] - X - too - Λ => 1 - over - 2 - 3 - 0 _ 2 - 3 - 4 — 5 1 Condition: Adj > 5 185 I n addition, Fraser discusses verbal compounds containing the prefixes inter and re, but he does not set up transformations for deriving such compounds. Fraser makes the observation about direction adverbials t h a t they often occur as P x P 2 Nom. Consider the following: Ρχ

The butler brought the dinner She took her notebook The child ran He took the candy He backed up four paces and jumped He wanted to jump The general ordered the troops She took her hat The President threw the ball

P2

in to out of ahead of away from on to off from up to(ward) off of out to (ward)

Nom the room. her purse. his mother. the child. the horse. the roof. the front. her head. the waiting players.

An even more interesting observation which he makes is t h a t the constituent P 2 + Nom can be deleted in all cases — even when P x and P 2 are fused into a 188 181 185

166

Fraeer, Dissertation, p. 52. Fraser, Dissertation, p. 50. Fraser, Dissertation, pp. 56 — 57.

Freser, Dissertation, pp, 35

97,

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

59

single word, as into, or onto. And he sets up the following transformation for this deletion: [ + V ] _ (NP) - P 1 — 2 — 3

1

- P , + N P — 4

_ = > 1 2 3 0

Fraser compares this phenomenon with pseudo-intransitive verbs, where the direct object can be optionally deleted, and he further indicates that after deletion, P j and Prt are syntactically similar in that the separation transformation can often apply to both (though it applies in reverse to P x constructions). In other words, those constructions containing P i Ρ 2 Nom which also contain transitive verbs can undergo the reverse of Τ8θρ to yield: The butler brought in the dinner. She took out her notebook. He took away the candy. The general ordered up the troops. She took off her hat. The President threw out the ball.188 However he concludes that "The verb-particle construction rarely co-occurs with a directional adverbial". 189 And in fact in his dissertation he excludes from consideration " . . . those element-noun phrase or element-element noun phrase sequences which are analyzed as directional adverbiale . . . such as down into the hole and south towards Boston".190 Fraser also treats a kind of adjective construction which functions as an objective complement, but which has a closer affinity with the verb than most other objective complements, and which therefore can, unlike other objective complements, immediately follow the verb, as in " H e will make good his note", and " H e will cut short his speech" as compared with " H e will make his note good", and " H e will cut his speech short", respectively. Expressions of this type include make clear, set free, blow open, blow shut, cut short, fling open, keep free, lay open, lay waste, let loose, make good, etc. In his Introduction to Transformational Grammars, Emmon Bach comments on negation and conjunction in English. In considering negation, Bach analyzes the effect of attaching n't to the modal. Doing this would permit the question transform to yield negative-interrogative constructions like "Can't he come?" However, he adds, " . . . if the derived Ρ marker shows that can + n't is an M, then the rule can be reapplied to yield the ungrammatical sequences He + can -\-n't -\-n't + come, He -f-can + n't + n't -f n't -f- come, and so forth. The solution here seems to be a reformulation in such a way that not occurs in the Fraser, Fraser, 189 Fraser, 19° JYaeer, 187 188

Dissertation, Dissertation, Dissertation, Dissertation,

p. 97. pp. 25 and 97 — 98. p. 25. p. 23,

60

BEVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

P S rules, and the reduced form n't is produced from not".191 About conjunction in English, he says, " . . . the typical conjunction rules of languages like English require a reference to the dominating nodes for the conjoined items. We say He went home and hurried up the front steps but not *They bought a new and are hurrying home (from They bought a new home and They are hurrying home)" 192 Of course home is a constituent in both imput sentences. Therefore, even if the grammar is allowed to permit such sentences as ?"They bought a new and are painting the new home", it still should not permit *"They bought a new and are hurrying home", since the home of "They bought a new home" is a noun, while the home of "They are hurrying home" is a Locative Adverb. The category of adverbs is so heterogeneous some grammarians consider conjunctions (especially subordinating, but also coordinating conjunctions) as adverbials. Therefore, Lila Gleitman's "Coordinating Conjunctions in English" falls into the domain of this study. Gleitman begins with Chomsky's formulation for generating conjoined structures: If Sj and S 2 are grammatical sentences, and Sx differs from S 2 only in that X appears in S 1 where Y appears in S 2 (i.e., the same type in Sx and S 2 respectively), then S 3 is a sentence where S 3 is the result of replacing X by X + and -f- Y in (i.e., S 3 = .. X + and + Y .. ).103 B u t then indicates t h a t his formulation would not generate such grammatical structures as the following: 1. I gave the boy a nickel and the girl a dime. 2. The Soviets rely on military and on political indications of our intentions. 3. He took John home and Mary to the station. 4. The conjunction of an interrogative and an imperative sentence is excluded. 5. The man was haggard and the girl sick with exhaustion. nor would it distinguish between the semi-grammatical ?"I want to know why J o h n and when Mary are coming", and the non-grammatical *"I ran and mud". 194 Gleitman then poses some additional problems concerning negation, stress, reduction and deletion, and indicates how these problems should be resolved in a generative grammar. She also indicates t h a t sentences with no possible imput, such as " J o h n and Mary make a nice couple/pair", and those t h a t have undetermined imputs, such as " J o h n and Mary carried four baskets", 195 are ". . . not within the province of syntax". 1 9 6 191

Emmon Bach, An Introduction to Transformational Grammars (New York, Holt Rhinehart Winston, 1964), p. 78; hereafter cited as Baeh. 192 Bach, p. 120. 193 Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, p. 36. 194 Lila R. Gleitman, "Coordinating Conjunctions in English", Language X X X X I , Number 2 (1965), pp. 264 — 265; hereafter cited as Gleitman, "Coordinating". 198 This sentence could have as imputs 1. John carried four baskets / Mary carried four baskets, 2. John carried two baskets / Mary carried two baskets, 3. John carried three baskets / Mary carried one basket, or 4. John carried one basket / Mary, carried three baskets. 196 Gleitman, "Coordinating", p. 292.

61

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Gleitman also makes an interesting observation about the coordination of adverbial prefixes: . . . a node (Adv*) must be assumed to dominate pre- and post- to account for 1. This fact was true of PRErevolutionary and POSTrevolutinary France. 2. This fact was true of PRE and POST revolutionary France. 3. *This fact was true of prerevoLUtionary and postrevoLUtionary France. On the other hand, we must assume that no separate node dominates the suffixes -ful and -less in 1. ?Can one be at once helpFUL and helpLESS? 2. *Can one be at once helpFUL and LESS ? 3. Can one be at once HELPful and HELPless? This distinction, in fact, dictates the form of the constituent description of adverbial prefixes as opposed to most other affixes.197 In a 1965 article, Werner Winter is disturbed at having a derived sentence which has no possible kernel sentence underlying it, when he talks about the passive "to be born". Concerning this, he indicates "If a grammar is to generate only grammatical sentences, its purpose is defeated if its rules lead to the generation of ungrammatical ones among others [e.g. *My mother bore me in Germany], and it is of small importance whether there are many or few ungrammatical sentences".198 The solution to Mr. Winter's dilemma is actually a very simple one. Assuming that "I was born in Germany" is indeed a passive (which can be disputed), it is derived from the ungrammatical *"My mother bore me in Germany". If this ungrammatical active is marked as having an obligatory, rather than optional passive, then it will not be generated as a terminal string, while the passive which is derived from it will be. Incidentally, this same solution can be applied to such sentences as "John and Mary make a nice couple/pair". In a recent article in Word, Michael Grady considers expressions that contain subjects of the subject-acted-upon category, but which do not show any syntactic signs of being passive, e.g. "Newports smoke fresher" and "the new poptop cans open easier". He considers such sentences as containing mediopassive voice, and sets up an optional transformation, which applies after the passive transformation, to handle such constructions: NP¡¡ - Aux - be + en - V - by + N P i => N P 2 — Aux

197 Gleitman, "Coordinating", p. 292. íes Werner Winter, "Transforms Without Kernels", Language (July—Sept., 1965), p. 489.

-Y

X X X X , Number 3

62

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

I n order to account for the adjective in "Newports smoke fresher", Grady suggests an additional transformation: N P 2 - Aux - V N P 2 — Aux — be — Adj

N P 2 - Aux — V — Adj199

Some indication of the importance and unexplored complexity of the mediopassive can be determined by the following examples which I have collected: The trees shook in the wind. The cake was baking when the phone rang. The milk spilled. The window broke. The project began in the fall/The test began at 4 o'clock. The shirt tore. A heavy carton dropped to the floor. The barometer reads 30.1.200 It figures. Those men don't frighten easily. These phonemes divide into four pairs. The snow melted. A car drove up and stopped next to us. An airplane flew over us. This cigarette smokes / tastes / feels / looks / smells better. Concerning this problem, Stageberg indicates in a footnote, " V e r u j like smell, taste, and so on can be analyzed as basically v N P verbs (He smelled the roast, He tasted the roast); the vAdj verbs smell, taste (The roast smelled good, The roast tasted good) could then be derived (by transformations) from their v N P counterparts". 2 0 1 But the complexity of such constructions is further exemplified by the way infinitives enter in, e.g. The problem is impossible to solve\ The lamb's too young to eatj John is easy to please, each of which has a different structure. The problem also carries over to single words; the planter built on the front of a house is not something which plants, but something in which plants are planted. Ljiljana Mihailovic has indicated some of the constraints on the deletion of the agent phrase of the passive construction. She sets up four different situations in regard to agent deletion. Her Group I is the regular passive which has a deletable agent phrase, e.g. "My window was broken (by one of the neighbors)". Her Group I I has the constraint t h a t " . . . the agent is deletable only 199

Michael Grady, "The Medio-Passive Voice in Modern English", Word, X X I , Number 2 (1965), p. 271, Mr. Grady's transformations have been slightly changed in the interest of clarity. î0 ° I n the same manner, a thermometer, odometer, fuel gauge, and book can read 37°, 80 mph, empty, and well, respectively. B u t one cannot say *"The book read 140 pages". 201 Norman C. Stageberg, An Introductory English Grammar (N«w York, Holt, Rhinehart, Winston, 1965), p. 318.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

63

if there is an adverbial expansion in the structure".202 In some cases, the adverb in question can be Advpiaoe, e.g. He was brought up by his parents/He was brought up in Cambridge! but not *He was brought up; in other cases, the adverb in question can be Advtime, e.g. Most of the talking was done by her/ Most of the talking was done at lunchj but not *Most of the talking was done. But most often, the adverb in question is Advmanner> e . g . The part of the mother was played by Miss P.¡The part of the mother was played wellj but not *The part of the mother was played.203 Her Group III has the constraint that the agent is deletable if and only if the subject is animate, e.g. The town was inhabited (by Indians), but not *His mind was inhabited, as derived from A feeling of despair inhabited his mind. And her Group IV has the constraint that the agent is not deletable at all. For example, we can say, On his death he was succeeded by his daughter, but not *On his death he was succeeded.204 In "Transformation and Development of Style", this writer suggests a " . . . subset of transformations which not only keep the semantic content confa tant, but which also do not change the intent of the sentence, i.e., transformations which change only emphasis or style".205 As far as adverbials are concerned, the following transformations, for example, would fall into this category: 1. NP Modsent V X => Modsent NP V X => NP V X Modsent The left fielder confidently caught the ball => Confidently the left fielder caught the ball => The left fielder caught the ball confidently. 2. NP! V Prt NP 2 =» NP! Y NP 2 Prt Bob tried on the shirt => Bob tried the shirt on. 3. NPj V t NP 2 => NP 2 be PstPrt Vfc (by NPX) Jim hit the tall sailor => The tall sailor was hit (by Jim) 4. NP V; 0 NP 2 to NP 3 => NPi V io NP 3 NP 2 I gave the money to John => I gave John the money 5. NPX V o c prep NP 2 => NPX V o c NP 2 I stayed at home =» I stayed home 6.

Noun Be X ( A d v p i a C e ) => There be A r t ^ o n d e f Noun X (Adv p i ace ) Some boys were eating marshmallows (in John's room) => There were some boys eating marshmallows (in John's room).206 Artjjondef

202 Ljiljana Milhailovic, "The Agent in the Passive Construction", English Language Teaching, X X , Number 2 (1966), 124; hereafter cited as Milhailovic. 203 Milhailovic, p. 125. 204 Milhailovic, pp. 1 2 5 - 1 2 6 . 205 Don L. F. Nilsen, "Transformation and Development of Style", The English Record, XVII, Number 2 (December, 1966), 38 — 43; hereafter cited as Nilsen, "Style". 2oe Nilsen "Style", pp. 3 9 - 4 1 .

64

B E V I E W OF THE LITERATURE

I n his review of Charles Fillmore's Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations, t h e a u t h o r considers F r a s e r ' s view t h a t indirect object constructions are one subset of direction adverbials 2 0 7 t o be f u n d a m e n t a l l y correct. However, he feels t h a t Fillmore's analysis lacks d e p t h in t h e following w a y : Fillmore mentions a third kind of indirect object construction — which has no appropriate paraphrase with for or to, and gives as examples of this construction, 'He asked me a question', and Ί envy you your garden'. I t is beside the point that 'He asked me a question' has no paraphrase with for or to; Fillmore's assumption was that only these two prepositions can mark indirect objects. But this is probably a false assumption, since 'He asked a question of me' would seem to be a perfectly good paraphrase, and this sets up an ablative indirect object marker (of) as contrasted with the accusative indirect object marker (to). It should be noticed that the syntax of the of expression is similar to that of the to expression rather than the for expression. And there are undoubtedly other prepositions which can mark indirect object constructions, as the following pair of sentences would seem to indicate: I played John (a game of) basketball yesterday — I played (a game of) basketball yesterday with/against John. 208 I n m y review of Owen Thomas' Transformational Grammar and the Teacher of English, I discuss Thomas' t r e a t m e n t of negation, emphasis, question, a n d passive as follows: In the reviewer's opinion, in Thomas' phrase structure rule 7.1b: S -*• (Ng) (Emph) (Q) Nom -f- VP, the negative, emphatic and interrogative formatives (which Thomas calls morphemes), should be identified as operations. This could be done by writing the rule as follows: S (Tug) (TEmph) (Tq) N o m + V P . Another transformation which perhaps deserves comment is the passive transformation. Although it is not stated formally, Thomas says that it is 'introduced optionally after any regular transitive verb', (p. 192). The passive morpheme is unique in having one of its elements introduced as part of the operation symbol. Thus the passive morpheme is written as {by + Psv} rather than just {Psv}, or better still {T Psv }. 209 I n a n article on English infinitives, this writer makes a n u m b e r of s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t adverbs of reason. Consider t h e following s t a t e m e n t , for example: Infinitive phrases that are functioning as modifiers of sentences or verbs are adverbials of reason, and are pronominalized by why. Those that modify sentences have a freedom of movement that other modifiers do not have ; consider the following sentences: 1. John, (in order) to understand the lesson, studied hard. 2. (In order) (for John) to understand the lesson, he studied hard. 3. John studied hard (in order) to understand the lesson. 207

Don L. F. Nilaen, "Review of Charles J. Fillmore's Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations", Linguistics, An International Review, XLV (1968) pp. 79—81. 208 Nilsen, "Review of Fillmore" p. 79. 209 Don L. F. Nilsen, "Review of Owen Thomas' Transformational Grammar and the Teacher of English" ¡Linguistics, An International Review, X X X I V (August, 1967),pp. 105 — 108.

BEVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

65

A number of other things can also be observed in the above sentences. First, the in order is an optional element in all three sentences ; second, the second occurrence of John is reduced to null in the first and last sentences, but is reduced only to a personal pronoun in the second, because verbs in matrix sentences (other than imperatives) must have expressed subjects. In the first and third sentences no information is lost by deleting the subject of the infinitive, as there is a rule of English grammar which states that the subject of the matrix sentence is automatically the subject of the infinitive in such constructions. Notice that in the sentence To understand the lesson, John's father made him study hard, this rule of grammar is broken and the result is what is traditionally called a dangling modifier.210 Contrast this last situation with " . . . the situation of an infinitive phrase modifying the direct object of a sentence which also contains an indirect object, as in He gave us bread to eat". I n situations of this sort, the "indirect object of the matrix structure is the subject of the infinitive, the direct object of the matrix structure is the direct object of the infinitive, and the subject of the matrix structure does not function in the infinitive phrase at all", — "He gave us bread to eat". 2 1 1 Another point made in the article is the fact that the selection of a direct object is sometimes determined by an in-order phrase. When the infinitive verb in verb-modifier constructions is transitive, the direct object of the matrix verb is also the direct object of the infinitive verb, as in He bought the car for his wife to use. However, when the in order is inserted, a new direct object must also be inserted; therefore the it of He bought the car (in order) for his wife to use (it) is selected by the in order . . . If the infinitive verb is transitive and there is no direct object in the matrix sentence, then there must be a direct object in the infinitive phrase, as I came to find the mine212. Note that in the last example, the mine is necessary whether or not the in order occurs. I n an article written in November of 1967, S.—Y. Kuroda discusses three categories of manner adverbials. His three cases have the following possibilities: CASE A: 1. John disappeared in an elegant manner 2. The manner in which John disappeared was elegant 3. John disappeared elegantly

210

Don L. F. Nilsen, "English Infinitives", The Canadian Journal of Linguistics, XIII, Mo (1968), pp. 8 3 - 9 3 . 211 Nilsen, "Infinitives". 212 Nilsen, "Infinitives".

66

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

CASE B: 1. John disappeared in an unbelievable manner 2. The manner in which John disappeared was unbelievable 3a. *John disappeared unbelievably but 3b. Unbelievably, John disappeared [the comma is mine] CASE C: 1. ?John disappeared in a happy manner 2. *The manner in which John disappeared was happy 3. John disappeared happily Kuroda accounts for these differences by giving these three different types of manner adverbials three different derivational histories. He feels that the unbelievably in case Β (3b) is equatable to a sentence, as in "That John disappeared in unbelievable", and that the sentence adverbial unbelievably is the base form, i.e. the form from which in an unbelievable manner is derived. He therefore rejects the Katz and Postal rule: in -f- a + Adjective + manner —»- Adjective + ly»213 and proposes instead the same rule in the opposite direction: Adjective -f ly -*• in a Adjective manner [sic] because this " . . . seems to comply better to the fact that forms to be represented by the right hand side have more or less unstable status".214 In case C, the main difficulty is that happy cannot be used to predicate the non-animate noun manner. This accounts for the ungrammaticality of *"The manner in which John disappeared was happy", and the semi-grammaticality of ?"John disappeared in a happy manner". Kuroda proposes that for case C, the underlying sentences are "John disappeared", and "John (not the manner) was happy". Thus happily can be generated in a rather straightforward manner, but a manner different from the generation oí elegantly on the one hand, and unbelievably on the other; and the transformation producing ?"John disappeared in a happy manner" from "John disappeared happily" (discussed above), can be blocked — at least for some speakers. Also published in November of 1967 is an article by John Lyons, which says that ". . . i n many, and perhaps in all, languages existential and possessive constructions derive (both synchronically and diachronically) from locatives", 215 and that the actual differences between these three categories are surface structure differences, and are therefore language dependent. Lyons uses examples from Latin, Greek, Chinese, Russian, and Hindi and says that in these 813

Jerrold J. Katz, and Paul M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions (Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 1964), p. 141. 214 S.—Y. Kuroda, "On English Manner Adverbials". (La Jolla,California, 1967), p. 17. (Mimeographed.) 215 John Lyons, "A Note on Possessive, Existential and Locative Sentences", Foundations of Language III, No. 4, (November, 1967), p. 390.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

67

languages the three-way distinction between possessive, existential, and locative is not as clear cut as it is in English, and that even in English the relationship between these three categories is establishable. In English, the subject is the possessor if and only if it is animate, which accounts for the grammatically of "John has a book" and the ungrammaticality of *"A book is had by J o h n " . There is a three-way relationship between "John has a book", "John's book", and "John, with a book". But this relationship does not hold for *"A book is had by J o h n " for the reasons mentioned above. Lyons points to the expletive construction, and the dependence it has upon an adverb of place, and in fact he notes that the expletive there is historically derived from the adverb there. Lyons considers indirect objects to be both possessive and locative. Thus, he says "Give me the book is indeterminate between possessive and locative" ; and he points out the locative force is especially strong in "Give it to me", which is equivalent to "Give it here". Lyons feels further that the structure of "The book is on the table" is the same as that of "The book is John's", and therefore the same as "John has a book", as all three of these sentences tell the location of the book. 5. The Tagmemic Approach We have already discussed an article by Herbert Pilch, whose approach was a combination of transformational and tagmemic. From the tagmemic point of view, in consultation with Kenneth Pike, Pilch set up a ". . . matrix as a set of ordered couples". 216 To the tagmemicist, this would be viewing language as field, i.e. in terms of how each unit relates to other units in a system. More recently, at the 1967 Georgetown Convention, Howard W. Law read a tagmemic paper entitled, "The Use of Function-Set in English Adverbial Classification", in which he indicates that " I n describing English adverbials little attention has been paid historically to the feature of function, although adverbials have been classified in several different ways". 217 Law indicates that "Classifications based on only form, or position, or function", are to him "patently inadequate, [because] no single criterion is sufficient to distinguish the significant groups for English". 213 Then, after excluding "sentence level adverbs", "adverbial clauses in dependent (but not imbedded) relation", "phrasal adverbials", "certain prepositions", and "complements", Law sets up a rigorous procedure for classifying adverbials according to form, position,

216

Pilch, p. 43. Howard W. Law, "The Use of Function Set in English Adverbial Classification", Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 20 (1967), p. 94; hereafter cited as Law. 18 Law, p. 95.

68

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

and function. On the basis of the sample of adverbials with which he worked, the following classification was set up for adverbials: 1. Pre-, Mid-, and Post-verbal Adverbials 1.1. Conjunctive Single forms (non-ly), e.g. also 1.2. Degree Single forms {-ly), e.g. merely 1.3. Manner Single forms {-ly), e.g. obviously 1.4. Time Single forms (non-ly), e.g. now 2 Pre- and Mid-verbal Adverbials 2.1. Manner Single forms (non-ly), e.g. thus 3. Mid- and Post-verbal Adverbials 3.1. Manner Single forms (non-ly), e.g. likewise, readily 4. Pre- and Post-verbal Adverbials 4.1. Associative Prep phrases, e.g. with + Ν 4.2. Camal Prep phrase, e.g. because ο/ + Ν 4.3. Location Single forms (non-ly), e. g. below Prep phrase, e.g. along -j- Ν 4.4. Manner Prep phrases, e.g. as + Ν 4.5. Means Prep phrases, e.g. by + Ν 4.6. Purpose Prep phrases, e.g. to + clause 4.7. Time Single forms {-ly), e.g. usually Prep phrases, e.g. at + Temp 5. Pre-verbal Adverbials 5.1. Distance phrases, e.g. so far 6. Mid-verbal Adverbials 6.1. Degree Single forms (non-ly), e.g. just 6.2. Manner Single forms {-ly), e.g. easily 7. Post-verbal Adverbials 7.1. Agent Prep phrases, e.g. by + N/proper noun

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

69

7.2. Degree Single forms (non-ly), e.g. altogether Prep phrases, e.g. by + Ν 7.3. Distance Prep phrases, e.g. at + Ν 7.4. Direction Single forms (non-ly), e.g. outward 7.5. Intensity Single forms (non-ly); e.g. indeed 7.6. Manner Single forms {-ly), e.g. solely 7.7. Respect Prep phrases, e.g. according to + Ν 7.8. State Prep phrases, e.g. in -f- N, with the result that + clause219 If I interpret Law's classification correctly, it would seem that although he considers positional, functional, and formational information, he has a priority for these three considerations, since level one of the outline above (position) is shown to be more important than level two (function), which is in turn more important than level three (formation). In a generative grammar, this system of priorities does not have to be established, and yet positional, functional, and formational information is given. In addition, in a generative grammar, sentence adverbials, complements, etc. need not be excluded merely because they do not happen to fit the classification scheme. 6. Case Grammar In 1966, Charles Fillmore began developing a grammar which was based on transformational grammar, but a grammar which assumed relational information (i.e. case) to be more important than categorial information. In an early article on case grammar, Fillmore demonstrated that it is impossible in an Aspects-model grammar to provide rules which state that in a clumsy way (for example) is both a prepositional phrase (categorial information), and a manner adverbial (case information).220 And he also demonstrated that an Aspectsmodel grammar cannot indicate that a hammer in the sentence "A hammer broke the window" is not only a noun phrase functioning as subject, but furthermore that this noun phrase is in the instrumental case, i.e. that this sentence is related to "Someone broke the window with a hammer".221 219

Law, pp. 101 — 102. Only categories 1 — 3 appear in Law's article. Categories 4— 7 were supplied through personal correspondence with Law. 220 Charle J. Fillmore, "Toward a Modern Theory of Case", Project on Linguistic Analysis No. 13 (1966), pp. 1 - 2 4 . 221 Charles J. Fillmore, "The Case for Case", Paper presented at the Texas Symposium on Language Universale, April 13—15, 1967, p. 42.

70

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In his "The Case for Case", Fillmore considers six cases for English: Agentive (i.e. deep structure subject), Instrumental, Dative (i.e. deep structure indirect object), Factitive, Locative, and Objective. Fillmore's Locative category includes both Place and Direction adverbials, because he feels that these two cases do not contrast with each other in the deep structure. Fillmore, like Lakoff and Postal, feels that adjectives form a subset of verbs, and insertion of these 'verbs' . . . depends on the particular array of cases, the 'case frame', provided by the sentence. The verb run, for example, may be inserted into the frame [—A], the verb sad into the frame [—D], verbs like remove and open into [—0 -f- A], verbs like murder and terrorize ... into [—D -f- A], verbs like give into [—0 -(- D -J- A], and so on.222 The fact that the same verb can occur in various case environments is handled by the use of parentheses. Thus, the fact that such verbs as open, turn, move, rotate, bend, etc. must have an Object, but don't necessarily have to have an Agent or an Instrumental, can be shown by the following formula: + [ — ( - 0 (I) (A)]. The Agent is the Subject 223 if one is present, e.g. "John broke the window (with a hammer)"; the Instrumental is Subject when there is an Instrumental but no Agent, e.g. "A hammer broke the window"; and the Object is the Subject if and only if there is no Instrumental or Agent present, e.g. "The window broke". This last information is handled by transformations, which are language specific, and which are controlled largely by particular verbs. Case grammar is capable of indicating the relationship between words which in prior grammars were difficult or impossible to relate. Thus, for example, the semantic features for kill and die are exactly the same, and the difference between these two verbs is merely a surface structure — distributional — difference, i.e. that kill is represented as -f- [ — D (I A)], while die is represented as -f [ — + D]. 224 Fillmore indicates that certain cases in English are marked by prepositions. He considers the Agent preposition to be by; the Instrumental preposition by (if there is no Agent), or with; the Object and Factitative cases, no preposition; the Benefactive case, the preposition for; the Dative case, the preposition to; and the Locative and Time cases to have variable prepositions, dependent upon features of concordance (Accusative, Ablative, Future, Past, etc.), or else selected by the particular noun.225 But although these prepositions are expressed in the surface-structure representations of some sentences in which the particular cases occur, the prepositions are often deleted by particular 222 223 224 225

Fillmore, "The Case for Case", p. 50. " S u b j e c t " for Fillmore is a surface-structure designation. Fillmore, "The Case for Case", p. 56. Fillmore, " T h e Case for Case", p. 59.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

71

transformations. Thus, the case markers for Agent, Instrumental, Benefactive, Locative, and Time, respectively, are present in " H e was gored by a bull", "He broke the window with a hammer", "He made it for his brother", " I t is windy in Chicago", and "He came on Monday"; but these case markers are absent, for example, when the noun becomes the subject of the sentence, as in "A bull gored him", "A hammer broke the window", "His brother received it", "Chicago is windy", and "Monday is the day on which he came". Fillmore has specified some of the rules for treating prepositions in a recent article about English prepositions. 226 There have also been recent articles by linguists other than Fillmore which are concerned with case. Bruce Fraser wrote an article relating instrumental nouns to verb-particle constructions. Although he did not state the following transformation, he did set up the relationships stated by the transformation:

NP!

fasten-tense close-tense cover-tense cross-tense clean-tense

down in over out off

NPfasten-tense

NPi

NPciose NPcover NPcross NPclean

-tense -tense -tense -tense

down in over out off

N P fasten NPciose

N P . with

NPcover NPcross NPclean

NP,

And he set up the categories indicated by the following lexical rewrite rules: NPfasten

NPciose NPcover NPcross NPclean

=• button, clamp, bolt, tack, nail, batten, pin, rivet, screw, glue, paste, cement, tape, staple . . . => box, fence, glass, rope, pen, screen, wall. . . => board, wall, glass, brick, cement, mortar . . . => pencil, ink, paint, chalk, crayon . . . =>· brush, hose, mop, sand, sponge . . .

