[Grammar] Can a adverb modify a noun?

Hello, teachers! Could you give me a hand, please?
Can a adverb modify a noun？Why 'exactly' is not 'exact' in this sentence?
As we know, a adverb only can modify a noun, a adjective, a adverb, and it can't modify a noun, right?
However, in this example the adverb 'exactly' is modifying the noun 'four moths'. Is this correct?


Both these ships set out from Shanghai on June 18th, 1872 on an exciting race to England. This race, which went on for exactly four months, was the last of its kind. It marked the end of the great tradition of ships with sails and the beginning of a new era.

No, an adverb usually modifies an adjective, a verb (adverbial), or another adverb. In your excerpt, 'exactly' is an adv. and it modifies 'went on'.

EDIT: The second sentence is toe-curlingly nonsensical.

羡鱼-Xianyu;558770 said:

Hello, teachers! Could you give me a hand, please?
Can a adverb modify a noun？Why 'exactly' is not 'exact' in this sentence?
As we know, a adverb only can modify a noun, a adjective, a adverb, and it can't modify a noun, right?
However, in this example the adverb 'exactly' is modifying the noun 'four moths'. Is this correct?


Both these ships set out from Shanghai on June 18th, 1872 on an exciting race to England. This race, which went on for exactly four months, was the last of its kind. It marked the end of the great tradition of ships with sails and the beginning of a new era.

Click to expand...

***NOT A TEACHER***Maybe it depends on the word "modify." Many grammar books describe an adverb like "exactly" as an adverb that "focuses" or "distinguishes" a certain part of a sentence. These books would say that "exactly" focuses on "four months." The race went on for four months -- exactly (FOUR MONTHS). Another example -- Tom: Someone said you did it. Mona: Oh, yeah? Exactly (WHO) said it? Thank you.

Kondorosi said:

No, an adverb usually modifies an adjective, a verb (adverbial), or another adverb. In your excerpt, 'exactly' is an adv. and it modifies 'went'.

Click to expand...

Hi Kondorosi, thank you for your help!
I have a question:
If 'exactly' modifies 'went', why it is not after 'went'? I mean can I rephrase this sentence like this?

This race, which went exactly on for four months, was the last of its kind.

I think that it is more appropriate for 'exactly' to put there?
That's just my opinion.

TheParser said:

***NOT A TEACHER***Maybe it depends on the word "modify." Many grammar books describe an adverb like "exactly" as an adverb that "focuses" or "distinguishes" a certain part of a sentence. These books would say that "exactly" focuses on "four months." The race went on for four months -- exactly (FOUR MONTHS). Another example -- Tom: Someone said you did it. Mona: Oh, yeah? Exactly (WHO) said it? Thank you.

Click to expand...

Hi TheParser, thank you for your reply!
Maybe you are right. It depends on what we want to stress.
You know English is not my first language, so I can't understand some subtle well like many native speakers. I mean I don't have language sense like you, so sometimes I really need grammar to help me.

Thanks!!

TheParser said:

***NOT A TEACHER***Maybe it depends on the word "modify." Many grammar books describe an adverb like "exactly" as an adverb that "focuses" or "distinguishes" a certain part of a sentence. These books would say that "exactly" focuses on "four months." The race went on for four months -- exactly (FOUR MONTHS). Another example -- Tom: Someone said you did it. Mona: Oh, yeah? Exactly (WHO) said it? Thank you.

Click to expand...

If I dig deeper into the structure of the sentence, I realize that the sentence is not as black-and-white to me as it first appeared.


(1)[The race] [went on] [for X months]. = (2)[The race] [lasted] [X months].

The two sentences mean roughly the same thing. In terms of meaning, 'X months' does the same thing in #2 as it does in #1. In #2, it is indeterminable between an adverbial and a direct object. We might think with sufficient justification that the same holds true for #1. Almost. X months = prep. complement; PP = adverb?, PP = Od?

(1) How long did the race last?
(2) How long did the race go on? (go on = prep verb and not a free combi)

Looks like (for) X months has some adverbial characteristics. Regarding the question of 'What modifies what?', 'for X months' and 'went on' both both seduce me.

You're right this time, Kondorosi (but not when you said 'exactly' modified 'went on'). As you say, '[for] X months has some adverbial characteristics' - it is an adverbial phrase. The OP's is a very good question. What's 'exactly' doing? I think it's modifiying an implicit verb that says how the measurement is made: 'it went on for [a period that could be measured as lasting for] exactly four months.' But maybe that's over-complicated...

I look forward to hearing what other teachers have to say about this use of 'exactly'; and many thanks to Xianyu for this interesting question. :up:

b

BobK said:

You're right this time, Kondorosi (but not when you said 'exactly' modified 'went on').

Click to expand...

