[Grammar] Can a adverb modify a noun?

[Kondorosi]

There is actually a considerable difference: the first adverbial denotes the respect in which the assertion 'he will do well in this post' is applicable: the speaker is referring, not to his inherent technical skill in performing the task, but rather e.g. to his potential to interact well with his colleagues on a social/human level - both, however, legitimate grounds for the general claim that he will "do well".

In the second example, however, rather than restricting the precise sense in which the assertion itself may be considered true, the speaker is simply prefacing it with the caveat "this is simply my own view of the situation - don't rely too much on its accuracy or objectivity!"

I think that, if you persevere, you'll find that Quirk's classificatory system actually makes a great deal of sense. (And I would strongly advise against suicide!)

They do, but the difference lies in semantics and nowhere else. This is interesting, especially in light of the fact that adjuncts, subjuncts, disjuncts, and conjuncts are classified according to their grammatical functions. "Syntaxwise," I can detect no difference.

 

[BobK]

Yeah, I know. I made the first comment on the hoof.

...

I knew you did - I was thinking of other readers.

b

 

[philo2009]

1. What does 'Where' mean?
2. adjuncts are on a par with the subject in a sentence? Really?!
3. I studied subjuncts and disjuncts and I can't see any major difference regarding their grammar.
4. With the parts in bold I can't be at one with. They are simply untrue.

I presume that this is from the CGEL: it would help if you could supply the page number before I comment!

 

[philo2009]

the difference lies in semantics and nowhere else. This is interesting, especially in light of the fact that adjuncts, subjuncts, disjuncts, and conjuncts are classified according to their grammatical functions. "Syntaxwise," I can detect no difference.

It seems, then, that your detector is not properly switched on!

There are actually numerous syntactic differences, in respect both of transformational possibilities (a fairly reliable indicator of underlying differences in grammatical interrelation) and, more directly, of word order itself.

To revisit a couple of examples already discussed in this thread:

1. Regarding the sentence

The race went on for exactly four months.

you'll recall that the reason for the position of 'exactly' here - and for its not being placed directly after 'went on'

*The race went on exactly for four months.

- is that it is not an adjunct but a restrictive (narrow-orientation) subjunct relating to NP 'four months'.

If we were instead to insert into the sentence an adjunct to the VP itself, e.g. 'drearily', it would, in contrast, occupy an earlier position, to wit

The race went on drearily for four months.

(as opposed to: *The race went on for drearily four months.)

Conversely, if we were to construct a similar sentence containing 'exactly' as an adjunct rather than as a subjunct, we would get similarly ordered

He calculated the distances exactly during the entire voyage.

(and not: *He calculated the distances during exactly the entire voyage.)


2. Regarding the pair

[1] From a personal viewpoint, he is likely to do well in this post.
[2] From my personal observation, he neglects his studies.

note that, while the subjunct in this case can take final position (with only a marginal loss of naturalness), giving

[1a] He is likely to do well in this post from a personal viewpoint.

the disjunct of [2] cannot be so moved:

[2a] *He neglects his studies from my personal observation.


Both of the above clearly illustrate how adverbial type, in terms of adjunct, subjunct, etc., having a direct impact on possible word orders, is indeed an issue of syntax!

QED

 

[Kondorosi]

It seems, then, that your detector is not properly switched on!

Your bon mots, Philo, never fail to cause mirth in me. :up: Thanks for your comments. I am going to ruminate them and possibly come back to you, if I may, with further questions. Muchas gracias, senior. :up:

There are actually numerous syntactic differences, in respect both of transformational possibilities (a fairly reliable indicator of underlying differences in grammatical interrelation) and, more directly, of word order itself.

To revisit a couple of examples already discussed in this thread:

1. Regarding the sentence

The race went on for exactly four months.

you'll recall that the reason for the position of 'exactly' here - and for its not being placed directly after 'went on'

*The race went on exactly for four months.

- is that it is not an adjunct but a restrictive (narrow-orientation) subjunct relating to NP 'four months'.

If we were instead to insert into the sentence an adjunct to the VP itself, e.g. 'drearily', it would, in contrast, occupy an earlier position, to wit

The race went on drearily for four months.

(as opposed to: *The race went on for drearily four months.)

Conversely, if we were to construct a similar sentence containing 'exactly' as an adjunct rather than as a subjunct, we would get similarly ordered

He calculated the distances exactly during the entire voyage.