Thus, relationships can be seen between "He fastened the loose edge of the rug with glue", and " H e glued down the loose edge of the rug"; between " H e closed in the porch with a wall"·, and " H e walled in the porch"; between " H e covered over the hole with cement", and " H e cemented over the hole"; be226

Charles J. Fillmore, "A Proposal Concerning English Prepositions", Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 19 (1966), pp. 19 - 33.

Monograph

72

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

tween "He crossed out the signature with ink", and " H e inked out the signat u r e " ; and between "He cleaned off the sofa with a brush", and "He brushed off the sofa". 227 George Lakoff has also had some very significant things to say about case in English. I n his doctoral dissertation, Lakoff argued t h a t many adverbs are derived from sentences, and he focused on manner adverbs to show t h a t the Manner Case is not represented as an adverbial in the deep structure of English.228 I n a later article, he showed t h a t the Instrumental Case is also not represented as an adverbial in the deep structure of English, by indicating that the selection restrictions in such a sentence as "Seymour sliced the salami with a knife", are exactly the same as they are in "Seymour used a knife to slice the salami". He assumed a transformational relationship between these two sentences, and suggested that the so-called Instrumental Adverbial "with a knife" is actually derived from a sentence. He extended this principle further by saying that there is no " . . . category Instrumental Adverb in deep structure". 229 He further suggested t h a t other adverbial categories might be questioned on the same basis. I t is significant that Lakoff merely pointed out the difficulties t h a t have arisen in the Aspects-model grammar. Solutions for these difficulties were not immediately evident, and in fact, Lakoff's article contained no transformational rules. Perhaps case grammar is more suited to treating such case problems than is Aspects grammar. This remains to be seen. 7. Other Approaches Adverbials have certainly been analyzed in models other than the traditional, structural, transformational, tagmemic and case; however, for the purposes of this monograph, these four with their historical and physical relationships will be the only ones investigated in the review of the literature. 8. Conclusion Of the five models we have examined here, it is the traditional model t h a t has probably given us the most insights into the system of adverbials. The other three models have primarily dealt with more specific problems, and have in addition formalized the findings of the traditionalists — at least some of the findings. The tagmemic study which we investigated offered little more than a 227

Bruce Fraser, "Some Remarks on the Verb-Particle Construction in English", Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 19 (1966), pp. 45—61. 228 George Lakoff, "On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity", Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report NSF-16 (1965). 229 George Lakoff, "Instrumental Adverbs and the Concept Deep Structure", Foundations of Language, IV, (Feb. 1968), p. 1.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

73

procedure for classifying adverbiale; we are still left with the question of whether this is the optimal classification system, even in a tagmemic grammar. The structural approach, being formal like the tagmemic, gives many formal insights, but the fact that it is analytic rather than synthetic or generative and the fact that it does not have the transformational component, prevents this model from being adequately useful. An additional weakness of the structural model (related to the fact that it is analytic) is that it does not account for anything except performance in a formal way. The generative-transformational model will be used in this monograph. The author will attempt to place the findings of traditionalists, structuralists, and tagmemicists into the transformational framework. And he will furthermore take those areas which have been more or less investigated by transformationalists, e.g. negatives, comparatives, manner adverbiale, 'partielles', etc. and attempt to put them into an overall system, which will be devised in view of the findings reported in this chapter, and the rest of the study.

II. MANNER ADVERBIALS

The Adverb is the most heterogeneous of the part-of-speech categories, and the Manner Adverbial is the most heterogeneous subcategory of Adverbs. I t is therefore necessary to subcategorize the Adverb category in such a way t h a t generalizations can be made about the sub-subcategories which could not be made about adverbials in general. Chomsky indicates that some Manner Adverbials have underlying sentences. " . . . underlying the sentence 'John gave the lecture with great enthusiasm', with the Adverbial 'with great enthusiasm', is the base string 'John has great enthusiasm . . ,'". 1 Chomsky is therefore suggesting t h a t there is a formal relationship between with NP and have NP, and by extension, the negatives without NP and not have NP. The NP's t h a t will fit into such a formulation are practically without constraint: a limp, training, money, friends, an airplane, etc., and would include instrumental as well as plain possessive contractions. Let us go one step further now. The expression "with enthusiasm" can be paraphrased with an adjective construction: "be enthusiastic", or with an adverb construction based on the adjective: "enthusiastically". We have therefore suggested a formal relationship as follows: POSITIVE with N P have N P be N P + Adjective Suffix N P + Adjective Suffix + Adverb Suffix

NEGATIVE without N P not have N P be N P -f Adjective Suffix -f negation N P + Adjective Suffix + Adverb Suffix + negation

Following this same procedure further, let us set up a series of structures, and let us assume t h a t these structures are related to each other by means of 1

Chomsky, Aspects, p. 219.

MANNER

75

ADVERBÏALS

transformations. And let us assume that expressions which may appear to be the same on the surface, but which will undergo different transformations, should not be classed together. For example, we could determine that the mannsr adverbial athletically is of a different subclass than is the manner adverbial rhythmically as can be shown by making the following comparisons: RHYTHMICALLY

ATHLETICALLY

with rhythm *with an athlete 2 to have rhythm *to have an athlete in a rhythmic manner/way in an athletic manner/way *like a rhythm like an athlete The transformational profile above, therefore shows that rhythmically and athletically are not the same transformationally (or semantically) even though they are the same morphologically: noun-ic-al-ly. Assuming that transformational profiles will help in determining other subcategories, the following sample matrix for manner adverbials is set up for showing transformational profiles. I t should be noted here that transformational grammarians often use the matrix for displaying semantic and phonological information, but seldom use this very helpful device for displaying syntactic information. POSITIVE la. 2a. 3a. 4a. 5a. 6a. 7a. 8a. 9a.

NEGATIVE

with N P lb. without N P have N P (to have NP, having NP, etc.) like N P with N P forward S'i N P Y (Comp) => Sx V-SUFFIX-LY Adj (ly) = in an adj ÍManner IWay Sx 1 N P V (Comp) J Si by V-ing (Comp) N P VP Adv =• N P Adv VP N P VP Adv => Adv N P VP

1 Oa -"-comp» Τ Τ Τ -"-superlative' -"-intensive

I l a . by (means of) N P 12a. (along) with NP concrete 2

The asterisks above do not mean that the forms do not occur, but merely that the forms are not paraphrases of the word heading the column, and therefore are not transformationally related.

76

MANNER ADVERBIALS

Noun

Adj Suffix

Neg— Adverb Adj Suffix Suffix

Manner Adverbials With -Ly Suffix la

2a

iy ly iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

3a

4a

5a

6a

7a

8a 1 9a 10a 11a 112a 1 l b

care grace hope faith law power thought beauty cheer deceit fruit health joy peace plenty sorrow wrath

full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full full

fever

ish

iy

X

X

X

X

X

X

emotion intention sensation

al al al

iy iy iy

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

grace joy nerve pomp religion space virtue

ous ous ous ous ous ous ous

iy iy iy iy iy iy iy

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

dogma emphasis energy enthusiasm rhythm system

ic ic ic ic ic ic

iy iy iy iy iy iy

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

spectacle

ar

iy

X

X

X

X

affection (com)passion fortune

ate ate ate

iy iy iy

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

anger wear fault noise

y y y y

X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X

less less

iy iy iy iy

less less

iy iy

?

X X

X X

X X

age father

less less less less less less less

1

?

J

X X X X X X X X

Î ? ? ?

X 1 ? ? ?

? J

?

Î ?

? ? ?

?

î J ? ?

? ?

1 J

?

?

J ?

J J X X

?

î X

X X

77

MANNER ADVEKBIALS

Houn

Adj Suffix

home name need sleeve book child clan fool freak man self sheep snob

ish ish ish ish ish ish ish ish ish

brute person

NegAdj Suffix

Adverb Suffix

less less less less

ly iy iy iy

banner Adverbiale With -Ly Suffix la

2a

3a

4a

5a

8a

9a 10a 11a 12a lb

? ? Î

»

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

6a

7a

X

iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

al al

iy iy

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

î ?

X X

angel athlete cube meter volcano

ic ic ic ic ic

iy iy iy iy iy

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

? ? ? ? î

X X X X X

wood

en

iy

X

X

X

X

X

î

X

less

NegAdj Suffix

Noun Suffix

Adj Suffix

confide cohere excel expect urge observe prevail

enee enee enee enee enee enee enee

ent ent ent ant ent ant ent

iy iy iy ly ly ly ly

please exceed

ure ss

ant ive

create obstruct imitate instruct possess prevent prohibit select

ion ion ion ion ion ion ion ion

ive ive ive ive ive ive ive ive

Verb

Adverb Suffix

?

? ?

? ? ? ?

? ?

χ χ χ χ

X X X X X X X X X

Manner Adverbials With -Ly Suffix la

2a

X X X X X

X X X X X

3a

4a

5a 1 6a 1 7 a 1 8a 9a 10a lia 12a lb X X X X X X

X X X X X X ?

X X X X X X

X ? ?

?

X X X

X X X

X X X X

ly ly

X X

X X

X X

X X

X ?

X ?

ly ly ly iy iy iy iy iy

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X î î χ

?

X ? ?

X

78

MANNER ADVERBIALS

Noun Suffix

Adj Suffix

agree commend resist

ment tion ance

able able able

allow defend explain pay perish read receive

ance ent tion ment il ing t

able able able able able able able

VERB

PST PRT ed ed ed ed

Verb

decide hurry learn point VERB charm laugh love smile

Adjective

adequate drastic direct intelligent keen kind nice open poor bold bright calm clear candid free happy idle polite

NegAdj Suffix

Maimer Adverbiasl With -Ly Suffix la

2a

3a

4a

7a

8a

9a

10a 11a 12a

6a 1 6a

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

iy

X X X X

X X X X

iy iy iy iy

X X X X

X X X X

X X X

iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy

iy iy iy

PRES PART ing ing ing ing

Adj Suffix

Adverb Suffix

NegAdj Suffix

Adverb Suffix

iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy

lb

Manner Adverbiale With -Ly Suffix la

2a

3a

4a

5a

6a J 7a

8a

9a

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

10a 11a 12a

lb

79

MANNER ADVERBIALS

Adjective

Adj Suffix

NegAdj Adverb Suffix Suffix

private quiet quick rough serious sweet social separate sad stingy

Manner Adverbials With -Ly Suffix la

2a

3a

4a

5a

NegAdj Suffix

la

2a

3a

4a

5a

6a

X

wards wards iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy like like like like

X X X X X X X X X ?

Manner Adverbiale Without -Ly Suffix

Adverb Suffix

ways/wise ways/wise ways

X X X X X X X X X J

X X X X X X X X X X

iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy iy

Adj Suffix

6a J 7a 8a 1 9a 1 10a 11a 12a lb

7a

8a

80

MANNER ADVERBIALS

Adj Suffix

NegAdj Suffix

Maimer Adverbiale Without -LySuffix

Adverb Suffix la

2a

2a

7a

8a

9a

10a 11a 12a

some some some some some RESIDUE ic ous al al al al ful al al

ly ly ly ly ly Iy ly ly ly ly ly

0

al

NOTE: b y accident

NOTE: NOTE: NOTE: NOTE: NOTE:

on purpose in politics in practice in public in theory

ly NOTE: b y name ly NOTE: a t present ly X X

NOTE: on purpose

iy iy iy iy iy

Verb

Noun Suffix

Adj Suffix

NegAdj Suffix

collect

Adverb Suffix

Manner Adverbiale Without -Ly Suffix

ly NO A D V E R B I A L POSSIBLE Adj Suffix

Noun

college

ate

bag cloud dirt dust fun

y y y y y

Adj Suffix

Noun

cause coast ornament

al al al

peril

ous

complement

ary

Noun

Adj Suffix

earth gold silk wool

en en en en

rag skill

ed ed

lb

81

MANNER ADVERBIALS Adj Suffii

Noun

hair rain snow streak mess nerve

y y y y y y

Adj Suffix

Noun

document fragment rudiment vision

Noun

ary ary ary ary

Adj Suffix

wood

ed

melt shrink swell

ablaut + en ablaut + en ablaut + en

ADVERBIAL POSSIBLE WITH NO ADVERBIAL SUFFIX NECESSARY Adj Suffix

Adjective

bright deep fair fast loud quick right sharp slow straight strong thick likely seemly slovenly ugly

0 0 0

hard high ill long well wide

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

NegAdj Suffix

Adverb Suffix

Manner Adverbiale Without -Ly Suffix la

2a

3a

4a

Sa

10a 11a

12a

lb

0/ly 0/ly 0/iy 0/ly 0/ly 0/ly 0/ly 0/ly 0/ly 0/ly 0/ly 0/ly 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

Sometimes there is a rather tight affinity between the Manner Adverbials above and a verb, making it so that the V-Adv m construction is functioning as a sort of a Predicate plus Complement. Both Charles Fries3 and Bruce Fraser4 have discussed this relationship, and they list the following as examples:

3 4

Fries, The Structure, pp. 1 3 5 - 1 3 7 . Fraser, Dissertation.

82

MANNER

force open bang shut blow open force shut blow shut get well blush red get sick break loose grow old break even grow tall come high go blue come clean hold true continue cold keep free continue hot keep thin continue mild keep young continue warm lay open cut short lay waste fall sick let alone let loose fling open fly open lie flat fly shut loom large

ADVERBIALS

make clear make fast make firm make good make happy make unhappy prove false prove true push open push shut remain loyal remain ignorant rest easy ring true ring false run dry run slow set free

shine clear show red sit still sit straight sit tight sleep sober stand straight stand still stand firm stay clean stay bright stay strong strip naked turn red turn green turn black wear thin whisk open work loose

Unfortunately there is little system in the above relationships; therefore most of this information will have to be relegated to the lexicon. There are certain general statements that can be made, however. For example we can set up a class of action verbs which co-occur with manner adverbials indicating the resultant condition. And furthermore, we can say that the medio-passive transformation applies to most such constructions as follows: bang blow fling

bang blow fling j*fl y *fforce jpull push slam Jwhisk —

NP 2

"closed" open shut

NP 2

fly

*foi'ce pull push slam whisk

"closed" open 5 shut

* '— •

Thus, the sentences "The wind banged/blew/flung/pulled/pushed/slammed/ whisked the gate closed/open/shut", and "the gate banged/blew/flung/pulled/ pushed/slammed/whisked/closed/open/shut" are grammatical. It is interesting

T h e asterisks on *fly and * force indicate t h a t the input * " T h e wind flew the g a t e s h u t " and the o u t p u t * " T h e g a t e forced s h u t " are ungrammatical. This means t h a t w h e n the verb is fly, the transformation is m a n d a t o r y ; when it is force t h e transformation cannot a p p l y . F o r all of the other verbs, the transformation is optional.

5

MANNER

ADVERBIALS

83

to note t h a t most of the transitive V-Adv m constructions here are subject to the medio-passive transformation. Certain verbs in this class also co-occur with color adjectives. These examples seem to be very similar to linking constructions : ' ^ U r n Adj color . I t is difficult slow to know how (or if) Fries and Fraser would distinguish between "the light bulb turned/showed red" on the one hand, and "the light bulb is/became/seemed red" on the other. Let us now attempt to determine the correlation between transformations l a and 2a above. As Chomsky suggested in his Aspects,e there is a very high correlation between with + N P constructions and have -f- N P constructions. I n the present materials there are forty-six adverbial expressions which can occur as with + N P constructions; and these are the exact same adverbial expressions t h a t can occur as have + N P constructions. We can therefore say t h a t at least as far as our corpus is concerned, all constructions of the with + N P type are derived from sentences with have in approximately the following way: NP X have N P 2 =• NP, VP with N P 2 There seems to be one other class of manner adverbials which has a complete sentence underlying it, and this is represented by test 5a in our matrix above:

1=> Sx V-SUFFIX-LY NP V (Comp)J Si

This class of Manner Adverbial is derived from a verb rather than being derived from an N P as was the case in the previous instance. Those verbs undergoing this transformation (cohere, please, select, etc.) will have to be marked (possibly in the lexicon) as to whether they will allow the transformation or not, and if they allow the transformation, they will have to be marked as to which adjective suffix (if any) is required. Manner Adverbials of the by Y-ing (Comp) type (7a in our matrix), are derived from the same underlying structures as are Manner Adverbials of the V-SUFFIX-LY type (5a in our matrix). One very important difference, however, is t h a t there are no constraints on by Y-ing (Comp) adverbials, while there are severe constraints on the V-SUFFIX-LY adverbials. I n other words, transformation 7a can apply no matter what sentence is chosen for the insert sentence.

e

Chomsky, Aspects, p. 219.

84

MANNER

ADVERBIALS

At this point, we have Manner Adverbials which are derived from the rewrite rule S NP + VP -f (Advplace) (Advtime) (Advmanner) as well as manner adverbials that are derived from 5a OT V (Comp)}

-

S

> V-SÜFFIX-LY

and those derived from 7a KP V (Comp)]

^ b y

V-ing (Comp)

Thus the S-rewrite rule and the transformations subjoining V-SUFFIX-LY and by Y-ing (Comp) to a sentence all have the structural description N P + VP + Adv, and according to tests 8a and 9a of our matrix, the Adv could be placed before the VP (8a), or before the sentence (9a). Thus we have the following possibilities : OPERATION S-rewrite 5a 7a

EXAMPLE He drank the wine calmly. He taught his class creatively. He kept his country safe by preventing war.

8a 8a 8a

He calmly drank the wine. He creatively taught his class. He, by preventing war, kept his country safe.

9a 9a 9a

Calmly he drank the wine. Creatively he taught his class. By preventing war, he kept his country safe.

Probably any structure that can undergo transformation 8a can also undergo transformation 9a, so the situation is actually something like this: xtd

NP

T7T)

VP

*Λ Adv

Í NP . , [ Adv

Adv ΛΤ_ NP

VP VP

Trr>

It is possible that the inherent-noninherent distinction which Lees suggests for adjectives with place adverbials (e.g. "John was happy in Chicago" but not *"John was tall in Chicago") is also important for Manner Adverbials derived from these adjectives. Thus, we can say "Calmly John drank the wine", but we cannot say *"Irishly John drank the wine". It should be noted that the transformations 8a and 9a apply to the string NP VP Adv, rather than N P VP Advene,.. The reason that the type of adverb is not specified in this transformation is that it is not confined to Manner Adverbials:

MANNER

ADVERBIALS

85

John recovered the stolen goods yesterday. John yesterday recovered the stolen goods. Yesterday, John recovered the stolen goods, or: John found some money in the house. ?John, in the house, found some money. In the house, John found some money. In the case of time and place adverbials, it seems somewhat arbitrary that the base sentence has the adverbial at the end, and that transformations thereafter take the adverb before the V P or before the S. In the case of Manner Adverbials, however, there is more justification for taking this action. In contrasting such sentences as " I read the letter naturally", and "He wrote the letter simply", with " I naturally read the letter", and "He simply wrote the letter" respectivel y , only the first set contains Manner Adverbials, and the second set of examples is not transformationally related to the first. When the adverbial is placed at the end of the sentence, there is an ambiguity, accounting for the special effect of an advertisement that goes: "Koepplinger's bread helps slim you naturally". The manner adverbial category has in the past been used as a catch-all for all adverbials that can be relativized in the following way: S Adv Y => how X Y . This method of determining the manner adverbial category has two limitations. First, it does not distinguish between adverbs of manner and adverbs of extent, both of which are relativized by how. Second, it is a gross statement which delimits only the major class, making it necessary to have other tests for delimiting subcategories of manner adverbial. For this monograph, we will continue to use the transformation X + Adv maimer + Y => how + X + Y to determine Manner Adverbials, but we will consider it in contrast with X + Adv e j^j^J Y => how

J X + Y which will be the transforma-

tion used for determining adverbs of extent. We will also have transformations for subcategories of Manner Adverbials. Contrast the following: They brought the refrigerator into the room successfully. They brought the refrigerator into the room snobbishly. They brought the refrigerator into the room sideways. All three of these sentences can be relativized by " . . . how they brought the refrigerator into the room". But only the first is a sort of possessive (they had success) ; only the second sets up a comparison (as a snob would) ; and only the third tells the disposition of the refrigerator (with the side forward). And certain transformations in our matrix are set up to point out these differences which elsewhere in the literature are treated merely as semantic differences if at all.

86

MANNER

ADVERBIALS

The transformations in 10a of the matrix are designed to distinguish between those manner adverbiale which can be qualified from those which cannot . Let us now discuss in greater detail the derivation of manner adverbiale. In particular we shall attempt to answer two questions: (1) Is it possible (and desirable) to derive all Manner Adverbials from underlying sentences, as Chomsky suggests might be the case,7 and(2) Should the Manner Adverbial "have as one of its realizations a 'dummy element' signifying that the passive transformation must obligatorily apply", again as Chomsky suggests might be the case.8 We have stated that the most common derivation of Manner Adverbial is the sentence rewrite rule: S _ N P + VP + (Advpiace) (Adv time ) (Adv manner ) Since there are a number of important constraints between verbs and Manner Adverbials, let us derive the Manner Adverbial after the verb has been subcategorized, and let us at the same time attempt to derive our Manner Adverbial from a sentence containing no optional elements. The result would be as follows: VI VT +

NP NP Vb + [ A d j N P Vs + Adj'

NP's

VI VT + N P NP Vb + ' Adj Vs + Adj

-ing Adj =• N P

VI V T + NP Vb + Í N P {Adj Vs + Adj

Adj-ly

THIS be Adj The above formulation is based on the assumption of Paul Roberts that Manner Adverbials can appear with intransitive, transitive, become-, and seem-verbs, but not with middle verbs or with be. On the basis of such examples as: VERB

TYPE

intransitive transitive become seem

7

EXAMPLE John worked carelessly. Henry lifted the lid quickly. Sally became a lady unwillingly, Tom looked indignant playfully. 9

Chomsky, Aspects, p. 219. Chomsky, Aspects, p. 103. 9 Paul Roberts, English Sytax, Alternate Edition (New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1964), p. 56; hereafter cited as Roberts. 8

MANNER

ADVERBIALS

87

Roberts expands 'verbal' in the following way:

verbal

VI VT Vb Vs Vh

+ NP -f- substantive + adjective +NP

-f- (Adv — m)

Roberts failed to indicate that middle verbs can also appear with manner adverbiale as in "He resembled her completely", 11 as well as the verb be, as in "He is decidedly a Harvard graduate". Roberts also failed to indicate that there are severe restrictions on which Manner Adverbials can co-occur with becomeand seem- verbs. On the other hand, it is not just transitive verbs that can occur with Manner Adverbials as Chomsky suggests when he indicates that Passive should be dominated by the Manner Adverbial node. But here it should be noted that our analysis differs from Chomsky's in one other major respect. H e considers pseudo-passives, e.g. "A new course of action was agreed on", as containing intransitive verbs, while I consider them as containing two-part transitive verbs. Thus for Chomsky the relationship between Passive and Manner Adverbial is a tighter one because transitive and intransitive verbs are the only ones t h a t can occur with Manner Adverbials with relatively few constraints, and these are for him the two verb classes which can occur with Passive. A simplification of the transformation we have just been considering is: N P V (Comp) =• NP's Y-ing (Comp) be Adj = > N P V (Comp) Adj-ly T H I S be Adj There is another derivation of Manner Adverbials which is very similar to the one above: N P V (Comp) => S, Adj-ly V-ing T H I S be Adj S which will produce such sentences as "Generally speaking, smoke rises upward". There is an additional derivation of Manner Adverbials, and evidently one t h a t can make a manner adverbial out of most intransitive verbs. August Western 12 considers such sentences as "He would have . . . laughingly laid the burden upon Ella herself". If sentences of this type are not archaic, then there is probably a rule something like the following: 10 11 12

Roberta, p. 57. Lees, The Grammar, p. 26. Western, p. 91.

88

MANNER

ADVERBIALS

which would mean t h a t again we would have the structure N P VP Adv, and t h a t therefore transformations 8a and 9a could apply. The two questions t h a t must be asked in reference to this transformation, however, are: (!) Does this rule exist at all in English — or is it rather a rule that used to exist, and (2) If it exists, are there constraints on V¡. I n other words, is it possible to say ?"He swimmingly entered the lagoon", or ?"They skiddingly missed the other car". Western makes another interesting observation about Manner Adverbials: A pure adverb of manner of course modifies the verb o n l y . . . But it often happens that such an adverb, without losing its character as a word-modifier, at the same time tells us something about the subject of the sentence . . . In the sentence In the street Dora saw two children lazily going to school, we no doubt learn that the children were walking in a lazy manner, but this would not have been the case, if the children had not been — at least for the moment — lazy themselves.13 If Mr. Western's analysis is correct, these facts can be easily represented in a transformational grammar. Underlying the sentence " I n the street Dora saw two children lazily going to school" would be such sentences as the following: Dora saw two children. Two children were in the street. Two children were going to school. Two children were lazy. The fact that we cannot say *"The two children's going to school was lazy", indicates t h a t these manner adverbials cannot be derived in the usual way, and t h a t in fact they must be derived from predicate adjectives, e.g. "The two children were lazy". This would, of course, account for Mr. Western's intuition about the sentence under consideration. Western goes on to make a rather interesting contrast between Manner Adverbials and Predicate Adjectives: To characterize how something looks or sounds, it does not make any great difference whether we employ an adjective or an adverb. The moon shines bright and the moon shines brightly really tell the same thing; only in the first of these the brightness is referred to the moon itself, while in the second case it is referred to its shine. But as it is impossible that a thing which is not bright can shine brightly, this difference in expression does not correspond to a difference in meaning. It is quite another thing if we say. . . The wood was burning brightly. Here bright would be wrong, as it is not the wood, but the flame [burning]; that is bright.14 "

11

Western, p. 87. Western, p. 92.

