Adger and Tsoulas- Circumstantial Adverbs and Aspect

8/14/2019 Adger and Tsoulas- Circumstantial Adverbs and Aspect

1/25

Circumstantial Adverbs and Aspect1

David Adger George TsoulasQueen Mary University of York

University of London

1 The syntax and semantics of manners and locatives

In this paper we focus on the syntactic licensing and structural position

of manner adverbials (specifically those in lyin English) and locatives. We

show that there is a correlation between the licensing of arguments and the

licensing of these elements. We argue that the observed correlations can becaptured by developing a theory of the licensing abilities of a series of

functional heads in the verb phrase.

It has been known since Harris (1968) that there is a correlation between

the ability of certain verbs to take a manner adverbial and their ability to

subcategorise for an affected object. Thus, verbs like resemble, have, cost

etc. are ill formed with manner adverbs:

(1) *John resembled Sue slowly.

(2) *John had flu worriedly.2

(3) *The slave cost 600 denarii wholeheartedly

These verbs, although they take an object which is apparently marked

with accusative case, do not allow of-insertion in their nominalisations3:

(4) a. *John's resembling of Sue

b. *John's having of flue

c. *The book's costing of 30

We can take this as showing that these verbs do not mark their objects

with true structural accusative, but rather with inherent accusative case (see

Torrego 1998 for evidence that accusative can be inherent).A fact which is linked to this is Chomsky's (1965) observation that

certain verbs which do not passivise, also cannot occur with manner

adverbials, a fact which he explained by allowing a passive-triggering

morpheme to be generated in the subcategorised manner position:

(5) a. *Sue was resembled by John

b. *Flu was had by Maria

c. *50 were cost byRhyme and Reason.


2/25


3/25

3

A striking correlation between locatives and telicity is noted by Borer

(1998b). She shows that, in Hebrew, certain inversion processes are

sensitive to the telicity of the predicate, so that inversion is impossible withatelic verbs, giving the contrast between the (a) and (b) examples.

(18) a. Parcu mehuma (telic)

Erupted riot

"A riot erupted"

b. *avad ganan (atelic)

Worked gardener

"A gardener worked"

Note that with the atelic predicate in (18b) inversion is impossible.

Interestingly, when a locative element is inserted, inversion becomes

possible:

(18) c. avad sam/kan/ecli ganan

Worked here/there/chez-me gardener

"A gardener worked here/there/at my house"

Again, what we seem to have here is a close link between the expression

of a locative and the aktionsart of the predicate, which may then have further

syntactic effects. Of course, all of these constructions involve other

interfering factors (sentence aspect, focus/presupposition structure) and it is

not our intention to provide an analysis of all correlations between locatives

and telicity. What we will try to do is outline a framework which is capable

of making the necessary links, and show in a couple of core cases how the

analytic potential of the system plays out.

In this paper, then, we seek to give a unified account of the way that

manner and locative adverbials interact with case and aspect specifications.

In doing so, we are led to a particular view of these low-VP adverbials which

essentially places them within the low functional structure of VP, and where

their licensing takes place through featural mechanisms similar to themechanisms which are thought to be involved in the licensing of true DP

arguments.

2. Some further data

Many accounts of manners and locatives place them low within the VP,

with locative adverbials hierarchically superior (Andrews 1982, Bowers

1993, Ernst 2001). This approach can make sense of the fact that manner

adverbials appear closer to the verb than locatives:


4/25

4

(19) We tortured the general slowly in the garden

(20) ?We tortured the general in the garden slowly

Example (20) is only well formed with a clear prosodic break between

the two adverbial phrases, suggesting that the manner adverbial has been

'moved' rightwards (possibly in the prosodic component of the grammar -

Zubizarretta 1998), or that, at least, it is not in its canonical position.

One traditional approach would be to assume that the manner adverbial

is generated lower down than the locative, and both are right adjoined to

some projection of the verb (21). This data then follows naturally.

(21) [ [ [ V ] Manner] Locative]

This type of approach also captures the fact that manner adverbials are

far more restricted in their syntactic distribution than, say, temporals:

(22) This bridge may (*badly) have (*badly) been (badly) designed

(badly) by Brunel (badly).

