On the notion of subject for subject-oriented adverbs

33 Pages·2013·0.28 MB·English

ONTHENOTIONOFSUBJECTFORSUBJECT-ORIENTEDADVERBS
MikinariMatsuoka
UniversityofYamanashi
This article investigates the nature of predication of so-called subject-oriented adverbs in
English.Itisnotedthattherearebothconceptualandempiricalissuestobeaddressed.Onthe
conceptualside,thereisnoconsensusinpreviousstudiesonwhatexactlythenotionofsubjectis
fortheseadverbsandwhytheseadverbshaveanorientationtothesubject.Ontheempiricalside,
therearecircumstancesinwhichsomeoftheadverbsseemtobeconstruedwiththeobjectargu-
mentoftheverb.Thisarticlefocusesontheseproblemsthroughanexaminationoftheadverbs
occurringinlocative,passive,unaccusative,andresultativeconstructions.Itisarguedthatwhen
theseadverbsseemtobeassociatedwiththeobject,theyarepredicatedofaphoneticallyempty
pronoun that occurs as the subject of a small clause, controlled by the object. Moreover, it is
indicatedthatsubject-orientedadverbsoccurringindifferentpositionsacrossdifferentconstruc-
tionsareallparasiticallypredicatedofDPsthatareintroducedbyafunctionalheadinprimary
predication. Given the proposal made in recent studies that predication relationships between
lexicalcategoriesandtheirexternalargumentsingeneralaremediatedbyafunctionalhead,itis
claimedthatsubject-orientedadverbsalsoneedtobesupportedbysuchaheadtobeassociated
withDPs.Thus,itisconcludedthatthenotionofsubjectfortheseadverbsandtheirorientationare
derivedfromthegeneraltheoryofpredication.*
Keywords:adverb,locative,predication,resultative,smallclause,subject
Introduction
1. . English adverbs such as willingly, reluctantly, and cleverly are
knowntobepredicativeadverbsthathavesubjectorientation.Theyareconstruedwith
eithertheso-calledsurfacesubjectorthelogicalsubject.Forexample,theactivein1a
is interpreted as attributing reluctance to Joan, and not Mary, whereas its passive
counterpartin1bcanattributereluctancetoeitherofthetwoarguments.
(1) a. JoaninstructedMaryreluctantly.
b. MarywasreluctantlyinstructedbyJoan.
However,thereseemstobenoconsensusamongresearchersonwhatexactlythenotion
of ‘subject’is for these adverbs and why these adverbs are sensitive to subject.These
are fundamental issues, particularly in current theories of syntax in which there is no
unifiednotionof‘subject’or‘subjectposition’.
Moreover,asnotedbyGeuder(2004),therearecircumstancesinwhichasubclassof
these adverbs can be interpreted as being predicated of the object. In particular, when
those adverbs occur between the object and the PP complement of verbs denoting
*IwouldliketothanktheeditorGregCarlson,associateeditorJasonMerchant,andanonymousreferees
forLanguage,whogavemanyinsightfulcommentsandsuggestionsonthepreviousdraftsofthisarticle,
whichcontributedsignificantlytoimprovingit.IamalsogratefultoYujiTakano,KoichiTakezawa,andLisa
Travisforveryhelpfuldiscussionsandadviceatvariousstagesofconductingthisresearch.Ialsobenefited
fromremarksmadebyMarkBakeronsomeofthecoredatapresentedhere.Mythanksalsogotofaculty
members and students at McGill University and the University of Yamanashi, particularly GerryAllen,
JonathanBrown,RichardCaraker,SteveHenneberry,PaulKlousia,RussellMayne,JillStrothman,Shane
Sutton,andMarkVallely,forkindlyactingasconsultantsforsomeoftheEnglishdataprovidedhere.Portions
ofthisworkwerepresentedatthe2007annualconferenceoftheCanadianLinguisticAssociationattheUni-
versityofSaskatchewaninMay2007,atthe31stannualmeetingoftheTsukubaEnglishLinguisticSociety
attheUniversityofTsukubainOctober2010,andatthe36thannualmeetingoftheKansaiLinguisticSoci-
etyatOsakaPrefectureUniversityinJune2011.IamindebtedtoElizabethCowper,YukioHirose,Seizi
Iwata,NobuhiroKaga,HidekiKishimoto,YukioOba,andothersintheaudienceforvaluablecommentsand
questions.ThisresearchhasbeensupportedbyJSPSKAKENHIgrantsnumber20520351and23520459.All
remainingerrorsandinadequaciesaremyown.
586
PrintedwiththepermissionofMikinariMatsuoka.©2013.
Onthenotionofsubjectforsubject-orientedadverbs
587
changeoflocation,asshownin2,theycanforsomespeakersbeconstruedwitheither
thesubjectortheobjectargumentwithsomemarginality.1
(2) a. (?)Iwatchedhowthepolicetookamanreluctantlytothecar.
(Geuder2004:156)
b. (?)JohnsentBillwillinglytothedoctor.
c. (?)MaryputSusiecontentedlyonthebed.
