Chapter published in:
Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic models of language structure and language processing
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Gunther Kaltenböck
[Human Cognitive Processing 70] 2020
► pp. 191–231

The semantics, syntax and prosody of adverbs in English

An FDG perspective

| University of Vienna
In the extensive literature on parenthetical (non-propositional, disjunctive) adverbs, it is often assumed that, on the basis of their semantic, syntactic and prosodic properties, a binary distinction can be made between integrated (non-parenthetical) and non-integrated (parenthetical) adverbs. This paper aims to demonstrate that such a dualistic view is oversimplified, since semantic, syntactic and prosodic (non-)integration need not coincide. On the basis of a detailed analysis of the adverbs frankly (as an illocutionary and manner adverb) and cleverly, stupidly etc. (as subject-oriented and manner adverbs), it is argued that the distinctive features of Functional Discourse Grammar make it possible to capture both the differences and the interaction between these three dimensions of (non-)integration in an insightful and consistent manner.
Keywords: parentheticals, truth-conditionality, prosodic integration, English adverbs, levels of analysis, Functional Discourse Grammar
Published online: 12 November 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.06kei
References

References

Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A.
2004 Beyond Morphology. Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L., & Stavrou, M.
2007 Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allerton, D., & Cruttenden, A.
1974 English sentence adverbials: Their syntax and their intonation in British English. Lingua, 34, 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alturo, N., Keizer, E., & Payrato, L.
2014 Introduction. In N. Alturo, E. Keizer, & L. Payrato (Eds.), The Interaction between Context and Grammar in Functional Discourse Grammar (185–201). Pragmatics 24(2) (special issue).Google Scholar
Asher, N.
2000 Truth and discourse semantics for parentheticals. Journal of Semantics, 17, 31–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K.
1999 The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 327–466. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M.
1979 Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. E., & Pierrehumbert, J. B.
1986 Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bellert, I.
1977 On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2), 337–50.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
1967 Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua, 18, 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989 Intonation and its Uses. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., & Godard D.
2008 Lexical semantics and pragmatics of evaluative adverbs. In L. McNally, & C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and Adverbs. Syntax, Semantics, Discourse (274–304). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W.
1986 Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe, & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology (216–272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cinque, G.
1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J.
1971 Some remarks on Grice’s views about the logical particles of natural language. In Y. Bar-Hillel (Ed.), Pragmatics of Natural Languages (50–68). Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, J. H.
2007 Context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa: Revista de Lingüística 51(2), 11–33.Google Scholar
2014 The Contextual Component within a dynamic implementation of the FDG model: Structure and interaction. In N. Alturo, E. Keizer, & L. Payrato (Eds.), The Interaction between Context and Grammar in Functional Discourse Grammar (229–248). Pragmatics 24(2) (special issue). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 On the Conceptual Component of Functional Discourse Grammar. Web Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar, 89.Google Scholar
Cornish, F.
2009 Text and discourse as context: Discourse anaphora and the FDG Contextual Component. In E. Keizer, & G. Wanders (Eds.), The London papers I (97–115). Web Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar, 82 (special issue).Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A.
1997 Intonation (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D.
1969 Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H., Davidse, K., & Vandelanotte, L.
2010 Introduction. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (1–26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, N.
2009 The relation between syntactic and prosodic parenthesis. In N. Dehé, & Y. Kavalova (Eds.), Parentheticals (261–284). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2014 Parentheticals in Spoken English: The Syntax-Prosody Relation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C.
1986 On the notion “Functional Explanation”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 1, 11–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C., Hengeveld, K., Vester, E., & Vet, C.
1990 The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of adverbial satellites. In J. Nuyts, A. M. Bolkestein, & C. Vet (Eds.), Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory: A Functional View (25–70). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, T.
2002 The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Espinal, T.
1991 The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67(4), 726–762. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B.
1996 Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P.
1975 Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts: Syntax and Semantics 3 (41–58). New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C.
2004 The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L.
2007 [1991] Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanage approach. In B. Shaer, P. Cook, W. Frey, & C. Maienborn (Eds.), Dislocated Elements in Discourse (331–347). New York & London: Routledge. Originally published in S. Chiba (Ed.), Aspects of Modern English Linguistics (232–254). Tokyo: Kaitakushi.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
2014 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haumann, D.
2007 Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H.