MANNER

ADVERBIALS

89

Again, if we can trust Western's analysis, it is easy to represent these facts in transformational grammar. The sentence "The moon shines bright" would have underlying it such sentences as The moon shines. The moon is bright. While the sentence "The moon shines brightly" would have underlying it such sentences as The moon shines. T H I S is bright. I n the second case, the top (insert) sentence can be subjected to the gerundal transformation and then inserted into the bottom (matrix) sentence, making "The moon's shining is bright". The sentence "The wood was burning brightly" would be derived as follows: The wood was burning T H I S was bright

The wood's burning was bright : The wood was burning brightly

but the following (according to Western) is not possible: The wood was burning *The wood was bright

*The wood was burning bright

The facts just cited will account for the ambiguity of " J o h n found the money I had so foolishly lost". I n one case the underlying sentences are: John found the money I lost the money T H I S was foolish While in the other case the underlying sentences are: John found the money I lost the money I was foolish Since "John found the money I had so foolishly lost" is derivable from either set of underlying sentences, it is, of course, ambiguous. There are also other peculiarities of Manner Adverbials which must be built into a grammar of English. Consider the sentence, " H e acts as (he would act)

90

MANNER

ADVERBIALS

if he were a leader". I n order to account for the semantics of such a sentence, it is necessary to have the imput "he is not a leader" in the derivation of such a string. Let us set up the following relationships: A leader acts someway j H e acts SOMEWAY x H e is not a leader

He acts as (he would act) if he were a leader

He acts

like in the manner (in which) a leader as acts the way

Earlier we indicated t h a t many Manner Adverbials are derived from Adjectives. I t is also the case t h a t many Adjectives are derived from Manner Adverbials. And furthermore, those which are derived from Manner Adverbials retain their Manner Adverbial meaning, and can therefore be contrasted both semantically and structurally from the others. Contrast for example "She is a happy teacher", with "She is a mediocre teacher". I n the first case, the derivation is as follows: She is a teacher She is happy

She is a teacher (who is) happy teacher

She is a happy

whereas in the second case, the derivation is quite different: T H I S is mediocre

=> Her teaching is mediocre =>She is a mediocre teacher °

I n support of this analysis, "She is a teacher who is mediocre" is not a paraphrase of "She is a mediocre teacher", and *"She teaches in a happy manner" is not a paraphrase of "She is a happy teacher". Examples of adjectives t h a t are derived from Manner Adverbials (like mediocre) are lousy, slow, fast, wonderful, top rate, inferior, outstanding, bad, good, etc. Examples of adjectives t h a t are not derived from Manner Adverbials (like happy) are strange, unhappy, sad, queer, stupid, etc. I t is possible for an adjective to be derivable in both of the ways described above, and when this happens, the sentence becomes ambiguous, as we would expect. For example, "She's a poor teacher" can mean either that she teaches poorly or that she herself is poor. As our transformation suggests, this ambiguity is possible only when the modified noun is derived from a verb. Since teacher in "She's a poor teacher" is derivable from "She teaches", then "She's a poor teacher" is ambiguous; however, since woman in "She's a poor woman" is not derivable from *"She womans" (or something of the sort), "She's a poor woman" is not ambiguous.

MANNER

ADVERBIALS

91

Another important relationship between Manner Adverbials and Adjectives is the result of the Action Nominalization, and as Lees has pointed out, the only constraint on this transformation is t h a t t h e verbs be of t h e action class. Notice t h a t t h e Action Nominalization changes a Manner Adverbial into an Adjective in the following manner: Betsy rapidly made t h e flag =» Betsy's rapid making of the flag Strings t h a t have t h e surface structure of N P 1 A d j Y-ing of N P 2 , however, can have different deep structures. Contrast "The rapid making of the flag", with "The swift flowing of the river". I n the first case the verb is transitive, and the of is marking t h e direct object, whereas in the second case the verb is intransitive, and t h e of is marking the subject of the gerund construction. When the verb is pseudo-transitive (i.e. when it can take a direct object as a transitive verb can, a n d can be without a direct object as an intransitive verb can), the sentence is ambiguous. F o r example, "The constant eating of the rabbits", can be derived from either "The rabbits eat (food) constantly", or from "Someone eats rabbits constantly". Unlike t h e Action Nominalization, t h e Gerundive Nominalization does not change t h e form of the verb modifier, t h u s we have the relationship : Betsy rapidly made the flag => Betsy's rapidly making t h e flag Let us contrast, however, the following two sentences: Betsy's rapidly making t h e flag J o h n ' s swiftly flowing river Although b o t h of these expressions can be represented as N P ' s Adj-ly V-ing N P , they are structurally so different t h a t it is a jarring experience to read them together. As we have already indicated, the first N P is derived by applying the gerundive transformation to a sentence. The second one, however, is derived in the following way: "The river flows swiftly" becomes "The river (which is) flowing swiftly" by t h e relative transformation. B y a deletion transformation, we get "The river flowing swiftly", and then by an inversion transformation we get "The swiftly flowing river". This noun phrase is combined with a sentence as follows: The swiftly flowing river J o h n has a river to yield " J o h n ' s swiftly flowing river". I t should be noted t h a t t h e derivations proposed here account for the fact t h a t in "Betsy's rapidly making the flag", the flag is the direct object of t h e gerund, while in " J o h n ' s swiftly flowing river", river is the subject of the gerund.

92

MANNER

ADVERBIALS

There is a wide variety of prepositions that can mark Manner Adverbials. For example, the preposition by can introduce a gerund phrase (7a in our matrix), and by (means o f ) can introduce an NP (11a in our matrix). In addition, by introducing an agent phrase can be generated by the passive transformation, and there is a difference in meaning between a by means of construction and a by virtue of construction even though both of these are Manner Adverbials. There is also another Manner Adverbial introduced with by : by NPmeasure> as in by the footjyardjinch, which tells how (the rate at which) something is bought and sold. The preposition in is also frequently used to introduce Manner Adverbials. manner1 We have already discussed in an Adj (6a in our matrix), and there way state is also in an Adj form . This last subset of Manner Adverbials can, of condition course, occur with non-action verbs. In order to get some feeling for the heterogeneity of Manner Adverbials marked by in consider the following: in briefjshortlvainltruthlastonishmentla hurry\shirt-sleeves\jest\earnest\etc., only the first two of which have the same structure. Consider also the compound prepositions: in cooperation!accordance withAnd we have discussed the various kinds of Manner Adverbials introduced by with, which can represent Accompaniment (12a), Instrumental (la), Condition (4a), and Agent, among others. Other prepositionally introduced Manner Adverbials include the following: hand in hand step by step to boot from the point of view of Nhuman through (the use of) NP

according to Nhuman under aa N„, xVant on equal terms on trumped up charges against NP

apiece (individually) anew awry abreast like NP as S

Of course there are pro-forms for Manner Adverbials. We have already indicated that the Manner Adverbial is distinguished from other adverbials by the fact that only this adverbial can be replaced by the relative pronoun how. The relative transformation can also supply such relatives as however and howsoever if the meaning of arbitrariness is to be added to the relative clause. Since many Manner Adverbials are introduced by prepositions, it is also possible to form relative clauses by replacing the NP in such prepositional phrases by the relative pronoun what, as in in what way. As to the indefinite pronouns for Manner Adverbials, in standard speech we have somehow, anyhow, some way, and anyway, but not *nohow or * noway. As to the definite pronouns for Man-

MANNER ADVERBIALS

93

ner Adverbials, we have (in) this way, (in) that way, thus, and so, but not *this how, or *that how. In summary, Manner Adverbials can be derived in many different ways. A few of the many possible derivations are as follows: 1. NPX have NP 2 => with NP 2 =• NP 2 -ADJSUFFIX-LY E X A M P L E : John has faith => with faith => faithfully 2.

NPj have EXAMPLE:

3. N P I

NP 2 =» without NP 2 => N P 2 - L E S S - L Y John doesn't have faith =»• without faith => faithlessly

NEG

VP

NPX V P

NP2-ADJSUFFIX-LY

NPI is like N P 2 E X A M P L E : John took a third helping John is like a child 4. NPI V NP 2 NP

2

has N P 3

EXAMPLE:

LORWARD

(Comp)

EXAMPLE:

1

NP T V NP 2 with NP 3 forward =

] ^

NP

1

V NP

2

NP3-ADVSUFFIX

John carried the piano The piano has the front forward John carried the piano with the front forward John carried the piano frontwards

5. N P J V P

NPX V

John took a third helping childishly

SI

V-ADJSUFFIX-LY

John sculptured the statue] => John sculptured the statue John created something j creatively

6. NP V (Comp) => NP's V-ing (Comp) be Adj => THIS be Adj NP V (Comp) Adj-ly E X A N P L E : John fielded the grounder) John's fielding the grounder was THIS was quick J quick => John fielded the grounder quickly 7. NPj V (Comp) THIS be Adj NPI VP ADJ-ly V-ing (Comp) NPX VP E X A M P L E : John understood the point THIS was sudden John began clapping loudly John began clapping loudly, suddenly understanding the point

MANNER ADVERBIALS

94

8. N P V (Comp) T H I S is A d j EXAMPLE:

9. N P X

Mary teaches Mary's teaching is mediocre T H I S is mediocre Mary is a mediocre teacher

VP

NP X V

(Comp)

EXAMPLE:

10. N P I V

11. N P 1 NP,

NP

2

NPJ V NP2

VP

J o h n won the battle by resisting the enemy

A d j =•

J o h n slammed the door The door became shut The door slammed shut

NP

2

V

Adj

J o h n slammed the door shut

N P I V P V r ing-ly

V,

EXAMPLE:

NP X V P b y V-ing (Comp)

J o h n won the battle 1 J o h n resisted the enemy J

N P 2 become A d j EXAMPLE:

N P ' s V-ing is A d j =>· N P is an A d j V - N O U N S U F F I X

J o h n discussed the proposal J o h n laughed

12. NPJ VP X Adv-m, N P 2 V P 2 Adv-m 1 N P 2 is not N P I

J o h n discussed the proposal laughingly

N P 2 V P 1 as (NP 2 would VPX) if N P 2 were NP T like N P 2 VP x in the manner (in which) N P I VP X as the way

leader acts someway x J o h n acts S O M E W A Y , J o h n is not a leader

EXAMPLE: A

J o h n acts as (he would act) if he were a leader like J o h n acts in the manner (in which) a leader acts as the wav

MANNER

ADVERBIALS

95

The two inversion transformations (8a and 9a in our matrix) can now be written more explicitly as follows:

NP-ADJSUFFIX-LY NP-LESS-LY NP-ADVSUFFIX V-ADJSUFFIX-LY ADJ-LY ADJ-LY Y-ING by V-ING (COMP) V-ING-LY

NP-ADJSUFFIX-LY NP-LESS-LY NP-ADVSUFFIX V-ADJSUFFIX-LY ADJ-LY ADJ-LY V-ING b y V-ING (COMP) V-ING-LY

NP-ADJSUFFIX-LY NP-LESS-LY NP-ADVSUFFIX V-ADJSUFFIX-LY N P VP ADJ-LY ADJ-LY V-ING by V-ING (COMP) V-ING-LY

NP-ADJSUFFIX-LY NP-LESS-LY NP-ADVSUFFIX V-ADJSUFFIX-LY N P ADJ-LY ADJ-LY V-ING by V-ING (COMP) V¡-ING-LY

making it possible for the outputs of all of the transformations above except 8 and 12 to be amenable to these two, and possibly other, inversion transformations. I t is in fact the case that the twelve transformations above should be placed very early in an English grammar, as sentences with Manner Adverbiale behave very much the same way (i.e. are amenable to pretty much the same transformations) as are sentences without Manner Adverbials. One further point should be made before going on to Sentence Adverbials. Each of the derivations above results in a Manner Adverbial of an entirely different sort. Although we say t h a t each output contains a Manner Adverbial of some sort, the fact is t h a t these Manner Adverbials are very different from each other — both semantically and structurally. Let us contrast the effect of a Manner Adverbial derived from transformation 9 with the effect of one derived from transformation 6. I n answer to the question, "How do porcupines kiss?" one could say "By placing their lips together", or one could say, "Very carefully". Although both of these answers are Manner Adverbials (answering the question how), they are obviously members of different subclasses.

96

MAKNER ADVERBIALS SENTENCES ADVERBIALS

Sentence Adverbiale are being discussed in the Manner Adverbial chapter because their structures are so similar. It is often difficult to determine whether a Manner Adverbial such as "John fielded the grounder quickly" is indeed modifying the verb, or whether it is instead modifying a sentence. Sentence Adverbials are separated from Manner Adverbials because they do not answer the question how, and because it is possible to have a homogeneous, and yet productive class by keeping them separate. We shall define Sentence Adverbial as anything that can be derived from the following set of transformations :

S

+Tthat

THIS be

Adj Y-ed V-ing

Adj Adj Adj That S be V-ed =• It is V-ed that S =» S V-ed -iy V-ing V-ing V-ing

Example:

Mary destroyed the evidence fortunate THIS was I admitted surprising

I t was

fortunate admitted surprising

That Mary destroyed the evidence was fortunate admitted surprising

that Mary destroyed the evidence

Mary destroyed the evidence

fortunate admitted surprising

-iy

And this last transformation sets up the structure for a number of inversion transformations to account for the following possibilities:

1. Mary had destroyed the evidence at 4 o'clock,

2. Mary had destroyed the evidence

fortunate admitted surprising

fortunate admitted surprising

-iy

-ly at 4 o'clock

MANNER ADVEBBIALS

3. ?Mary had destroyed

4. Mary had

5. Mary

6.

fortunate admitted -ly the evidence at 4 o'clock surprising

fortunate admitted -ly destroyed the evidence at 4 o'clock surprising

fortunate admitted surprising

Fortunate Admitted Surprising

97

-ly had destroyed the evidence at 4 o'clock

-ly, Mary had destroyed the evidence at 4 o'clock

This freedom of movement, while it is important, cannot be used to distinguish the class of Adverbials under discussion here, for adverbs of many classes have the same freedom of movement. Rather, the important test is that the Adjective form can be equated to a that-clause, and a supplementary test is that this construction can be transformed into an it-expletive. Consider the following: Mary destroyed the evidence yesterday Mary destroyed the evidence quickly Mary destroyed the evidence fortunately *That Mary destroyed the evidence was yesterday *That Mary destroyed the evidence was quick That Mary destroyed the evidence was fortunate I t was yesterday that Mary destroyed the evidence *It was quick that Mary destroyed the evidence I t was fortunate that Mary destroyed the evidence Examples of Adjectives that can form the class under consideration by the addition of an -ly suffix are as follows:

MANNER ADVERBIAXS

REGULAR

N-SUFFIX

ADJECTIVES

ADJECTIVES

certain clear evident obvious possible probable sure

incident al (un) fortune ate luck y

V-ED ADJECTIVES admit ed allege ed expect ed *undoubt ed

V-ABLE

Y-ING

ADJECTIVES

ADJECTIVES

justify able respect able remark able presume able

amaze ing fascinate ing interest ing surprise ing

in ADVERBS O F E X T E N T

A great m a n y grammarians and linguists have, devoted a considerable amount of space to Adverbs of E x t e n t , though not always under this name. One t y p e of E x t e n t Adverbial, the Comparative, has, as we have already noted, been under especially close scrutiny by Herbert Pilch, Carlota Smith, and Robert Lees; and comparatives have been discussed in another light by Lowth, Coote, and Murray on the one hand, and Fries on the other. Our main task with comparatives, therefore, will be to formalize t h e work of Pilch, which is the most complete statement, into the transformational framework, and to refine and f u r t h e r formalize the work of Smith and Lees. I n this monograph, there will be no a t t e m p t to shed further light on the prescriptive statements of Lowth, Coote, and Murray as contrasted with the descriptive statement of Fries; however, their discussions will influence t h e constructions we will a t t e m p t to generate. Let us begin our analysis by reviewing the categories set up by Pilch.: 1 A I. I. a big 1.1. a 2. a big 3. a big

Β car big car car car

a a a a

bigger car t h a n a Cadillac bigger car then m y neighbor has car more big t h a n comfortable car bigger t h a n a bus

I I . 4. t h e car is big the car is bigger t h a n a Cadillac 4.1. t h e car is big the car is bigger t h a n the one which m y neighbor has 5. the car is big the car is more big t h a n comfortable I I I . 6a. big 6b. big 1

Piloh, p. 43.

bigger t h a n you imagine bigger t h a n is safe

100

ADVERBS OF EXTENT

IV. 7. I bought a big car I bought a bigger car than my neighbor V. 8. I bought a big car I bought a bigger car today than yesterday today VI. 9. I am honest 9.1.1 am honest VII. 1'. the big car 4'. the car runs fast 5'. he drives fast

I am more honest than you are mad I am more honest than you are the bigger car of the two the car runs faster than a Cadillac he drives fast rather than dangerously

He therefore has six categories dependent upon whether the imput is "a big car" (I), "the car is big" (II), "big" (III), "I bought a big car" (IV), "I bought a big car today" (V), or "I am honest" (VI). It is difficult to know exactly what Pilch had in mind in relating the NP's, Adj's, and S's of column A with the NP's and S's of column B. It is difficult, for instance, to see any difference between category II and category III; i.e. wouldn't it be possible to have "the car is big" as the imput for 6a, and "The car is bigger than you imagine" as the output ? At any rate, we will attempt to account for all of Pilch's categories by setting up the following transformational rules:

COMPARING

ADVERBS:

1. NP 1 V! a Adv,ti The N x be Adj NPX V! a N 2 Adv t2

=> NPX Y! a Adj-er Ni Adv tl than Adv t2

Condition: Nj and N 2 have the same phonological shape EXAMPLE:

I bought a car today The car is big I bought a car yesterday

2. Si Adv1

Sj Adv2 + T ]Neg

=> I bought a bigger car today than yesterday (Pilch's V. 8)

=>• Sj^ Advx rather than Adv2

EXAMPLE:

dangerously

ADVERBS OF EXTENT

COMPARING

101

ADJECTIVES

3.XaNJ The be Ad^ The may be Adj 2

X a Ν more Adj^ than Adj 2

EXAMPLE:

He drives a car The car is big The car may be comfortable 4. The N x be Ad^ The Ni may be Adj 2

?He drives a car more big than comfortable (Pilch's I. 5)

The N x be Adj^ er than ((it) is) Adjs

EXAMPLE:

The car is big The car may be safe 5. X x a Ni Y x the N x be Adjx XjaN.Yi the Ν a be Adjx

The car is bigger than ((it) is) safe (Pilch's III. 6b)

=»· Xi a Adji -er N x than a N 2

Condition: N x has a different phonological shape than N 2 ; N 1 >• N 2 ; N x < N 2 EXAMPLE:

John bought a car The car is big John bought a bus

COMPARINO

John bought a bigger car than bus (Pilch didn't treat)

NOUNS

6. X a Nj Y The N x be Αά]\ A N 2 be Adji

X a N 1 Adj t -er than a N 2 Y

EXAMPLE:

John bought a car The car is big A bus is big

John bought a car bigger than a bus (Pilch's I. 3)

102

ADVERBS OF EXTENT

7.XaNJ The Ni be Ad^ A N 2 be Ad]*!

X a Adj x -er N x than a N 8 Y

Condition : Nj > N2 EXAMPLE:

John bought a car The car is big A Cadillac is big 8. The N x be Adj\ An N 2 may be Ad]*!

John bought a bigger car than a Cadillac (Pilch's I. 1)

The

be Adj t -er than a l ¡ (be)

EXAMPLE:

The car is big A Cadillac may be big 9. The be Adj X a N 2 Y + T rel

The car is bigger than a Cadillac (is) (Pilch's I I . 4) The N x be Adj-er than (the one (whN)) X Y

Condition: N 2 has the same phonological shape as N 2 EXAMPLE:

The car is big My neighbor has a car

10. X1 a N i Y1 The N x be Adj X 1 a N 2 Y x + T Neg Condition:

The car is bigger than (the one (which)) my neighbor has (Pilch's I I . 4.1.) (Pilch's IV. 7)

X 1 the Adj-er N 1 (of the two)

has the same phonological shape as N 2

EXAMPLE:

John bought a car The car is big John didn't buy car # 2

John bought the bigger ca#(of the two) (Pilch's V I I . 1)

When more than two things are being compared (and sometimes when only two things are being compared) the following transformation replaces 10:

103

ADVERBS OF EXTENT

XxaNj-Y! The N x be Adj Xl a ^2-11 Yl + ^Neg Condition:'Νί

X1 the Adj-est Nx (of the N„) Y1

has the same phonological shape as N2.,

EXAMPLE:

John bought car # 1 The car is big John didn't buy car # 2 , car # 3 , etc.

John bought the biggest car (of the five)

Multiple Comparisons 11.

N P X be Adj, n p 2 be Adj a

NP 1 be more Adj x than NP 2 be Adj 2

N P X be Adji n p 2 be Ad],

NPX be more Adj x than NP 2 (be)

N P i be Adj, KP1 be Adj 2

NPX be more Adj x than (ProNP 2 be) Adj 2

EXAMPLE:

I am honest | You are mad j I am honest John is honest I am honest I am mad 12. X a N j Y The N x be Adj x NPV imagine COMP The be Adj x

I am more honest than you are mad I am more honest than John (is) I am more honest than (I am) mad

(Pilch's VI. 9) (Pilch's VI. 9.1) (Pilch doesn't treat)

X a N x Adj-er than NP Vlmagine (ProX) X a Adj-er Nx than NP Vimagine (ProX)

EXAMPLE:

John has a car The car is big You imagine COMP The car is big

John has a car bigger than you imagine (he has) => (Pilch's III. 6a) John has a bigger car than you imagine (he has) (Pilch doesn't treat)

104

ADVERBS OF EXTENT

The advantages of the above analysis over Pilch's are as follows: 1.The constraints are stated explicitly rather than implicitly; 2. The generalizations are stated formally rather than implied; 3. Rule number 11 is generalized to show the comparison of two nouns and two adjectives under the condition that a. the two nouns have the same referent, b. the two adjectives have the same referent, and c. neither the two nouns nor the two adjectives have the same referent; 4. Certain comparative constructions are considered in the above analysis that are not considered by Pilch, i.e. " I am more honest than mad", "John bought a bigger car than bus", and "John has a bigger car than you imagine", and 5. This analysis considers Pilch's I I . 4.1 ("the car is bigger than the one which my neighbor has") and IV. 7 ( " I bought a bigger car than my neighbor") to have the same underlying structure. Consider: " I bought a bigger car than (the one (which)) my neighbor (bought)". Let us consider this last transformation in more detail to indicate a type of constraint that seems to be unique to comparative constructions. The transformation is written in the following way: The N i be Adj =• The N i be Adj-er than (the one (whN)) Χ Y X a N2 Y + T , Condition: has the same phonological shape as N 2 Our transformation is designed in such a way as to indicate that two different cars are being discussed in " I bought a bigger car than my neighbor", but the condition is necessary in order to block such a transformation as the following: The car is big My neighbor bought an airplane There are a number of other comparative constructions that must be formalized. Two of then express a causal relation between the two sentences involved, and might be formalized as follows:

Y that S 2 EXAMPLE:

John quickly lound found the prize Mary was left empty-handed

ADVERBS OF EXTENT

105

John's quickly finding the prize caused Mary to be left empty-handed John so quickly found the prize that Mary was left empty-handed. 14.

iiiP1VP1

(Adj! {(Adv.) Adv n

Si NPX VP a jAdj 2 11 {Adve Adv m2 JJ g The Mi |-er NPX VP 1; the Adv,m l '

S x + Tger cause S 2 + T i n f :

1

Adj3 2 -er NP, VP, Adv, vm2J

EXAMPLES:

They run fast 1 =>• Their running fast causes them to become tired => They become tired j The faster they run, the more tired they become The apples are large ) => The apples' being large causes them to taste The apples taste good J good =>· The larger the apples are, the better they taste. It should be noticed that for the second example (containing Adj), but not the first (containing Adv m ), there is a deletion operation possible. Thus, in an appropriate context it is possible to say, "The larger, the better", but it is not possible to say, *"The faster, the more tired". To account for these facts, we set up the following deletion transformation: The Adji-er NPX VP^ the Adj 2 -er NPX VP 2 => The Adj r er, the Adj 2 -er. EXAMPLE:

The larger they are, the better they taste => The larger, the better. Another comparative construction that has probably not yet been formalized in the literature requires the statement of a formal relationship between AdÌ Ìf . / Adj-ly .τι \i|Adv J e

^ and

nouns.

The formal relationship is sometimes phonological as well as grammatical, but this is not often the case: 15. NP 1 VP1 NP 2 VP x

Adh (Adv e ) Adv maimeri Adh (Adv e ) Adv manneri

NPX the same NPS as NP 2 (ProVPx)

106

ADVERBS OF EXTENT EXAMPLES:

The apple is yellow The pear is yellow

I J

apple is the same color as the xpear (is) r r

The car went very fast i m , , , . as the truck (did) , . , - , J => The car went the same speed r The truck went very fast J mi

A transformation of rather limited usefulness is the one using rather . . . than to make a comparison. This transformation should probably be formalized in somewhat the following way: 16. NP! T P 1 NPX VP 2

NPX would rather VP 1 than VP 2

EXAMPLE:

John swims John drinks beer

1

jo^n

WO uld

rather swim than drink beer

Notice that our derivation is quite different from that of House and Harman 2 and most other traditionalists. If their derivation were expressed in the transformational model, it would look something like this: NPX VPX NPi would Adj-er VP! than Ν Ί \ would Adj VP 2 NPiVP, NPX would Adj-er YP1 than VP 2 John swims John drinks beer

John would rather swim than he would rather drink beer =»•

John would rather swim than drink beer The present researcher believes that the intermediate construction is not only non-existent (except perhaps historically), but also that it is unnecessary. He also feels that rather-than constructions are unique, while most traditionalists do not. The transformation for the superlative construction (which is one kind of comparison) would be something like the following:

2

Homer C. House and Susan Emolyn Harman, Descriptive English Grammar, Edition (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1950), p. 397.

Second

107

ADVERBS OF EXTENT

17. NPi VPX

Adj (Adve) Adv m

NP 2 . n V P ,

Adj (Adve) Adv m

NPX VPX (the)

•0 • most least

Adj (Adve) Advm

"-est

0

(of all)

0 EXAMPLE:

John is tall Bill is tall Jack is tall

John is (the) tallest (of all)

John runs fast Bill runs fast Jack runs fast

John runs (the) fastest (of all)

As a reminder, it should be pointed out that expressions with "like", e.g. "John is like his father" are treated under manner adverbiale, though semantically (but not structurally) they are like the comparatives that we have just been considering. In his "Grammatical Analysis of the English Comparative Construction", Lees formalized a number of deletion operations that would apply to our transformations 8, 11, and 15, and he presented informally constructions which we have not yet considered in which Manner Adverbiale of the type (Adv a ) Adj -fly are being contrasted with as . . . as, or more . . . than. After adapting Lees' rules3 to fit our conventions of notation, expanding our rules to include progressive, passive, preverbs, and modals, and refining Lees' rules so that they will handle not only Adjective comparisons, but also Manner Adverbials of the type (Adva) Adj + ly which are being contrasted with as . . . as, or more . . . than, the result would be as follows: Let A ;

Adj Adv,T

Τ 1 (Obligatory) X

3

as A t Y as more A t Y than

Aj W

X

as A! Y as more A 1 Y than

Lees, "Grammatical Analysis", pp. 182—183.