(and not: *He calculated the distances during exactly the entire voyage.)

Your message came through to me loud and clear. So far so good. :up:
100% clear.

[1] From a personal viewpoint, he is likely to do well in this post.
[2] From my personal observation, he neglects his studies.

note that, while the subjunct in this case can take final position (with only a marginal loss of naturalness), giving

[1a] He is likely to do well in this post from a personal viewpoint.

the disjunct of [2] cannot be so moved:

[2a] *He neglects his studies from my personal observation.


Both of the above clearly illustrate how adverbial type, in terms of adjunct, subjunct, etc., having a direct impact on possible word orders, is indeed an issue of syntax!

in respect both of transformational possibilities

By transformational possibilities, do you mean adverbials' mobility?

 

[Kondorosi]

I flew to New York.

Philo, is it an SV or an SVA, IYO? In other words, is the PP an obligatory pred adjunct?

I can fly. :tick: (no adverbial here)

 

[philo2009]

By transformational possibilities, do you mean adverbials' mobility?

No, I'm referring to what might be termed the 'hidden' aspect of syntax (as compared with its 'manifest' aspect in terms of word order in actual sentences as discussed previously), on which Quirk provides numerous comments throughout the chapter on adverbials - for instance the potential for any true adjunct to be made the focus of a cleft sentence or of a contrastive 'not...but...' statement, something generally not possible in the case of other types.

Such differing potentials are significant because they are indicative of underlying differences in the nature of syntactic relations (i.e. deep structure), differences that, upon investigation, will tend to be borne out by actual possibilities of word order, the very essence of 'syntax'.

 

[philo2009]

I flew to New York.

Philo, is it an SV or an SVA, IYO? In other words, is the PP an obligatory pred adjunct?

I can fly. :tick: (no adverbial here)

Unlike, e.g.

?I went.

, there is nothing "missing" from the sentence

I flew.

, hence 'to New York' cannot be reckoned an obligatory element.

It is, however, unquestionably an adjunct (of place), conforming to all the normal criteria to be reckoned as such.

Furthermore, it is clearly of the type 'predication adjunct' rather than 'sentence adjunct' on account of its being unable to occupy sentence-initial position.

It is therefore an optional predication adjunct.

 

[Kondorosi]

Unlike, e.g.

?I went.

, there is nothing "missing" from the sentence

I flew.

, hence 'to New York' cannot be reckoned an obligatory element.

It is, however, unquestionably an adjunct (of place), conforming to all the normal criteria to be reckoned as such.

Furthermore, it is clearly of the type 'predication adjunct' rather than 'sentence adjunct' on account of its being unable to occupy sentence-initial position.

It is therefore an optional predication adjunct.

Agreed. SV. Thanks.

As I perceive it, the word complement in English grammar is not used consistently. This is my definition for complement:
SVOC
SVC.

Period.

But then, Biber in his book, LGSWE, calls the part in bold in the sentence below a complement.

It is nice to meet you. = SVC
It is nice. = SVC

nice to me you = C
to me you = C
:?:

What is also interesting is this:

They elected him. :tick: SVO
They elected him president. :tick: SVOC

I flew. :tick: SV
I flew to NY. :tick: SV


CGEL says a simple sentence may be one of seven types. The types differ according to what elements are obligatorily present in addition to S and V.

They elected him president. = SVOC
I flew to New York. = SV

Why is the adjunct in the second sentence optional, and president, an objective complement, in the first sentence obligatory?

By removing them from their respective sentences we get:

They elected him.
I flew.

As you can see, the removal of the adjunct in #2 exerts greater impact on #2 in terms of semantics than that the removal of 'president' exerts in #1 on #1. Still, it is 'president' that is obligatory and 'to NY' that is optional, and not the reverse. My question is: What are the criteria for a clause element to be obligatory?

 

[philo2009]

We seem to be getting ever so slightly off-track here, and a new thread might be advisable if we are to begin examining the massive topic of complementation! However, a brief answer that may suffice for the time being...

You are quite right in your observation that the term 'complement' is not used with absolute consistency among grammarians. Essentially, and reduced to its most basic terms, any word or phrase whose presence is required by another within the same sentence/clause can legitimately be termed a 'complement' of one kind or another.

