Table Of Content

DOCUMENT RESUME FL 022 820 ED 380 997 Szwedek, Aleksander AUTHOR The Contextual Nature of "Also." TITLE PUB DATE 91 9p.; For a related article, see FL 022 821. NOTE Journal Evaluative/Feasibility (142) Reports PUB TYPE Articles (080) English Studies 2; v206 p3-9 1991 JOURNAL CIT MFOI/PC01 Plus Postage. EDRS PRICE Discourse Analysis; *English; Foreign Countries; DESCRIPTORS *Grammar; *Language Patterns; Language Research; Linguistic Theory; Semantics; *Sentence Structure; *Syntax *Particles (Grammar); *Referents (Linguistics) IDENTIFIERS ABSTRACT An analysis of the use of the English particle "also" in discourse is presented. First, previous analyses of "also" and of related particles "even, only" are outlined and critiqued. It is argued that these analyses draw inadequate conclusions about the particles' usage patterns and meaning. A formulation of the meaning "also" connects the element with which it of "also" is proposed: (1) associates with the element of the same category mentioned in the preceding context; and (2) "also" signals that the element with which it associates belongs to the set of elements mentioned in the preceding context (a feature or element is added). Therefore, the function of "also" is described as that of a cohesive additive, the function of which a mere linear sequentiality does not guarantee. (MSE) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the origirll document. ***********************************,,*********************************** The Contextual Nature of Also Aleksander Szwedek OF EDUCATION "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS U.S. DEPAKTMENT Research and ImprOvernent MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Office of Educational RESOURCES INFORMATION EDUCATIONAL CENTER tESICI reproduced )This document NIS been as person or organizati received trorn the received OrKpnatiog to improve have been made 0 Minor changes reproduction gustily this docu opinions stated in TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES Whoa' Points ot view or neCeSSanly represent ment do not INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).- policy OERI position or a. NICOLA! COPERNICI ACTA UNIVERSITATIS SOCIAL SCIFNCES - VOLUME 206 - 1991 ENGLISH STUDIES II - HUMANITIES AND Nicol:His Copernicus University Torun Aleksander Szwedek THE CONTEXTUAL NATURE OF ALSO forthcoming) on even and In my forthcoming paper (S z w e d e k, has not been satisfactory so far. only I point out that their description adequately and exhaustively, Although their syntax has been discussed incomplete. their semantic description is, at best, based on wrong methodolo- First of all, the descriptions have been H n a to w i c z (1981), I think, gical grounds. The referential adverbs as k l's (1986) "particles" have appropriately calls them: cf. G r o c h o w s isolated sentences. The result, in my opinion, so far been discussed in in the form of presuppositions is that certain features ascribed (whether those items, belong to the context rather than or not) to the meaning of claimed that in (1) (F rase r's 1971 to the items themselves. Thus I example): Even Max tried on the pants. (1) people doing the same the part of the explication referring to other Grochowski's a. There are (Fraser's b. Other people tried on the pants; in fact a necessary part of the preceding such S's which are P.) is in which we can context. I also suggested that the minimal context felicitously use (1) can be something like (2): David tried John tried on the pants, Joe tried on the pants, and (2) on the pants. Even Max tried on the pants. (1) that [(1)] could open I concluded that "It is simply difficult to imagine Jackendoff and Fraser, unless some other a conversation between, say, before." people's trying on the pants had been mentioned the asser- On similar grounds we can exclude from the explication tion itself in (1): (3) Max triec' on the pants. i.e. Fraser's a. and Grochowski's c. (S1 is P). BEST COPY AVAILABLE 0 Alek'.ander Szwedek 4 follows Also H n a to w i c z (1981) in her logically oriented approach of even the pattern suggested by Fraser. According to her, the meaning can be explicated in the following way: with one of the If S is a sentence containing a referential adverb even scope, then S asserts a statement which does not constituents of S as its it Grochowski's c.], contain even and is otherwise identical with S [Fraser's a.; logically presupposes that there is an element different from the scope this scope for which, when substituted of even [Fraser's a.] Grochowski's b.; i n f or !nationally in the assertion, would result in a true statement, and S would not expect the presupposes that the speaker would not expect (or a- Grochowski's b.). (H n hearer to expect) the assertion to be true. (Fraser's C.; towicz 1981:95). (Hnatowicz's In what follows I would like to analyze the particle analogy') also along 'referential adverb'; Boguslawski's (1986) 'particle of the same lines as even and only. the Although also is often mentioned in the linguistic literature on and only. The problem, it has not been discussed as thoroughly as even (1986) remarks, "Particles a/so and reason may be that, as Grochowski characterized by a lower degree of too [Polish rownie2, tak2e, tei] are 1986:80; translation semantic complexity than even." (G roc h ow ski A.S.) in order Before discussing the semantics of also, a few words are about its structural behaviour. and only, Syntactically, also behaves much in the same way as even, which case "one has the i.e. it is most often placed at M position in the predication, or the choice of focusing the main verb, another part of whole predication". (Q uirk et v 1. 