Ζ W

108

ADVERBS OF EXTENT

EXAMPLE:

* John is

as athletic as more athletic than

Mary is athletic =>

John is

as athletic as more athletic than

Mary is

* John talked

as loudly as more loudly than

Mary talked loudly

John talked

as loudly as more loudly than

Mary talked

Τ 2 (Optional) X Vbi

as A 1 Y as 1 more A x than J

z

J-ing | y |-en J

b

1

w

^

χ

yb

1

as A 1 Y as more A x than

EXAMPLE:

He would have been talking

as loudly as more loudly than

I would have been talking

He would have been talking

as loudly as more loudly than

I would have been

Τ 3 (Optional) have -en X be Y M

as A Ζ as more A Ζ than

W

have -en b e U => M j

have -en be Y M •

as A Ζ as more A Ζ than

W

have M

X

U

EXAMPLE:

as loudly as H e would have been talking more loudly than He would have been talking

as loudly as more loudly than

I would have been I would have

Τ 4 (Optional) as A Ζ as ~|W M have U => Χ M have (Y) as A Ζ as more A Ζ Χ M have (Y) more A Ζ than than

109

ADVEKBS OF EXTENT EXAMPLE:

H e would have been talking

as loudly as more loudly t h a n

I would have

H e would have been talking

as loudly as more loudly t h a n

I would

Τ 5 (Optional) X Tns "Mi Aux x

Y

as A Ζ as N P (Prev) Tns more A Ζ t h a n

X Tns

Y

as A Ζ as NP W more A Ζ t h a n

Aux x

M2 Aux x

Y W =>

EXAMPLE:

as loudly as H e always could have been talking more loudly H e always could have been talking

I always could

as loudly as t h a n more loudly t h a n

Of course each place in the above transformations t h a t Lees has an as . . . as or more . . . than construction, it would be just as possible to use these reduction transformations to reduce negative comparatives with so . . . as, resulting in the following step-by-step reduction:

TRANSFORMATION RESULT 1 2 3 4 5

J o h n would not have been talking I would have been talking J o h n would not have been talking I would have been J o h n would not have been talking I would have J o h n would not have been talking I would J o h n would not have been talking I

so loudly as so loudly as so loudly as so loudly as so loudly as

Bruce Fraser feels t h a t comparative constructions marked by -er than (or more . . . than) should be used as the input to generate verbal compounds with t h e " o u t " prefix. Thus, he sets up t h e following transformation:

110

ADVERBS OF E X T E N T

NP + Aux - [ + V] - Δ - er + than - NP =• 1 - OUT + 2 - 0 - 0 - 5 1 2 3 4 5 CONDITION: Adj > 3 [ S I C : This should probably be Adv > 3 ] EXAMPLE: He can throw farther than his brother => He can outthrow his brother4 This formulation is quite accurate; nevertheless, it reeds refinement. In the first place, there are verbal compounds with the "out" prefix (and with the appropriate meaning) which have no underlying non-compounded forms from which to be derived. Consider the following: IMPOSSIBLE IMPUT

OUTPUT

*They classed their opponents They outclassed their opponents *They distanced the other runners They outdistanced the other runners *They flanked the enemy They outflanked the enemy *He foxed his competitor He outfoxed his competitor *He generaled his commanding officer He outgeneraled his commanding officer *She witted her teacher She outwitted her teacher *He can Herod Herod He can out-Herod Herod *They numbered us two to one They outnumbered us two to one *He smarted his father etc. He outsmarted his father while it is not unusual in a transformational grammar to have grammatical outputs derived from ungrammatical imputs, these are to be considered as exceptions to the general rule, and if the number of exceptions is great enough, the rule should be discarded or refined. Another difficulty with this transformation is that there are severe constraints on the Adverb that are not considered. One constraint is that the adverb must intensify the verb rather than deintensify it. For example, "John worked more slowly than his brother" is not transformationally related to "John outworked his brother". There are also constraints on the kind of intensification that permits this transformation, for various verbs:

4

LONGER

MORE

BETTER

HARDER FASTER

balance last live sit stay

bid sell weigh

fight guess maneuver play ride shoot

run work

Fraaer, 'Dissertation', p. 56.

or

FARTHER grow reach

ADVERBS OR EXTENT

111

Thus, in bridge when a person "outbids" another person he has bid more, but not necessarily better, than his opponent; but when a person "outshoots" another person he has shot better, but not necessarily more, than his opponent. To the extent that this type of information has generality, it should be built into transformations. There is another limitation on Fraser's transformation that should be considered. Although there are a great many nominal and adjectival compounds with the prefix "out", none of them are transformationally related to the expressions under consideration — " o u t " when prefixed to nouns and adjectives has a locative rather than an intensive meaning. There are many extent adverbials besides those of comparison. Like manner adverbials, most extent adverbials consist morphologically of an Adjective plus an -ly ending. Adverbs of this type can be generated in the following way: Adj -ν (Advextent) Adject Adv extent — Adj e -ly Adj e ->• absolute, actual, adequate, awful, bad, bare, certain, chief, comparative, complete, decided, desperate, entire,equal, exact, excessive, extreme, fair, full, great, hard, high, increasing, incomparable, keen, main, mere, near, notable, notorious, perfect, possible, real, remarkable, relative, scarce, simple, (e)special, terrible, thorough, vast, wretched . . . Thus, there are many extent adverbials derived from adjectives, and furthermore the adjectives from which they are derived can be Y-en, e.g. "decided", or V-ing, e.g. "increasing" or "exceeding". The list of Adj e 's could be extended, and it could also be subdivided. In order to investigate one possible analysis of Adje, let us revise the Adje rewrite rule; those lexical rules resulting from the revision will be written as follows:

Adj e

AdjeProa Adj eMeasure : Nconcrete Adj elleasuie : Nabs tract AdjgDggjee Adjeperfect

Adj eProS -*• absolute, actual, certain, decided, possible, real. . . EXAMPLE:

(Absolutely, etc.) not 1

Adj eMeasure ¡Nconcrete — adequate, ample, bare, complete, entire, equal, full, hard, near, scarce . . .

112

A D V E R B S OF

The bin was (adequately,

EXAMPLE: Ad

—g

ieMea8ure : Nab8tract

reat

EXTENT

etc.) full.

> high, keen, main, mere, v a s t . . .

I ' m (greatly, etc.) pleased.

EXAMPLE:

Adj eDegree —exceeding, excessive, extreme, fair, increasing, incomparable, notable, notorious, relative, remarkable, (e)special, terrible . . . Conditions are (exceedingly,

EXAMPLE:

etc.) bad.

AdjePerfect awful, bad, complete, exact, perfect, simple, terrible, thorough, wretched . . . EXAMPLE: H e d i d t h e j o b (awfully,

etc.)

There are also extent adverbials which are not derived from Adjectives by t h e addition of an -ly ending. I n order to account for these let us revise our Adv e x t c n t rule to read as follows: Adv e x t e n t

ÍAdje -lyÌ (Adv ex j

Adv e x will be expanded in a way perfectly parallel to the expansion of Adj e :

Adv„.

Adv,eProS Adv eMeasure : Nconcrete Adv,eMeasure : Nabs tract Adv,eDegree Adv,ePerfect

and the lexical rules will be somewhat as follows: Adv eMeasure:Nconcrete

about, all, almost, enough, just, a little (bit), pretty, quite, rather, somewhat, sort of, too, very . . .

Adv eMeasure:Nabstract Adv

eDegree

Adv

ePerfect

far

^

>

s o

indeed, well. . .

· • ·

altogether, a t least, right ( + Adv p I a c e o r Adv time )

Our Adv e x t e n t rewrite rule can be expanded f u r t h e r to include prepositional phrases; however, there are tight correlations between prepositions and objects; therefore the objects will be listed below:

113

ADVERBS OF EXTENT

least 1 length J a good while for a long time at

. N I 1 time

Adv,extent

in general on the whole sort of to the extent the degree m Adj, -iy Adv.

that S

There is some motivation to set up opposing expressions for handling extent adverbials. Thus, we might expand the rule above to include expressions of the sort Adv + opposite, to account for such expressions as "backward and forward", "in and out", "up and down", "far and near", "over and under", and perhaps "from top to bottom". Unless, however, there is additional justification for such a dichotomy elsewhere in English grammar, it would seem that these items should be handled as lexical entries. Another phenomenon that could be written into the grammar is the fact that extent adverbials can be placed on a continuum ranging from strongly negative to strongly positive. We have already discussed one advantage of such a proposal when we considered "out" expressions, and Klima has discussed the advantage of at least a two-polar system in relation to negative constructions. In some cases the continuum should express the intensification in reference to what is expected. This would be necessary for such expressions as enough, too, and only. Perhaps the intensification continuum should be made to include frequency adverbials, and if a continuum of some kind is deemed advisable, this information could probably best be expressed in terms of a matrix, as rewrite rules expressing such information (assuming that they also express the other necessary information) would include too many redundancies, and would therefore be impractical. A number of transformationalists have expressed in the literature that the recursiveness of extent adverbials should be expressed. Very often their grammars contain a rule like: Adj => very (Adj). The main disadvantage of a rule of this sort is that it merely generates the correct sentences without properly categorizing the recursive elements. In the grammar here proposed, therefore, we will generate such words as "very", "quite", "too", "over", "more", "again", and "out" elsewhere, and then build in the recursiveness in the following way:

114

ADVERBS 0 Γ

EXTENT

quite too very again more and over out and out

Adv.,

(Adv ri

We have placed square brackets rather than regular brackets around very, quite, too, over and, more and, and again and in order to be able to generate only iterative recursives, i.e. " H e was very very very ill" is grammatical while * " H e was quite too very ill" is not. I t is not likely that Noun-ly is a large enough category to require a special generation for such extent adverbials. I t is interesting, however, that both partly and generally can be paraphrased by in expressions: in part, and in general. I t is also not likely that we should set up a pronoun-6«i category, even though there are extent adverbials of this shape: all but, everything but, nothing but, and anything but. We have already discussed the derivation of too as an extent adverbial. Bruce Fraser discusses the relationship between too and over by setting up the following transformation:5 N P + Aux - [ + V ] - X - TOO - Δ 1

2

CONDITION: EXAMPLE:

3

Adj >

5

4

1 - OVER +

2 - 3 - 0

5

[sic: This should probably be Adv >

5]

He threw the ball too far—> He overthrew the ball

As with verbal compounds containing the out prefix, there are some over expressions which cannot be derived in this way. They include the following: IMPOSSIBLE *John *John *John *John *John *John *John *John

IMPUT

took his friend too much powered his victim too hard came the enemy too quickly burdened his secretary too much hauled his car too often heard the conversation too much looked his friend too much whelmed his opponent too much

® Fraser, Dissertation, p. 57.

OUTPUT John John John John John John John John

overtook his friend overpowered his victim overcame the enemy overburdened his secretary overhauled his car overheard the conversation overlooked his friend overwhelmed his opponent

115

ADVERBS OF EXTENT

None of the sentences on the left above are transformationally related to those on the right since none of them are grammatical. I t should also be mentioned t h a t only overpowered, overcame, overwhelmed, and overburdened have the semantics (i.e. co-occurrence relations) necessary to be classed with the expressions we are considering here. As with out expressions, there are many over verbal compounds which have a locative rather than an intensive meaning. These would include overcast, overshadow, overcloud, overhand, overlap, overlay, overleap, override, overrule, overrun, oversee, overtrump, overturn, etc. Nevertheless, by far the greatest number of over verbal compounds are transformationally related to too expressions in the way t h a t Fraser outlined above. They would include the following: overact overbalance overbid overbuild overbuy overcertify overcharge overcompensate

overcrowd overdevelop overdo overdraw overdress overemphasize overestimate overexpose overextend

overfill overflow overgrow overheat overindulge overload overplay overpraise overprice

overproduce overprotect overrate overreach oversell overshoot oversimplify oversleep overspend overstate

overstay overstep overstock oversubscribe oversupply overtax overthrow overtrain overwind overwork

We have indicated earlier t h a t noun-compounds and adjective-compounds containing out are not transformationally related to verbal-compounds containing out as an intensifier. There are many noun-compounds and adjectivecompounds t h a t contain over with an intensive meaning, and many of these are transformationally related to verbs. Examples of noun compounds include: overabundance, overage, overcompensation (< overcompensate), over confidence, overdose, overdraft (•< overdraw), overemphasis « overemphasize), overestimate (< overestimate), overindulgence (< overindulge), overprotection (< overprotect), oversimplification ( How

EXAMPLE:

How tall he is ! β

How tall !

K r u i s i n g a a n d E r a d e s , Volume

I , Part I I , ρ 4 8 5 .

"Adj Adv„

ADVERBS OF EXTENT

117

Kruisinga and Erades 7 informally consider another Extent Adverbial t h a t is mainly colloquial, and that is again associated with the relative transformation. They cite as examples "Wherever have you been ?" and "Charles, however can poor Linda having it possibly stop you ?" For such Extent Adverbials, the question transformation is also necessary. So taking the above constraints into consideration, the transformation can be formulated thus: N P Aux V P Adv => whAdv-ever Aux N P VP ? EXAMPLE:

J o h n has gone somewhere => Wherever has John gone?

Another transformation to be considered is one which turns Manner and Sentence Adverbials into Extent Adverbials modifying a noun itself in a modification position. The formalization would be something like the following: N j be X

Adv s Adv„

a N2 N2

NX

NI

Xdet

Y

Advg

Adv„

N2 NXY

EXAMPLE:

He was undoubtedly a Harvard scholar I saw the Harvard scholar yesterday I saw the undoubtedly Harvard scholar yesterday To what extent the output of this transformation should be amenable to other transformations, making such constructions as "He is undoubtedly Harvard", and "How Harvard he is !" is left undetermined. I n summary, this chapter has been devoted to adverbs which show degrees of intensification or deintensification. Comparative Adjectives were included not only because they meet this qualification, but also because those Adjectives, Manner Adverbials, and Nouns which can occur with Adverbs of Extent can also occur with Comparative Adverbs. Extent Adverbials represent a very large and complex (yet systematic) subset of Adverbs. This chapter has attempted to formalize the statements t h a t non-transformationalists have made into the transformational framework, to revise the transformational statements, and to outline a number of additional transformations dealing with Extent Adverbials, showing relationships t h a t have not previously been recognized.

7

Kruisinga and Erades, Volume I , Part I I , p. 488.

IV A D V E R B S OF CAUSE, A D V E R B S OF R E F E R E N C E , A N D

ADVERBS

OF PLACE

ADVERBS OF CAUSE

Transformations 13 and 14 in the Chapter on Adverbs of Extent could have just as easily been considered in this chapter, as the Adverbs of Extent generated by these two transformations are also Adverbs of Cause. As a reminder, the transformations under consideration are as follows:

·[

H fAdj |(Adv e )

Si

SX + T, er cause S 2 + TiDf : Y that S,

AdjH y }

Example:

John quickly found the prize Mary was left empty-handed John's quickly finding the prize caused Mary to be left empty-handed => John so quickly found the prize t h a t Mary was left empty-handed. 14.

"NP1 V P j NP X V P 2

The

Adj, Adv,ml

Adj, (Adve Adj 2

A d v m l } Si Γ Adv m 2 J s 2

=> S x + T ger cause

-er N P 1 VP 1 ; the the i f ? ' 2 -er NP X V P 2 Adv m 2

Example:

They run fast They become tired

Their running fast causes them to become tired => The faster they run, the more tired they become.

I n addition to the above two transformations showing causal relations, there are a number of other important transformations. The first transformation to

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

119

be considered here consists of two sentences conjoined by a subordinate conjunction, in which the first information in some sense causes the second. l.Si S2 S! causes S 2 SubConj a SubConj b

T· •"-INVERSI·ON"·

S! SubConj a S 2 (T inversion ) S x SubConj b S2 for (the purpose of) + T ger , (in order) + T inf , in order + T t h a t -f -^SUBJUNCTIVE' ( S O )

+ ^SUBJUNCTIVE . . .

accordingly, consequently, hence, so, then, thereat, thereby + (Tger), therefore, therein, thus, whereby, wherefore, wherein, whereupon . . . Si SubConj S 2 => SubConj S 2 , S x

EXAMPLE:

John built a fire John burned the trash in his back yard John built a fire (in order) to burn the trash in his back yard] John built a fire; thus he burned the trash in his back yard (In order) to burn the trash in his back yard, John built a fire *Thus he burned the trash in his back yard, John built a fire It should be noticed that a number of transformations occur as part of the lexical rewrite rules SubConj a and SufcConjb. The reason for placing the transformations at this level is that the constructions are highly idiomatic, yet there are very important constraints between the subordinate conjunctions and the transformations in question. For example, we would want to be able to generate "He built a fire for (the purpose of) burning the trash in his back yard", while not generating *"He built a fire for (the purpose of) (he) burned the trash in his back yard". The gerund transformation is impossible with therefore; it is necessary with for (the purpose of), and it is optional with thereby. Such constraints as these are built into the transformations above. We have also built in the kind of relationship that exists between S j and S 2 by having " S 1 causes S 2 " as part of the imput. This solution is considered better than both the intermediate step of the so . . . that and the the bigger the better constructions generated at the beginning of this chapter and also better than Charles Fillmore's suggestion of handling such information in terms of entailment. Unlike Charles Fillmore, I believe that entailment information should be built into the transformations themselves rather than handled as part of a separate but related system. As to the additional constraints that must be placed on this transformation in relation to infinitive expressions (including reduction and deletion of repeated information), see especially Hungerford and Nilsen. 1 1

Nilsen, " I n f i n i t i v e s " .

120

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

The transformations which have just been considered are the most general and therefore the most important of the transformations in which Sj^ in some sense causes S 2 . There are a number of less important transformations, however, which indicate this same relationship: 2.

[NPj VP 2 ] [KP, y p 2 ] Sx causes

Who Which What

S2 51 52

(so) ever VP1( VP 2

EXAMPLE:

Some people eat marshmallows ] . , , , „ , , ~ , , . , \ => Who (so) ever eats marshmallows gets riat borne people get fat J 3.

[NP X Y P j ]

[NPX VP 2 ] S x causes

Sx -f Τ ι Ager S, s2

NPX VPj, VP2-ing + (Tinveralon)

EXAMPLE:

John came home ] John wanted some cake I

John came home, wanting some cake

Wanting some cake, John came home 4.

[Show me NPX !] Si [I'll show you NP 2 ]

Show me NP 1 , and I'll show you NP 2 S5

Sx causes S 2 EXAMPLE:

Show me a tall boy I'll show you a basketball player 5.

S! + Advtlme + neg S2 Sx seems to cause S 2

Show me a tall boy, and I'll show you a basketball player Sx Adv

but f W h a t ] S 2

[that J

EXAMPLE:

The farmer always plants grain + Tneg It rains

The farmer never plants grain what but it rains that

A D V E R B S OF CAUSE, R E F E R E N C E , A N D

PLACE

121

This last example is only implying t h a t S x causes S 2 ; nevertheless, there is a feeling t h a t the farmer's planting of grain is causing the rain, however slight this cause might be. This type of construction is often misleading for this reason, and represents one method of suggesting a causal relation when there is none: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). The same logical fallacy is possible for constructions of the type " J o h n built a fire; then he burned the trash in his back yard", generated by transformation number 1. I t should be noted t h a t if the (so) of transformation 2 is left in, certain archaic expressions will be generated. Transformation 4 (and perhaps 5) generates expressions that are usually confined to the spoken language. Also, the constraints on transformation 4 are so numerous t h a t it is not as important a generalization as the other transformations are. There are also a number of transformations which indicate that S 2 (the sentence with the Subordinate Conjunction attached to it) causes in some sense S r The most general statement expressing this relationship is as follows: 6.

Sx

S2 S2 causes S 1

Si SubConj c S 2 (T inverslon ) S x SubConj d S 2

SubConj c -»• as, as/so long as, because, granted (that), granting (that), if, (inasmuch) as, in case, insomuch as, in (the) case (that), once, on the condition (that), provided (that), providing (that), seeing that, since, supposing (that), when . . . SubConjd — for (Tger) · · · EXAMPLE:

J o h n got a promotion j John worked hard (

John got a promotion, because he worked h a r d ] John got a promotion, for he worked hard J

Because he worked hard, John got a promotion *For he worked hard, John got a promotion I n the sentence "The bridge collapsed when the supports were removed", the grammar does not indicate whether the relationship between the sentences is chronological or causal. This, then, is another construction which will permit the post hoc, ergo propter hoc type of logical fallacy. The Subordinate Conjunction if is special in a number of respects. I n the first place, there is a correlation of tenses in the two clauses when if is introducing the subordinate clause, 2 which we will not concern ourselves with here. I n the second place, if introduces two quite different kinds of causal relationships. As with other subordinate conjunctions of this class, S 2 causes S 1 , but 1

See George, and also Kruisinga, 1915.

122

ADVEBBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

there is also a contrary-to-fact causal relationship possible with i f , which can be represented as follows: [NT may V P ] S 2 +Tneg Sx S2 causes S 1

+

^subjunctive' ^

+

T ,subjunctive

EXAMPLE:

I may stay I am not you

• I would stay if I were you

Thus, the transformation tells us t h a t the expression " I would stay if I were you" means t h a t I am not you; and t h a t my being you (which is impossible) would cause me to stay. I n the third place, if marking the dependent clause can co-occur with then marking the independent clause if and only if the dependent clause comes first. Thus we have "If John works hard then he will get a promotion", but not *"Then J o h n will get a promotion if he works hard", in the sense we are considering here. And in the fourth place, in the past tense if entails different information than do the other expressions in this class. " J o h n will get a promotion if he will work hard", and " J o h n will get a promotion because he will work hard", are near paraphrases of each other, but " J o h n got a promotion if he worked hard", is not a near paraphrase of " J o h n got a promotion because he worked hard". I n the if expression we do not know whether John worked hard or not, and we also do not know whether he got the promotion or not; but in the because expression, we know t h a t he DID work hard, and t h a t he DID get the promotion. There are also some secondary transformations t h a t derive sentences from if clauses but not from other members of this class. Consider the following: 8.

Si if N P

had should

S,

had N P X + (Tin should

EXAMPLES:

I would have come if I had known =>· I would have come had I known => H a d I known, I would have come I would be surprised if he should care to be president => I would be surprised should he care to be president =>· Should he care to be president, I would be surprised. Because the last example (with should) is stilted, we may wish to refine our transformation in such a way that it will not generate such expressions. The transformation will be left unchanged, however, because it is the imput rather than the output t h a t is questionable. I n other words, those people who say, " I would be surprised if he should care to be president" would also say, " I

123

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

would be surprised should he care to be president", and we will leave the transformation unchanged for these people. Another transformation t h a t derives sentences from if clauses should be noted despite its severe constraints: 9.

"the weather permits S if I may speak confidentiallyone counts N P

weather permitting confidentially speaking counting N P

+

(^-inversion) EXAMPLES:

We will have a picnic if the weather permits The world is not flat, if I may speak confidentially There were fourteen people at the party, if one counts the maid "We will have a picnic, weather permitting The world is not fiat, confidentially speaking There were fourteen people at the party, counting the maid "Weather permitting, we will have a picnic Confidentially speaking, the world is not flat Counting the maid, there were fourteen people at the party I t is also possible t h a t if clauses underlie suppose and unless clauses in the following way: 10. [NP would happen + T r e l + (T del )] S 2 + T neg S2 causes S x Suppose S 2

Si

What (would happen) if S2 -^subjunctive ^

EXAMPLE:

Something would happen Mary is not a singer

What (would happen) if Mary were a singer

Suppose Mary were a singer 11a. Sx S 1 i f S 2 +Tneg(Ti; S 2 ~Γ T neg S 2 causes S! Si unless S 2 + (T inversion ) EXAMPLE:

John will come I Mary doesn't come [

John will come if Marv doesn't come

John will come unless Mary comes.

124

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

The reason we have used "Mary doesn't come" rather than "Mary won't come" as our example of S 2 + T n e g is that will indicates simple future, while won't indicates negative of desire rather than future, i.e. "Mary won't come" means that she does not want to come rather than that she is not going to come. It is possible that we may wish to use the output of the last transformation as theimput of a transformation producing a special kind of causal without phrase: 12. SI unless S 2 => S x without S 2 + TGER EXAMPLE:

John will come unless Mary comes =» John will come without Mary's coming. This is probably an incorrect derivation, however, as "John will come unless Mary comes" indicates that Mary's coming or not coming causes John's coming or not coming, while "John will come without Mary's coming", indicates that Mary's coming does not affect John's coming. Nevertheless, in the last expression, there is an expectation that Mary's coming will affect John's coming, even though the expectation is not realized. There are still more transformations showing the 82-causes-Sj^ relationship. These can be represented as follows: 13.

Si there NP VP s2 S 2 causes Si

there NP

V P - i n g + (TLNVERSION)

EXAMPLE:

John stayed home from school yesterday John stayed home from school The teacher was absent yesterday yesterday, the teacher being absent => The teacher being absent, John stayed home from school yesterday. This last transformation works, of course, even when S 2 is an expletive. Thus' another example might be stated as follows: John stayed home yesterday 1 There was no school yesterday j

John stayed home yesterday there being no school =>

There being no school yesterday, John stayed home The yesterday in the above expressions is not shifting around as it appears to be. In fact, there is a yesterday after each clause of the output, but only one of the two (usually the first) can have an overt manifestation.

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

125

14. Si ®2 +Tger

=>8! T, >-Ί by " j S 2 +r J-ger

S 2 causes Si EXAMPLE:

John went from Ann Arbor to Detroit Ì John rode on the bus J John went from Ann Arbor to Detroit by riding on the bus 15. N P i V P + (Tneg) [NP X have N P 2 ] + (T ger ) S2

N P j VP because of N P 2

S 2 causes S1 EXAMPLES:

John didn't go to school John had the measles John didn't go to school John didn't have money

John didn't go to school because of the measles John didn't go to school because of money

16. S j

S2 S

3-n

S 2 Sj-n cause Sx EXAMPLE:

John John John John

S1 (because) (in the first place) S 2 ; (in the second place) S3; (in the third place) S4 . . .

was not a good speaker used poor grammar didn't speak loudly enough didn't use good examples . .

John was not a good speaker (because) he used poor grammar; he didn't speak loudly enough; he didn't use good examples . . .

Transformation 15 is of special interest because the direct object of the output (NP 2 ) can be either positive or negative, and its positiveness or negativeness is not overtly indicated. Thus, "John didn't go to school because of money" can mean either "John didn't go to school because he had money", or "John didn't go to school because he didn't have money". This ambiguity is what we would expect as the result of transformation 15, which deletes the negation of the imput (a non-recoverable item). Transformation 15 is also important because of the ambiguity of the output in another way. "John didn't go to school because of money" can mean "John didn't go to school"; "Money (or lack of it) caused him not to go", or it can mean "John MAY HAVE gone to school";

126

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

"Money (or lack of it) DID NOT cause him to go". This same ambiguity is present when because marks a sentence, as in "John didn't go to school because he had money". And it is interesting that because seems to be the only subordinate conjunction that allows this kind of ambiguity. Contrast "John didn't go to school because he had money", which is ambiguous with "John didn't go to school as he had money", which is not. Transformation 16, which should probably be incorporated in some way into transformation 6, is important because it transcends the level of the sentence. I t is in fact a transformation for generating a paragraph rather than a sentence. Closely related to the adverbials we have just been considering (especially transformation 15), are those cause adverbials which are introduced by a preposition, and which are considered a single category in that the object of the preposition in some sense causes the independent clause. These constructions can be generated by a Phrase Structure rule: 17a. S ->- NP VP (AdvCause) AdvCause PrepCaU86a NP Prep 0ausea

for, in the interest of, on account of, out of regard for . . .

