It is well known that in linguistics adverb is an elusive label. It refers to a wide range of items and is used in a variety of senses. In language descriptions, adverbs are often differently described and as a consequence, it is difficult to find cross-linguistically comparable date on any given type of adverb. The aim of this article is to examine adverbs from a typological perspective. An undertaking of this kind requires strict delimitations, and this study is limited to adverbs that denote properties and modify within predicating expressions, roughly equivalent to manner adverbs.
Key words : coreferential, prototypical, markedness, universal- typological, non-prototypical, implicational, copula, nonrestrictive modification, adjectival, delimitations, equivalent, semantic division, assert.
В лингвистике хорошо известно, что наречие — это неуловимый ярлык. Он относится к широкому кругу предметов и используется в самых разных смыслах. В языковых описаниях наречия часто описываются по-разному, и, как следствие, трудно найти кросс-лингвистически сопоставимую дату для любого данного типа наречия. Цель этой статьи — изучить наречия с типологической точки зрения. Предприятие такого рода требует строгих разграничений, и это исследование ограничивается наречиями, которые обозначают свойства и модифицируются в пределах предсказывающих выражений, что примерно соответствует манере наречий.
Ключевые слова : ко-референциальный, прототипический, маркированность, универсально-типологический, непрототипический, импликационный, связка, неограничивающая модификация, прилагательное, отграничения, эгуивативность, семантическое деление, утверждение.
Manner is a semantic class label among many others used to classify words on various levels. More general classes such as objects, actions, and properties have traditionally been used as a semantic basis for the part of speech categories noun, verb, and adjective. Such a semantic division can easily be proven inadequate for part of speech classifications, since the classes are not restricted to one part of speech each (e.g. action words can be nouns, as in the case of the English destruction). According to Croft although the three semantic classes do not suffice for discerning part of speech categories, they are still needed to do so. Another dimension must nonetheless be added, namely the functions that the semantic classes are used in. Croft argues that every language has expressions for three major pragmatic or propositional act functions, a term originally introduced by Searle (also called communicative or discourse functions).
These three functions are: reference, predication and modification. The act of reference identifies a referent and establishes a cognitive file for that referent, thereby allowing for future referring expressions coreferential with the first referring expression. The act of predication describes something to the referent. The act of modification (of referents) functions to enrich a referent's identity by an additional feature of the referent, denoted by the modifier. The three major semantic classes can be used in any of the three major propositional act functions. In certain combinations, prototypical parts of speech can be identified.
In English, the markedness pattern can be exemplified with the property word red, which is unmarked when used in its prototypical function as a modifier in, e.g., the red rose. In a non-prototypical function, such as reference, the same property requires overt structural coding in the form of a derivational morpheme, e.g. the red-ness of the rose There are also instances of zero structural coding in English object words used for modification, such as kitchen table or apple basket, which show that the object words kitchen and apple are encoded by the same amount of structural coding when used in their prototypical function of reference and the non-prototypical function of modification.
This follows the implicational universal of markedness, since the marked member (the object word kitchen or apple used as a modifier) is encoded by the same number of morphemes as the unmarked member (the property word red used as a modifier). When red is used in predication, English requires the copula be as in, e.g., The rose is red: here the copula is the structural coding, and constitutes the markedness. The unmarkedness patterns importantly highlight prototypical nouns, verbs, and adjectives, and not absolute categories. This means that while language-particular category boundaries differ, these markedness patterns hold cross-linguistically.
The three semantic classes matching the three propositional act functions result in the traditional three major parts of speech labels, as prototypical categories. For property modification, one might nevertheless raise the question of why this points so uniformly towards prototypical adjectives. In the quote above, Croft specifies modification as modification of referents. On the other hand, Croft describes modification as 'a secondary propositional act which can aid to establish reference (restrictive modification) or assert a secondary predication.
But there is, apparently, another type of modification, called nonrestrictive modification, consisting of "asserting a secondary predication”. Moreover, modification as a whole is a secondary propositional act function. Although it is not quite clear what implications this characteristic of being secondary has modification is necessarily secondary to reference and predication. Based on this assumption alone, it seems that there must be two types of modification. Croft also briefly comments that the conceptual space for parts of speech can be elaborated: it «only represents modification of a referent; modification of a predicate (adverbial modification) would also have to be represented”. Modification, as such, does then not only pertain to referents, but also to predicates. In an entry on adverbs in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Haser & Kortmann elaborate on Croft's comment on modification as follows:
Prototypical adverbs, much like prototypical adjectives, could then be defined as items that provide «modification by a property”, the difference being that prototypical adjectives modify referents and prototypical adverbs modify predicates.
The fact that adverbs must modify predicates if adjectives modify referents is logical and follows immediately from Croft's approach. Haser & Kortmann nonetheless draw further conclusions, arguing that this reflects how closely related adjectives and adverbs are. They illustrate this relation with the example of how adverbs are commonly formed from adjectives, as in the case of the English -ly, and that many languages do not formally separate adjectives from adverbs. Not denying that there is a close connection between adjectives and adverbs, both belonging to the function of property modification, it seems questionable that such a connection should have to be unidirectional. Both Croft and Haser & Kortmann nonetheless seem to assume that although there are two types of property modification, modification of referents, which is manifested as prototypical adjectives, is in some sense primary. It is difficult to tell whether this focus on modification of referents follows from a tradition that treats nouns, verbs, and adjectives as the three major parts of speech, or from a lack of data on modifiers of predicates. Such a lack could be due either to the absence of function- specific encoding for modifiers of predicates cross-linguistically, or to lack of available data.
In conclusion, although the role of adverbs as property modifiers within predicating expressions compared to other prototypical parts of speech remains somewhat unclear, Croft's approach provides potential for a clear identification of prototypical adverbs of this type. If property modification is found both within referring and predicting expressions, and property modification is where we find unmarked prototypical modifiers, then there must either be both unmarked adjectives and adverbs.
References:
- Chomsky, Noam. 1986 Knowledge of Language. Its Nature Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
- Dowty, David. 1979 Thematic Proto -Roles and Argument Selection Language
- Eckardt, Regine. 1988 Manners, Events and Other Things.
- Ernst, Thomas. 1988 Manners and Events. Ms., Rutgers University.
- Wyner, Adam. 1998 Subject -oriented Adverbs are Thematically Dependent. In Susan Rothstein. Events in Grammar. Dordrecht Kluwer.