This fact calls for an account of why the adverbs can be associated with the object in
thisparticularcircumstance.
Inthisarticle,Iinvestigatetheseproblemsandproposeananalysisintheframework
oftheprinciples-and-parameterstheoryofgenerativegrammar(Chomsky1995).Asfor
the constructions in 2, which I call locative PP constructions, it is argued that they
involveasmallclausecomplementconsistingofthePPasthepredicateandPROasthe
subject,andPROiscontrolledbytheobject,asillustratedin3(seeBowers1993,Beck
&Johnson2004).
(3) a. John[ sentBill [ PRO reluctantlytothedoctor]]
VP i SC i
b. John[ sentBill reluctantly[ PRO tothedoctor]]
VP i SC i
If the adverb occurs within the small clause, as shown in 3a, it is construed with the
subjectoftheclause,thatis,PRO.SincePROisanaphorictotheobject,theadverbis
interpretedasifitwerepredicatedoftheobject.Bycontrast,iftheadverboccursinthe
matrixclause,asillustratedin3b,itisconstruedwiththematrixsubject.
Through an examination of subject-oriented adverbs occurring in these and other
constructions, I draw the conclusion that these adverbs are always predicated of DPs
introducedbyafunctionalheadinprimarypredication.Thus,Iclaimthat‘subject’for
theseadverbsistheDPintheminimaldomainofsuchafunctionalhead.Furthermore,
I argue that the sensitivity of the adverbs to the DP is attributed to the nature of
predication. In particular, following recent studies claiming that a functional head
mediatespredicationrelationsbetweenlexicalcategoriesandtheirexternalarguments
(see Bowers 1993, Baker 2003, den Dikken 2006), I propose that subject-oriented
adverbs,beingalexicalcategory,alsoneedtobesupportedbysuchaheadtobeasso-
ciatedwithDPs.
Thisarticleisorganizedasfollows.Abrieflookathowtheconceptionof‘subject’
hasshiftedinthehistoryofgenerativegrammarisfollowedbyalookatsomeprevious
studiesofsubject-orientedadverbswithrespecttotheirsemanticandsyntacticproper-
ties (§§2 and 3). Next, I present the core examples of these adverbs occurring in lo-
cative PP constructions, examine the structure of the constructions, and propose an
analysis of the interpretations of the adverbs. In §5, I argue that the analysis of the
adverbspresentedin§4alsoaccountsfortheinterpretationsofthoseadverbsoccurring
in passive, unaccusative, and resultative constructions, and then conclude with some
finalremarks.
The notion of ‘subject’ in generative grammar
2. . Different attempts have
beenmadebylinguiststodefineorderivethenotionofsubjectindifferentgrammatical
1 Geuder (2004) provides the example in 2a as a marginal instance of object orientation, but does not
accountforwhyithassuchaninterpretation.OneoftheEnglishspeakersIconsulted,alinguist,foundthe
examplegrammaticallyperfectwiththeobject-orientedreading.Somespeakersseemtofindsubject-oriented
adverbs intervening between the verb and its complement parenthetical (as also indicated by a referee),
whereas others do not. Geuder (2004:163, n. 7) also notes that there is variation among speakers in this
respectandsuggeststheadverb’sstatusasanonrestrictivemodifierinadestressedsentencepositionasa
possiblefactorincausingtheimpressionofbeingparenthetical.Seealson.6forthispoint.
588 LANGUAGE,VOLUME89,NUMBER3(2013)
theories, which has caused a long-standing debate. Keenan (1976) presents thirty
characteristicpropertiesofsubjectsonthebasisofdatafromavarietyoflanguagesand
notes that no combination of these properties is found to be both necessary and suf-
ficienttoidentifyanNPinasentenceinanylanguageasthesubjectofthatsentence.In
this section, we look at a brief history of controversies over the conception of subject
withinthebroadtraditionofgenerativegrammar.Itisconcludedthatthoseproperties
thathavebeenassumedtodefinesubjecthoodinearliertheoriesaredistributedacross
different syntactic positions, and there is no unified category of ‘subject’or ‘subject
position’inthecurrenttheory.
In the Chomskyan approach, it has been consistently stated that grammatical func-
tionssuchassubjectandobjectaredefinableintermsofphrasestructureconfigurations
rather than primitives of grammatical theory. This position was first articulated in
Chomsky 1965, where the subject is defined as the NP immediately dominated by S
(i.e.[NP,S]).Underthisconceptionofsubjecthood,abroadrangeofdifferentphenom-
ena are assumed to be associated with the argument occupying the unique syntactic
position,suchasbearingcertainkindsofthematicroles(typicallytheagentrole),hav-
ing prominence over other arguments in anaphoric dependencies, being the target of
advancement transformations (e.g. passive and subject-to-subject raising), and being
involvedinthevalidationofmorphosyntacticfeatures(e.g.nominativecaseonthear-
gumentitselfandagreementmorphologyonthefiniteverb).