2013 An outline of Discourse Grammar. In S. Bischoff, & C. Jeny (Eds.), Reflections on Functionalism in Linguistics (155–206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K.
1989 Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics, 25, 127–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 Adverbs in Functional Grammar. In G. Wotjak (Ed.), Toward a Functional Lexicology (126–136). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2017 A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization. In K. Hengeveld, H. Narrog, & H. Olbertz (Eds.), The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality: A Functional Perspective (13–37). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, L.
2008 Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J. L.
2014 Grammar and context in Functional Discourse Grammar. In N. Alturo, E. Keizer, & L. Payrato (Eds.), The Interaction between Context and Grammar in Functional Discourse Grammar (203–227). Pragmatics, 24(2) (special issue).Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., Payne, J., & Peterson, P.
2002 Coordination and supplementation. In R. Huddleston, & G. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (1273–1362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou-Trouki, E.
1993 Sentential adverbs and relevance. Lingua 90(1/2), 69–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E.
2001 Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S.
1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G.
2008 Prosody and function of English comment clauses. Folia Linguistica 42(1), 83–134.Google Scholar
2009 English comment clauses: Position, prosody and scope. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 34(1), 49–75.Google Scholar
2011 Explaining divergent evidence: The case of clause-initial I think . In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Converging Evidence: Methodology and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research (81–112). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, E.
2007 The grammatical-lexical dichotomy in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa – Revista de Lingüística 51(2), 35–56.Google Scholar
2018a Interpersonal adverbs in FDG: the case of frankly . In E. Keizer, & H. Olbertz (Eds.), Recent Developments in Functional Discourse Grammar. Studies in Language Companion Series 205 (48–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018b Modal modifiers in FDG: putting the theory to the test. Open Linguistics, 4, 356–390. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 The problem of non-truth-conditional, lower-level modifiers: a Functional Discourse Grammar solution. English Language and Linguistics. Online publication. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroon, C.
1995 Discourse Particles in Latin (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 4). Amsterdam: Gieben. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. R.
2008 Intonational Phonology (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
1977 Semantics, vol 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1982 Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In R. J. Jarvella, & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics (101–124). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H.
2014 The Positions of Adjectives in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mittwoch, A., Huddleston, R., & Collins, P.
2002 The clause: Adjuncts. In R. Huddleston, & G. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (663–784). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, M., & Vogel, I.
1986 Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht and Riverton, NJ: Foris.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R.
1986 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A.
2006 Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua, 116, 1688–1702. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Potts, C.
2005 The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K., & Huddleston, R.
2002 Adjectives and adverbs. In R. Huddleston, & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (525–595). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
1972 A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rouchota, V.
1998 Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. In A. Juncker, & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers. Descriptions and Theory (97–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E.
2011 The syntax-phonology interface. In J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle, & A. Yu (Eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (2nd edition) (435–484). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Turk A. E.
1996 A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25(2), 193–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. F.
1973 Austin and Locutionary meaning. In I. Berlin et al., Essays on J.L. Austin (46–68). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
1989 On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 57, 33–65.Google Scholar
2010 (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (29–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Urmson, J. O.
1963 Parenthetical verbs. In C. E. Catón (Ed.), Philosophy and Ordinary Language (220–249). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Vries, M. de
2007 Invisible constituents? Parentheses as B-merged adverbial phrases. In N. Dehé, & Y. Kavalova (Eds.), Parentheticals (203–234). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, A.
2000 Intonation in Text and Discourse. Beginnings, Middles and Ends. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2001 Spoken parentheticals. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), A Wealth of English (Studies in honour of Göran Kjellmer) (177–193). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.
1975 Presuppositions and Non-truth-conditional Semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Corpora

Davies, M.
2008 COCA: The Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2015). http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca
2016 NOW Corpus (News on the Web) (2010–). https://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/now/
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Giomi, Riccardo
2021. The Place of Interpersonal Lexemes in Linguistic Theory, with Special Reference to Functional Discourse Grammar. Corpus Pragmatics Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.