(23) *We slowly often tortured the general

(24) We often slowly tortured the general

Note that, in (22), the manner adverbial is restricted to positions very

close to the verbal predicate itself, or to rightward positions which again

may be assumed to arise because of prosodic factors. Similarly, (23) and (24)

show that, while a manner adverb may appear to the left of the verb, it may

only do so if it is adjacent to it.

It is also well known that preverbal manner adverbials have a different

interpretation in English from postverbal ones (Stalnaker & Thomason

1973):

(25) a. He has been slowly testing some bulbs

b. He has been testing some bulbs slowly

In (25b.), each particular test must be slow, whereas this is not the casein (25a.).

One approach to this might be to assume that the preverbal adverb is

actually adjoined to the lexical verb itself, rather than to some higher

projection, giving the following (rough) structures:

(26) been [slowly testing] some bulbs

(27) been [testing some bulbs] slowly


5/25

5

In (26), the adverb modifies the event denoted by the verb directly, with

the semantic consequence that the testing event is slow. In (27), the adverb

modifies the VP, including the object so that each event of bulb-testing isslow. We are not wedded to this analysis, but we do assume that there is

something syntactically special about pre-verbal manner adverbs, and we

concentrate in our discussion on post-verbal ones.

One further argument for the position of post-verbal manner adverbs can

be constructed on the basis of Costas 1996 discussion of adverb placement.

Costa argues that PP arguments which occur after manner adverbs are in

their base position, since they do not show any of the freezing effects one

would expect of PPs in extraposed positions:

(28) Which woman did he glance quickly at a picture of t?

(29) *Which woman did he glance yesterday at a picture of t?

compare the sentence with a locative:

(30) *Which woman did he glance in the Louvre at a picture of t?

This paradigm suggests that locatives are in a zone of the sentence after

which extraposed elements appear, whereas manners are not (or, at least, do

not have to be). Note, again, however, that this does not push us into an

analysis where locatives are generated higher than manners, since the

extraposition zone may actually be rather low down (see, for example,

Haider 1998, or Kayne 1994).

Two final points to note in this discussion of the relationship between

manners and locatives is, first, that that PP manner adverbials induce the

same effect as locatives and temporals (31), and, second, that these manner

phrases may not occur preverbally without comma intonation (32):

(31) *Which woman did he glance in a sultry way at a picture of t?

(32) *I have in a sultry way kissed him

It is possible, then, that -lymanner adverbs and the whole class of PP

adverbials are differentiated in their syntactic position. This discussionsuggests that the manner adverbs under consideration are syntactically

positioned close to the surface position of the verb, while locatives are more

distant.

There is evidence, though, that locatives at least are actually lower down

than the surface position of the object. Note that in (33), the quantifier in

object position can bind the pronoun in the locative, suggesting it c-

commands it (see also Pesetsky 1995, p161):

(33) Maire tortured every rabbitiin itsihutch


6/25

6

A theory which assumes that locatives are right adjoined will have to

deal with this data by assuming that the object raises to a position higher upthan VP (perhaps [Spec, AgrO]), and that the verb raises higher still.

This set of data forms the basic desiderata of a theory of the positions of

these adverbials. The conservative position is that manner and locative are

both adjoined low to VP, and that the object and subject raise to positions

outside VP:

(34)

TP

DP T

T FP

F AgrOP

DP i AgrO

Vk

AgrO VP

VP LOC

VP MAN

tk ti

However, this approach does not explain why we find the extraction

contrast discussed above, since both Locatives and manners are generated

adjoined to VP. In addition, this approach cannot tie the putative differentialpositions of manners and locatives down to their syntactic licensing, since

nothing is said here about licensing, and indeed the most recent proponent of

this kind of structure puts the fact that manners are closer to the surface

position of the verb than locatives down to purely semantic factors (see, e.g.

Ernst 2001).

3. Recent accounts


7/25

7

Less conservative positions have also been adopted recently. The

structure in (34) of course involves right adjunction, an option which UG

has been argued to lack (see, notably, Kayne 1994). Right adjunction isbarred under Kayne's assumptions because adjunction is barred, and because

rightward merge to a head is barred unless the merged element is a

complement. These constraints follow from a particular view of the way

that PF linearisation is read off syntactic structures.