EXAMPLE:

John stopped his speech in the interest of time. There are two constructions that are on the surface similar to sentences resulting from transformation 17. One is "He was petrified with fright", which is very possibly the result of a refined passive transformation, and the other again related to passive) is "He stopped out of compulsion". This second sentence can be derived as follows: 18. [NP 1 VP] 8 i [ N P 2 y N P i COMP] Si + T p a s

=>· NP X be V-en t o V P

S2 causes S 1 NP 1 VP out of V-nom. EXAMPLE:

John stops 1 => John is compelled to stop => Something compels John COMP J John stops out of compulsion. One of the transformations developed during the discussion of if was the unless transformation (No. 11a), which generated S! unless S 2 + (Tlnver3ion) from S x if S 2 + T n e g + (TinveraIon). The remaining part of this chapter will be concerned with instances, like transformation 11a, where the proposition of one

A D V E R B S OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, A N D PLACE

127

sentence in some sense causes the absence of the proposition of a second sentence. We will first discuss the situation where causes S 2 + T n e g . Before doing this, we will revise transformation 11a to make it more comparable to the other transformations expressing the type of causal relationship in question.

lib. Sx S2

S x SubConjg S 2 + (Tin

. S 2 causes Sj^ + T n e g S 1 or S 2 happens SubConjg —>- unless . EXAMPLE:

J o h n will come 1 Mary will come I

J o h n will come unless Mary comes

Unless Mary comes, John will come 19. 51 52 S 2 causes S x + T neg S x and S 2 happen

Sx SubConjf S 2 + (T inversIon )

however no matter how SubConjf

al-

{

I t

though

Adj Adv n (^inversion)

even if no matter -f- T rel Transformation 19 along with the lexical rewrite rule of SubConj f is interesting because of the diversity of structure it is able to generate: 1. John will win the race however long it is 2. John will win the race no matter how long it is 3. John will win the race however slowly he runs 4. John will win the race no matter how slowly he runs 5. John will win the race although he runs slowly 6. John will win the race even though he runs slowly 7. John will win the race even if he runs slowly 8. John will win the race no matter how/when/where/why he runs 9. John will win the race no matter who runs against him 10

ADVERBS ΟΓ CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

128

I n contrasting transformation l i b and 19, it should be noted that in the first case, the second (dependent) sentence has a causal effect on the first (independent) sentence. I n the case of transformation 19, the second (dependent) sentence again has a causal effect on the first (independent) sentence, but not enough of a causal effect to keep the first (independent) sentence from reaching fruition. To illustrate, in the sentence, " J o h n will win the race although he runs slowly", we would expect the fact t h a t he runs slowly to cause him NOT to win the race, but our sentence indicates that he wins the race anyway. All of this information is built into the transformations here proposed. There is one additional transformation t h a t shows an S 2 -causes-S 1 — Tne(S relationship. Transformation 19 will generate even if constructions. 3 And the strings underlying even if constructions are used as the imput to generate even with constructions in the following way: 20. S even if N P V X

S even with NP-pos V + T n

EXAMPLE :

He won't be able to finish even if his brother helps him =>· He won't be able to finish even with his brother's help Transformation 20 brings us to the situation where a preposition marks the object which causes the independent clause in some sense. Let us refine rule 17a to include this type of construction:

fc;1"} PpePcausea RESULT

f°r> in the interest of, on account of, out of regard for . . ·

: Prep Cause causes S

PrePcauseb

in spite of regardless of notwithstanding

the fact S + Τthat NP S

on N P Pos terms for all RESULT: 3

+

T

ger

Prep Cauaeb causes S + T n e g S and Prep Causeb happen

even if constructions are nearly opposite in meaning to if constructions. I t is for this reason that we do not consider them related in the following way: (even) i f . The advantage at the syntactic level of such an analysis is far outweighed by the disadvantage at a higher (semantio?) level.

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

129

Examples of sentences generated by 17b which contain Prepca following:

include the

in spite of the John will come regardless of notwithstanding

fact that Mary is coming money Mary's coming

John will come on Mary's terms John will come for all their urging. Another kind of causal relationship is where S x causes S 2 + Tneg. The most general statements of this relationship are as follows: 2l.S,+

(T neg )

s2 + α S1

+ (Tneg) causes S 2 + α

S, SubConj, S 2 + (Tin

Si + (TDeg) and S 2 -f· α happen SubConjg

whereas, while . . .

EXAMPLE:

John drinks Metrecal every day Mary doesn't drink Metrecal every day John drinks Metrecal every day whereas Mary doesn't =• Whereas Mary doesn't drink Metrecal every day, John does 22. S x S2 si ®i

+ + + +

(Tneg) α (Tneg) causes S 2 + α (TneK) and S 2 -f- α happen

SubConjh

S x SubConjh S 2

but, however, nevertheless, nonetheless, on the contrary, on the contrary, on the other hand, still, yet . . .

EXAMPLE:

John drinks Metrecal every day Mary doesn't drink Metrecal every day John drinks Metercal every day; however, Mary doesn't. The subordinate conjunction lest, to the extent that it is a part of Modern English, is of the class we are considering here. It is not generated by transα attached to S 2 means that S , has the opposite polarity of S,. Thus, if S, is positive; S 2 α is negative, and if S, is negative, S 2 α is positive.

4

130

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

formation 21 or 22, however, because of a difference of entailment. It should instead be generated in the following way: 23-Si +

U )

+ (neg ) neg ) causes S 2 Sx or S 2 happens

Sx lest S2 -

(T neg )

(Tin

EXAMPLE:

We shouldn't admit defeat lest our enemies think us cowards.

We shouldn't admit defeat Our enemies will think us cowards

Other transformations that show an inverse causal relationship include the following: 24. [NP expect SOMETHING + T n e g ] s [NP VP] S j Sx causes S 2 + Tneg Sx and S 2 happen

Even N P VP

EXAMPLE:

I don't expect SOMETHING 1 John reads Plato J 25. X

Even John reads Plato

Adj j" Adv m J s,

S 2 + TLthat , Sx causes S 2 + T n e g Sx and S 2 happen

χ

+ T ,neg

- [A[Adv - S J but that n

S,

EXAMPLES:

John is tall I can guard him

John is not so tall but that I can guard him

John speaks rapidly I can understand John

John does not speak so rapidly but that I can understand him.

26. [ X ! YJs, [ X i Ytls. Si causes S 2 + T n e g Sx happens

Xi Yi

{

rather than instead of

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

131

EXAMPLE:

J o h n played basketball J o h n played football

I J

j Q n p j a y e ¿ basketball rather t h a n football

Transformation 25 of this chapter is very similar to transformation 13 of the chapter on Adverbs of E x t e n t . I n fact, transformation 25 might possibly be the negative of transformation 13. Transformation 26 has very few constraints. I t is very similar to (and may be considered) a t y p e of coordinate conjoining transformation. As with coordinate conjunctions, the two items being conjoined must be equivalent constituents. One statement should be made concerning ellipsis. The construction SubConj P r o N P be X can be rewritten SubConj X . Since Predicate Nouns, Predicate Adjectives, Predicate Adverbs, Present Participles, a n d P a s t Participles can follow be, we can write the transformation as follows:

SubConj P r o N P be

Ν Adj Adv V-ing V-en

SubConj

Ν Adj Adv V-ing V-en

EXAMPLES:

"S, if it is necessary S, although he is a thief His speech was good b u t it was brief

S, if necessary S, although a thief His speech was good b u t brief

One final comment should be made concerning relative pronominalization of Cause Adverbiale. There would at first seem to be no formal relationship between the relative pronoun in " W h a t did he ask t h a t question f o r ? " and the one in " W h y did he ask t h a t question? "The relationship is very easily stated, however. The sentence underlying both of these wh-questions is " H e asked t h a t question for some reason". I n the first case the relative pronoun what replaces t h e N P "some reason", while in the second case the relative pronoun why replaces the entire adverbial prepositional phrase "for some reason". B.ADVERBS OF REFERENCE

A less important category of adverb is t h e Adverb of Reference. This t y p e of adverb can be generated with a minimal number of rules :

132

S

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

NP VP Adv,reference ]) for ^(out of regard,]^ according as to in regard with

reference

about in of on (the subject of) with v

rtf + ing

Vref —>· concern, consider, re(gard) . . . Adjref ->· academic, consular, globular, grammatical, historical, logical, molecular, muscular, nebular, phonetic, polar, semantic, syntactic . . . In the interest of space, no attempt will be made to give examples of all of the different types of Reference Adverbials which can be generated by the above rules. We will, however, generate a few of the most interesting possibilities, choosing an NP as the object of the preposition in all cases, and electing the inversion transformation in all cases: EXAMPLES:

As for John, he should not have come. According to Mary, the school bell should have already rung. In reference to chapter 1, Columbus was not the discoverer of America. Concerning the other students, I think they should all be expelled. On (the subject of) languages, John is a genius. Chairwise, this furniture store doesn't have a very good selection. Academically, John must improve his record. Thus, there are many different ways of showing a reference relationship. For this reason (and others), many purists have objected to suffixing the morpheme -wise to NP's to show reference. Evidently they feel that instead one should use the Adjref-ly expression if there is a suitable one, and recast the sentence with one of the other locutions if there is not. It seems to me, however-

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, A N D PLACE

133

that the very power of the NP-wise type of reference is the fact that there are no constraints. Whether or not this in the case, it is true that NP-wise expressions are coming into our language very rapidly. C. ADVERBS OF PLACE

Chapter 1, Review of the Literature, contained a great deal of explanation of various treatments of Place Adverbiale. Although most of these statements were not formalized into the transformational model, they provide a discussion that is adequate enough to allow us to go directly into the formal statement of Adverbials of Place which follows: 1. Adv,place

Adv,location Advdtrection

2. Adv,direction-

Adv"transveree t, Adv,accusat ve Adv,ablative Adv,motion Adv,random

3. Adv,location

Adv,loc' Adv Ioc· Advloc: Advloc:

pseudo Intransitive (NP) double prep (prep NP) transitive NP Intransitive

4. Advloc: Pseudo Intransitive

5. Advloc: double prep

aboard, above, after, against, along, around, aslant, athwart, before, behind, below, beneath, beside, between, betwixt, beyond, by, down, off, over, past, throughout, under(neath), upon, within, without . . .

across apart away far

(from)

ahead in front in (side) on top out (side)

(of)

close near next

(to)

134

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, A N D PLACE

6. Adv loc : transitive

->- amid(st), at, among(st), by, from NP placei t o NPpiace,. (up)on, with . . .

7. Adv loc lui;: intransitive

8. Adv transverse

Q a. A d vaccusative

-*• abroad, afoot, aground, ashore, aside, downstairs, here and there, overseas, upstairs . . .

across, around, through . . . (NP)

Adv Acc : Pseudo Intransitive (NP) Adv Acc : Double prep (Prep NP) Adv Acc : Transitive N P A d v . . • Intransitive

10. Adv acc : Pseudo Intransitive -»• aboard, above, along . . .

11. Adv acc : Double Prep

in on out up

(-to) (to(ward))

to ¡I 12. Adv acc : Transitive against before to toward(s)

church jail town dinner class school . N p W proper

13. N place : proper ->- Detroit, Europe, Main Street, Sears

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

14. Advacc : Intransitive

for lee sea wind back home on down in out up

135

ward

(ward)

(ward(ly))

•^^compass downtown higher home thither whither

15. Adv»blatlve

Advabl : Pseudo Intransitive (NP) Advab, : Double prep (Prep NP) AdvabI : Transitive NP Advabl : Intransitive

16. Advabl : Pseudo Intransitive -+ up, beyond . . .

17. Advabl : Double prep

18. Advabl : Transitive

away off out

(from)

ahead off out

(of)

from of with //_

hold

19. AdvabI : Intransitive -»- a long way(s)/distance, forth, hence, left, right, thence, whence . . .

136

0

A D V E R B S OF CAUSE, R E F E R E N C E , A N D

.,

motion

21. Advc0

a8S

22. Adv,random

[ j ' I

PLACE

along, around, aslant, athwart, behind, below, beneath, beside, between, betwixt, down, over, past, under(neath), up, upon, within, without Advcompam-erly // wind North, Northnortheaat, Southwest . . . back and forth here and there hither and thither hither and yon pell meli to and fro willy nilly

Before going on to formalize additional Adverbs of Place, a number of comments are in order about the twenty-two rules just developed. It would have been possible in rule number 3 to have listed all the major types of Place Adverbiale — location, transverse, accusative, ablative, motion, and random. The intermediate A d v , ^ ^ node is,, nowever, necessary because of the cooccurrence restrictions with various verbs. For example, the open slot in "He stayed " can be filled only by locative adverbials, whereas the open slot in "He ran " can be filled only by direction adverbials, but of course by any direction adverbials no matter to which of the five direction classes they belong. The distinction between Adverbs of Motion and Adverbs of Randomness developed in rule 4 may prove to be a useless distinction; however, they are kept separate because there is a notional difference which may later be found to have syntactic correlates. The three major subclasses of Place Adverbials (location, accusative, and ablative) are perfectly parallel to each other in that they all contain PseudoIntransitive, Transitive, Intransitive, and Double-Preposition sub-subclasses. As was mentioned in the Review of the Literature chapter, we are using the same terms to express the relationships between prepositions and objects that are commonly used only to express the relationships between verbs and objects. There are many motivations for this action, one of which is to make the analysis of the preposition analogous to that of the verb, and another of which is to classify a particle as the same part of speech whether or not it happens to be followed by an object. In traditional grammar, it is called a preposition if it is followed by an object, but an adverb if it is not.

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, A N D

PLACE

137

As can be seen from rule 7, the P j — P 2 — N P constructions that Bruce Fraser considered in reference to direction adverbials are also an important part of locative adverbials; and furthermore his transformation, which deletes Ρ2 + NP, would work as well for our locatives as it did for his direction adverbials. It should be noted, however, that the present transformations have an entirely different shape than his do, merely because we are using a different convention of notation. Advcompags is expanded in rule 23. This category is necessary in order to generate such place expressions as the italicized phrases in "He went South(ward(ly))": (generated by rule 16), and "It's a Northeasterly wind" (generated by rule 22). Rule 14 is devised in such a way as to distinguish between " I ' m going το school" which does not require the use of the article, and " I ' m going to the party", which does require its use. I t should be noted that the expressions that can occur without an article — church, jail, etc., are not excluded from the more general statement which would result in "to N P " , so our grammar generates to the church, to the jail, etc. as well as to church, to jail, etc. Like rule 14, and 22, rule 20 is a context sensitive rule. It is formulated in such a way as to generate the verb in "He miAheld the information" an Ablative Adverbial. To this point we have been considering Adverbs of Place as an optional element. Adverbs of Place can also occur as the complement or part of the complement with certain verbs. I t is strange that traditional grammarians did not recognize a Predicate Adverb perfectly parallel to the Predicate Adjective and the Predicate Noun, but they did not. Paul Roberts distinguishes between the 'substantive' (PA or P N ) and the Adverb of Place in the following rewrite rule:

VP — Aux +

be +

substantive Adv-p s

verbal

which seems to be quite accurate except that the Adverb of Place should instead be an Adverb of Location, i.e. We do not have *"John is into the water". There are also other verbs which require various kinds of Adverbs of Place as part of their complement, as the following chart will show: STRUCTURE XTT> TINT ΛΓΡ

EXAMPLE Adv, loc

drink NP,person, N P dart AdvHidirection , 5

R o b e r t s , p. 396.

He put the dish on the table John drank Mary under the table John darted out of the room

138

ADVERBS OP CAUSE, REFERENCE, A N D PLACE

In his English Syntax, Paul Roberts makes some interesting observations about Adverbs of Place (again he means Adverbs of Location) modifying nouns. He indicates that a sentence like "The man upstairs was eating oranges", would be derived in the following way: CONSTITUENT: MATRIX: RESULT: ^deletion

The The The The

man was upstairs man was eating oranges man who was upstairs was eating oranges man upstairs was eating oranges.

Roberts points out that not only Adverbs, but also Adjectives, Present Participles, Past Participles, and nouns (exactly those parts of speech which can follow be, and which can therefore remain after the deletion of Relative Pronoun -\-be) can modify nouns in this way. But he further points out that Adverbs of Location are unique in that only they do not require an additional inversion transformation placing them before the noun they modify. Consider the following: *The man tall was eating oranges the tall man was eating oranges ?The man blustering was eating oranges The blustering man was eating oranges ?The man fired was eating oranges The fired man was eating oranges ?The man captive was eating oranges The captive man was eating oranges The man upstairs was eating oranges The upstairs man was eating oranges (different meaning) Sometimes, of course, the modification structures become frozen, as in "junior year abroad", and "a desire within", and would have to be moved from the grammar to the lexicon. One area that needs further investigation is whether such expressions as "Heavenly Father", and "country house" should or should not be related to "Father in Heaven", and "house in the country" respectively, and if they should, how general such a relationship is. Another area that should be investigated is whether or not such expressions as "we were riding in a bus", is transformationally related to "we were riding a bus", i.e. Is a bus in the second construction some sort of direct object, or is it rather some sort of adverb complement? In reference to Adverbs of Place, there are also certain ambiguities which should perhaps be further investigated. Milton Berle said "I'll enjoy kissing all those girls on the screen", and another comic replied, "Why don't you kiss them on the lips?" In the first case the Adverb of Location is modifying girls (girls(which are) on the screen), while in the second case the Adverb of Loca-

ADVERBS OF CAUSE, REFERENCE, AND PLACE

139

tion is modifying kiss. This is a common type of ambiguity whenever an Adverb follows both a verb and a noun. Another type of ambiguity is present in the joke about George Washington: 1: "George Washington threw a dollar across the Potomac". 2: "Yes, but a dollar went a lot further those days". The ambiguity here is the result of the extended (metaphorical) meaning of the phrase "go f a r " . A third kind of ambiguity is the result of certain deletion transformations. In many cases, the co-occurrence relations give information t h a t resolves (or partly resolves) the ambiguity. For example, " I put the coat on", and " I put the wall paper on", are probably shortened forms of " I put the coat on myself", and " I put the wall paper on the wall", respectively. Agreeing with Bruce Fraser that at least some Indirect Object constructions are directional in nature, let us consider them here. Adapting Fillmore's two indirect object transformations® to our own system of notation, we have: N P t V iot N P 2 to N P , => NP X V iot NP 3 N P 2 EXAMPLE:

J o h n gave the money to me => John gave me the money NP X V iof N P 2 for N P j => N P t Y lof N P 3 N P 2 EXAMPLE :

John's mother made a cake for him =>• John's mother made him a cake And to Fillmore's examples, we add transformations that will account for Ablative Indirect Object constructions, etc. N P ! Vi00 N P 2 of N P 3 => NP X V i00 N P 3 N P 2 EXAMPLE:

John asked a question of Mary => John asked Mary a question N P i Vi0w N P 2 Prep N P 3 --> NP X V i0 , N P 3 N P 2 EXAMPLE:

John played a game of chess with Bill => John played Bill a game of chess The inter- prefix, which Bruce Fraser mentioned in his dissertation but did not formalize, should probably be considered an Adverbial of Place (equivalent to between) though in many instances the meaning has been extended from space to time, etc. I t is possible for Adjectives, Nouns, and Verbs to conβ

Charles J . Fillmore, Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations (The Hague, 1965), pp. ,46—47; hereafter cited as Fillmore, Indirect Object.

140

ADVERBS O F CAUSE, R E F E R E N C E , AND PLACE

tain the inter- prefix, and there is very little interrelationship between these three parts of speech and the inter- prefix. They will therefore be derived separately. Such Adjectives as intercollegiate, intercity, intercommunication (system), intercultural, interdenominational, interdental, interdisciplinary, interglacial, intermolecular, international, interracial, and intervocalic can be derived in the following way: X NP X between Cardinal NP 2 's Y => X inter -NP 2 -Adj NPi Y EXAMPLE:

This is a consonant between two vowels =>· This is an intervocalic consonant Such Nouns as interaction, interchange, interception, intercity, interlude, intermarriage, interplay, intersection, can be derived in a way similar to the derivation of Adjectives: Χ ΝΡΧ between Cardinal NP 2 's Y =• X inter -NPX Y EXAMPLE:

There was an action between the five players => There was an interaction. The verbs interact, intercede, intercept, intermarry, interplay, intersect, etc. are less easy to analyze because of their heterogeneity. It may be best to consider inter not a prefix in intercede and intercept because of the non-occurrence of *cede and *cept. The rest of the examples can (and possibly should) be related to the nouns interaction, intermarriage, interplay, and intersection respectively. Intermingle is a special case; with or without the prefix, it means the same, so the inter is a sort of intensifier. Before leaving Adverbs of Place, some comments regarding pronominalization are in order. First, there are the demonstrative adverbs Aere and there. Then there is the relative pronoun where, which can be either locative or accusative, but not ablative, and where(so)ever (every place which) which can also be either locative or accusative, but not ablative; and there is the correlative relative wherever Sp there S 2 . Of course there is always the possibility of distinguishing between the various classes when relativizing Place Adverbiale, by keeping the preposition and relativizing only the object: into which, at which, etc. or by using the phrase in which direction!place, etc. In addition, the distinction can be made on the colloquial level by using to where, and on the poetic level by using whither (accusative), and whence (ablative). There are two sets of indefinite place pronouns — those with place, written as two separate words, and those with where, written as single words: anywhere/any place, somewhere/some place, nowhere/no place, and everywhere/every place.

ν ADVERBS OF TIME, SEQUENCE, ADDITION, AND RESTATEMENT

Time Adverbials express almost as many time situations as do verbal expansions. As far as time is concerned, they can express distant past, immediate past, past, present, future, immediate future, and distant future. Like verbal expansions, Time Adverbials can also express aspect, the three most common aspects expresed being instantaneous, durative, and unspecified. For both time and aspect, the concordance restrictions between verb tenses and Time Adverbials is often rather tight. The time expressed by Time Adverbials can be in reference to some time established elsewhere in the communication, or it can be in reference to the present. In either case, it can be distant past, immediate past, past, present, future, immediate future, or distant future with reference to a time point, whether the time point is present or elsewhere established. Undoubtedly other grammarians have seen some of these intricate time relationships between Time Adverbials, other Time Adverbials, and verbal expansions. The reason that they have not been formalized in the past is probably twofold. In the first place, there are few overt signals in the adverbial system indicating tense or aspect, whereas there are many such signals in the verbal system. In the second place, adverbials are much more idiomatic than are verbal expansions. Nevertheless, let us explore the possibilities of extracting time, aspect, and reference from Adverbials of Time in order to see what generalizations can be made about Time Adverbials after such extractions. Let us first consider frequency time adverbials. This subset tells little about time, but tells a great deal about aspect, and can be placed on a continuum in terms of aspect. Thus, the following Frequency Adverbials indicate frequency in descending order: forever always usually constantly continuously

repeatedly "•regularly off and on now and then occasionally

142

ADVERBS OF TIME, SEQUENCE, ADDITION, A N D

incessantly habitually generally/in general "often normally as a rule again and again frequently periodically

RESTATEMENT

sometimes once in a while "infrequently "rarely "seldom again ever never

Some, but not all of these expressions co-occur with Adverbs of Extent, and exactly those that can (and no others) can be made comparative and superlative. Thus, we cannot say *very usually, *more usually, or *most usually, but we can say very frequently, more frequently, and most frequently. For this reason (and others) we shall consider the marked words of the above list as being those frequency adverbials that can be qualified by adverbs cf extent (often, frequently, regularly, infrequently, rarely, seldom, etc.). The other words in the list cannot be qualified in this sense. Adverbs of Frequency like other adverbs we have considered have a freedom of movement, but unlike most other adverbials, their normal position is not at the end of their clause, and in fact, when they occur at the end of their clause they are often confused with manner adverbials of the same phonological or graphological shape. For example, "They regularly cook rice" contains the un-ambiguous adverbial regularly. "They cook rice regularly" is ambiguous, however, since regularly in final position can be either an Adverb of Frequency c r an Adverb of Manner. The reason for the ambiguity of the second statement is that the most natural position for Manner Adverbials is at the end, while the most natural position for Frequency Adverbials is before the verb. Taking the above facts into consideration, the following derivation is prodosed for frequency adverbials: S -

(Adv freq ) VP (Advextent)

Adv,freq-i every

Adv

&eq-b •^holiday

[other |num^er

•^weekday

+ th

N,month N,date ^season

Adv,freq

(on) N weekday . s Ν season: natural-β

' tlme-i

ADVERBS OF TIME, SEQUENCE, ADDITION, A N D RESTATEMENT

143

once twice number -f times from NP,time

ftm)

NP,time

N,tlme-b + -iy

Adv,extent Adv,fre- long ago

&

J

A D V E R B S OF T I M E , S E Q U E N C E , A D D I T I O N , A N D

Adv rt : past-durative

lately of late still yet till ill i until intil j before

Adv rt : past-unspecified

RESTATEMENT

[S ) |NP I

iy

already formerly originally a N time . a . a ago

lately fi. .. .1 . time (in the) mean

Adv rt : Immediate past-durative

just recently yesterday prior to S + T ger

Adv rt : immediate past-unspecified

Adv rt : present-instantaneous

now simultaneously (just) at NP exact when S x (then) S 2 as as soon as at the time at which the moment whenever

Adv rt : present-durative

currently nowadays NP of today: Nom today's NP: Nom through(out) NP time as long as 1 S while J

(

150

ADVERBS OF TIME, SEQUENCE, ADDITION, A N D

RESTATEMENT

on NP d a y Adv r t : present-unspecified

11 N P in ·*• longer than day

while time

(in the) mean

Adv l t : immediate future instantaneous

immediately instantly instantaneously suddenly momentarily by N P

Adv I t : immediate future-durative

hereafter within NP t i m e next soon then tomorrow thereupon whereupon

Adv r t : immediate future-unspecified

after Adv r t : future-unspecified

•N^time S + (Tger) ward(s)

(ever)since

NPtime S

following NP t i m e forever

Adv r t : distant future-unspecified

dinnertime 4 o'clock mealtime moment that instant the height of the battle

{

by and by finally sooner or later ultimately

A D V E R B S OF TIME, S E Q U E N C E , A D D I T I O N , A N D RESTATEMENT

NP,day

151

^holiday

Ndate N,weekday

Xmonth NP,longer

than day

NS( N,year

N .century

NP time is not expanded in our rules here since this is a very high level category. In fact it may be that all time expressions should be the result of an expansion of NPtime. There are also certain inversion transformations that apply to most, but not all, of the adverbial expressions here derived. Because of their idiosyncratic nature, these will not be considered here. There are also some time expressions that do not specify any time (either relative or absolute), but rather specify aspect. An example of an expression that is in this category, which happens to show durative aspect, is FOR NPtime. B. ADVERBS OF SEQUENCE

Both Time Adverbiale which indicate absolute time, and those which indicate relative time, are frequently used to indicate the organization of a paragraph or larger unit of writing. In addition to other adverbials of time, which may or may not outline an organization, there are those which always do. They can be generated as follows:

-^dvaequence

number -f th (of all) in the number + th place then next

These expressions should not be confused with those generated by transformation 16 in the Cause Adverbial chapter. Contrast the following: First, John was not a good speaker; second he used poor grammar; third, he didn't speak loudly enough; fourth, he didn't use good examples . . . John was not a good speaker. First, he used poor grammar; second, he didn't speak loudly enough; third, he didn't use good examples . . . In the first example, there is within the discourse merely a chronological relationship between the various parts, and all parts are equal. In the second example, there is in addition a causal relationship between the second, third,

152

A D V E R B S OF TIME, SEQUENCE, ADDITION, AND RESTATEMENT

fourth . . . sentences and the first sentence; and the second, third, fourth . . . sentences all modify the first. It should be noted that in both of the examples above there is a sort of pseudo-chronological organization. The first, second, third . . . refer not to the order of things actually happening, but rather refer to the order of their being recounted. Contrast: First, John took off his shoes; second, he took off the rest of his clothes; third, he put on his swimming trunks; and fourth, he jumped into the pool. C. ADVERBS OF ADDITION AND RESTATEMENT

There are two other kinds of Sequence Adverbials that should be considered. The first is an adverb expression that adds more information to whatever else has been said, and here they will be called Adverbs of Addition. The second type is a mere restatement of whatever else has been said. This second type (and possibly the first as well) should not be considered as Time Adverbials; nevertheless, they are treated here because of their close affinity with Time Adverbials. They can be formalized as follows:

Adv Addition

Adv Restatement

also S furthermore S likewise S moreover S S too S in addition to NP and S namely NP especially specifically expressly notably to wit as in other words in conclusion for example e.g. viz. i.e. that is including S + T ,ger of

η

ADVERBS OF TIME, SEQUENCE, ADDITION, AND RESTATEMENT

153

At this point, let us consider two statements of Paul Roberts concerning the derivation of Time Adverbials. His statement, " 'When he was sixteen, Stanley got a job' comes from an insert sentence like 'He was sixteen then' and the matrix sentence 'Stanley got a job' 1,1 seems to be perfectly correct. But his statement that " 'In the meantime they played bridge' comes from an insert sentence like 'It happened in the meantime' and the matrix sentence "They played bridge' "2 seems to be incorrect. Roberts' derivation is in fact circular, because it is a pronoun standing for "Their playing bridge". So in effect, what Roberts is saying is that "In the meantime, they played bridge" is derived from the two sentences "Their playing bridge happened in the meantime + + TreductIon", and "They played bridge". It is difficult to see why he would propose such a derivation when it is so much easier to derive it by the following inversion transformation. S AdvtIme => AdvtIme S EXAMPLE:

They played bridge in the meantime =>• In the meantime, they played bridge. Let us now consider a rather important deletion transformation that has effect with certain Time Adverbials. Paul Roberts dealt rather thoroughly with a similar deletion transformation acting on relative clauses. His transformation could be summarized as follows: X wh — NP tns be Y => Χ Y EXAMPLE:

I saw the man who was on the porch => I saw the man on the porch. The X in the above transformation always ends with a noun phrase. The wh — NP tns be Y is a relative clause modifying the NP in X, and the Y is any structure that can follow be e.g. V-en, V-ing, NP, Adj, Adv pl , and AdvtIme.3 The transformation that we are considering here has basically these same possibilities. It can be written as follows: NP

While When

1

NPX tns be

Adv pl Adj V-ing V-en

X, NPj VP

X

Roberts, p. 316. Roberts, pp. 315- 316. Examples of Adverbs of Time following be include 'The parade was early/on time/ late/at three/yesterday . . .". 2

154

ADVERBS OF TIME, SEQUENCE, ADDITION, A N D RESTATEMENT

While When

NP Advpl Adj V-ing V-en

X, NPJ VP

EXAMPLES:

While J o h n is the principal, he will maintain excellent discipline While J o h n is here, he will repair all malfunctioning units While J o h n is ill, he will not be able to play football While J o h n was fighting Dempsey, he experienced some dizziness While J o h n was captured by the enemy, he remained inactive politically

While While While While _While

the principal, J o h n will maintain excellent discipline here, J o h n will repair all malfunctioning units ill, J o h n will not be able to play football fighting Dempsey, J o h n experienced some dizziness captured by t h e enemy, J o h n remained inactive politically_

There is one important way in which t h e deletion transformation here under consideration differs from the deletion transformation which Roberts outlined Roberts' transformation will work when t h e item following be is a Time Adverbial, while t h e present transformation will not. F r o m "The parade which was at 4 o'clock was very colorful", we can derive "The parade at 4 o'clock was very colorful". B u t we cannot derive *"While at 4 o'clock, t h e parade marched down main street", f r o m *"While the parade was at 4 o'clock, t h e parade marched down main street", since the dependent clause *"While the parade was a t 4 o'clock", is ungrammatical. This lack of grammaticality is the result of having two time expressions in the same clause, one pronominalized (while), and the other not pronominalized ("at 4 o'clock"). The co-occurrence of various adverbial expressions will be investigated f u r t h e r in the last chapter. One other observation might be made a t this point. Actual passive sentences in English are non-durative, and it is therefore impossible to use durative adverbs to modify them. On the other hand there is a superficially identical structure which is durative. Contrast t h e independent clauses in t h e two following examples: J o h n was captured precisely a t 4 o'clock J o h n was captured, and therefore had to eat C-rations.