1985:605): John could also (SEE) his wife from the doorway. (4) [eg as well as being able to hear her] John could also see (his WIFE) from the doorway. (5) [eg as well as her brother] DOORway). John could also see his wife (from the (6) [eg as well as from further inside the room] (Quirk et al. 1985:605) in: Also can also immediately precede a focused part, as DOOR). John has seen it also (near his back (7) then carrying an intonation nucleus; and or "follow the focused part, [it] must follow it." (Q u i r k et a 1. if the focused part is subject, 1985:609): ALSO. John has seen it (near his back DOOR) (8' (John) ALSO has seen it. (9) like even, too, in that At the level of information structure also behaves the sentence: it associates with the 'new' information in 4 The contextual nature of also 5 He gave her a new doll. He (10) John likes to spoil his daughter. BICYCLE. (John) also gave his daughter a new week he took her to the (11) John likes to spoil his daughter. Last BICYCLE. cinema. He (John) also gave his daughter a new (which happens to be the only where in (10) also as:-.ociates with bicycle 'new' information, and in (11) also stressed (focused) eknnent), i.e. the bicycle the whole of which associates with gave his daughter a new only one item is stressed (focused)). is the 'new' informatim (though described as carrying the Semantically, also has been traditionally Quirk et a I. 1985) in the meaning of addition ('additive subjunct' sense that concerned is addition- "ADDITIVE subjuncts indicate that the utterance focused" (Q u i r k et a I. 1985:604). ally true in respect of the part Hnatowicz (1981) describes the In her logically oriented approach in the following way: meaning of also in terms of presuppositions ALSO referential adverb also with one of the a sentence containing a If S is statement which does not constituents of S as its scope. then S asser t s a S, and S presupposes that there contain also and is otherwise identical with for this of also which, when substituted is an element different from the scope natowicz 1981:95). result in a true statement. (H scope into the assertion, would describes the meaning of also in Similarly G r o c h o w ski (1986) two parts: S-p, More sq P. Si jest P.' ..RownieA (takie, tei) Sl jest P: Tstnieja, takie Si is P. There are such S's and Also (and its other Polish synonyms taktc which are P. Si is P. A.S.) (G rochowski 1986:80; translation Hnatowicz's assertion (identical In Grochowski's account, Si is P is his explication is Hnatowicz's with S without also), and the first part of different from the scope of presupposition "that there is an element result in the assertion, would also which, when substituted for this scope in a true statement". is P and Hnatowicz's assertion Strictly speaking, Grochowski's S, of also. cannot be taken to be partof the meaning d e k, forthcoming) I have In my discussion of even and only (S z w e ("Other people tried on the also expressed doubts whether Fraser's b. which are P", can be taken pants") and Grochowski's "There are such S's the grounds that, as I also repeat to be part of the meaning of even on imagine that (1) could open a con- in the present paper, it is difficult to the pants had been versation, unless some other people's trying on mentioned before. Aleksander SLwedek 6 I conclude that Fraser's "Other people tried on the pants" and Gro- chowski's "There are such S's which are P" are part of the necessary context, and not part of the meaning of even. A closer inspection of the explications of also by Hnatowicz and Gro- chowski reveals that the same objections as against the account of meaning of even can be raised against the explication of also. First, EInatowicz's 'assertion' and Grochowski's Si is P can not be used in the explication of also since it appears on both sides of the 'equation': Also S1 is P: a. There are such S's which are P. b. S1 is P. We could draw incorrect conclusions about the meaning of also: if we reduce both sides by the same constituent 'S1 is P', we could be compelled to conclude that also = a. There are such S's which are P. In effect, what is left is the referential implication: "that there is an element different from the scope of also which, when substituted for this scope into the assertion, would result in a true statement" (cf. a similar formulation by Grochowski: "There are such S's which are P", which also implies that there are S's which are different from Si). To see the possible use of such a formulation in the explication of also, we would have to analyze sentences with also in a broader context. First of all, we should always remember that there are no sentences without a context in real speech situation (cf. L a n i n's 1977 "You can take the sentence out of the discourse but you can't take the discourse out of the mind of the speaker"). With reference to also this means that the minimal condition on a felicitous use of the particle is an element which it can refer to in the preceding context. It would be totally as an opening sentence. The unacceptable to have, for example, (5) minimal condition would be the assumption of the speaker that there is in his and the receiver's (in the worst case it is only the speaker's assumption) consciousness an element to which also can refer. Thus, if we want to claim that the interpretation of (5) John could also see (his WIFE) from the doorway. (5) involves a presupposition that "there is an element different from the scope of also which, when substituted for this scope into the assertion, would result in a true statement", or in other words as Quirk et al. add [eg as well as her brother] then in effect we are supplying the preceding context. The reverse order in Quirk et al. (with "as well as her brother" following the sentence with also) is only a very late surface transformation. Thus it is correct to say (I ignore the rather awkward full repetition): (12) John could see her (?) BROTHER from the doorway. 