However, though this phrase-structural notion of subject seemed to be tenable in
somelanguages(suchasEnglish),itscrosslinguisticgeneralitybecameanissueinthe
development of relational grammar (Perlmutter 1983) and lexical-functional grammar
(Bresnan1982)inthe1970sandearly1980s.Inparticular,themanifestationofsubject-
hoodinwordorderandmorphologywasfoundtovarysignificantlyacrosslanguages,
whereasthosepropertiesconcerningstructuralprominenceinanaphoricdependencies
and advancement transformations are stable and robust. Then, the Chomskyan view
thatgrammaticalfunctionsarederivedfromphrasestructurewaschallenged,andanal-
yses of those crosslinguistic regularities were proposed by utilizing the notion of
subjectandobjectascoreprimitivesofthegrammar.Inthesetheories,phrasestructure
isassumedtobenotverystableacrosslanguagesandmuchlessimportantinaccount-
ingforsyntacticphenomenathanintheChomskyanapproach.
ThedevelopmentoftheIPstructurewithintheChomskyantheoryintheearly1980s
(Chomsky1986)clearedthewayforaccommodatingcrosslinguisticvariationsregard-
ing subjecthood. It was proposed that the sentence is a projection of the inflectional
headconformingtotheX-bartheory,andthespecifieroftheprojection(i.e.[NP,IP])
becamethenewunitaryconceptionofsubject.Thisviewofclausalorganizationunder
which a lexical layer is embedded within an inflectional layer further developed into
internalsubjecthypothesis
the inthelate1980s.Itwasproposedthatlexicalpro-
jections are the domain where arguments are generated and assigned thematic roles,
whereas functional projections are the place where morphosyntactic features such as
caseandagreementarelicensed.Then,subjectargumentsalsooriginatewithinalexical
projectioninalllanguagesandmovetothespecifierofaninflectionalprojectionifthey
bearmorphosyntacticfeaturestobecheckedthere.Thus,underthisview,clausesusu-
allycontainatleasttwosubjectpositionsthatarederivationallylinked,andthecluster-
ing subject properties that were attributed to a unique position in earlier models are
deconstructed and distributed over distinct but derivationally related positions. This
shiftinthemodelhascontributedsignificantlytowideningthecoverageofcrossling-
uisticvariationswithregardtosubjecthood(seeMcCloskey1997,Davies&Dubinsky
Onthenotionofsubjectforsubject-orientedadverbs
589
2001a).Thedivisionoffunctionbetweenthelexicalandthefunctionallayerhasbeen
blurredsomewhatinlaterworksinwhichexternalargumentsareassumedtobegener-
atedwithinafunctionalprojectionimmediatelydominatingalexicalprojection(Bow-
ers 1993, Chomsky 1995, Kratzer 1996). However, the basic insight of the internal
subjecthypothesisismaintainedinthesensethatsubjectargumentsareassumedtobe
assigned thematic roles in a position lower than the position where their morpho-
syntacticfeaturesarelicensed.
Holding the reductionist view of subjecthood discussed above, McCloskey (1997)
argues that those properties that defined subjecthood in earlier models are distributed
overatleastthreedistinctsyntacticpositions.Hethenconcludesthatthereisnounified
notionof‘subject’or‘subjectposition’inthetheoryofgrammar.Theresearchcarried
outalongthislineofthoughthasledtofurtherunderstandingofthenatureofgrammar
andcrosslinguisticvariations(seeMcCloskey2001,andotherworksinDavies&Du-
binsky2001b).
Withthisbackground,itisworthwhiletoinvestigatesubjecthoodforsubject-oriented
adverbs.Inparticular,weneedtoexaminewhetherthepropertiesoftheseadverbscanbe
explained without referring to the notion of subject or subject position, which plays
no formal role in the current theory of grammar. I claim that the characteristics of
theadverbsareindeedaccountedforbyderivingtheconceptofsubjectfromatheory
ofpredication.
To summarize, we have seen that a broad range of phenomena involving the gram-
matical function of subject were associated with a unique syntactic position in earlier
modelsofgenerativegrammarandthatthenotionofsubjecthasoftenbeenassumedto
bedefinableintermsofphrasestructurerepresentations.Followingthedeepenedinves-
tigationintocrosslinguisticdifferencesandthedevelopmentinphrasestructuretheories,
however,theclusteringsubjectpropertieshavebeendeconstructedanddistributedover
differentpositions.Asaresult,thereisnounifiednotionofsubjectorsubjectposition
in the current theory of grammar. Thus, a formal analysis of subjecthood for subject-
orientedadverbsisneeded.
Previous studies of subject-oriented adverbs
3. . This section considers what
hasbeenproposedinpreviousstudiesofsubject-orientedadverbs,lookingfirstatsome
of their semantic properties (§3.1) and then at syntactic conditions concerning their
interpretations(§3.2).