ADVERBS OF TIME, SEQUENCE, ADDITION, A N D RESTATEMENT

155

The first independent clause contains the auxiliary verb be, the main verb capture, and the past-participle suffix ed. Because the time expression "precisely at 4 o'clock" indicates that the aspect of the independent clause is instantaneous, we know that the construction is a passive, and would be diagramed as follows: 1 . The second independent clause contains the main verb be and the adjective (functioning as Predicate Adjective) captured. Because the qualifying expression "and therefore had to eat C-rations" indicates that the aspect of the independent clause is durative, we know that the 5 construction is not passive, and would be diagramed as follows: —| —. Another point that deserves mention is the number of Time Adverbials that are marked by the -ly suffix. Some transformational grammarians have given the impression t h a t the -ly suffix is more closely associated with Manner Adverbials than it is with other adverbials, and it is at least questionable how useful such an association is. For example, consider the following Time Adverbials with -ly endings: annually constantly continuously daily finally formerly (in)frequently generally habitually hourly immediately incessantly

instantly instantaneously lately momentarily monthly nightly normally occasionally originally periodically presently rarely

recurrently regularly repeatedly seasonally simultaneously suddenly (un)timely ultimately weekly yearly usually

A number of comments should be made about the pronominalization of Time Adverbials. First, there is the definite Time Adverbial then; also, there are the indefinite Time Adverbials sometime, anytime, *notime, and *everytime. There is, however, a morphophonemic rule that changes *notime and *everytime (equivalent to nowhere and everywhere respectively for Place Adverbials) into never and always. As far as relativization is concerned, there is when, which replaces sometime, and which means "at the time at which". Whenever . . . (then) is another relative pronoun, but it replaces "every time at which". Whensoever is an archaic form of whenever.

VI ADVERBS OF AFFIRMATION AND ADVERBS OF NEGATION

In his Structure of English, Fries sets up a Group L, which he calls responses. As examples, he gives, yes, no, etc. These responses are interesting in that they can replace whole sentences. In the second sentence below, "Did you like the party?" "Yes". the yes is standing for "Yes, I liked the party". It is therefore a complete sentence with all of the grammatical relationships and semantic content derivable from the question preceding. Response Adverbiale are not unique in this respect; in fact, any adverb can act as a pro-sentence. Most adverbials, however, can function as pro-sentences only when followed by information (wh) questions. Thus, we have the pro-sentences in Column Β below possible if preceded by the questions in Column A:

Column A

Type of Adverbial

Column Β

How did he come ? Why did he come ? What did he talk about? When did he come ? How much did he eat ? Where did he eat ?

Manner Cause Reference Time Extent Place

Slowly. In order to sing. Music. Yesterday. More than his brother. At home.

There are four modify the entire types of sentence duced by regular

kinds of adverbials that behave differently, because they sentence rather than modifying merely the verb. These four adverbials can function as pro-sentences even when intro(Non-information) questions. Consider the following:

ADVERBS OF AFFIRMATION AND ADVERBS OF NEGATION

Type of Adverbial

Column A Does Does Does Does

he he he he

eat eat eat eat

Wheaties ? Wheaties ? Wheaties ? Wheaties ?

SM Affirmation Frequency Extent

157

Column Β Certainly. Perhaps. Seldom. More than his brother.

Although the Frequency Adverbial is unlike other Time Adverbials in having the capability of being a pro-sentence for a non-information question, it is like other Time Adverbials in having the capability of being a pro-sentence for a wAera-question. Thus, "Seldom", can be the answer to the question, "When does he eat Wheaties?" There is a reason for contrasting the SM Adverbials, e.g. certainly, with the Affirmation Adverbials, e.g. perhaps. The SM Adverbials are derived from adjectives, and therefore occur in certain structures that Affirmation Adverbials do not occur in. Contrast the following:

SM Adverbial

Affirmation Adverbial

That he eats Wheaties is certain. It is certain that he eats Wheaties. Certainly he eats Wheaties.

*That he eats Wheaties is perhaps. *It is perhaps that he eats Wheaties. *Perhapsly he eats Wheaties.

Assuming then that there is a justification for keeping SM Adverbials and Affirmation Adverbials separate, let us set up the following continuum for Affirmation Adverbials — listed in descending order of Degree of Affirmation:

•^^Affirmation

by all means unquestionably undoubtedly doubtless indubitably of course indeed yes truly perhaps maybe perchance no

158

ADVERBS OF AFFIRMATION A N D ADVERBS OF NEGATION

A. ADVERBS OF NEGATION

As far as Adverbs of Negation are concerned, it is very difficult to a d d anything significant t o what Klima has already said in his seventy-seven page article entitled, "Negation in English". One thing t h a t can be added, however, is t h a t it is not always t r u e t h a t an affirmative sentence has a negative counterpart. Such adverbs as simultaneously, and at the same time seem (at least in certain senses) to be mutually exclusive with negative. Consider the following: "The doorbell rang, the baby fell out of the high chair, and the washer started clanging loudly all at the very same i n s t a n t " , as contrasted with *"The doorbell didn't ring, t h e b a b y didn't fall out of t h e high chair, and the washer didn't start clanging loudly all at the very same i n s t a n t " . The reason t h a t the negative b u t not the affirmative example is ungrammatical is t h a t the negative formative (unlike the passive formative) is durative, and cannot, therefore, co-occur with an instantaneous adverbial. I t should be pointed out, a t this point, t h a t Time Adverbials in general change the effect of negation. "The doorbell didn't ring" entails a forever time adverbial, so t h a t unless there is some sort of context specifying the time of the non-ringing, it is assumed t h a t no ringing a t all took place. On t h e other hand, "The doorbell didn't ring yesterday" does not indicate whether ringing took place or not outside of t h e qualification "Yesterday". Let us consider the ramification of this observation in reference to again. Contrast the sentence, "The employer didn't give me a promotion again t o d a y " , with the sentence, "The student didn't show up again t o d a y " , in terms of the following possible derivations: l a . The employer gave me a promotion in the past l b . The employer didn't give me a promotion today 2a. The employer didn't give me a promotion in the pasti 2b. The employer didn't give me a promotion today J 3a. The student showed up in the past 3b. The student didn't show up today 4a. The student didn't show u p in the pasti 4b. The student didn't show up today j The sentence "The employer didn't give me a promotion again t o d a y " , entails sentences 2a and 2b, i.e. t h a t t h e action did not happen either in the past or today, whereas "The student didn't show up again t o d a y " , entails 3a and 3b (rather t h a n 4a and 4b), i.e. t h a t the action happened in the past b u t not today. As far as the grammar is concerned, every negative sentence which contains a time adverbial is ambiguous. I t happens, however, t h a t various kinds of linguistic or social context resolve the ambiguity in one direction or the other, as has happened in the two cases under consideration.

ADVERBS OF AFFIRMATION AND ADVERBS OF NEGATION

159

The relationship between Time Adverbiale and Negation is interesting in another respect also. The Time Adverbial in NPdurative occurs only in negative constructions. It is possible that this particular Time Adverbial is derived by the following optional transformation: S + Advduratlve =* S + in NPduratIve//Tneg EXAMPLE:

John hasn't eaten Wheaties for a long time => John hasn't eaten Wheaties in a long time Although the first example is generated by applying the negative transformation to "John has eaten Wheaties for a long time", the second example cannot be generated by applying the negative transformation to the nonexistent *"John has eaten Wheaties in a long time", as one would expect.

VII VERB-ADVERB COMBINATIONS

As was mentioned in the Review of the Literature chapter, Bruce Fraser considered some adverbial constructions as being derived from ADVB, and therefore showing a loose relationship (or none at all) with the Verb, and other adverbial constructions as being derived from MV, and therefore showing a tight relationship with the Verb. These latter constructions are called two-word verbs, or Verb-Adverb combinations. Fraser had a series of eight transformations to determine whether a particular adverb was derived from ADVB or MV (those eight transformations are given in the Review of the Literature, and will not be repeated here). Four of the transformations had the effect of separating the particle from the following object, and the fact that they can apply indicates a closer relationship between the verb-particle than between the particle-NP. The other four transformations had the effect of separating the particle from the preceding verb, and the fact that they can apply indicates a closer relationship between the particle-NP than between the verb-particle. Fraser, however, oversimplified the problem by implying that there is a near perfect positive correlation among his tests which indicate t h a t the particle is dominated by MV (relative and question transformation, insertion of manner adverbial between V and P r t , reduction of object to pronoun, and conjunction of particles) ; and t h a t there is a near perfect positive correlation among his tests which indicate that the particle is dominated by ADVB (action transformation, separation transformation, insertion of manner adverbial between P R T and NP, and separation plus reduction of object to pronoun transformations). Perhaps the picture is not nearly as simple as Fraser has presented it. The present writer feels that the affinity between verb and particle as opposed to the affinity between particle and N P represents a continuum, and he furthermore feels that the profiles of transformations for the different verb-adverb combinations are highly idiomatic, so idiomatic in fact that particular expressions must be marked in the lexical segment of the grammar as to which transformations are possible for them. To illustrate this last point, let us consider the generation of a number of verb-adverb constructions in reference to the following tests:

VERB-ADVERB

TEST

COMBINATIONS

161

EXAMPLE

"Kernel" Separation Separation & Object Reduction Object Reduction Passive Action Gerundive Ambiguous phrase structure

I called up the boys. I called the boys up. I called them up. I called on them. The boys were called up (by someone). The calling up of the boys . . . My calling up the boys . . . The cat turned on + the radio. The cat turned -{- on the radio. The called up boys . . . Adjectivalization I called up. Deletion of Direct Object I ran out Deletion of Prep 2 plus Direct Object 1.

2.

Verb

F (v

Ì

VPrt

Vi Prt Vt Prt NP NP VI Prt Adj Adv

Prt J

3. Vi Prt

Stand aside, sit down, go on, grow, up, stay up

4. VI Prt

end up, start out . . .

5.

Vt Prt —

Vt Prt-a Vt Prt-b Vt Prt-c Vt Prt-d Vt Prt-e Vt Prt-f Vt Prt-g Vt Prt-h Vt Prt-i Vt Prt-j Vt Prt-k Vt Prt-1 Vt Prt-m VtPrt-n Vt Prt-o Vt Prt-p

162

VEEB-ADVEBB

Vt Vt Vt Vt Vt Vt Vt Vt 6.

COMBINATIONS

Prt-q Prt-r Prt-s Prt-t Prt-u Prt-v Prt-w Prt-x

Vt Prt-a

break out get off < work > + (TDeIete: stand in < line >

Vt Prt-b

V Prepadv NP adv , íbed i g0t0 [sleep]

D0)

"H (^Gerundive)

8. Vt Prt-c =• keep on < shirt > + T ,Sep

9.

Vt Prt-d

get at

keep at < j o b > play at scrub at < s p o t > work at differ from come from lean forward sing sound like speak consist of i

clothing

do without (TDeIete. D0 ) grab hold NPX from NP 2 take make much of NP 2 get along with NPperson run out of NP Τ 10. Vt Prt-e => stay on < j o b > (

•"-Gerundive C^AdJectlvallzaMon) L Delete: DO

(^Delete:

P2NP)

YERB-ADVERB

11. Vt Prt-f => fall into

12.

13.

163

COMBINATIONS

(

T Pro : DO Τ -1 Passive T Del : Ρ 2 + N P Τ -*- Gerundive

Vt Prt-g => have off + TSep + ( ( J D e l : D 0 IV-*- Gerundive

Vt Prt-h

get in + (TDel. DO/ bring in - play with spread N P over N P person 1of ^ N P person2-^ remind NPperson of < N P d u t y > get away join in with catch up get through stay away from get jump off leap peek ¡of + (T M: P2 + NP) get [from out come fall go look out for reach play up to

14.

Vt Prt-i

' Movement by LDel: DO go without act feel smell like sound taste I look

J

15. NPweather =>· hail, rain, sleet, snow; spring, winter .

Tpro: DO ^Gerundive) Τ .Ambiguity

^Del: DO (^passive ^Gerundive)

164

VERB-ADVERB

16. Vt Prt-j

{

COMBINATIONS

bump run into < N P _ >

L

L

17.

Vt Prt-k =•

Pro: DO

L ( Π Passive

Gerundive

{get over 1 [make do with + (TDel:Pf +NP)j (

L

Pro: DO Π L Gerundive

η L Ad jectival-

a cold, chicken pox, measles, mumps

18. NP,disease

Τ 19.

Vt Prt-1

-•-Passive

{

ride 1 on < N P p l a c e > run J

ΤAction ( Τ - 1 Gerundive ·*- Adjectivaiizatlon -Lpro: DO

20.

21.

Vt Prt-m

VtPrt-n

confine NP 1 to NP 2 devote NPtime to NP lift NPX over NP¡¡

ask dream forget sing smile talk think wonder worry write laugh look run climb jump run apply ask call hope look pay wait

T p r o : DO

Τ

^ Passive

)

^ΤA c t i o n Gerundive

about

at

down + (TDel. D0 )

T p r o : DO

for

Τ

-•-Passive

Τ

-*- Gerundive ^Adjectival

165

VERB-ADVEKB COMBINATIONS

approve hear of speak talk depend on -^person> sleep on

walk on

listen reach over refer speak to subscribe talk write agree confer with disagree talk make love with < N P .person> C^Del: P, + NP/ make do with NP make time with < N P 0 1>

call on 22.

Vt Prt-o

insist on wait on go over

sail on ride on sail on 23.

Vt Prt-p

travel on

^Nl'nelghbor^ -^customer ^

-•-Pro: DO Τ Passive Τ Gerundive Τ Ambiguity .ΤAdjectival-

| [ "\ΝΡνβΒ8β] (water) >

j NP

VERB-ADVERB

28.

Yt Prt-t

bring check fill find leave live point put seek take hand wash take over put talk tell vt D P clean dress drink eat fill finish gas get give hang put stand wake wind build dirty hold play pull take use

29.

Vt,up

bring up

COMBINATIONS

Sep + Γ •-Passive L

out

TPro: DO

L

Action Π L

Gerundive

^Adjectival —

out (TNom)

up

up (TDel; DO)

up

^^Pproblem ^

168

VERB-ADVERB

hold up

COMBINATIONS

< N P , person > > < N P , traffic

look up · ^-N^schedule > pickup < N P p e r e o n >

make up

C^Nom)

bring drive

fly

30.

get give move put ride run sail send take walk

movement

31. Vt Prt-u => fly on (

(Tliom)

+ (T;Pro: DO J

L

Sep

L

Pro: DO

Π L

Passive

Π L Γ L

Gerundive

Adjectival-

^Del: DO L

Γ

32. Vt Prt-v

Pro: DO Passive

ηActlon L Γ "•Gerundive ΤιAmbiguity

drive on run

Τ Sep (

*-Passive Γ L Action • Γ Gerundive

ΓAdjeciival-

VERB-ADVEBB

34.

Vt Prt-x

169

COMBINATIONS

run down lay off < N P p e r s o n > try on

turn on look read think turn turn NP to < N P p e r e o n > call up

+ (T;Pro:

L

Sep

L

Passive

DO/

Π over

•-Action Π L Gerundive Π L Ambiguity L ΠAdjectival-

The above formalization brings out a number of interesting facts. First of all, the gerundive transformation can be applied to every expression containing a two-word verb which we have considered here. Also, for all of the examples in our corpus, any expression which will allow the separation transformation will also allow the pronominalization of the direct object after the separation transformation. This does not imply, however, that pronominalization of the direct object is always possible, whether or not the separation transformation occurs. For example, we can say, "John stayed on the job", but not *"John stayed on it", nor *"John stayed it on". The pronominalization-of-the-direct-object transform can be applied to some, but not all expressions containing at. We can say I laughed at him (Tom), I looked at him (Tom), I ran at him (Tom), I scrubbed at it (spot), and I worked at it (job); but we can not say *I arrived at it (school), *I played at it (park), * / stayed at it (office). It should be noticed, however, that those expressions which will not allow pronominalization of the object, will allow pronominalization of the entire locative prepositional phrase: I arrived there (at school), I worked there (at the office), I played there (at the park), and I stayed there (at home). It is obvious, therefore, that in these examples the at cannot be an adverb, but is rather a preposition which in conjunction with the noun signals 'location'. The particles in the expressions look at, run at, scrub at, and work at and especially laugh at have lost some of their central 'locative' meaning, and are therefore more adverbial than are those which are not amenable to the direct-objectpronominalization transform. This can be illustrated by the contrast: He worked at the job versus He worked at the office. Even though neither *He worked the job at, nor *He worked the office at is possible, He worked at the job would probably be analyzed as He worked at + the job, while He worked at the office would be analyzed as He worked + at the office, since we can say Hé worked at it, (the job) and He worked there (at the office), but we cannot say *He worked there (at the job), nor *He worked at it (the office). The Direct-object-pronominalization transform is not as basic as is the separation transform, but it (like

VERB-ADVERB COMBINATIONS

170

the passive transform) can be used as a classification test when especially fine affinity classifications are needed. In addition to arrive at (school), play at (park), stay at (home), and work at (office), discussed above there are four other expressions where the direct object cannot be pronominalized. These are arrive in (Mexico), ride on (Route 66), run on (road), and stay on (job). Notice also the following representation:

PHRASE STRUCTURES

He rode + on the horse. ?He rode on -f the horse. He played + over the record. ?He played over + the record.

SEPARATION

DO-PRONOMINALIZATION

He rode on it He rode the horse on. —

—

—

—

He played the record over.

—

_

_

—

He played over it. —

—

—

SEPARATION AND DO-PRONOMINALIZATION .,

He rode it on. —

—

—

—

—

He played it over.

As has been suggested elsewhere in the literature, there seems to be no instances of two-word verb expressions which will allow pronominalization of the direct object both before and after the separation transformation. That is, if N P P R T P R O N P is possible, N P P R O N P P R T is not, and if N P P R O N P P R T is possible, N P P R T P R O N P is not. In our formalization, this fact is taken into consideration b y making the pronominalization of the direct object dependent upon (but optional in itself) the separation transformation. Thus all those expressions which will allow pronominalization are marked in one of the two following ways: 1· (Tpro: DO)' or 2. (T Sep + (T Pro . D0 )). There is also an extremely high positive correlation between the separation transformation, and the action nominalization, the only exceptions in our corpus being expressions with on, one expression with over (run over), frozen expressions (Keep your shirt on !, He had a week off), and expressions with two object noun-phrases (lift/confine/devote NP X to NP 2 ). Transformations sometimes have special effects on the constructions to which they apply. The pseudo-intransitive transformation, which we have called here (T Del: D 0 ), can sometimes apply to direct objects of any character, but

VERB-ADVERB COMBINATIONS

171

at other times can apply only to reflexive direct objects. Examples of expressions which must have reflexive direct objects include: drive away, fly away, move away, run away, sail away, drive bach, fly back, get back, run back, walk back, show o f f , turn o f f , check out, turn over, clean up, dress up, get up, give up, pick up, wake up, and wind up. Thus, "He checked out" is a shortened form of "He checked himself out", while "He found out" is not a shortened form of "He found himself out", but is rather a shortened form of "He found something out", and the form without a direct object does not signal that the understood direct object is reflexive. As Paul Postal has pointed out in personal conversation, this phenomenon is not peculiar to two-part verbs, but at the same time it is something that has probably not been discussed elsewhere in the literature (even in Lees and Klima's "Rules for English Pronominalization").1 In our formalized grammar we have not taken this fact into account. I f it is deemed advisable to do so, one would merely have to mark in the lexicon those expressions which will allow deletion only of reflexive direct objects. All pseudointransitive verbs could undergo the same transformation: NPi V t NP 2 =» NPi V t The special cases which we have just outlined, however, would have the added condition: NPX = NP 2 whereas the normal condition for this transformation is the opposite: NPX φ NP 2 . Some of the two-word verbs in our sample are marked with (T Nom ). This is a nominalization transformation which does not change the various elements, but rather changes the stress contour as follows: V Adv => Y Adv and applies to such expressions as run away, show o f f , check out, hand out, wash out, turn over, build up, hold up, pick up, pull up, etc. A, slightly less general transformation, which would generate such nomináis as output, input, upkeep, etc., would be something like the following: V Adv => Adv V. Since these have been discussed elsewhere in the literature2, we will say nothing more about them here. The separation transformation gives some insight into the amount of afi&nity between the particle and the main verb, as opposed to the amount of affinity between this same particle and the object (it should be noticed that here the term 'object' is being used as a cover term for all objects, whether they are direct objects, objects of prepositions, etc.). In the present monograph, the object will be considered a direct object if the separation can apply, but an object of a preposition if it cannot. Consider these two seemingly parallel sentences: 1. He jumped off the cliff. 2. He took off the shirt. 1 2

Language, X X X I X , No. 1 (January—March, 1963), pp. 17 — 28. See especially Anthony.

172

VERB-ADVERB

COMBINATIONS

Since we cannot say *He jumped the cliff off, cliff in the first sentence is an object of the preposition off. Off co-occurs with cliff and off the cliff is a prepositional phrase. The second example is not structurally the same as the first, however. Since, He took the shirt off can occur, shirt is a direct object, rather than an object of a preposition. Off co-occurs with took, and took off3 is a verbadverb combination. The separation transformation is therefore very important in classifying a particle as either a preposition or an adverb. The separation transformation is possible with all of the two-word verbs containing away, back, out, and up; it is not possible with any of the two-word verbs containing about, at, by, for, like, of, to, and with. On the basis of our sample (which is very inadequate), we would say that away, back, out, and up are adverbs, and that about, at, by, for, like, of, to, and with are prepositions. Some of the particles, however, are not so easily categorized. Contrast the following: Example with down: Example with in: Example with off: Example with on: Example with over:

1. He 2. He 1. He 2. He 1. He 2. He 1. He 2. He 1. He 2. He

ran down the stairs. ran down the pedestrian. fell in the hole. handed in the forms. jumped off the cliff. called off the test. called on the student. put on the hat. got over the mumps. looked over the theme.

Notice that number 1 in each case is incapable of receiving the separation transform, while number 2 in each case is capable of it. Therefore, down, in, off, on, and over can be either prepositions or adverbs. It is further felt that as the number of samples is increased, it will probably be entirely IMPOSSIBLE to characterize a particular form as being strictly and adverb or strictly a preposition, but this hypothesis is yet to be tested. One further point should be made about the separation transform. There is sometimes a correlation between transformational profile and meaning. When over occurs between the verb and object (without T Sep ), it can mean either "again", or "above". It is the over meaning "again" which can be subjected to the separation transform, since over meaning "again" is an adverb, while over meaning "above" is a preposition. This same correlation between meaning and transformational profile is evident in one other place in our materials. In our corpus, thère are six twoword verb expressions that do not occur in what we have called the kernel 3 shirt does not co-occur w i t h o f f , b u t rather with the whole unit took off. Ct. He flew the plane on, where plane co-occurs with flew, not flew on.

VERB-ADVERB COMBINATIONS

173

structure. For example, it is impossible to say *I have off a week, even though it is quite possible to say I have a week o f f . There are other two-word verbs also for which the separation transformation is obligatory rather than optional: lay off (i.e. stop annoying), drive on (car), lead on (i.e. what a girl does to a boy), run on (tractor), get up (a person). With the exception of have o f f , all of these two-word verbs have homonyms which do not require the separation transformation: lay off (i.e. fire), drive on (road), lead on (dance floor — i.e. what a boy does to a girl), run on (road), get up (appetite). In seeing this, it is tempting to suggest that there is a tendency for homonymous two-word verbs to have different transformational possibilities (as well as different co-occurrence relations), in order to contrast their different meanings, but for the two-word verbs being considered here there are many counter examples, such as the following: John goes with Mary. This shirt goes (well) with this tie. He reminded me of my cousin. He reminded me of my responsibility. It looks like mink. It looks like rain. The teacher called on his best student. The farmer called on his closest neighbor. He sailed on the Titanic. He sailed on the Mediterranean. He traveled on Route 66. He traveled on a Greyhound. He put on a new shirt. He put on a new exhibit. He took in over a hundred stray cats. He took in over a hundred dollars. He took off the cups and saucers. He took off the hat and coat. My favorite baseball team shut out the Yankees. My favorite uncle shut out his wife. He made up his mind. He made up his winter schedule. He held up traffic. He held up a jewelry store.

174

VERB-ADVERB COMBINATIONS

He brought up seven children. He brought up seven important points. I t is true that we have considered only a very limited number of two-word verb expressions, and we have applied only a limited number of transformations to them. Nevertheless, it is extremely interesting that on the basis of transformational profiles it is impossible to distinguish between any of the homonomous pairs above. There is a perfect positive correlation between the separation transformation and the passive transformation for expressions containing away, back, by, down, in, like, out, and up. There is a perfect negative correlation between the separation transformation and the passive transformation for expressions containing for, of, and to. The fact that for, of, and to all disallow separation, while they allow passive indicates that passive is a more general operation than is separation. Consider the three following examples:

SEPARATION *John looked the key for. *The father approved dating of. *John listened the radio to.

PASSIVE The key was looked for by John. Dating was approved of by the father. The radio was listened to by John.