Cinque (1999) develops some of Kayne's ideas within the context of a

theory of adverbs, and essentially argues that adverbials are to be found in

left specifier positions of various functional heads. He points out two ways

of dealing with manner and locative adverbials: either they are generated as

specifiers of light verb shells within the VP, or they are generated as

complements of these heads, with the VP in their specifier (an idea he

attributes to Nilsen 1998).Nilsen's proposal is similar to ideas first proposed within the Generative

Semantics tradition by Geis (1970), and it is an idea he extends to all

circumstantial adverbials. The core notion is that light v heads are involved

which mediate a predication relation between the VP, which has already been

constructed, and the adverbial. So for a sentence like (35) the VP "smoked

banana-skins" is in the specifier of a light verb whose complement is "in the

park" and whose semantic function is to locate the event denoted by the VP

at the appropriate spatial point:

(35) Johnny smoked banana-skins in the park

(36)

vP

VP v

v PP

smoked banana-skins

In the park

This is, in many ways, an attractive idea, and leads to a fairly clean

semantics for these adverbials. However, note that it still says nothing about

the relative hierarchical ordering of manners and locatives. In addition, there

is no evidence for the projection of these extra v heads: they have no

phonological content, and their semantics is either vacuous, or uniformly

predicational. If the latter, then it is impossible even to state the ordering of

manners and locatives, since to do so would require the v heads to have

different semantics from each other, or different syntactic properties.


8/25

8

A further problem here is the binding data noted above. Nilsens

approach would assign a sentence like (33) the structure indicated:

(37) Maire [tortured every rabbit] [in its hutch]

In such a structure, no c-command relation holds between the quantifier

phrase and the pronoun it binds.

Cinque's own proposal suffers from the same problem. He suggests that

this type of adjunct is generated in the specifier of a light verb shell above

VP:

(38)

vP

PP v

In the park v vP

AdvP v

v VP

quickly

smoked banana skins

Note that in order to achieve the correct word order, we need to posit

further functional structure. The idea is that VP will raise into the specifier

of a functional head (not shown above) immediately above the head that

licenses the manner adverb, and then the projection of this head will raise

into the specifier of a further head above the locative, giving rise to a type of

'leapfrogging' movement. Again, we reject this proposal on the grounds that

it requires more functional structure than is motivated by the phonology or

semantics of the constructions, and moreover it suffers from the sameempirical problem we saw with Nilsens account, since the object will not c-

command a bound pronoun in the locative.

4. An alternative

The three systems briefly discussed above, of course, were not primarily

concerned with dealing with the data we outlined in section 1. However, we

think that proper attention to this data actually allows us to motivate the


9/25

9

correct functional structure required to give an answer to questions of how

these adverbials are licensed.

Following much recent work, we adopt an articulated structure for the

verb phrase, consisting of the lexical VP, surmounted by a number of

functional heads which encode particular semantic relations. In particular, we

adopt the idea defended by Travis (1991, 2000) and others (Borer,

forthcoming, Ritter and Rosen 1998) that aktionsart (lexical aspect) is

marked syntactically by an aspectual functional head which takes the verb

itself as its sister. This head is itself the complement of the Agent

introducing head little v (Kratzer 1995, Hale and Keyser 1993, Chomsky

1995). This gives us the following structure:

(39)vP

v AspP

Asp VP

Johnson (1991), Lasnik (199), and others, argue, on the basis of diverse

phenomena such as gapping and the interaction between particles and

double object constructions, that the main verb in English raises out of the

verb phrase proper to some higher head. The precise semantic nature of this

head is not relevant for the discussion here, but we take it to encode sentence

aspect, as opposed to the lexical aspect mentioned above. For convenience

we will label the higher head Asp1 and the lower (the vp-internal one)

Asp2.