Two subclasses of subject-oriented adverbs and their semantic prop-
3.1.
erties
. Ernst (2002) notes that there are two subclasses of subject-oriented adverbs
agent-oriented mental-attitude
in English: adverbs, and adverbs (see also Frey
2003).Although they are distinguished by some semantic properties, they share some
characteristicsparticulartopredicationaladverbs.First,almostallofthemarecomposed
ofanadjectiveplus-ly,suchascleverlyandwillingly,andrepresentgradablepredicates.
Second,theyaretwo-placepredicatestakinganeventandaparticipantintheevent(see
also Jackendoff 1972, McConnell-Ginet 1982, Zubizarreta 1982, Roberts 1986). The
eventisusuallyrepresentedbytheconstituenttheadverbimmediatelyc-commands.We
lookatthetwosubclassesofadverbswithrespecttothesepointsinturn.
Agent-oriented adverbs
. Representative examples of agent-oriented adverbs
(hereafterAOadverbs)discussedbyErnst(2002:54–62)aregivenin4.
adverbs
(4) AO : cleverly, stupidly, wisely, foolishly, rudely, intelligently,
carefully
590 LANGUAGE,VOLUME89,NUMBER3(2013)
Ernst(2002)arguesthattheseadverbsarerepresentedastwo-placepredicatesintheir
lexicaltemplates:thetwoargumentsareaneventandtheagent,asillustratedin5.
(5) P (e,Agent)
ADJ
(P is the property designated by the adjective from which the adverb is
ADJ
derived.)
Ernstnotesthattherelevantnotionofagentdoesnotcorrespondexactlytothatofthe
control
Agentthematicrole.Moreprecisely,itdenotes‘entitiesthatcan theeventu-
alityinquestioninthattheycanchoosenottodosomeaction,enterintoastate,andso
on’(Ernst2002:55).Forexample,Jimisanagentinthethematicsensein6a,whichis
not necessarily the case in 6b, where Jim might have been put down on the bed and
chosentostaythere.
(6) a. Jimwiselygotoutofbed.
b. Jimwiselylayonthebed. (Ernst2002:55)
TheviewthatAOadverbsselectanagentargumentissupportedbythefactthatthey
impose selectional restrictions on the argument with which they are associated. For
example,theAOadverbneedstobepredicatedofthesubjectin7.Thesentencein7b,
however,contrastedwiththatin7a,issemanticallyanomalousbecausethereferentof
thesubjectcannotbeagentive(seealsoMcConnell-Ginet1982,Zubizarreta1982).
(7) a. #Billcarefullyhaspickedtheflowers.
b. #TheflowerscarefullyhavebeenpickedbyBill. (Travis1988:306)
Thus,theseexamplesindicatethatthereisasemanticrelationbetweenAOadverbsand
anargumentoftheclause.
The content of the event thatAO adverbs are assumed to take as an argument in 5
varies depending on their position in a sentence. In 8, the adverbs appear before the
auxiliaryposition,havingaclausalentityintheirscope.
(8) a. Rudely,sheleft.
b. Alicecleverlyhasansweredthequestions. (Ernst2002:42,57)
In these circumstances, the agent argument of the adverb is judged as having the
propertydesignatedbytherelevantadjectivein5withrespecttotheentireevent.That
is,sheisseenasrudebecauseoftheeventofherleaving(comparedtootherthingsshe
couldhavedone,suchasnotleaving)in8a,andAliceisseenascleverfortheeventof
havingansweredthequestionsin8b.Thesearecalledclausalreadingsoftheadverbs.
However,whentheadverbsoccurinthedomainofV,theyreceivedifferentinterpre-
tations,asillustratedin9.
(9) a. Sheleftrudely.
b. Alicehasansweredthequestionscleverly. (Ernst2002:42,57)
In these situations, the agent argument is judged on the basis of some property of the
specific event of V-ing, typically, its manner. For example, she is seen as rude in the
waysheleft(forexample,shemighthaveleftwithoutexchanginggreetings)in9a,and
Aliceshowsclevernessinthemannershehasansweredthequestionsin9b.Theseare
referredtoasmannerreadings.2
Mental-attitudeadverbs.
Next,letuslookatrepresentativeexamplesofmental-
attitudeadverbs(hereafterMAadverbs)givenin10(Ernst2002:54,62–68).
2Notingthatclausal/mannerambiguitiesarefoundwithpredicationaladverbsingeneral,Ernst(2002)
arguesthatthetworeadingsarederivedfromthesameadverbwithauniquelexicalentryreferringtobothan
agentandanevent,asshownin5.SeeErnst2002:473,n.24,forfurthercommentsonthismatter.
Onthenotionofsubjectforsubject-orientedadverbs
591
adverbs
(10) MA :reluctantly,calmly,willingly,anxiously,eagerly,gladly,sadly,
contentedly
Ernst (2002) argues that these adverbs, likeAO adverbs, are two-place predicatesand
takeaneventasoneofthearguments.Theotherargument,however,iscalledtheexperi-
encerratherthantheagent,asshownin11.
(11)P (e,Experiencer)
ADJ
(P is the property designated by the adjective from which the adverb is
ADJ
derived.)