In addition to holding between all expressions containing for, of, and to, this generalization also holds for many individual two-word verbs. All of the following disallow separation, while allowing passivization: dream about sing about talk about write about laugh at look at run at approve of hear of

jump off leap off call on depend on get on insist on sleep on wait on drive on

ride on run on sail on travel on go over reach over run over agree with disagree with

In fact, of all of the expressions which do not show a perfect positive correlation between separation and passivization, only two allow separation, while disallowing passivization:

SEPARATION

PASSIVIZATION

John had a week off. * A week was had off by John. John had a cowboy shirt on. * A cowboy shirt was had on by John. This very small residue can easily be explained by the fact that have is not a transitive verb, but is rather a middle verb. Since all and only expressions with

VERB-ADVERB COMBINATIONS

175

have from our corpus behave in this way, it is assumed that two-word verbs containing have are also middle verbs, (and therefore disallow passivization) and that, in our sample, only expressions containing have are middle verbs. The action nominalization again gives some indication of the relative affinity of the verb and the object on the particle. The positive correlation between the separation and the action transformation is extremely high; expressions containing of seem to violate the general rule t h a t if the separation transform can be applied, then the action transform can also be applied. Consider: SEPARATION *He approved athletes of.

ACTION The approving of athletes . . .

But notice t h a t there is only one of, as the action transform should yield *The approving of of athletes . . . Therefore, in the example above, we either have a merger of the two of's or else one of the of's is obligatorily deleted. Because of intuition, and because of a later simplification of the overall pattern, it is assumed t h a t the second alternative is actually the case. There are a few other expressions which also seem to violate our general rule. Consider the following: SEPARATION *He *He *He *He *He *He He He

ACTION

got the bus off. His jumped the cliff off. His leapt the cliff off. His ran the pedestrian over. His went the door out. His peeked the window out. His had a week off. *His had a shirt on. *His

getting off of the bus . . . . jumping off of the cliff . . . . leaping off of the cliff . . . . running over of the pedestrian . . . . going out of the door . . . . peeking out of the window . . . . having off of a week . . . . having on of a s h i r t . . . .

Intuitively, it is felt t h a t the of in His getting off of the bus . . . . is not the same as the of in His bringing away of the bottle.. . . Notice t h a t from can replace the first of but not the second. Notice also that get off of is intuitively felt as a unit, while bring away of is not. Therefore, get off of, jump off of, leap off of, go out of, and peek out of are classed as three-word verbs with the third member (and the object) subject to optional deletion. This would place these six expressions into the same category as join in with, and get through with. I n order to account for the last two examples (have o f f , have on), we would merely have to make the statement t h a t the action transform cannot be applied to middle verbs. After accounting for the residue, we find that the action transform correlates perfectly with the separation transform. ^Ambiguity a structural ambiguity. Observe the following sentences, all of which have two possible derivations.

176

VERB-ADVERB

COMBINATIONS

Derivation A

Derivation Β

He dropped by + the house The baby walked by + the chair. He drove by + the house. He ran by + the drugstore.

He dropped + by the house The baby walked + by the chair. He drove + by the house. He ran -f- by the drugstore.

He tried on + the clothes. The cat turned on -f- the radio. He waited on + the customer. I called on -f- my friends. The teacher called on + the students He insisted on + a hard bed. He wrote over + the letter. He washed over + the shirt. He typed over + the letter. He played over + the records. He sang over + the song. He ran over -f· the pedestrian. He turned over + the mortgage. He turned over -f the pancakes. He called up -j- the tower.

He tried + on the clothes. The cat turned -f on the radio. He waited + on the customer. I called + on my friends. The teacher called + on the students. He insisted + on a hard bed. He wrote + over the letter. He washed -f over the shirt. He typed -f- over the letter. He played + over the records. He sang -f over the songs. He ran + over the pedestrian. He turned + over the mortgage. He turned + over the pancakes. He called + up the tower.

i A tree diagram of Derivation A and of Derivation Β follows.

DERIVATION

A:*

Initial string

Sentence

Rule 1

NP"

Rule 2

/ · · · .AulT

Rule 3 Rule 4 Rule 7 (twice) Rule 10 (twice) Rule 11 (twice) Rule 12 Rule 14 . Terminal string

NP^ Τ

The rule numbers refer to the rules on pages 138 and 139 of Chomsky's article "A Transformational Approach to Syntax", in the Third Texas Conference on Probleme of Linguistic Analysis in English, Rule 6 was altered to read thus: i Prep + NP 1 1 (there, away, etc. J 4

VERB-ADVERB

DERIVATION Initial String

177

COMBINATIONS

B: . .

Sentence

Rule 1

.dv

Rule 2

Aux. . VP, . I . . . . V .

Rule 3 Rule 4

V,

Rule 5

Adv

Rule 6

Prep

Rule 7 (twice)

. .

Rule 10 (twice)

. .

Rule 11 (twice)

. .

Terminalstring

. . .Τ

. . . NF

. .Ν,, . . .0 Aux . . .V, . .Prep .Τ ,Ν 0 . 0

It would at first seem that the following four sentences also have ambiguous phrase structure: DERIVATION

A

It smells like + a dog. It tastes like -f an anteater. It feels like -f- an insect. He looks like -f an idiot.

DERIVATION

Β

It smells + like a dog. It tastes + like an anteater. It feels + like an insect. He looks -f like an idiot.

But the ambiguity is not at the phrase structure level. He looked like + an idiot has the same structure as He waited on + the customer, but He looked + like an idiot does NOT have the same structure as He waited -f on the customer. Like is a conjunction, while on is a preposition. He looked + like an idiot is actually a shortened form of He looked -f- like + an idiot looks? Analysis B, to be complete should indicate that these sentences are the result of two sentences being conjoined by like, and that an optional transform has been applied to all of the examples, deleting the verb. A more adequate immediate constituent analysis (assuming that cuts need not be binary) would therefore be: He looked + like an idiot. (e-9- The called up boys . . .) like TActlon and TGerundlve is a nominalization transform. Expressions containing about, away, back, down, for, TAdjectivaii2ation

* "He looks like an idiot looks" is still ambiguous, but only because the verb in question can have a passive meaning. Thus this sentence can be paraphrased "He looks like an idiot looks to me", or "He looks like an idiot looks at me".

178

VEKB-ADVERB

COMBINATIONS

of, on, out, over, to, and up are capable of undergoing this test. Expressions containing by and like are not capable of undergoing the test. Some expressions containing at, in, o f f , on, and with can undergo T j and some cannot. Compare the following: A d

^Adjectivalization

The The The The

possible

laughed at m o n k e y s . . . . handed in t e s t s . . . . called off t e s t s . . . . agreed with p e r s o n . . . .

^Adjectivalization

e c t i v a l i z a t i o n

i s

n o t

possible

*The kept at j o b . . . . *The brought in hundred d o l l a r s . . . . *The had off w e e k . . . . *The gone with p e r s o n . . . . (i.e. steady)

The adjectivalization transform puts the two-word verb into a modification structure. Sometimes a semantic change affects this modification structure t h a t does not affect the two-word verb in its other positions. Consider the following: the run away cows (someone or something ran them away, or they are runaways) the put out cat (someone put the cat out, or it is upset) the run down mother (someone ran down the mother, as in a car; or she is tired) the fallen in hole (someone fell in the hole, or it is full of dirt) One final point should be made about relativization. All of the expressions containing for are ambiguous when the object is relativized. Notice that the question, " W h a t did he ask for?" can be answered by either " H e asked for a Coke" or by "Because he didn't know the answer".

Vili SUMMARY A N D CONCLUSIONS

There seems to be a general consensus of opinion among grammarians (no matter what model they represent) that the most heterogeneous, and the least understood of the traditional part-of-speech categories is, without question, the category Adverb. It has traditionally been the miscellaneous category into which those expressions were placed which could not be easily handled elsewhere in the grammar. This was done under the guise that these expressions in some sense 'modified' the verb. Those grammarians who have treated the Adverb as an autonomous category have generally been content to set up classification procedures, which are necessarily based on performance (rather than competence), and which can therefore not even approach an all-and-only delimitation of English Adverbials. Those grammarians who have treated English Adverbials from the standpoint of transformational grammar have dealt only with minor segments of the overall Adverbial category, and have substantiated the autonomy of only the particular segment with which they dealt. If considered from a purely linguistic point of view, the category Adverbial is much too heterogeneous to be considered a single category. On the other hand, the concept of Adverbial, with all of its heterogeneity, is a well-known concept to the extent that grammarians are generally in agreement as to which expressions are adverbials and which are not. The Adverb is therefore considered in this monograph to be a useful, but highly arbitrary construct. As has been indicated earlier in the text, there are early rewrite rules which separate those expressions which have a role in the strict subcategorization of the verb from those which do not. Those which do are dominated by the M(ain) V(erb) node, and those which do not are dominated by the A D V B node. Thus, a very early rewrite rule would be as follo ws : V P — MV (ADVB) and the main verb would be further expanded as follows:

180

SUMMARY AND

CONCLUSIONS

P R T (NP) Maimer Direction MV-*V ( Time Place

This last rewrite rule will help to generate such expressions as follows: ADVERBIAL CONSTRUCTION

EXAMPLE

P R T (NP) Manner Direction Time Place

He He He He He

found out (something) slowly entered the room darted into the room was early stood on the comer

For the purposes of this discussion, the basic divisions of the A D V B category are those which are generally considered to be meaning based — time, place, etc. They are not meaning based, however, because they are determined by the type of relative pronoun they are replaced by under the relative reduction transformation. On the basis of this test, there are eighteen major categories of Adverb, and these categories can be subdivided according to distribution and transformational potential, but not on the basis of co-occurrence restrictions, because this last consideration, if carried to its extreme, would result in every adverbial belonging to a class with only it as a member. The following chart will give some indication of how relative pronominalization can be used as a classification criterion: ADVERB TYPE

Sentence Modifier Affirmation Negation Addition Restatement Reference Instrumental Accompaniment

RELATIVIZATION OF ADVERBIAL

how how

R E L A T I V I Z A T I O N OF O B J E C T OF P R E P , ETC.

Prep ref what with what (along) with what

SUMMARY AND

Manner Extent + A d j Duration Frequency Time Sequence Location Accusative Ablative Cause

how how -f Adj when when when when where where —

_

_

181

CONCLUSIONS

in what manner/like what —

—

—

—

how long how often —

—

-

—

—

—

what

_

why

PrePioo to where from where for what (reason)

As can be seen from the above display, there is a basic dichotomy between those Adverbs that cannot and those Adverbs that can be relativized. Taking this fact into account, and further expanding those Adverbs which do not have a role in the strict subcategorization of the verb, we have the following rules:

ADVB

{

Sentence Modifier Verb Modifier

Sentence Modifier —>- (Sentence Adverbial)

Affirmationl Negation J

J Addition [Restatement

Verb Modifier -> (Reference) (Time) (Extent) (Place) (Cause) (Manner).

Manner

Instrumental Accompaniment Manner

Time

Duration Frequency Sequence

Place

Location Accusative Ablative

(time)

A tree diagram representing the division of the V(erb) P(hrase) into MV and ADVB, and the subsequent expansions of MV and ADVB according to the rules above would be as follows:

182

SUMMARY AND

CONCLUSIONS

ADVB

Verb^Mod

Reference

Time

Duration Frequency Sequence

Sent Ádv

Extent

time

Place

Location Accusative Ablative

Í Negative i Affirmative Cause

Addition Restatement

Manner Instrumental Accompaniment Manner

This, of course, is only the very beginning of Adverbial expansion. Each of the terminal symbols in the tree above (except V) is further expanded according to the rules outlined in the various chapters and subchapters of this monograph. The value of this study lies in the fact that it treats the entire category of Adverb, and in the fact that it has used both strict subcategorization (which has been used previously by structuralists), and transformational potential (which has seldom been used previously) as important determiners of categorization and subcategorization. This does not mean that such considerations as function within the sentence, internal structure (morphology), etc. are not taken into consideration. In a transformational grammar (which is a complete, nonatomistic grammar), these facts also must necessarily come into play in the generation of Adverbiale. But in this monograph, as in virtually all of the transformational literature, categories (such as noun, verb, adverb, etc.), have been kept quite separate from functions within the sentence (subject, predicate, modifier, etc.) ; and in fact, the functions are merely implied in this monograph. Transformationalists are in agreement that the transformational component is a necessary determiner in the classification (and subsequent generation) of English Adverbiale. An area on which they are not in complete agreement is whether this component is sufficient (along with the other components that are frequently used such as internal structure, strict subcategorization, etc.). In other words, they wonder whether it is necessary to consider 'semantic' information (or what transformational grammarians call co-occurrence infor-

SUMMARY A N D

CONCLUSIONS

183

mation) in distinguishing between various adverbial expressions. It would appear from the dissertation that such pairs as the following: go with person go with clothing

put on shirt put on exhibit

remind NP of responsibility remind NP of person

take in money take in people

look like rain look like mink

take off clothing take off dishes

call on student call on neighbor

shut out baseball team shut out rain

sail on Pacific sail on boat

make up mind make up schedule

travel on road travel on bus

hold up traffic hold up store bring up point bring up children

cannot be distinguished on the basis of merely distribution and transformational potential. An area in need of further investigation is whether (or to what extent) selectional information should be handled in the grammatical segment of the grammar, and whether (or to what extent) it should be handled in the lexicon, if, indeed, there is going to be a separation between the grammar and lexicon. This monograph determines not only the general outline that the class Adverbial should have, but makes a number of specific observations as well. It suggests that the distinction between Sentence Adverbials such as certainly, and Affirmation Adverbials such as perhaps should be made by seeing if the whole sentence can be equated (with be) to the single adverbial. Contrast the following: Sentence Adverbial

Affirmation Adverbial

That John is here is certain I t is certain that John is here Certainly John is here

*That John is here is perhaps *It is perhaps that John is here *Perhapsly John is here

It was further suggested that marking many degrees of Affirmative Adverbials and Negative Adverbials, although it is difficult to do in a transformational framework, may simplify the overall picture.

184

SUMMARY A N D

CONCLUSIONS

The distinction between Addition (e.g. furthermore/moreover/also + S), and Restatement (e.g. namely/in other words/in conclusion + S) was found to have no syntactic or transformational basis. It may later be found that collapsing these two categories into one may simplify the syntax sufficiently that the semantic distinction can be overlooked. The Manner Adverbial class was found to be the most heterogeneous class of Adverbal here treated. It was found that passivization co-occurs with only a subset of Manner Adverbials, and that Medio-passivization co-occurs with a different subset (e.g. closed/open/shut) and that Medio-Passive is associated with different verbs (e.g. bang, blow, pull, push, slam, etc.) than regular Passive is associated with. In this monograph it was determined that there were nine major, (e.g. Adverb of Accompaniment and Instrumental Adverb) and many additional minor derivations of Manner Adverbials. Some, but by no means all, Manner Adverbials are derived from sentences containing the verb have (e.g. gracefully) or the negative doesn't have (e.g. carelessly). Other Manner Adverbials are derived from verbs (e.g. pleasantly), from adjectives (e.g. quickly), from sentences (e.g. generally speaking), and some are generated directly as phrases (e.g. in a noisy manner). It has been determined that the inherent (e.g. *Sean was Irish in Chicago) non-inherent (Sean was calm in Chicago) distinction which Lees felt necessary for Place Adverbials is also necessary for Manner Adverbials; contrast *"Sean drank wine Irishly", with "Sean drank wine calmly". I have departed from Chomsky's view in Aspects that "A new course of action was agreed on" contains the passivization of an intransitive verb. I prefer to consider agree on a transitive verb compound, and offer as evidence the fact that such expressions can be passivized only when there is an object. Of course this decision has affected not only the formalization of the Passive, but also the formalization of transitivity of compound verb expressions. I have attempted to distinguish between adjectives which are derived from Manner Adverbs (e.g. She is a mediocre teacher) from those which are not (e.g. She is an unhappy teacher), and have attempted to shed new light on the effect of the action and gerundial nominalizations on the Manner Adverbial. I have attempted to determine if the -ly adverbial ending is associated more closely with the Manner Adverbial than it is with other Adverbials, as a number of transformationalists have implied. Of the Adverbial constructions with -ly endings generated in this monograph, there were 161 -ly expressions which were Manner Adverbials, twenty-two -ly expressions which were Sentence Adverbials (there were no Sentence Adverbials which did not end with -ly), thirty-nine -ly expressions which were Extent Adverbials, thirteen -ly expressions which were Reference Adverbials, and thirty-five -ly expressions which were Time Adverbials (mostly adverbials of Frequency). Furthermore, the -ly

185

SUMMABY AND CONCLUSIONS

expressions within the Manner Adverbial, Sentence Adverbial, Extent Adverbial, and Reference Adverbial classes could be extended almost indefinitely. In my treatment of Extent Adverbials, I have attempted to specify the full range of Extent Adverbials rather than merely the subclass of comparative constructions which have been fairly well treated previously by transformational linguists. All that has been done with comparative constructions is to make some refinements of the work by Carlota Smith and Robert Lees, and to translate the work of Herbert Pilch from the tagmemic to the transformational model, again making additions and refinements which were deemed advisable. Lees' deletion rules were refined so that in the present discussion they apply to comparisons of Manner Adverbials as well as Adjectives, and so that they include less . . . than, -er . . . than and so ... as constructions as well as the as . . . as, and more . . . than constructions that Lees wrote into his rules. As far as relativization is concerned, I have revised the relative transformation so that it can handle Extent Adverbials correctly in the following way: X AdvExtent

Adj Adv„

Y => how

Adj Adv„

X Y

and I have also specified some relative exclamatory transformations that are unique to Extent Adverbials, as follows: X AdvExtent

^ 1Y Adv m J

How

[Adj ... I|Adv Advn

X Y!

and NP Aux VP Adv => whAdv-ever NP Aux VP + Tq ! In addition, I have formalized Superlative Constructions, indicated some constraints on out- and over- prefixing that Fraser had not considered when he set up the transformations, and have formalized a re- prefixing transformation. I have also shown one of the relationships between Sentence Adverbials and Manner Adverbials on the one hand and Extent Adverbials on the other, by means of the following transformation: N x be X N2 Ν

Adv s Adv M.

a N 2 Ni

X det

Adv s Adv M.

N 2 Ni Y

As far as Cause Adverbials are concerned, there are twenty-six major transformations for the generation of this particular class. This means that there are twenty-six different types of Cause Adverbials. On the other hand, there is only one transformation for Adverbs of Reference, but this one transformation

186

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

is able to generate Adverbs of Reference of very different natures, and in fact, future grammarians treating this subject may wish to subclassify Adverbs of Reference much more than has here been done. There was found to be sufficient motivation to divide Place Adverbials into Adverbs of Location and Adverbs of Direction. According to the direction specification, Direction Adverbials are subsequently divided into Transverse, Accusative, Ablative, Motion, and Random categories on syntactic as well as semantic grounds. According to the transitivity of the adverbial particle, the Locative, Accusative, and Ablative Adverbials (the three major classes) are further categorized as pseudo-intransitive, double preposition transitive, regular transitive, and intransitive, and the derivation goes from this point to the actual delimitation of the various Place Adverbial expressions. In addition to generating various kinds of Place Adverbials, I formalized inter- prefixing, and set up an Ablative Indirect Object construction parallel to the more common Accusative Indirect Object construction; compare the following: ACCUSATIVE: He gave the money to John => He gave John the money ABLATIVE: He asked a question of Mary => He asked Mary a question Time Adverbials were found to contain many different times (not tenses) and aspects ; and these times and aspects should be extracted in order to properly identify the co-occurrence restrictions between Adverbs and various expansions of the verb (e.g. past, perfect, progressive, etc.). Time Adverbials were shown to have three important aspects: durative, instantaneous, and unspecified; they were shown to have three different times: past, present, and future; and these times were shown to be either distant, immediate, or unspecified in reference to the time point. The time point (from which the time of the adverbial is determined) is in some cases the present, and is in some case a reference point established elsewhere in the context. For example, the Time Adverbial lately would be considered absolute-immediate-past-durative, though none of these time-aspect facts are overtly signaled. Not only are there co-occurrence restrictions between Verb tense and aspect, and Adverb time and aspect, but there are co-occurrence restrictions between Adverb time and aspect and certain transformations. For example, the passive transformation is instantaneous; it is therefore incompatible with durative time expressions. The negative transformation, on the other hand, is normally durative, and there are therefore certain restrictions between it and instantaneous Adverbials; for example there are no negative counterparts to statements containing the Time Adverbials simultaneously, or at the same time. It is an interesting, though not very important finding, that one time expression (in a long time) occurs in negative constructions only. It seems to be a variant of "for a long time", which can occur in both negative and positive

SUMMARY AND

CONCLUSIONS

187

constructions. This is similar to the some-any distinction which has been handled elsewhere in the literature. Verb-adverb combinations are first divided into intransitive, linking, and transitive (including pseudo-intransitive) categories. The transitive verb-adverb combinations are then generated by twenty-four separate transformations based on the transformational profiles that co-occur with such expressions. The transformational profiles are then discussed in terms of what they reveal about the affinity between verb and following adverb in contrast to the affinity between adverb and following object. The generality of the various transformations and correlations between them are also discussed. The most important contributions of this monograph, however, are the rules of the various chapters because of their generative capacity the fact that the rewrite rules and transformations are designed to treat and explain great distributional, transformational, and to some extent semantic diversities in systematic ways; and the formal relating of diiferent adverbial categories w i t h each other and with other part of speech categories. A lesser contribution would be the reductions, deletions, nominalizations, adjectivalizations, etc. that have special significance for English Adverbials.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Robert L., The Verb System of Present-Day American English (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1966). Anthony, Edward, "Test Frames for Structures with up in Modern American English", (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1953). Bach, Emmon, An Introduction to Transformational Grammars (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1964). Borst, Eugen, Die Gradadverbien im Englischen (Heidelberg, Carl Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1902). Charnley, M. Bertens, "The Syntax of Deferred Prepositions", American Speech X X I V (1949), 268 - 2 7 7 . Chatman, Seymour. "Pre-Adjectivals in the English Nominal Phrase", American Speech X X X V (1960), 8 3 - 1 0 0 . Chomsky, Noam, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 1965). — , Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1964). — , "Some Methodological Remarks on Generative Grammar", Word, XVII, No. 2 (August 1961), 219 - 2 3 9 . — , Syntactic Structures (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1957). — , "A Transformational Approach to Syntax", Proceedings of the Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English, ed. Archibald Hill (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1962), pp. 124-186. Chou, Kuo Ping, "The Uses of the Function Word at in Present-day Standard English" (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1951). Curme, George Oliver, College English Grammar (Richmond, Virginia, Johnson Publishing Company, 1925). —, Parts of Speech and Accidence (Boston, D. C. Heath and Company, 1935). —, Syntax (Boston, D. C. Heath and Company, 1931). Eitrem, H., "Stress in English Verb - A d v e r b Groups", Englische Studien X X X I I (1903). Fillmore, Charles J., "The Case for Case", Paper presented at the Texas Symposium on Language Universale (Austin, Texas, April 13 — 15, 1967). —, Indirect Object Constrtictions in English and the Ordering of Transformations (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1965). — , "The Position of Embedding Transformations in a Grammar", Word X I X , No. 2 (1963), 208-231. —, "A Proposal Concerning English Prepositions", Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 19 (1966), 1 9 - 3 3 . —, "Toward a Modern Theory of Case", Project on Linguistic Analysis, No. 13 (1966), 1-24. Francis, W. Nelson, The English Language, An Introduction, Background for Writing (New York, W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1965).

SELECTED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

— , The Structure of American English (New York, The Ronald Press Company, 1958). Fraser, James Bruce, "An Examination of Verb-Particle Constructions in English" (Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT, 1965). — , "On Particles in English" (Unpublished paper presented at the LSA Summer Meeting, Bloomington, Indiana, 1964). — , "Some Remarks on the Verb-Particle Construction in English", Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 19 (1966), 45—61. Fries, Charles C., American English Grammar (New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1940). —, The Structure of English, An Introduction to the Construction of English Sentences (New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1952). George, H. V., "If", English Language Teaching XX, No. 3 (1966), 232-239. Gleason, Henry Α., Jr., An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, revised edition (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961). —, Linguistics and English Grammar (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965). Gleitman, Lila R., "Coordinating Conjunctions in English", Language X X X I , No. 2 (1965), 260 -293. Grady, Michael, "The Medio-Passive Voice in Modern English", Word X X I , No. 2 (1965), 270-272. Hamp, Eric P. (Moderator), Raimondo Dallaire, William Gage, Paul Garvin, and Paul Postal (Panelists). "The Transformation Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages", Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, XV (Washington, D. C., Georgetown University Press, 1963), pp. 3 - 5 0 . Harris, Zellig S., "Co-occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure", Language X X X I I (1957), 2 8 3 - 3 4 0 . Hill, Archibald Α., Introduction to Linguistic Structures, from Sound to Sentence in English (New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1958). Hockett, Charles F., A Course in Modern Linguistics (New York, The MacMillan Company, 1958). House, Homer C., and Susan Emolyn Harman, Descriptive English Grammar, Second Edition (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950). Hungerford, Harlan M., "The Verb Head Construction and its Modificational Patterns in Present-Day English, with Special Reference to the Marked Infinitive and Single Word Adverbs" (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1949). Jacobson, Swen, "Adverbial Positions in English" (Unpublished PhD dissertation, Uppsala University, 1964). Jespersen, Otto, Essentials of English Grammar (New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1933). Joos, Martin, The English Verb, Form and Meanings (Milwaukee, University of Wisconsin Press, 1964). Katz, Jerrold J., and Jerry A. Fodor, "The Structure of a Semantic Theory", Language X X X I X (1963), 170-210. Katz, Jerrold J., and Paul M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Description (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1964). Kennedy, Arthur G., "The Modern English Verb-Adverb Combination", Stanford University Scries inLanguage and Literature I (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1920). Kenyon, J . S., "On the Position of Only", College English X I I I (1951-52), 116 — 117. Kirchner, Gustav. Gradadverbien im heutigen Englisch (Halle [Saale], Germany, Max Niemeyer, 1955). Klima, Edward S., "Negation in English", The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, eds. Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J . Katz (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964). Kreidler, Charles W., "English Prepositions", English Language Teaching, XX, No. 2 (1966) 119-122.