The full structure we adopt for the English verb phrase, then, is:


10/25

10

(40) Asp1P

Asp1 vP

DP v

V

v Asp2P

Asp2 VP

tv

V DP

tv

tv

The DP in [Spec, vP] is interpreted (at least for some varieties of v, see

Kratzer 1995) as the agent, and the verb raises through Asp2, and v to Asp1

in English.

Our analysis of the adverbial facts will be couched in terms of the

framework outlined in Chomsky (2000). In this framework, functional

heads are assumed to bear features which set up dependencies with

formatives that the head c-commands. These dependencies are formed when

the functional head concerned is specified with uninterpretable features.

These features are termed the probe. A probe essentially seeks matching

features within its c-command domain (these matching features are the goal).

The relationship between probe and goal is constrained by locality.

Essentially, the relevant kinds of structures are like those in (41):

(41) [ H{probe} [ ..... XP{goal} ... ]] (probe=goal)

The relation between the head H specified with the probe, and the

formative specified with the goal, we will call the H-associate relation,

extending Chomskys terminology. The formation of an H-associate

relationship results in the deletion of the uninterpretable features involved in

the relationship. Since it is the probe that is uninterpretable, the probe

deletes.

In addition to probes, heads may also be specified with EPP features.

These features are selectional (i.e. involve category information) and are also

uninterpretable. An EPP feature is satisfied when a category of the


11/25

11

appropriate featural specification is merged with the head bearing the

feature. The XP that is merged can be either the goal itself, or some other

phrase (for example, an expletive):

(42) [ XP H{probe, EPP} [ ..... XP{goal} ... ]] (probe=goal)

The deletion of EPP feature is, in general, parameterised, so that some

languages allow multiple subject constructions, as discussed in section 4.10.3

of Chomsky (1995). The system outlined there can be thought of as a set of

conditions on the deletion of the EPP feature: a language does not have EPP

(VSO languages); has EPP but merge into [Spec, HP] causes EPP to delete

(SVO without Multiple Subject Constructions (MSCs)); has EPP but allows

one element to merge without deleting EPP (SVO with MSCs); or allows

arbitrarily many merges without deleting EPP (polysynthetic languages). Wewill adopt Chomskys idea that the EPP feature must be satisfied, and that

when an H-associate relation is set up, the XP (usually determined by the

goal of Hs probes) will be forced to raise to merge with the projection of H,

satisfying EPP. In this situation, EPP deletes.

We will, however, extend this picture, adapting Chomskys idea that

deletion of EPP is an option that UG allows variation for. The core

extension is the assumption that, when EPP is satisfied by an element which

hasn't induced the H-associate relation, the EPP feature does not have to

delete immediately4. Within a phasebased model (Chomsky 2001), we

may suppose with Pesetsky and Torrego (2001) that deletion of features

takes place at the phase level. Thus, for what concerns us here, an EPP

feature that has not deleted immediately remains active until the current

phase is completed at which point the feature is deleted, perhaps as part of

the TRANSFER operation of Chomsky (2002).

In essence, then, a single EPP feature may trigger Merge of an arbitrary

number of non-Agreeing XPs. If no Agreeing XP is merged at all, the EPP

feature is deleted at phase-level. If an Agreeing XP is Merged, then EPP is

deleted immediately.

It follows that we allow an arbitrary number of non-agreeing XPs to

merge with H, in the general case:

(43) [ XP YP ... ZP H{probe, EPP} [ ..... XP{goal} ... ]]

(probe=goal)

In (43) EPP will only be forced to delete when XP is merged with the

projection of H, since only XP is determined by the goal of Hs probe.

This system gives rise to a potentially infinite number of adverbials in

inner specifier positions, constrained by only processing considerations, and


12/25

12

the particular specification of the EPP feature (i.e. what it is a selectional

feature for).

Before seeing how this picture pans out in detail, we should state howthe semantic interpretation of these structures is governed. Adapting

proposals by Borer (1998a, b) among others (McClure 1995, van Hout

1996), let us assume that a telic interpretation of Asp arises when Asp's

probe finds a matching goal. Put another way, only telic specifications of

Asp have an uninterpretable probe which will match features of the object.