Note that MAadverbs as well asAO adverbs impose selectional restrictions on the
argument with which they are construed. For example, in 12, where the MA adverb
mustbepredicatedofthesubject,asemanticanomalyarisesin12b,butnotin12a,be-
causethesubjectdoesnotrefertoasentiententity(seealsoZubizarreta1982).
(12) a. #Thehostagesunwillinglywillthrowtherock.
b. #Therockunwillinglywillbethrownbythehostages.
(McConnell-Ginet1982:148)
TheseexamplessupporttheviewthatthereisasemanticrelationbetweenMAadverbs
andanargumentoftheclause.
MA adverbs also have both clausal and manner readings, though sentence pairs
involvingeachofthetwointerpretationsseemtobeverycloseinmeaning.Whenthe
adverbsappearbeforetheauxiliaryposition,asshownin13,theyhaveclausalreadings.
(13) a. Shecalmlyhadlefttheroom.
b. Willingly,thesailorssangafewofthechanteys. (Ernst2002:63)
Intheseexamples,theMAadverbsdescribeamentalstateoftheexperiencerargument
(the subject) that holds briefly before the designated event occurs or that persists
throughtheevent.Forexample,sheiscalmduringthetimethattheleavingeventholds
in13a,andthesailorsarewillingtoenterintotheeventofsingingin13b.
Bycontrast,whentheadverbsoccurinthedomainofV,theyhavemannerreadings,
asillustratedin14.
(14) a. Shehadlefttheroomcalmly.
b. Thesailorssangafewofthechanteyswillingly. (Ernst2002:63)
Intheseexamples,theadverbsexpressanovertmanifestationofamentalstateoftheex-
periencerduringthedesignatedeventeveniftheexperienceractuallydoesnothavethe
stateinquestion.Forexample,sheshowssomeovertsignofcalmassheleavesin14a.
In this respect, manner readings of MA adverbs are distinguished from their clausal
readings,underwhichtheadverbsdescribetheactualmentalstateoftheexperiencerand
itdoesnotneedtobeovertlymanifested.ItisnotedbyErnst(2002:68),however,thatthe
two readings are almost synonymous since the manifestation of a feeling is normally
expectedtoreflectanactualfeeling.3
To summarize, the two subclasses of subject-oriented adverbs (agent-oriented and
mental-attitudeadverbs)arebothtwo-placepredicatestakinganeventandanindividual,
andtheeventisrepresentedbytheconstituenttheadverbsimmediatelyc-command.The
individualcorrespondstoanargumentofthemainpredicate:itisinterpretedasanagent
foragent-orientedadverbs,whereasitisanexperiencerformental-attitudeadverbs.
Structural conditions on the interpretations of subject-oriented
3.2.
adverbs
.Inthissection,structuralconditionsthathavebeenproposedontheinterpre-
3Jackendoff(1972:49)alsonotesthatwhilesomeadverbsexhibitdiscerniblechangesinmeaning—thatis,
clausalormannerreadings—dependingontheirpositionsinaclause,otheradverbsdonot.
592 LANGUAGE,VOLUME89,NUMBER3(2013)
tationsofthetwosubclassesofadverbsareconsidered.Previousstudieshaveclaimed
thattheseadverbsaretypicallypredicatedofthesubjectDPthatc-commandsthem.
First, it has been noted in the literature thatAO and MAadverbs are not construed
with the object argument of the verb even if it refers to a sentient entity (McConnell-
Ginet1982,Déchaine1993,Wyner1998),asshownin15.
(15) a. ThedoctorexaminedJohncarefully. (Jackendoff1972:83)
b. JohnleftMarysadly. (Geuder2004:156)
Theabsenceofanobject-orientedreadingintheseexampleshasoftenbeenattributed
tothesemanticpropertiesoftheobject:itdoesnotcountascontrollingtheeventuality
(Ernst2002,Geuder2004)orhavingvolitionality(Wyner1998).
AOandMAadverbs,however,canbeconstruedwiththeargumentgeneratedasthe
object if it becomes the subject of a passive, which is why they are called subject-
oriented adverbs. For example, the adverbs occur immediately after the subject of a
passiveandarepredicatedofitin16.Ernst(2002:107)notesthatDebbieisinterpreted
astheagentofbeinghiredbythecontractorin16binthat‘shebroughtthiseventabout
insomewayoratleasthadtheoptionofrefusing’.
(16) a. Johncleverlyhasbeenexaminedbythedoctor. (Jackendoff1972:82)
b. Debbiewillinglywashiredbythecontractor. (Ernst2002:106)
Aquestionarisesastowhythesubjectofapassive,whichisselectedasthethemeor
patientargumentoftheverb,countsastheagentorexperiencerargumentoftheadverbs.
Ithasoftenbeenclaimedintheliteraturethatthesurfacesubjectofapassiveisassigned
akindofsecondaryagenthoodorvolitionalitybythepassiveauxiliarybe(McConnell-
Ginet 1982, Wyner 1998, Ernst 2002) or through coindexation between the subject,
INFL,andVP(Roberts1986).