190

SELECTED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kruisinga, Etsko, English Accidence and Syntax, Volume I I of A Handbook of PresentDay English, Second Edition (Over Den Dom t o Utrecht, K e m i n k and Zoon, 1916). — , and P . A. Erades, Accidence, Volume I, P a r t I of An English Grammar and Syntax, Eighth Edition (Groningen, P . Noordhoff, 1953). —, and —, Accidence and Syntax, Volume I, P a r t I I of An English Grammar, Eighth Edition (Groningen, P . Noordhoff, I960). Kuroda, S.—Y., "On English Manner Adverbials" (La Jolla, California, 1967), (Mimeographed). Lakoff, George, " I n s t r u m e n t a l Adverbs and the Concept of Deep Structure", Foundations of Language, IV, No. 1 (February 1968), 4 — 29. —, " O n t h e N a t u r e of Syntactic Irregularity", Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation (Report NSP-16, 1965). Law, Howard W., "The Use of Function Set in English Adverbial Classification", Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 20 (1967), 93 — 102. Lees, R o b e r t B., " T h e Grammar of English Nominalizations", International Journal of American Linguistics, X X V I (I960). —, "Grammatical Analysis of the English Comparative Construction", Word X V I I , No. 2 (1961), 1 7 1 - 1 8 5 . —, " T h e Grammatical Basis of Some Semantic Notions", Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics X I I I (Washington, D. C., Georgetown University Press, 1962), 5-20. —, " A Multiple Ambiguous Adjectival Construction in English", Language X X X V I , 207 — 221. —, " T h e Promise of Transformational G r a m m a r " , English Journal, L I I , No. 2 (May, 1963), 3 2 7 - 3 3 0 . —, "Some Neglected Aspects of Parsing", Language Learning, I I , Nos. 3 and 4 (1961), 171-181. —, "Transformation Grammars and the Fries Framework", Readings in Applied English Linguistics, ed. Harold B. Allen (New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964), 137-146. —, "Two Views of Linguistic Research", Linguistics, An International Review X I (1965) 21-29. Lieberman, D., ed., Specification and Utilization of a Transformational Grammar (Bedford, Massachusetts, International Business Machines Corporation, 1966). Lloyd, Donald J., and H a r r y R . Warfel, American English in its Cultural Setting (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1957). Long, Ralph B., The Sentence and Its Parts : A Grammar of Contemporary English (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1961). McDavid, Virginia, " T o as a Preposition of Location in Linguistic Atlas Materials", Publication of the American Dialect Society, X X X X (1963), 12—19. Marchand, Hans, "Compounds and Pseudo-Compound Verbs in Present-day English", American Speech X X X I I (1957), 83 — 94. Milhailovic, Lhiljana, "The Agent in t h e Passive Construction", English Language Teaching, X X , No. 2 (1966), 1 2 3 - 1 2 6 . Nicholson, Margaret, A Dictionary of American English Usage (New York, Oxford University Press, 1957). Nilsen, Don L. F., "English Adverbials and t h e 'Doctrine of Correctness", The English Record, X V I I I , No. 3 (February 1968), 3 6 - 4 3 . —, "English Infinitives", The Canadian Journal of Linguistics, X I I I , No. 2 (1968), 83-93. —, " A Historical Survey of Grammars in America", Chapter 6 in Language Today, ed. Mario Pei (New York, F u n k & Wagnalls, 1967), 1 2 8 - 1 4 9 . —, "Review of English Syntax by P a u l R o b e r t s " , Linguistics, An International Review, XLV (1968), 115—118. — , "Review of Indirect Object Gontructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations by Charles J . Fillmore", Linguistics, An International Review, XLV (1968) 79—81.

SELECTED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

—, "Review of Transformational Grammar and the Teacher of English b y Owen Thomas", Lingusitics, An International Review, X X X I V (August, 1967), 105 —108. — , "Transformation and Development of Style", The English Record X V I I , No. 2 (December, 1966), 38 — 43. Nist, J o h n , " A Critique of Generative G r a m m a r " , Idngusitics, An International Review, X I X (1965), 1 0 2 - 1 1 0 . Palmer, Harold E., A Grammar of Spoken English on a Strictly Phonetic Basis (Cambridge, W . Heffer and Sons, 1927). Pilch, Herbert, "Comparative Constructions in English", Language, X X X X I , No. 1 (1965), 37 — 58. Postal, P a u l M., "Constituent Structure: A Study of Contemporary Models of Syntactic Description", International Journal of American Linguistics, X X X (January, 1964). — , "Limitations of Phrase Structure G r a m m a r s " , The Structure of Language, Readings in the Philosophy of Language, eds. J e r r y A. Fodor and Jerrold J . K a t z (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), 137 — 151. —, "Underlying and Superficial Linguistic Structure", Harvard Educational Review X X X I V , No. 2 (Spring, 1964), 2 4 6 - 2 6 6 . Poutsma, H., A Grammar of Late Modem English, Part I: The Sentence (Groningen, P . Noordhoff, 1904). Roberts, Paul, English Syntax, Alternate Edition (New York, Harcourt, Brace a n d World, Inc., 1964). Rogovin, Syrell, Modem English Sentence Structure (New York, R a n d o m House/Singer, 1964). Rosenbaum, Peter Steven, " T h e G r a m m a r of English Predicate Complement Constructions" (Unpublished P h D dissertation, MIT, 1965). Schachter, Paul, "Some Problems in t h e Transformational Analysis of English V e r b s " (Unpublished mimeographed notes, University of California, 1961). Sledd, James, "Syntactic Strictures", The English Leaflet, L X I (Mid-winter, 1961), 14 — 23 and 54. Smith, Carlota S., "A Class of Complex Modifiers in English", Language X X X X , No. 1 (1964), 3 7 - 5 2 . Smith, H e n r y Lee, Jr., "Syntactic Analysis and a General Theory of Levels", Third Texas Conference of Linguistic Analysis in English, ed. Archibald Hill (Austin, The University of Texas, 1962). Stageberg, N o r m a n C., An Introductory English Grammar (New York, H o l t Rinehart, and Winston, 1965). Staubach, Charles N., Two Word Verbs, A Study in Idiomatic English (Bogota, Publicación del Centro Colombo-Americano, 1951). Streatfeild, H . D., "Notes on t h e Position of t h e Adverb", English Language Teaching, I I I (1948), 4 0 - 4 7 . Sweet, Henry, A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical, Part II, Syntax (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1903). Taha, Abdul Karim, "The Structure of Two-Word Verbs in English", Language Learning X (1960), 1 1 5 - 1 2 2 . Thomas, Owen, Transformational Grammar and the Teacher of English (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965). Tourbier, Richard, " D a s Adverb als attributives Adjektiv im Neuenglischen" (Unpublished P h D dissertation, Friedrich-Wilhelms University, 1928). Träger, E . C., "Superfix and Sememe: English Verbal Compounds", General Linguistics I I (1956), 1 — 14. Trager, George L., and H e n r y Lee Smith, J r . , An Outline of English Structure (Washington, D. C., American Council of Learned Societies, 1957). Viertel, J o h n , "Generative Grammars", College Composition and Communication X V (1964), 6 5 - 8 1 . Western, August Α., "Some Remarks on t h e Use of English Adverbs", Englische Studien, X X X V I (1906), 7 6 - 9 9 .

192

SELECTED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Winter, Werner, "Transforms W i t h o u t Kernels", Language X X X X I , No. 3, P a r t 1 ( J u l y - S e p t . 1965), 4 8 4 - 4 8 9 . Zandvoort, Reinard W . A Handbook of English Grammar (London, Longmans, Green and Company, 1957). Zidonis, F r a n k J., "Generative Grammar: A R e p o r t on Research", English Journal, Y L I V (May, 1965), 4 0 5 - 4 0 9 . Zimmer, Karl E., "Affixal Negation in English and Other Languages: An Investigation of Restricted Productivity", Word X X , No. 2 (1964), 9 — 93.

I N D E X OF NAMES

Allen, Robert L„ 10 Anthony, Edward M., 31, 171 Bach, Emmon W., 59-60 Bever, Thomas, 7 Borst, Eugene, 10-11 Bradley, C. B., 13 Chomsky, A. Noam, 7, 10, 14-15, 21, 34, 37, 39, 40-44, 60, 74-75, 83, 86-87, 176, 184 Chou, Kuo Ping, 30-31 Coote, Charles, 99 Curme, George Oliver, 20-23

Hocket, Charles F., 34-35 House, Homer C., 106 Householder, Fred W., 7 Hungerford, Harlan M., 20, 30, 119 Jacobson, Swen, 37-38 Jespersen, Otto, 25-26 Joos, Martin, 39

Eitrem, H„ 13, 38 Erades, P. Α., 16, 18-19, 116-117

Katz, Jerrold J., 46, 66 Keiler, Alan R., 7 Kennedy, Arthur G., 20-21 King, Harold V., 7 Kirchner, Gustav, 12-13 Klima, Edward S„ 45-47 113, 158, 171 Koutsoudas, Andreas, 7 Kreidler, Charles W., 38, 44 Kruisinga, Etsko, 16-19, 116-117, 121 Kuroda, S. Y., 65-66

Fillmore, Charles J., 7, 53-54, 64, 69-71, 119, 139 Fodale, Peter, 7 Fodor, Jerry Α., 46 Francis, W. Nelson, 32-34 Fraser, James Bruce, 7, 45, 55-59, 64, 71-72, 81-83, 109-111, 114^115, 137, 139, 161 Fries, Charles C., 9, 15, 26-28, 51, 81-83, 99, 156

Lakoff, George P., 70, 72 Law, Howard W., 67-69 Lees, Robert B., 10, 24, 37, 39, 42-43, 47-52, 87, 99, 106, 108-109, 171, 185 Lieberman, D., 45 Lloyd, Donald J., 31-32 Lochak, Dorita, 45 Long, Ralph B., 20, 23-24 Lowth, Robert, 99 Lyons, John, 66-67

George, H. V., 14, 16, 121 Gleason, Henry Α., 28-29, 35-36 Gleitman, Lila R., 60-61 Grady, Michael, 61-62

McDavid, Virginia G., 39 Marchand, Hans, 31 Mihailovic, Ljiljana, 62—63 Murray, Lindley, 99

Halladay, Μ. A. K., 7 Harman, Gilbert H., 34 Harmon, Susan Emolyn, 106 Harris, Zellig S., 22, 37, 39 Hill, Archibald Α., 10, 36, 38, 49

Nilsen, Alleen P., 7 Nilsen, Don L. F., 11, 41, 63-65, 119

Downer, James W., 7

Palmer, Harold E., 14-16 Pei, Mario, 10

194

I N D E X OF NAMES

Pilch, Herbert, 54-55, 67, 99, 100-104, 185 Postal, Paul M„ 7, 66, 70, 171 Poutsma, Η. Α., 16-17 Roberts, Paul, 10, 86-87, 138, 153-154 Rogo vin, Syrell, 7 Rosenbaum, Peter S., 7, 45 Schachter, Paul, 10 Schramm, Gene M., 7 Smith, Cariota S., 52-55, 99, 185 Smith, Henry Lee Jr., 36, 38-39, 99 Stageberg, Norman C., 62 Staubach, Charles N., 29-30 Stockwell, Robert P., 7 Streatfeild, H. D., 30 Sweet, Henry, 14-15

Taha, Abdul Karim, 31, 38 Thomas, Owen, 64 Tourbier, Richard, 10-11 Trager, Edith Crowell 38 Trager, George L. 38-39 Warfel, Harry, 31-32 Western, August, 13-14, 87-90 Winter, Werner, 61

Yngve, Victor H., 34 Zandvoort, Reinard W., 16, 18-20 Zimmer, Karl E., 37

SUBJECT I N D E X

Ablative Adverbiais (See Place Adverbiale) Accompaniment Adverbiais (See Manner Adverbiais) Accusative Adverbiais (See Place Adverbiais) Action Transformation, 91,160-161,165170, 175, 177, 184 Addition Adverbiais, 152-154, 164, 180182, 184 Adjectivalization Transformation, 161, 16^-169, 178, 187 Affirmation Adverbiais (See also Negative Adverbiais and Sentence Adverbiais), 156-157, 180-183 Anthony, Edward M., 31, 171 Aspect in Adverbiais, 141, 144, 146-150, 154-155, 158, 181-182, 186 Attention Signals, 28 Bach, Emmon W., 59-60 Benefactive Adverbiais, 71 Bever, Thomas, 7 Borst, Eugene, 10-11 Bradley, C. B„ 13 Case Grammar, 69—73 Cause Adverbiais, 17-20, 22-23, 64-65, 89-90, 92, 104-105, 118, 131, 151, 156, 181-182, 185 Chomsky, A. Noam, 7, 10, 14-15, 21, 34, 37, 39, 40-44, 60, 74-75, 83, 86-87, 176, 184 Chou, Kuo Ping, 30-31 Comparison Adverbiais, 11-13, 17, 1920, 50-55, 75-81, 99-111, 117-118, 141-142, 185 Complements, 15,40-41,51,69,81-82,138 Concession Adverbiais, 17, 19-20, 22-23 Condition Adverbiais (See Cause Adverbiais)

Connectors, 28-29, 60-61, 121-122, 127129, 131 Co-occurrence Relations (See Distribution) Coote, Charles, 99 Curme, George Oliver, 20-23 Degree Adverbiais (See Extent Adverbiais) Deletion and ReductionTransformations, 58-59, 63-65, 6&-72, 74-81, 91, 93-94, 99-103, 105, 107-110, 114-116, 118131, 137, 153-154, 160-163, 169-171, 175, 185-187 Direction Adverbiais, 23, 34, 42, 56-59, 64, 137, 139, 180,186 Distribution as a means of classifying adverbiais, 11-15, 21-38, 67-70, 173174, 182-183, 186-187 Downer, James W., 7 Duration Adverbiais (See Time Adverbiais) Durative Aspect (See Aspect) Eitrem, H „ 13, 38 Epithets, 15 Erades, P. Α., 16, 18-19, 116-117 Exception Adverbiais, 22 Expletives, 28, 63, 66-67 Extent Adverbiais, 19, 22-23, 32, 99118, 156-157, 181-182, 184-185 Fillmore, Charles J., 7, 53-54, 64, 69-71, 119, 139 Fodale, Peter, 7 Fodor, Jerry Α., 46 Francis, W. Nelson, 32-34 Fraser, James Bruce, 7, 45, 55-59, 64, 71-72, 81-83, 109-111, 114-115, 137, 139, 161 Frequency Adverbiais, 42, 120, 141-142, 157, 181-182, 184

196

SUBJECT I N D E X

Fries, Charles C„ 9, 15, 26-28,51,8183, 99, 156 Function (See Grammatical Function) George, H. V., 14, 16, 121 Gerundive Transformation, 11, 119-120, 125, 132, 147, 160-162, 164^169, 177, 184 Gleason, Henry Α., 28-29, 35-36 Gleitman, Lila R., 60-61 Grady, Michael, 61-62 Grammatical Function as a means of classifying adverbials, 15, 22, 25, 2728, 33, 67-69 Halladay, Μ. A. K., 7 Harman, Gilbert H., 34 Harmon, Susan Emolyn, 106 Harris, Zellig S., 22, 37, 39 Hill, Archibald Α., 10, 36, 38, 49 Hocket, Charles F., 34-35 House, Homer C., 106 Householder, Fred W., 7 Hungerford, Harlan M., 20, 30, 119 Indirect-Object Inversion Transformation, 63, 139, 186 "Inherent" as an adverbial feature, 4849, 84, 184 Instantaneous Aspect (See Aspect) Instrumental Adverbials (See also Manner Adverbials), 23, 69, 71-72, 92, 181-182, 184 Intensive Adverbials, 11-13, 28-29, 32, 50, 110-111 Interrogative Adverbials, 28-29, 64 Inversion Transformations (See Movement) Jacobson, Swen, 37-38 Jespersen, Otto, 25-26 Joos, Martin, 39 Katz, Jerrold J., 46, 66 Keiler, Alan R., 7 Kennedy, Arthur G., 20-21 King, Harold V., 7 Kirchner, Gustav, 12-13 Klima, Edward S„ 45-47, 113, 158,171 Koutsoudas, Andreas, 7 Kreidler, Charles W., 38, 44 Kruisinga, Etsko, 16-19, 116-117, 121 Kuroda, S. Y., 65-66 Lakoff, George P., 70, 72 Law, Howard W., 67-69

Lees, Robert B„ 10, 24, 37, 39, 42-43, 47-52, 87, 99, 106, 108-109, 171, 185 Length of adverbials, 14r-15 Lieberman, D., 45 Limiters (See Intensifiera) Lloyd, Donald J., 31-32 Lochak, Dorita, 45 Locative Adverbials (See Place Adverbials) Long, Ralph B., 20, 23-24 Lowth, Robert, 99 Lyons, John, 66-67 McDavid, Virginia G., 39 Manner Adverbials (See also Passive Transformation), 13-15, 19-20, 22-24, 49-50, 59, 65-66, 69, 72, 74-98, 104r105, 107-109, 117, 142, 156, 180-182, 184-185 Marchand, Hans, 31 Meaning as a means of classifying adverbials, 15-19, 21, 23, 33, 57-58, 69-70, 110-111, 172-173, 187 Means Adverbials, 22, 34, 43-45, 47, 56-57 Medio-passive (See Passive) Middle Verbs (See Manner Adverbials) Milhailovic, Lijiljana, 62-63 Modality, 19 Modification as a means of classifying adverbials, 15, 27-28, 30-31, 33-34, 51-52 Motion Adverbials (See Place Adverbials) Movement of Adverbials, 63-66, 74r-81, 83-97, 123, 126, 129-130, 132, 138139, 142, 151, 153, 186 Murray, Lindley, 99 Negative Adverbials and the Negative Transformation, 14, 19, 28, 37, 40, 45-47, 50, 59-60, 64, 7^-81, 93, 106, 110, 113, 120, 122-130, 157-159, 180182, 184, 186 Nilsen, Alleen P., 7 Nilsen, Don L. F., 11, 41, 63-65, 119 Nominal Adverbials, 18, 26 Nominal Adjuncts (Adverbial), 11-12, 25, 88-90 Object Reduction Transformation, 160161 Palmer, Harold E., 14-16 Part-of-Speech Duplicity, 34-36 Particles, 15-16, 18, 20-21, 29-31, 3435, 38, 40, 44-45, 50, 55-58, 71-72, 87, 109-110, 160-178, 184, 187

SUBJECT I N D E X

Passive Transformation, 36, 40-41, 4345, 49-50, 53-54, 57, 61-64, 82-83, 86, 120, 154, 160-161, 164^170, 174^175, 177, 184, 186 Pei, Mario, 10 Pilch, Herbert, 54-55, 67, 99-104, 185 Place Adverbials, 17, 19, 22-23, 41-44, 47—48, 50, 56-57, 66-67, 70-71, 8486, 111, 115, 133-140, 156, 163, 180182, 184, 186 Positive Adverbials (See Comparative Adverbials) Possessive (See Place Adverbials and Manner Adverbials) Postal, Paul M., 7, 66, 70, 171 Poutsma, Η. Α., 16-17 Prefixes (See Word Structure) Preposition Deletion Transformation (See Deletion Transformations) Prepositions related to various types of adverbials, 69-81, 92, 113, 129, 132136, 142-145, 152, 176, 178 Pseudo-Passive (See Passive Transformation) Purpose Adverbials, 17, 20, 22-23, 56-57 Random Movement Adverbials (See Place Adverbials) Reason Adverbials (See Cause Adverbials) Reduction Transformations (See Deletion Transformations and Relative ProAdverbials) References Adverbials, 131-133, 156, 184-186 Relative Pro-Adverbials, 35-36, 47, 8586, 92-93, 95-96, 116-117, 131, 140 154-155, 185 Repetitive Aspect (See Aspect) Responses, 28 Restatement Adverbials, 152, 180-182, 184 Restriction, 19-20 Result Adverbials, 17, 19-20, 23 Roberts, Paul, 10, 86-87, 138, 153-154 Rogovin, Syrell, 7 Rosenbaum, Peter S., 7, 45 Schachter, Paul, 10 Schramm, Gene M., 7 Sentence Adverbials, 13-14, 19, 53, 69, 95-98, 117, 156-157, 180-185 Sentence Introducers (See Connectors, Interrogative Adverbials, and Relative Pro-Adverbials)

197

Separation Transformation, 40, 59, 63, 160-161, 166-167, 169-175 Sequence Adverbials, 151-152, 181-182 Smith, Cariota S., 52-55, 99, 185 Smith, Henry Lee Jr., 36, 38-39, 99 Stageberg, Norman C., 62 Staubach, Charles N., 29-30 Stockwell, Robert P., 7 Streatfeild, H. D„ 30 Stress in Verb-Adverb Constructions, 13, 38, 171 Structural Grammar, 26-39, 72-73 Substitution as a means of classifying adverbials (See Relative Pro-adverbials) Suffixes (See Word Structure) Superlative Adverbials (See Comparative Adverbials) Sweet, Henry, 14-15 Tagmemic Grammar, 67-69, 72-73, 99104 Taha, Abdul Karim, 31, 38 Thomas, Owen, 64 Time Adverbials, 17, 19-20, 22, 34, 4142, 47, 50, 56-57, 70-71, 84-86, 97, 121, 141-152, 156, 158-159, 163, 180182, 184, 186 Tourbier, Richard, 10-11 Traditional Grammar, 11-26, 72-73 Trager, Edith Crowell, 38 Trager, George L., 38-39 Transformational Grammar (See next entry) Transformation as a means of classifying adverbials, 39-67, 72-187 Transverse Adverbials (See Place Adverbials) Two-word Verbs (See Particles) Verb-Adverb Combinations (See Particles) Warfel, Harry, 31-32 Western, August, 13-14, 87-90 Winter, Werner, 61 Word Structure as a means of classifying adverbials, 15-16, 24, 26, 31-33, 4849, 58, 61, 67-69, 74^81, 83-84, 86-88, 93-94, 96, 98, 109-111, 114, 132-133, 139-142, 155, 183-186 Yngve, Victor H., 34 Zandvoort, Reinard W., 16, 18-20 Zimmer, Karl E., 37

JANUA^LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN YVIJK DEDICATA Edited by. G. H. van Schooneveld

SERIES PRACTICA

1. Μ ι ι π . τ » CONWELL and ALPHONSE J HILLAND: Louisiana French Grammar, I : Phonology, Morphology, Old. 55.— and Syntax. 1063. 207 pp., 2 maps. Cloth 3· I&BNB GARBELL: The Jewish Neo-Aramaio Dialects of Persian Azerbaijan: Linguistic Analysis and Folklori«tio Texts. 1865. 342 pp., map. Cloth. Gld. 98.— 4. MÖBIUS F . GOODMAN: A Comparative Study of Creole French Dialect. 1964.143 pp., map. Old. 34.— ä. ROLAND HARWEQ: Kompositum und Katalysationstext, vornehmlich im späten Sanskrit. 1964. 164 pp. Old. 38.— 6. GUSTAV HERDAN: The Structuralistic Approach to Chinese Grammar and Voeabulary: T w o Essays. 1964. 56 pp., 4 figs. Old. 26.— 7. ALPHONSE JUILLAND: Dictionnaire Inverse de la Langue Française. 1965.564 pp., 9 flgs. Cloth. Gld. 120.— 8. A . HOOD ROBERTS: A Statistical Linguistio Analysis of American English. 1965. 437 pp., 11 figs., 6 tables. Cloth. Old. 78.— 9. VALDIS LEJNIEKS: Morphoayntax ol the Homeric Greek Verb. 1964. 92 pp. Gld. 26.— 10. ROBUST fi. DIAMOND: The Diction of the Anglo-Saxon Metrical Psalms. 1963. 59 pp. Gld. 20.— 11. JOSEPH E. GRIMES: Uuichoi Syntax. 1964. 105 pp. Gld. 30.— 12. OLA OA N. BUSH: Phonetic Variation and Acoustio Distinctive Features: A Study of Four General American Fricatives. 1964. 161 pp., 64 flgs., 84 tables Gld. 44.— 13. WILLIAM E. CASTLE: The Effect of Selective Narrow-Band Filtering on the Perception of Certain Englieh Vowels. 1964. 209 pp., 53 flgs., 84 tables. Gld. 48.— 14. AHN SHANNON: A Descriptive Syntax of the Parker Manuscript ol the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from 734—891. 1964. 68 pp. Gld. 20.— 15. EI0H1 KOBAYASHI: The Verb Forms of the South English Legendary. 1964. 87 pp. Gld. 24.— 16. HOMER L. FIRESTONE: Description and Classification of Sirionó, a Tupi Guarani Language. 196S. 70 pp., 7 figs. Gld. 21.— 17. WOLF LESLAO. Ethiopian Argots. 1964. 65 pp. Gld. 21.— 18. VIDYA NIWAS MISRA: The Descriptive Technique of Panini. 1966. 175 pp., some tobies. Gld. 52.— 19. EUOENE A. NIDA: A Synopsis of English Syntax. Second, revised edition. 1966. 174 pp. Gld. 30.— 20. ROBERT T. OLIPHANT: The Harley Latin-Old English Glossary, edited from British Museum, MS Harley, 3376. 1966. 223 pp. Gld. 55.— 21. ERIOA REINER: A linguistic Analysis of Akkadian. 1966. 155 pp., graph. Gld. 42.— 22. M. J. UAHDMAN: Jaqaru: Outline of Phonological and Morphological Structure. 1966. 131 pp., 2 flgs., map, 20 tables Gld. 38.— 23. MARVIN K . MAYERS (ed.), Languages of Guatemala. 1966. 318 pp. Gld. 58.— 24. ROBERT LIVINGSTON ALLEN: The Verb System of President-Day American English. 1966. 303 pp., 7 tables, 24 flgs. Gld. 52.— 26. ANDREW MAOLEISH: The Middle English Subject-Verb Cluster. 1969. 276 pp. Gld. 76.— 27. EMMA GREOORES and JORGE A . SUAREZ: A Description of Colloquial Guarani. 1967. 248 pp. Gld. 64.— 29. HOWARD W . LAW: The Obligatory Constructions of Isthmus Nahuat Grammar. 1966. 73 pp., 21 tables. Gld. 24.— 30. MARVIN H . FOLSOM: The Syntax of Substantive and Nonttnite Satellites to the Finite Verb in German. 1966. 96 pp. Gld. 24.— 36. IRMENGARD RAUCH: The Old High German Diphthongization: A Description ol a Phonemic Change. 1967. 130 pp. Gld. 33.— 37. JOSEPH HAROLD FRIEND: Che Development of American Lexicography, 1798—1864. 1967. 129 pp., 4 faca. Gld. 86.— 33. WILLIAM J. SAMARIN: A Grammar ol Sango. 1967. 280 pp. Gld. 80.— 39. DEAN H. OBREOHT: Effects of the Second Formant on the Perception ol Velarization Consonants in Arabic. 1968. 104 pp., 57 figs. Gld. 32.— 40. YOLANDA LASTRA: Cochabamba Quechua Syntax. 1968. 104 pp. Gld. 32.— 42. R . S. P . BEEKES: The Development of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Greek. 1969. x x i v + 324 pp. Gld. 90.— 43. HARWOOD H . HESS: The Syntactic Structure of Mezquital Otomi. 1968. 159 pp. Gld. 45.— 44. PAUL W . PILLSBURY: Descriptive Analysis of Discourse in Late West Saxon Texts. 1967. 91 pp. Gld. 24.— 15. MADELINE ELIZABETH EHBMAN: The Meaning of the Modals in Present-Day Amerioan English. 1966. 106 pp. Gld. 24.— 46. VIKTOR K.RUPA: Morpheme and Word in Maori. 1966. 83 pp., 26 tables, 1 fig. Gld. 24.— 47. JOHN O. FISCHER: Linguistics in Remedial English. 1966. 71 pp., 4 tables. Gld. 18.— 48. M. A. K . HALLIDAY: Introduction and Grammar in British English. 1967. U1 pp., 2 tolding tables. Old. 1 8 . 49. SATO YOTSUKURA: The Articles in English: A Structural Analysis of Usage. 1970. 113 pp. Gld. 24.— 50. MARX RITCHIE KEY: Comparative Taoanan Phonology: with Cavinena Phonology and Notes on PanoTaoanan Relationship. 1968. 107 pp. Gld. 32.—

52. E m a ÍIARQABEÍ ÜBEND: A Caginemio Analysis ot Mexican Spanish Clauses. 1908. 128. pp. Old. 33.— 53. HAROLD ti. KEY. Morphology of Cayuvava. 1907. 73 pp. Old. 22.— 55. L. ROMEO: The Economy oí Uiptitriuaglzatioa la Karly Romance. 19tS8. 127 pp. Old. 30.— 57. ALAM CAMPBELL WABBS: A Comparative Study ol Y aman Consonantism. 1908. 100 up. Old. 30.— 58. J BAN PEANINSKAS: Crade Name Creation: Processes and Patterns. 1908. 115 PP Old. 30.— 59. Q B o a e a UIAOUMAKIS Jit.; Che Akkadian of Alala». 1Ϊ70. 119 pp. Old. 30.— 60. JOAN RUBIN. National Bilinguaiism in Paraguay. 1908. 135 pp. Old. 40.— 131. SALMAN H. AL-ANI: Arabio Phonology: An Aooustioal and Physiological Investigation. 1970. 104 pp. 18 tigs. 1« examples, 13 iliustr., 3 diagrams. Old. 30.—