The features that are relevant, in this case, are features governing the

quantization of the object (following Verkuyl 1993). We will call this feature

[Quant] and assume that it is interpretable on DP, but not on telic Asp. The

specification of telic asp is then Asp[uQuant, EPP], where the u prefix

signals that the feature is uninterpretble (following the notation of Pesetsky

and Torrego 2001). This allows us to capture the well-known fact thatquantized objects give rise to telic readings of certain predicates:

(44) We built that house (telic)

(45) We built houses (atelic)

Having outlined the basic system of assumptions we adopt, the

particular cases to be considered are as follows: when Asp's probe finds a

matching goal in the VP but no locative phrase has been constructed from the

numeration, the Asp-associate relation is established, a telic interpretation

results, and the object raises to [Spec, Asp] to satisfy the EPP feature of

Asp as in (46) (irrelevant details omitted):

(46)

vP

DP v

v Asp2P

DP Asp2

Asp2 VP

V DP


13/25

13

Since an Asp-associate relation has been established, the EPP feature of

Asp deletes and no further Merge into [Spec, AspP] is possible. However, ifa locative phrase is accessible at a point in the derivation before DP raises, it

may satisfy the EPP feature of Asp. By accessible at this point of the

derivation, we simply mean previously constructed in the derivation, or

accessible as a simple lexical item from the numeration. It may be the case

that these locatives have been adjoined to VP, and move to an inner [Spec,

AspP], but this is not necessary, and in fact might be ruled out, since

nothing will force them to Merge with VP. The minimal solution is that they

are simply present in the workspace of the derivation.

Note that the EPP feature of Asp must be of the correct selectional type

to allow a locative to Merge, and we will assume that locative PPs and

quantized DP objects both are specified with interpretable (and thereforeselectable) features which relate an event and an individual in terms of spatial

measure: a locative measures out the physical extent over which an event is

delimited, while a quantized DP measures out the physical extent of the

result of the event. Locatives, then, are specified as [Quant]. Of course, the

idea that certain predicates can select for particular semantic properties like

this, and that such selection results in particular prepositions, or particular

case forms, is a traditional one. The preposition within the locative

establishes a probe-goal relationship with the DP in terms of its case

requirements. Asps [uQuant] feature, on the other hand, cannot match with

[Quant] on DP because [Quant] on the locative P intervenes.

Our proposal leads to the possibility that a number of locatives may be

merged with Asp. However, once the object has been merged, then the EPP

feature deletes, and no further merge of locatives is possible, since merge of

locatives is only made possible by the presence of an EPP feature. This

gives the basic structure:

(47) [Object Locative Locative Asp t]

This predicts that the object will c-command the locative, as we noted in

section 2 with respect to example (33) repeated here as (48):

(48) Maire tortured every rabbit in its hutch.

Consider now a case where there is no object within the verb phrase, but

where a locative has been constructed. The locative will merge with Asp,

satisfying its EPP feature, but no telic interpretation will result, because no

probe-goal relation has been established. Asp, in this case, does not bear

[uQuant] and is therefore not (obligatorily) telic. This is precisely what is

behind the locative preposition drop phenomenon repeated below:


14/25

14

(49) a. They climbed up the mountain.

b. They climbed the mountain.

(49a) converges because the EPP feature of Asp is satisfied by the

locative. The locative preposition enters into a P-associate relation with the

f-features of the DP the mountain resulting in it being essentially Case-

licensed (more on which, see below). Asp itself cannot enter into an Asp-

associate with this DP, since this would give rise to a locality violation (the

preposition bearing [Quant] is closer). This, in turn, means that Asp cannot

be specified as telic since only telic asp has a quantization probe, giving rise

to the appropriate interpretation.

If there is no object, we have a violation of EPP:

(50) They climbed

(50) can only be construed as unspecified object drop, the unspecified

object satisfying EPP of Asp, but not giving rise to quantization effects;

hence (50) may be interpreted as atelic.

(49b), on the other hand, does involve an Asp-associate relation with the

object DP, EPP is satisfied and the derivation converges.