Furthermore,AOandMAadverbscanbeconstruednotonlywiththesurfacesubject
butalsowiththedeepsubjectofapassive,thatis,theagentargumentofthemainverb
occurringasthepassiveparticiple.Forexample,in17,wheretheadverbsoccurbetween
thepassiveauxiliaryandthemainverb,theycanbeassociatedwitheitherthesurface
subjectortheDPintheby-phrase.
(17) a. Johnwascarefullyexaminedbythedoctor. (Jackendoff1972:83)
b. Debbiewaswillinglyhiredbythecontractor. (Ernst2002:106)
Whentheadverbsareconstruedwiththedeepsubject,theyareassumedtobepredicated
oftheDPintheby-phrase(Roberts1986)oranemptycategory(e.g.PRO)generatedas
the external argument of the main verb, coindexed with the DPin the by-phrase (see
Fukui&Speas1986,Bowers2002,Ernst2002).
Moreover, on the basis of the interpretations of AO and MA adverbs occurring in
passives, it is proposed that a certain structural condition is imposed on the DP that
these adverbs are predicated of. In particular, when these adverbs precede the passive
auxiliaryasin16,theycannotbeconstruedwiththeagentargumentoftheverb,incon-
trastwiththeadverbsoccurringaftertheauxiliaryasin17.Ernst(2002)arguesthatthis
isbecausetheadverbsin16areinahigherpositionthantheagent,whichisassumedto
belowerthanthepassiveauxiliary,andproposestheconditionin18.4
(18) Structural condition on subject-oriented interpretation: The DP (in an
A-position) denoting a subject-oriented adverb’s agent argument must
c-commandtheadverb. (Ernst2002:107)
4InErnst2002,theconditionin18ismeanttoapplytoexperiencerargumentsofMAadverbsaswell.
Onthenotionofsubjectforsubject-orientedadverbs
593
AsimilaranalysisisproposedfortheseadverbsbyFrey(2003),whoclaimsthatwhat
wecallAOadverbsaresubjecttotheconstraintin19andwhatwecallMAadverbsare
subjecttotheconstraintsin20.
(19) Thebasepositionofasubject-orientedsentenceadjunctisc-commandedby
anA-positionofthesubjectitissemanticallyrelatedto. (Frey2003:196)
(20) Thebasepositionofamental-attitudeadjunct
a. is minimally c-commanded by the base position of the highest-ranked
argumentofthemainpredicate,or
b. c-commands the maximal projection of the main predicate and is
c-commandedbythehighest-rankedargumentinthemainpredicate’sex-
tendedprojection. (Frey2003:183)
Constraint 20a is supposed to apply to MA adverbs merged with a projection of the
mainverb,whereas20bissupposedtoapplytothoseadverbsoccurringinthedomain
ofauxiliaryverbsandrelatedtothesubjectofapassive,aswesawin16b.Itiscorrectly
predicted under these conditions thatAO and MAadverbs can be construed with the
deepsubjectofapassiveonlywhentheadverbsoccurbelowthepassiveauxiliary.
Notethatsomequestionsremainastotheseconditionsontheargumentsassociated
withAOandMAadverbs.Ernst(2002)suggeststhatthenotionofagentrelevanttoAO
adverbsdoesnotnecessarilycorrespondtotheAgentinthematicterms,asnotedabove.
Itisnotstated,however,whatargumentscanthenbeagentsforAOadverbsorexperi-
encersforMAadverbs.ThismakesitdifficulttopredictwhichDPstheseadverbsare
predicated of. In contrast, Frey (2003) provides more explicit conditions on the argu-
mentsthatareconstruedwiththeseadverbs,thatis,thesubjectorthehighest-rankedar-
gument.Itisnotexplained,however,whytheseargumentsincertainconfigurationsare
selected by the adverbs. In the next section, I propose an alternative condition on the
argumentsoftheseadverbsthatcanaccountfortheseproblems.5
Tosummarize,somestructuralconditionsproposedinpreviousstudiestoaccountfor
the interpretations of subject-oriented adverbs in active and passive sentences have
beenconsidered.Thoughtheseadverbsareassumedtobepredicatedofthesubjector
highest argument that c-commands them, there is no consensus on which argument
countsassuchorwhytheadverbsareconstruedwithit.
Subject-oriented adverbs in locative pp constructions
4. .We now consider
the questions about subject-oriented adverbs raised in the last section through an ex-
aminationofthoseadverbsoccurringinlocativePPconstructions.First,welookatthe
core data concerning the relation between the positions of those adverbs and their
interpretations(§4.1)andconsiderthesyntacticstructureoftheconstructions(§4.2).I
thenproposeatheoryofthepredicationofadverbsandananalysisofthedatapresented
in§4.1.