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

1. The race went on exactly for two months.
2. The race lasted two months.
3. The ticket cost two pennies.

In #1, exactly modifies the adverbial prepositional phrase.
In #2, two months looks like a direct object. Or is it an adverbial objective?
In #3, according to CGEL by Quirk et al., two pennies is indeterminable between a direct object and an adverbial. Sentence 2 and 3 look similar in terms of syntax. two months does the same thing in sentence 1 and 2. That for before two months makes the difference between sentence 1 and sentence 2. 'for two months' answers the question 'How long did the race go on?' The race went on until April. Substitution of a different adverbial for the original one works. It is for two months that the race went on. Clefting works too. Adverbial.

While everyone is talking adverbs, could someone please give me some example sentences where 'next door' is serving as an adverb, and a few sentences where it is doing the job of an adjective, please. :lol:

The bakery is next door to the bank.
Our next door neighbor is very noisy.

羡鱼-Xianyu;558770 said:

Hello, teachers! Could you give me a hand, please?
Can a adverb modify a noun？Why 'exactly' is not 'exact' in this sentence?
As we know, a adverb only can modify a noun, a adjective, a adverb, and it can't modify a noun, right?
However, in this example the adverb 'exactly' is modifying the noun 'four moths'. Is this correct?


Both these ships set out from Shanghai on June 18th, 1872 on an exciting race to England. This race, which went on for exactly four months, was the last of its kind. It marked the end of the great tradition of ships with sails and the beginning of a new era.

Click to expand...

You are quite right: no adverb can never be said to directly "modify" a noun. However, 'exactly' as used here belongs to a class of adverbials known technically as adverbial subjuncts, which serve essentially to focus the referential scope of an adverb on a sentence element other than the verb phrase. Other commonly encountered subjuncts include 'only' and 'mainly'.

The difference begins to become clear when we contrast the same word used as a regular adverbial adjunct, as in

All of the distances had been calculated exactly.

where 'exactly' means 'in an exact way', plainly not the meaning that it has in the sentence at hand (which could, of course, not be rephrased as *for four months in an exact way!).

Another salient difference between the two types is that adjuncts tend to be limited to a small number of possible sentence positions, the choice between which being generally little more than a matter of style/sentence rhythm, with little or no impact on meaning. Thus, the example above could be rephrased as

All of the distances had been exactly calculated.

with no difference at all,

whilst, on the other hand, neither

*All of the distances exactly had been calculated .

nor

*All of the distances had exactly been calculated.

would be acceptable.

Some subjuncts, on the other hand, enjoy considerably greater mobility within the sentence, and the choice of position can often have a major semantic impact, so that e.g.

Only I know what is in the box.

(= No one except me knows this, although I may know many other things.)

differs significantly from

I know only what is in the box.

(= I know nothing except this, although many other people may also know it.)

Kondorosi said:

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

1. The race went on exactly for two months.

Click to expand...

You apparently also made it without reference to the rules of English word order!

*The race went on exactly for two months.

is not acceptable. The choices in this case are

The race went on for exactly two months.

or (less felicitous but still grammatical)

The race went on for two months exactly.

The reason - if you're interested - concerns the nature of the adverbial status of 'exactly' here. (See my previous post for further details.)

philo2009 said:

You are quite right: no adverb can never be said to directly "modify" a noun. However, 'exactly' as used here belongs to a class of adverbials known technically as adverbial subjuncts, which serve essentially to focus the referential scope of an adverb on a sentence element other than the verb phrase. Other commonly encountered subjuncts include 'only' and 'mainly'.

The difference begins to become clear when we contrast the same word used as a regular adverbial adjunct, as in

All of the distances had been calculated exactly.

where 'exactly' means 'in an exact way', plainly not the meaning that it has in the sentence at hand (which could, of course, not be rephrased as *for four months in an exact way!).

Another salient difference between the two types is that adjuncts tend to be limited to a small number of possible sentence positions, the choice between which being generally little more than a matter of style/sentence rhythm, with little or no impact on meaning. Thus, the example above could be rephrased as

All of the distances had been exactly calculated.

with no difference at all,

whilst, on the other hand, neither

*All of the distances exactly had been calculated .

nor

*All of the distances had exactly been calculated.

would be acceptable.

Some subjuncts, on the other hand, enjoy considerably greater mobility within the sentence, and the choice of position can often have a major semantic impact, so that e.g.

Only I know what is in the box.

(= No one except me knows this, although I may know many other things.)

differs significantly from

I know only what is in the box.

(= I know nothing except this, although many other people may also know it.)

Click to expand...

I started a similar thread two weeks ago or so:

https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/analysing-diagramming-sentences/113237-fun-subjunct-diagrams.html

The position of the subjunct should have set alarm bells ringing. There was still solemn silence. I can't see further than my nose. I am so simple-minded that it hurts at times.

This race, which went on for exactly four months, was the last of its kind.

Click to expand...