Let us now turn to the alternation in Hebrew, discussed by Borer. Recall

that a lexically telic verb allowed inversion, but that an atelic one did not,

unless it occurred with a locative clitic:

(51) a. Parcu mehuma (telic)

Erupted riot

"A riot erupted"

b. *avad ganan (atelic)

Worked gardener

"A gardener worked"

c. avad sam/kan/ecli ganan

Worked here/there/chez-me gardener

"A gardener worked here/there/at my house"

On our account, a verb likeparcu "erupt" lexically selects an Asp withactive probes (that is, it bears an uninterpretable quantization feature) while

a verb like 'avad "work" does not (this distinction is in addition to the

different Merge positions of the single argument in each case). In (51a), the

probe of Asp establishes the Asp-associate relation with the object (which

then raises to satisfy the EPP feature of Asp). The object bears a case

feature which needs to be checked. Following Chomsky (2001), we assume

that case checking (which we can implement as deletion of a uCase feature)

is parasitic on H-associate relationships established in terms of j-features

only (see the discussion of the case licensing properties of little v below).


15/25

15

We then have the following schematic derivation:

(52) Asp[uQuant, EPP] DP[f, Quant, uCase] =>(53) Asp[uQuant, EPP] DP[f, Quant, uCase] =>

(54) DP[f, Quant, uCase] Asp[uQuant, EPP] t

In (51), no Asp-associate relation is established because the subject is

Merged in the specifier of little v, and is therefore not c-commanded by Asp,

and the single argument ganan must instead be checked by T's f probes,

which also case license it (note, since this verb is agentive, the DP argument

is merged in [Spec, vP] and is therefore too high to be a goal for Asps

probes):

(55) T[uf, EPP] DP[f, Quant, uCase] =>

(56) T[uf, EPP] DP[f, Quant, uCase] =>

(57) DP[f, Quant, uCase] T[uf, EPP] t

If this relationship is established, ganan must raise to satisfy the EPP

features of T.

The next question is how the EPP features of T are satisfied in (51a)? In

this case some null element must fill the specifier of TP, and we follow Pinto

(199*), who convincingly argues on the basis of Italian, that verbs of this

aspectual class can always select a covert locative. For us, this locative is

merged to satisfy the EPP feature of telic Asp. From this position it raisesto the specifier of T. The appearance of inversion here, then, arises because

of a null locative in subject position, rather than the subject itself.

Turning to (51c), this example is parallel to (51a), except that, again

following Pintos work, the null locative is not available for atelic predicates.

However, it is of course possible to select an overt locative in the

numeration, and in this case this can satisfy the EPP feature of T, so that the

subject remains in situ, giving rise to the apparent inversion.

This system captures the core of the semantic and syntactic

dependencies between locatives, objects and aspectual specification,

although clearly there is more to be said. The system also automatically

derives the apparent iterability of locatives, as well as the fact that objects

must c-command locatives. In addition, the structures proposed involve only

heads that are interpretable at the interfaces, rather than appealing to

semantically empty functional structure.

If we assume that T behaves in a similar fashion to Asp, then the system

we have outlined leaves open the possibility that locatives may satisfy an

EPP feature of T, after establishment of a T-associate relation with the single

argument of an intransitive, as in the Hebrew example discussed above. In

such cases, as in the cases above, the locative and subject are in the same

minimal domain and therefore equidistant to the probes of T. Under this


16/25

16

scenario, T establishes an associate relation with both, but only one raises to

satisfy (and delete) the EPP feature of T. The familiar case of Locative

Inversion (Bresnan 1994) may exemplify exactly this situation:

(58) a. In the garden sat a gnome

b. A gnome sat in the garden

Note that the probe of T here would have to be person features only,

since agreement is not triggered by conjoined inverted locatives. Of course,

factors such as focus play an important role in Locative Inversion

constructions, as does the thematic structure of the predicate (something we

take as being at least partially reducible to aspectual considerations).

However, the suggestion seems promising.

Let us turn now to manner adverbials. As noted in section 2, -ly manneradverbs appear closer to the verb than locatives do, although there is no clear

evidence that -ly manners c-command locatives or vice versa, and it appears

that prepositional manners and locatives appear in the same position.

Recall that Asp induces an Asp-associate relationship with the object.