Core data
4.1. .As noted in §3, it is generally held thatAO and MAadverbs are
associatedwiththesubjectDP,whichcanbeeitherthesurfaceordeepsubject.How-
ever,thereisacircumstanceinwhichMAadverbsseemtobeassociatedwiththeobject
DP.WhentheyappearbetweentheobjectandthePPcomplementinlocativePPcon-
structions,theycanbeconstruedwitheitherthesubjectorobject.ThePPcanreferto
the goal, the location, or the source of the object argument, as shown in 21. It should
alsobenotedthattheavailabilityofobject-orientedreadingseemstobesubjecttovari-
5Thequestionofhowtheorientationofsubject-orientedadverbsisdeterminedisalsoleftopenforfuture
researchbyGeuder(2004:157).
594 LANGUAGE,VOLUME89,NUMBER3(2013)
ationamongspeakersdependingonthechoiceofadverbsandverbs,anissuetowhich
wereturnin§4.3.6
(21) a. JohnsentBillreluctantlytothedoctor. (John/Bill)
b. MaryputSusiecalmlyonthebed. (Mary/Susie)
c. Marydraggedherchildunwillinglyoutofthebed. (Mary/herchild)
AlthoughtheexistenceofthiskindofexampleisnoticedinGeuder2004(see§1),why
MAadverbs can have object-oriented reading in these particular circumstances is not
accountedfor.Theambiguousreadingsarealsofoundwhentheadverbsoccurafterthe
PP,asillustratedin22.7
(22) a. JohnsentBilltothedoctorreluctantly. (John/Bill)
b. MaryputSusieonthebedcalmly. (Mary/Susie)
c. Marydraggedherchildoutofthebedunwillingly. (Mary/herchild)
6IthankLisaTravis(p.c.)forfirstbringingtomyattentiontheavailabilityofobject-orientedreadingsof
MAadverbsinlocativePPconstructions.IconsultedtwentyEnglishspeakersabouttheinterpretationofMA
adverbsinthesentencesin21orsimilarones.Giventhemeaningsoftheseadverbsdiscussedin§3.1,Iasked
themwhosementalstateorwhosemanifestationofamentalstatetheadverbsdescribeinthesentences.On
thebasisoftheiranswers,theargumentswithwhichtheadverbsinquestioncanorcannotbeassociatedare
showninparenthesesaftertheexamplesentencesinthetext.Amongthetwentyspeakers,fifteenanswered
thattheadverbsin21,oratleastoneofthem,canbeconstruedwitheitherthesubjectortheobject,whereas
fiverepliedthattheycanonlybeconstruedwiththesubject.Thegrammaticalstatusesgiventotheexamples
inthetextrepresentthosefortolerantspeakers.Itwasalsonotedbyarefereethatthereportedpatternofinter-
pretationsoftheadverbsin21andsimilarexampleswasnotarobustoneforfivespeakers(s)heconsulted.
Variationswerealsoseenamongthefifteenspeakerswhofoundtheobject-orientedreadingavailablein21
withrespecttowhetherconstrualwiththesubjectortheobjectispreferredineachexample.Somepossible
factorscausingthesevariationsarediscussedin§4.3.
AfewofthespeakersIconsultedaboutexample21foundthesentencesanomalousbecauseoftheposition
oftheadverbs,regardlessofwhethertheyareconstruedwiththesubjectortheobject.Accordingtoareferee,
thisintuitionisalsosharedbysomeofthespeakers(s)heconsulted.Ernst(2002:206ff.)suggeststhatthis
formofsentence,havinganoncanonicalorderwiththePPcomplementprecededbyanadjunct,isderivedby
rightwardmovementofthePPacrosstheadverb.Thisanalysiscanbetested,giventhatanextraposeditem
constitutes an island for extraction (see Baltin 1984, Lasnik & Saito 1992, Frey 2003). I consulted four
speakersabouttheexamplesin(i),whereanMAadverbfollowsthePP(ia)orprecedesit(ib)andextraction
occursoutofthePP.
(i) a. (*)WhodidJohnsendtheboystoreluctantly?
b. (*)WhodidJohnsendtheboysreluctantlyto?
Twospeakersfound(ia)betterthan(ib).However,theothertwofound(ib)fine,andoneofthemeven
preferred(ib)to(ia).Theseresultssuggestthatthereisvariationamongspeakersinwhethertheadverb-PP
orderinexample21canbebase-generatedormustbederivedbyrightwardmovement.Moreover,itisnoted
byErnst(2002:233)thatextrapositionofacomplementislessfavoredcomparedwiththatofanadjunct.I
speculatethatsomeofthosewhoneedtoapplysuchanoperationin21findtheordersubstandard.Seealson.
1forthismatter.
7IconsultedtenEnglishspeakersabouttheexamplesin22orsimilaroneswithMAadverbsinsentence-
finalposition.Sixofthemrepliedthattheadverbs,oratleastoneofthem,canbeconstruedwitheitherthe
subjectortheobject,whereasfourrespondedthattheycanonlybeconstruedwiththesubject.Someofthesix
speakersansweredthatobject-orientedreadingiseasiertoobtainwhentheadverboccursbetweentheobject
andthePP,asshownin21.Itisconceivablethattheinterpretationsoftheseadverbsareaffectedbyinto-
nation.Geuder(2004)notesthatthesentence-finaladverbin(i)canbeinterpretedeitherinsideoroutsidethe
scopeofnegation,dependingonintonation.Inparticular,whentheadverbhasanaccentofitsownandis
precededbyacomma,ittakeswidescope.
