INTO FORMAL SLAVIC LINGUISTICS

This paper recalls some basic facts on syntax of adverbs and negation in Czech. It has been proposed recently to analyze adverb phrases (AdvP) as the unique specifiers of distinct maximal projections, rather than as adjuncts (ClNQUE 1999). Cinque argues for the existence o f a fixed universal hierarchy of clausal functional projections. Furthermore, he rejects the assumption that languages vary in the number and type of functional projections and their distribution. Instead, he tries to construct a plausibility argument against these assumptions, suggesting that no such variation is allowed by UG and that the same number, type and order (hierarchy) of functional projections holds across languages and clause types, despite apparent counterevidence. Specifically, he argues that in addition to the order of free functional morphemes ("particles" and auxiliaries) and of bound functional morphemes (affixes), there is a third type of different classes offunctional projections of AdvP. Similarily to the proposal that has been made by Uwe Junghanns (2006), I do not adopt the specific approach to the grammar of adverbials that are associated with specific functional projections (cf. also ALEXIADOU 1997 for Greek). Instead, and as opposed to Uwe Junghanns, I make the claim that sentential adverbs are base-generated as adjuncts to an agreement phrase as opposed to VP-Adverbs that adjoin to VP in the base. This vision is supported with respect to the different properties of Negation and Scope w.r.t. sentential adverbs (SA) and manner (lower) adverbs: The contrast of manner adverbs with respect to structural position and the SA is striking both with respect to lexicon (semantics) and to scope properties of negation. First descriptive generalization + manner adverbs are subcategorized by the verbal projection (light vP) whereas the higher adverbs are subcategorized by the CP phase heading and dominating the higher sentential negation phrase that outscopes manner adverbs. If the negational scope outscopes the propositional phrase and thus also the higher sentential adverbs, it usually takes scope over the lower adverbs and thus has properties of focus (partial) and contrastive focus. My proposal is the following: The fact that in most cases SAs do not meet scope conflicts (for the exceptions see JUNGHANNS, 2006) can be explained by the fact that sentential negation does not build a scope domain of SA, the latter being situated higher in the sentence structure. Whereas SAs usually and mostly do not affect the reading of the negated proposition - despite their apparent scope conflicts that are then resolved by covered movement after Speil-out out of the scope of sentential negation (cf. JUNGHANNS, 2006) - manner adverbs such as pekne 'nicely', vlEdne 'moderately', nah/as 'loudly', dobfe 'good', etc. strictly combine with constituent negation interpretations with different scope properties than the sentence negation has. As I already stated my proposal will be that the negation - besides its main property as operator responsible for binding the trace or variable of negated sentences - constitutes the focus domain of the lowest phrase, viz. VP-shell. The starting point of my analysis is then the assumption that the negation -like other scope taking items (e.g., the particle only, etc.) - can be a candidate for focalizers or focus sensitive particles in the sense of HAJlcovA (l995a,b). I assume that the focus feature [FOC can be assigned to syntactic constituents that include SAs and manner adverbs. Because SAs must take scope over the whole proposition (they take the proposition as their argument in complement position) they have to stand higher than the NegP. Scope conflicts between a sentential negation and SAs as discussed in Junghanns are resolved or overcome in the non-overt part of syntax (traditionally called LF). After Speil-out, the SA, the offending item, leaves its base position to adjoin to CP (or in my version to AGRSP) from where it takes scope over the whole clause.

This paper sets out a number of reasons for establishing a distinction between sentential (modal) adverbs and modal particles. Adverbs and particles are generally difficult to define as two distinct and independent word classes in terms of unitary criteria and distinctive properties. The traditional role of an adverb is that of modifying a verb or a verb phrase. In reality, adverbs also modify adjectives, sentences, and other adverbs. Particles also serve a sort of 'modification' function. Modal particles, for example, take the whole sentence as their object and fit its content to the context of speech. This 'vague' similarity, though, should not be interpreted as a motivation for assimilating the two categories, especially when other syntactic properties, such as the sentential position, the distribution, and the sensitivity to sentence types, together with their correlated semantic interpretations, are taken into consideration.