This is a narrow orientation subjunct that relates to this part of the predication: 'four months'.

This race went on in an exact manner -- adjunct

Philo, let us talk about subjuncts a little, okay?
Two main types, each with subtypes.

Wide orientation subjuncts relate to the whole sentence, but have a particular relationship with the subject. Two subtypes:

- viewpoint subjuncts (largely concerned with the sematic concept of respect):

Looked at grammatically, this sentence is heavy.

- courtesy subjuncts

https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/analysing-diagramming-sentences/113237-fun-subjunct-diagrams.html

kindly = please or = in a kind manner

Narrow orientation

You have consistently opposed my argument. M position of subjunct
Consistently, you have opposed my argument. I position of subjunct(?).

In these sentences, the scope of the reference of 'consistently' is directed towards what? Towrds 'opposed my argument', the whole of the predicate? The corresponding manner adjunct looks like this:

You have opposed my argument consistently.
You have opposed consistently my argument.

- time-relation subjuncts

I have not yet met him. -- Is yet a subjunct here?
I have met him yesterday. -- Adjunct.

Why is yet a subjunct and yesterday an adjunct? :roll:

- emphasisers

I just/simply/really can't believe a word you say.

The word just reinforces effect on the meaning of the sentence. But then, why is it a narrow orientation subjunct? tsssssss :shock:

- intensifiers

I fully appreciate your help.

What does fully do here? It is concerned with the semantic category of degree. It indicates an increase of the intensity with which the predication is expressed.

He practically asked me to leave. -- Decrease in intensity.
He asked me practically to leave. adjunct

- focusing subjuncts

I merely want to understand subjuncts. -- focus: want to understand subjuncts
Only I want to help you. -- focus: I
I want neither help nor understand you. -- focus: help, understand

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

1 = viewpoint subjunct
2 = style disjunct

Disjuncts are superior, subjuncts are inferior to other elements in the sentence.
Is there anyone with a common sense who eats this?

Quirk's treatment of adverbials in terms of their grammatical function is a living hell if you try to understand it. Seriously,I am on the verge of committing harakiri.

Kondorosi said:

I have not yet met him. -- Is yet a subjunct here?
I have met him yesterday. -- Adjunct.

Why is yet a subjunct and yesterday an adjunct? :roll:

Click to expand...

Essentially, to qualify as an adjunct under the Quirkian system, there is a fairly strict set of criteria to be met, including the potential for the formation of a mutually exclusive yes-no question. 'Yesterday' qualifies, since we could say e.g.

Did you meet him yesterday or on some other day?

while 'yet' and 'already' do not

(! Have you done it yet/already or ...?)

. By dint of failing to qualify as adjuncts - or, of course, as conjuncts or disjuncts - you might say that they are classed as subjuncts by process of elimination.

N.B. *I have met him yesterday is ungrammatical! (present perfect + definite past time phrase)

Kondorosi said:

I just/simply/really can't believe a word you say.

The word just reinforces effect on the meaning of the sentence. But then, why is it a narrow orientation subjunct? tsssssss :shock:

Click to expand...

These narrow orientation subjuncts serve essentially to emphasize the verb phrase. To put it simply, inserting one in the sentence is rather like shouting out the verb phrase rather than simply saying it.

This contrasts clearly with a wide orientation subjunct such as 'kindly', which does not 'target' any specific part of the sentence.

Narrow orientation subjuncts are chiefly related to the predication or to a particular part of the predication.

Click to expand...

It means to me that they can relate to anything apart from the subject.

Wide orientation relates more to the sentence as a whole, but show their subjunct character in tending to achieve this through a particular relationship with one of the clause elements, especially the subject.

Click to expand...

I just/simply/really can't believe a word you say.

What do the subjuncts focus on here? Which part? And how do I know that?

Thanks Philo.

Kondorosi said:

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

1 = viewpoint subjunct
2 = style disjunct

Disjuncts are superior, subjuncts are inferior to other elements in the sentence.
Is there anyone with a common sense who eats this?

Quirk's treatment of adverbials in terms of their grammatical function is a living hell if you try to understand it. Seriously,I am on the verge of committing harakiri.

Click to expand...

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!)

Kondorosi said:

It means to me that they can relate to anything apart from the subject.



I just/simply/really can't believe a word you say.

What do the subjuncts focus on here? Which part? And how do I know that?

Thanks Philo.

Click to expand...

Actually, narrow-orientation subjuncts as a class can refer to the subject too (see the section 'subject- orientation').

The particular type under discussion here, however - emphasizers - relate obviously to the verb-phrase/predication itself in the way that I have already outlined.

Where adjuncts are seen on a par with such sentence elements as S and O, while subjuncts are seen as having a lesser role, disjuncts have by contrast a superior role to sentence elements, being somewhat detached and superordinate to the rest of the sentence.

Click to expand...

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.