Cover not available
Part of
Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic models of language structure and language processing
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Gunther Kaltenböck
[Human Cognitive Processing 70] 2020
► pp. 191–232

Chapter 6
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
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The relation between the semantic, syntactic, and prosodic features of “parenthetical” adverbs
  • 3.Criteria and application
    • 3.1Semantic (non-)integration
      • 3.1.1The assent-dissent test
      • 3.1.2The scope (“embedding”) test
    • 3.2Prosodic (non-)integration
    • 3.3Syntactic (non-)integration
      • 3.3.1Subset 1: Syntactic features following from semantic non-integration
      • 3.3.2Subset 2: Syntactic features unrelated to semantic non-integration
      • 3.3.3Subset 3: Syntactic features unrelated to semantic and prosodic non-integration
      • 3.3.4Summary
  • 4.FDG analysis
    • 4.1Introduction to FDG
      • 4.1.1Overall characterization
      • 4.1.2Four levels of analysis
        • 4.1.2.1The Interpersonal and Representational Levels
        • 4.1.2.2The Morphosyntactic and Phonological Levels
    • 4.2A (partial) classification of adverbs in FDG
      • 4.2.1The distinction between interpersonal and representational modifiers
      • 4.2.2Adverbs as separate Propositional Contents at the Representational Level
      • 4.2.3Adverbs as separate Discourse Acts at the Interpersonal Level
    • 4.3Summing up
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Corpora
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.06kei
References (78)
References
Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. 2004. Beyond Morphology. Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L., & Stavrou, M. 2007. Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allerton, D., & Cruttenden, A. 1974. English sentence adverbials: Their syntax and their intonation in British English. Lingua, 34, 1–29. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 327–466. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1986. On the notion “Functional Explanation”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 1, 11–52. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167–190. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haumann, D. 2007. Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, L. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou-Trouki, E. 1993. Sentential adverbs and relevance. Lingua 90(1/2), 69–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b. Modal modifiers in FDG: putting the theory to the test. Open Linguistics, 4, 356–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. The problem of non-truth-conditional, lower-level modifiers: a Functional Discourse Grammar solution. English Language and Linguistics. Online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroon, C. 1995. Discourse Particles in Latin (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 4). Amsterdam: Gieben. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. R. 2008. Intonational Phonology (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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). [URL]
2016. NOW Corpus (News on the Web) (2010–). [URL]
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Keizer, Evelien
2023. Chapter 10. Enation and agnation in multi-level models. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo
Giomi, Riccardo
2021. The Place of Interpersonal Lexemes in Linguistic Theory, with Special Reference to Functional Discourse Grammar. Corpus Pragmatics 5:2 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Giomi, Riccardo & Evelien Keizer
2020. Extra-clausal constituents in Functional Discourse Grammar: function and form. Revista da ABRALIN ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. 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.