(i) Johndidn’tkisshiswife(,)deliberately. (Geuder2004:136)
ItisalsonotedbyEmonds(1976:155)thatpostverbaladverbsprecededbyacommacanonlyoccurinthe
matrixclause.Itseemspossiblethattheadverbsin22,beinginsentence-finalposition,aremorelikelytobe
separatedbyacommathanthosein21.
Onthenotionofsubjectforsubject-orientedadverbs
595
These examples also look curious in light of the recent analyses of MAadverbs dis-
cussed in §3: these adverbs are assumed to be predicated of an experiencer argument
(Ernst 2002) or the highest-ranked argument of the predicate (Frey 2003). The object
arguments in locative PPconstructions are usually not taken as experiencers. Nor are
theythe highest-rankedargumentof theverb.Thus, these examplesseemtobe worth
closeexaminationinstudyingthenatureoftheseadverbs.
MAadverbsareunambiguouslyconstruedwiththesubjectwhentheyoccurinsen-
tencesinvolvingsimple(two-place)transitiveverbs,aswesawin15b.Thepatterndoes
notchangeevenifanadverbialPPfollowstheobjectinthesesentences:theMAadverb
isstillassociatedwiththesubject,andnotwiththeobject,asshownin23.
(23) a. MaryhitJohn(onthestage)reluctantly(onthestage). (Mary/*John)
b. Marykissedthechild(forjoy)willingly(forjoy). (Mary/*thechild)
This fact suggests that the object-oriented reading of MAadverbs in locative PPcon-
structionsin21and22istiedtosomerelationship,suchaspredication,betweentheob-
jectandthefollowingPP.8
Notethattheobject-orientedreadingofMAadverbsalsodependsontheirpositionin
aclause.Iftheyoccurinclause-initialpositionorauxiliaryposition,thatis,betweenthe
subjectandthemainverb,theycanonlybeconstruedwiththesubjectDP,asshownin
24and25.9
(24) a. Reluctantly,Johnsenttheboystothedoctor. (John/*theboys)
b. Calmly,Maryputherchildrenonthebed. (Mary/*herchildren)
(25) a. Johnreluctantlysenttheboystothedoctor. (John/*theboys)
b. Marycalmlyputherchildrenonthebed. (Mary/*herchildren)
Thisfactindicatesthattheobject-orientedreadingofMAadverbsissyntacticallycon-
ditioned:itisavailableonlywhentheadverbsoccuraftertheobject.
Furthermore,AOadverbs,incontrasttoMAadverbs,cannotbeassociatedwiththe
object even when they occur in postverbal position in locative PP constructions. As
illustrated in 26 and 27, the adverbs are unambiguously construed with the subject
argumentregardlessofwhethertheyhavetheclausalorthemannerreadingdiscussed
in§3.1.10
(26) a. JohnsentBillcleverlytothedoctor. (John/*Bill)
b. MaryputSusiestupidlyonthebed. (Mary/*Susie)
c. BobdraggedFredrudelyoutoftheroom. (Bob/*Fred)
8ThequestionofwhetherthepredicativerelationshipbetweentheobjectDPandthePPcomplementis
mediated by the lexical verb has been an issue: in particular, whether the DPand the PPare selected as
argumentsbytheverb.Larson(1988)andHaleandKeyser(1993)holdtheviewthattheyare,whereasden
Dikken(1995,2006)claimsthattheyarenot.Weseeevidencein§4.2belowthattheDPisanargumentofthe
verb.Seen.16forcommentsonthestatusofthePP.
Asweseein§5.2below,somespeakersallowMAadverbstooccurbetweentheobjectandaresultativeAP
toamarginaldegreeandtobeconstruedwitheitherthesubjectortheobject.Thisfactalsosupportstheview
thattheobject-orientedreadingoftheseadverbsdependsuponthepresenceofapredicativephraseafterthe
object.
9MAadverbsinclause-initialpositiontendtohaveparentheticalization,whichisindicatedwithacomma
in24,asnotedbyErnst(2002:405).Wereturntotheseadverbsin§4.3.
10IconsultedtenEnglishspeakersabouttheexamplesin26and27orsimilaronesinvolvingAOadverbs.
Giventhesemanticpropertiesoftheseadverbsdiscussedin§3.1,Iaskedwhoisinterpretedashavingthe
propertydesignatedbytheadjectiverelatedtotheadverb,forexample,cleverorstupid,withrespecttothe
entireeventorthemannerinwhichthepersonacts.Allrepliedthatthereferentofthesubjectisunderstood
ashavingthepropertyinquestionanditisimpossibleordifficultforthereferentoftheobjecttobeinter-
pretedthatway.