The goal in the object we took to be features associated with semantic

quantization. We did not assume that the goal of Asps probes was related

to Case, or to f-features. In our system, it is v that establishes a v-associate

relationship with these features of the object. The licensing of the object

takes place, then, via at least two different featural relationships between

functional heads and different goals within the object. Asp probes forquantization, while v probes for f-features.

To maintain maximal parallelism between the components of the

extended verbal projection, v also has an EPP feature, which is satisfied and

deleted by an XP determined by the goal of vs probes in this case the

object. This is the standard assumption within Minimalist approaches to

clause structure (see the extended discussion in Chomsky 1995, 2000, and

Lasnik 1995s argument that movement to [Spec, AgrP] is always driven by

EPP considerations). The object will then raise to Spec, vP, which we

assume is its surface position in English (Johnson 1990, Koizumi 1993, and

the papers collected in Lasnik 1998), with the verb raising outside the verb

phrase, as discussed in the introduction to this section.

This gives us the following structure:


17/25

17

(59)Asp1P

Asp1 vP

vP

SUBJ

V OBJ v

v Asp2P

tv LOC Asp

Asp2 VP

V

tOBJ tv

tv

In the same way that locatives satisfy the EPP feature of Asp without

causing it to delete, -ly manner adverbs will satisfy the EPP feature of v,

again without inducing deletion. This means that manner adverbials are

inserted into the structure as inner specifiers of v.

What is the actual structure of Manner adverbials themselves, and whyare they licensed by the EPP feature of v? We tentatively suggest that

manners are actually nominalisations of copies of the verb in the numeration,

which are modified by adjectival modifiers. So a manner like slowly in the

phrase slowly ran is essentially derived by copying the root ran in the

derivation, modifying it with an adjectival predicate slow and then

projecting a nominal functional structure above the new composite, so that

the whole phrase is morphologically interpreted as slowly. This process

can be seen overtly at work in many languages (see, for example, the

discussion of manner modification in Modern Hebrew, in Glinert 1995), and


18/25

18

makes sense of the fact that manners relativise to their predicate, so that

slowly running might involve speedier movement than quickly walking.

Since the resulting phrase is nominal, it may satisfy the nominal EPP featureof v.

(60)

Asp1P

Asp1 vP

vP

SUBJ vP

V OBJ vMAN

v Asp2P

tv LOC Asp

Asp2 VP

V tOBJ tv

tv

Inspecting the structure above, we predict a word order for English

which is V Obj MAN LOC. This is of course the correct prediction. Notethat in this structure the manner adverb c-commands the locative, something

that we argued was at least a possibility in section 2.

We also immediately predict that it is possible to iterate manner

adverbials, as can be seen in the following examples:

(61) They played loudly badly (from Ernst 2001).


19/25

19

This is, of course, because of the way that EPP features of functional

heads can be satisfied, but not deleted, by elements that do not establish H-

associate relations with the functional heads probe.How do we account for the correlations noted in section 1, between the

case licensing potential of the verb and its ability to occur with manner

adverbs? Recall that the probe goal relationship set up by v is similar to the

traditional case relationship (although technically it will involve

uninterpretable phi-features, rather than case features). Clearly, a version of

v which is not endowed with the appropriate probe will not license a case

marked object (and such verbs will not have an Agent in their specifiers

either, following the usual implementation of Burzios generalization in this

framework Chomsky 1995). It follows that verbs like resemble etc. will

not check structural accusative case of their object, thus accounting for their

anomalous behaviour in of-insertion environments. There are a number ofways to implement this, but the simplest is just to assume that these verbs

do not have a v embedded in their structure at all. Given that these

predicates have an impoverished structure, specifically lacking in an EPP

feature, they will not be able to license manner adverbials, explaining the old

observation that predicates which do not assign structural accusative, do not

take manner adverbials.

(62) *John resembled Sue slowly.

(63) *John had flu worriedly.

(64) *The slave cost 600 denarii wholeheartedly

If passivisation is simply an operation on v, say deleting the probe of v,

then we also explain why these predicates do not passivise:

(65) a. *Sue was resembled by John

b. *Flu was had by Maria

c. *50 were cost byRhyme and Reason.