Naturally, however, since elements themselves necessary to something may in turn require the presence of still other elements, we may have complements to complements in a potentially never-ending series. Thus, for instance, regarding the sentence

It is nice to meet you.

'nice' complements the copula (specifying what it is), and is in its turn complemented by the infinitive phrase 'to meet you' (specifying in what way it is nice). We could even reckon 'you', as an object and thereby a required element, a kind of internal complement to the infinitive phrase!

Next, regarding the issue of optionality, it is certainly true that, generally speaking, objective complements are less 'vital', syntactically at least, than subjective complements. Even if we were to turn e.g.

God made him master of the world.

into

God made him.

and thus, by removing the objective complement NP, change a sentence using 'make' in one sense into another using it in a semantically quite unrelated way, we have still not actually produced an ungrammatical sentence, merely one with the wrong meaning!

Will that do for now?

 

[Kondorosi]

Thanks Philo. I agree that I derailed the course of the original topic a tad. I gave up Quirk and have adopted Biber's treatment of adverbials. Let me see what it tastes like.

 

[hanifasmm]

1. My friends are -mostly(adv)- non-smokers.
2. The sauce is -mostly(adv)- cream.
3. Hindi is mostly(adv) spoken(adj)(pp) in India.
4. White dress is mostly(adv) used(adj)(pp) by many people.
5. In Bosnia affected women are mostly(adv) Muslims.
Note: adv = adverb, adj = adjective, pp = past participle
In all above examples I can find the adverb - 'mostly' modifying the noun.
Please comment on it.
Thanks,
Er.S.M.M.Hanifa

 

[BobK]

1. My friends are -mostly(adv)- non-smokers.
2. The sauce is -mostly(adv)- cream.
3. Hindi is mostly(adv) spoken(adj)(pp) in India.
4. White dress is mostly(adv) used(adj)(pp) by many people.
5. In Bosnia affected women are mostly(adv) Muslims.
Note: adv = adverb, adj = adjective, pp = past participle
In all above examples I can find the adverb - 'mostly' modifying the noun.
Please comment on it.
Thanks,
Er.S.M.M.Hanifa

Your analysis of 3 and 4 is fine, an adverb can modify a past participle. But the key is the word 'modify' - changing the way something does something. A noun - for the most part - doesn't.

No. 2 is shorthand for a version that uses a past participle - 'The sauce is mostly [made of] cream'; or, if you prefer, the adverb could modify a verb: 'The sauce consists mostly of cream'.

5 plays on the syntactic ambiguity of 'Muslim', which can be either an adjective or a noun. The noun version is derived from a noun phrase in which the adjective 'Muslim' qualifies (not modifies) an implicit 'people'. Another way of looking at this sentence involves 'mostly' modifying 'affected'.

This leaves a few nouns that imply movement, such as 'fist' (which implies the curling of the fingers); also, any verb + '-er'. Possibly this accounts for 1, though I prefer to think of it in terms of my earlier post - that the adverb modifies an implicit verb that says how the calculation is done (which would work for 5 as well)

b

PS I've just realized that this is culture-specific. Benjamin Whorf reported the way the language of the Hopi was inflected for movement, so that the word for a falling stone had a different ending from the word for a stone being thrown. In this language, an adverb could modify a noun.

 

[philo2009]

1. My friends are -mostly(adv)- non-smokers.
2. The sauce is -mostly(adv)- cream.
3. Hindi is mostly(adv) spoken(adj)(pp) in India.
4. White dress is mostly(adv) used(adj)(pp) by many people.
5. In Bosnia affected women are mostly(adv) Muslims.
Note: adv = adverb, adj = adjective, pp = past participle
In all above examples I can find the adverb - 'mostly' modifying the noun.
Please comment on it.
Thanks,
Er.S.M.M.Hanifa

A complete illusion - an adverb can NEVER, by definition, modify a noun!

'Mostly', like 'only', is an adverbial subjunct whose mobility within the clause belies its primary grammatical relation, which is to the verb phrase. According to its position, however, such adverbials can serve to 'focus' the modification applied to the VP on another clause element, which may include a noun phrase.

It may help to think of it like this: when you say e.g.

Only Muslims live here.

you are actually saying, in effect

Muslims live here in such a way that no other type of person lives here.

'Only' relates syntactically to the VP 'live here', but it focuses referentially on the NP 'Muslims'.

You'll find this issue discussed in detail in Quirk et al.'s A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, pp. 475-654.