7 The contextual nature of also WIFE) from the doorway. John could also see <his (5) but not: WIFE) from the doorway. John could also see <his (5) from the doorway. John could see her BROTHER (12) presupposition, and Grochowski as Thus, what Hnatowicz treats as a without which (5) and in fact the context part of the meaning of also, is have no sonse. other sentences with also would Cornission, the Report of the Warren In a short, 9 page Prologue to 'without a context None of them appears there are 8 occurrences of also. to which also can refer. that what is taken to be a presup- We have to repeat again, then, context. of also, is in fact the necessary position or part of the meaning and presupposition to explicate If, then, we can not use the assertion proposed really left of the explications the meaning of also, nothing is by Hnatowicz and Grochowski. So, what is the meaning of also? func- observes, it has a referential First of all, as Hnatowicz correctly this in previous context. However, tion, referring to something in the called 'addi- also. Adverbs like also are itself can not be the meaning of indicat- (1985:604), and are defined as tive subjuncts' by Q u i r k et a 1. focused:" true in respect of the part ing "that the utterance is additionally (Q u i r k et a 1, 1985:604). such S's which are P" or Therefore, rather than meaning "there are different from the scope of also", presupposing "that there is an element in the to the element mentioned also indicates that an element is added preceding context. formulation of the meaning of We can now suggest the following and only: also, formulation analogical to that for even element of associates with, with the also connects the element it a. preceding context; the same category mentioned in the associates with belongs to the also signals that the element it b. preceding context (a feature set of elements mentioned in the or an element is added). that these two points are identical It is in a way surprising to see the same in Hnatowicz's descrip- with the first two points for even (cf. supported by examples in which tion of even and also). This is also in the same context: even and also (but not only) can appear tried on the pants. People tried on the pants. Even Max (13) tried on the pants. People tried on the pants. Also Max (14) tried on the pants. *People tried on the pants. Only Max (15) or Aleksander Szwedek 8 (16) John could see his brother from the doorway. He could even see his wife. John could see his brother from the doorway. He could also (17) see his wife. *John could see his brother from the doorway. He could only (18) see his wife. If also can be defined almost as a mere addition, then a question arises as to the difference between the following two texts: a. People tried on the pants. b. Also Max tried on the pants. (14) a. People tried on the pants. b. Max tried on the pants. (19) (19) feels definitely odd. although by the fact that (19b) follows (19a), (19b) should be treated as addition to (19a), the meaning we have just ascribed to also. And yet the 'additive subjunct' is certainly not used here without reason. One possible interpretation is to treat also as a weaker form of even, containing a certain degree of unexpectedness of Max's behaviour. On the other hand, (19) is not really felt as addition. To the contrary, is seen as relating two different, unrelated events, particularly in it view of the repetition of the whole predicate without an apparent reason. In connection with the cohesive function of also de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) say that there is no motive to place 'and', 'in 'also', addition to', etc. between all clauses or sentences; in fact, such a practice renders the text dull except for occasional special effects (cf. the device of "polysyndeton" in classical rhetoric). The use of such junctives is more likely when interdependency is not obvious and should be stressed." (de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981:72). Thus the fUnction of also can be in short described as cohesive additive, the function which a mere linear sequentiality not. does guarantee. REFERENCES de Beaugrande R.-A. Dr essle r, 1981. Introduction to Text and W. U. Linguistics. London and New York: Longman. Boguslawski A., 1986. "Also from a/l so", Journal of Pragmatics 10, 615-634. Fraser "An analysis 'even' Eng'isli", Studies B., of linguistic in in 1971. semantics, ed. by C. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen, New York: Holt, Rine- hart and Winston, 150-178. Grochowski M 1936. Polskie partykuty: sidad Oa. sett/unit/Ica, leksykograf in, Wroclaw: Ossolincum. Hnatowicz even. only and also", Linguistica, 1981. "Presuppositions K., of Silesiana 4, 85-98. The contextual nature of also 9 discourse but you can't 1977. "You can take the sentence out of the Lani n 1., speaker", Papers from the Thirteenth take the discourse out of the mit.d of the Society. 288-301. Regional Meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic J. Svartvik, 1985. A Com- S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and Quirk R., New York: Long- prehensive Grammar of the English Language, London and man. Tubingen: Gunter 1986. A Linguistic Analysis of Sentence Stress, S z wedek A., Narr Verlag. of even and only", Acta Szwedek A., (forthcoming), "The contextual nature Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. English Studies I. aJ