One final point to note is that, as mentioned in section 1, the kind of

system we adopt assumes that agentive unergatives do actually contain a

little v (cf. Hale and Keyser (1993), who argue that such verbs are actuallytransitive where the object has incorporated into the verb). It follows, then,

that it is possible to have a manner adverb in the absence of an affected

object:

(66) John walked jerkily to the cliff edge.

Following Hale and Keyser (1993), we assume that such unergatives do

contain a little v, which is the licenser of the manner adverb.


20/25


21/25

21

NOTES

1A much earlier version of this paper appears as Adger and Tsoulas (2000)..

Many thanks to two anonymous reviewers and to the volume editors for

helpful comments.2Note that in cases like (i), only an extent interpretation is available for the

adverb:

(i) John had flu badly.

3Note that there are verbs which disallow of-insertion but which are fine

with adverbs. These seem to be copular verbs:

(i) *John's becoming of a fool/John's being of a fool

(ii) John became a Buddhist willingly/John was a doctor wholeheartedly

Presumably the lack of of-insertion arises because these verbs take

predicates as their complements, rather than true objects.4This is also reminiscent of the theory of adjunction developed in Saito and

Fukui (1998) where they argue that multiple adjunction at the X level ispossible until a specifier which agrees with the head is merged. In their

terms, an agreeing specifier closes off the projection.


22/25


23/25

References

Adger, David & George Tsoulas. (2000) Aspect and lower VP adverbials. InArtemis Alexiadou & P. Svenonius (eds) Adverbs and Adjunction, pp.

1-18. Linguistics in Potsdam 6. Potsdam.

Andrews, Avery. (1982) A note on the constituent structure of adverbials

and auxiliaries. Linguistic Inquiry 13/3, 313 317.

Belletti , Adriana. & Luigi Rizzi (1988) Psych-verbs and Theta Theory.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6/2, 291 352.

Borer, Hagit. (1998a) Deriving passive without theta roles. In: Steven

Lapointe et al. (eds.) Morphology and its relation to phonology and

syntax, CSLI: Stanford.

-- (1998b) Licensing Aspectual Nodes Paper presented at the Afro-Asiatic

Linguistics Conference, SOAS, London.--, forthcoming, The ExoSkeletal Trilogy, OUP.

Bowers, John. (1993) The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry

24/4:591-656

Bresnan, Joan. (1994) Locative inversion and the architecture of universal

grammar. Language, 70/1: 72 131.

Chomsky, Noam. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge,

Mass. MIT Press

-- (1995) The Minimalist Program Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press

-- (2000) Minimalist Inquiries. In Roger Martin et al. (eds) Step by Step:

Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, pp.89-156.

Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.

-- (2001) Derivation by Phase. In Michael Kenstowitz (ed): Ken Hale: A

Life in Language. pp. 1-52. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.

-- (2002) Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. Ms MIT.

Cinque, Guglielmo. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford, Oxford

University Press

Costa, Joao. (1996) Adverb positioning and V-movement in English: some

more evidence. Studia Linguistica, 50/1, 22 34.

Ernst, Thomas. (1984) Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in

English, IULC, Bloomingdale.

-- (2001) The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Geis, John (1970) Lexical Insertion of locative and time prepositions,

Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol 8.

Glinert, Lewis (1995) The grammar of Modern Hebrew,Cambridge, CUP.

Haider, Hubert, 1997, Extraposition, in Dorothee Beerman, David LeBlanc

and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds) Rightward Movement, Amsterdam: John

Benjamins. 115-151.

Hale, Ken. & Samuel. J. Keyser (1993) On argument structure and the lexical

expression of syntactic relations. In: Ken Hale & Samuel J Keyser (eds)

The view from Building 20; Cambridge, MIT Press.


24/25


25/25

Verkuyl, Henk. (1993), A theory of aspectuality: the interaction of temporal

and atemporal structure. Cambridge, CUP.

Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa (1998) Prosody, Focus and Word Order, MITPress

Adger and Tsoulas- Circumstantial Adverbs and Aspect

Documents

Transcript of Adger and Tsoulas- Circumstantial Adverbs and Aspect