2001

Glossa: a journal of general linguistics

(last preprint version)

2000 Theoretical Linguistics 26:95-134.

This contribution addresses the following issues: i) the structural identification of adverb positions (adjoined, embedded or in Spec-positions); ii) interface conditions for adverbs (syntax-semantic interface); iii) serialization patterns of adverbs (post-vs. pre-head order). First, it is argued that important empirical generalizations are missed if adverbials are assigned to spec-positions of functional heads. This paper defends the claim that non-selected adverbials are either adjoined or embedded, depending on the relation to the head of the containing phrase: They are adjoined if they precede the head of the containing phrase. They are embedded if they follow the head of the containing phrase. Second, the relative order of adverbials is characterized as an interface effect of the mapping of syntactic domains on type domains in the structure of the semantic representation. Third, the differences in the pre-and post-head serialization patterns of adverbials that apparently support an adjunction analysis are reconciled with an embedding analysis. Key words: adverb positions; cascading or layered structures; postverbal adjuncts - embedded, not adjoined.

Between analytical mood and clause-initial particles – on the diagnostics of subordination for (emergent) complementizers

The article addresses empirical and methodological issues that are of central concern for an assessment of uninflected function words doing services in clause-combining and/or in indicating the speaker's stance toward illocutionary force or propositional content. Such units have been variably treated: either just as 'particles', as subordinating conjunctions or complementizers, or as auxiliaries of 'analytic moods' (marking directive or optative illocutionary force). Whatever they are called, all these units scope over clauses and manipulate their reality status. A discrimination of these types of units is difficult or hardly possible, first of all, because core notions (especially '(analytic) mood' and 'complementizer') are ill-defined and their consequent cross-linguistic application suggests an almost arbitrary exchangeability: since the notional contrasts behind them are basically identical, clear criteria based on form and paradigmatic organization are warranted. Jointly, one needs to specify the format of the relevant units in terms of clines between morphemes and words, and between words and constructions, first of all for North Slavic by and South Slavic da. Concomitantly, the delimitation of discourse coherence from syntactic subordination poses notorious problems. First, embedding is a property on a gradient, mainly because symptomatic shifts of egocentricals need not (and often do not) occur simultaneously. Second, there is an enormous grey zone of clausal complements vs adjuncts leaving ample space for indeterminacy. Both intensional and extensional approaches to determining clausal complements have their inherent and empirical weaknesses, and one wonders whether these might be recompensated by combining both types of approaches. The article gives a complex account of general theoretical and empirical pitfalls, with illustrations from a comprehensive body of data across Slavic on a typological

Cette étude examine les propriétés des adverbiaux de localisation du français à plusieurs niveaux. La structure syntaxique de ces éléments est décrite de même que les interactions complexes entre position dans la phrase et contribution sémantique. En se focalisant sur la position d'adjoint du syntagme verbal, on montre que le contenu sémantique des marqueurs considérés est mieux saisi par une approche 'relationnelle' que par une approche 'référentielle'. Une sémantique compositionnelle des adverbiaux en position de VP-adjoints est finalement proposée.

Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 2012

Adverbials are well-known to form a rather heterogeneous class in multiple respects. Here we examine their ability to bear focus and their ability to be embedded in subordinate sentences. For focusability, the distinction between informational focus and contrastive focus proves to play a role. We discern six main classes of adverbials, identified by their base position. As expected, not all classes (or subclasses) can bear (informational or contrastive) focus, and also not all (sub)classes can be embedded. Among those that can, it is still only a proper subset that may simultaneously be embedded and focused. A general finding is that the lower in the syntactic tree an adverbial is base-generated, the more likely it allows for focusing as well as for embedding. The distinction between proposition-internal and proposition-external adverbs is shown to be helpful in determining which adverbials may bear (informational) focus. Also certain extrinsic factors like the type of the embedding...