Academic literature on the topic 'Adverbs'

AbstractThe type of borderline adverbs in Indonesian is not just two - as stated in the Indonesian Book Language Book (1993) -, but four. The four types of border adverbs are verb-limiting adverbs, adjective adjuster adverbs, nomina-limiting adverbs, and numerical delimiter adverbs. Although in the discussion we can see a barrier adverb that can be used more than one type, but it will not weaken the description that has been obtained. Keywords: borderline adverbs, Indonesian.IntisariJenis adverbia pewatas dalam bahasa Indonesia bukan hanya dua — seperti dinyatakan dalam Tata Bahasa Buku Bahasa Indonesia (1993) —, melainkan empat. Keempat jenis adverbia pewatas itu adalah adverbia pewatas verba, adverbia pewatas adjektiva, adverbia pewatas nomina, dan adverbia pewatas numeralia. Meskipun dalam pembahasan dapat dilihat adanya adverbia pewatas yang dapat dipakai lebih dari satu jenis, namun hal itu tidak akan melemahkan deskripsi yang telah diperoleh.

Temporal adverbs can usually be divided into groups. Amongst those are adverbs of quantification, such as often, sometimes and never, and frequency adverbs, such as constantly and regularly. This paper presents some new data that shows that the Icelandic temporal adverb alltaf ‘always’ can be both an adverb of quantification and a frequency adverb. When alltaf modifies a progressive construction its meaning shifts, depending on the aktionsart of the restrictor. When the restrictor is punctual, alltaf functions as an adverb of quantification and has a frequency meaning (X is always happening at the time Y takes place). When the restrictor is durative, alltaf does not quantify over the event, and instead gets a durative meaning, similar to that of stöðugt ‘constantly’ (X happens constantly during the time Y takes place).

This paper is intended to describe the forms and meanings of adverb in Indonesian. Adverbs are “words” that function to specify or locate the proposition expressed within the clause. By this concept, I limit my attention to merely what the so called “extra clausal adverbs”, a categorical concept along with noun, adjective, verb, etc. This concept is fundamentally differentiated from “adverbials”, elements of clause structure along with subject, predicate, object, etc. By using data collected through introspective methods and some extracted from Intisari, and after analyzing them using distributional analysis followed by its continuation techniques (permutation, paraphrase, and comparison), the reasearch found that Indonesian adverbs are formally constructed at least by four kinds of morphological process, i.e. conversion, affixation, reduplication, and compounding. As far as the semantic roles are concerned, they can mainly be classified into four types, i.e adverbs of manner and state, adverbs of modality, adverbs of frequency and quantity, adverbs of time. Finally, the differences that hold among Indonesian adverbs belong to the same semantic types might be related to degree of formality, intensity, politeness, and style of the utturances. AbstrakMakalah ini bertujuan untuk memerikan bentuk dan makna adverbia dalam bahasa Indonesia. Adverbia adalah kata-kata yang berfungsi untuk mengkhususkan atau melokasikan proposisi yang diungkapkan oleh sebuah klausa. Dengan konsep ini, penulis membatasi perhatian pada apa yang selama ini disebut adverbia ekstra klausal, konsep kategori yang sepadan dengan nomina, adjektiva, verba, dsb. Konsep ini secara fundamental dibedakan dengan adverbial, elemen struktur klausa yang sepadan dengan subjek, predikat, objek, dsb. Dengan data yang dikumpulkan melalui metode introspektif dan beberapa di antaranya dikumpulkan dari Majalah Intisari, dan setelah menganalisisnya dengan metode distribusional disertai dengan teknik lanjutannya (permutasi, parafrase, dan perbandingan), penelitian menemukan bahwa adverbia bahasa Indonesia sekurang-kurangnya dikonstruksi secara formal dengan proses konversi, afiksasi, reduplikasi, dan pemajemukan. Sementara itu berdasarkan peran semantisnya adverbia bahasa Indonesia dapat dibedakan menjadi adverbia cara dan keadaan, modalitas, keseringan dan kuantitas, dan waktu. Akhirnya adverbia-adverbia yang tergolong ke dalam tipe semantik yang sama memiliki perbedaan dalam hal tingkat keformalan, intensitas, kesantunan, dan ragam tuturan.

Considering evaluation adverbs of Russian expressing two types of evaluation we argue that the syntactic properties of adverbs are determined by their meaning. The hypothesis is that adverbs of general evaluation (the type good – bad) should have more syntactic functions, than the ones of particularized evaluation, and for this purpose adverbs of hedonistic evaluation (e.g. tasty) are studied. We briefly expose the main insights of linguistic-oriented evaluation theory of N. D. Arutyunova, and discuss syntactic functions of хорошо ‘good’, typical of general evaluation adverbs. Section 2 is devoted to adverbs of hedonistic evaluation. We argue that adverbs of the type приятно – неприятно ‘pleasant – unpleasant’ should be excluded from this class, because in their lexical meaning only the general sensory evaluation is fixed, while its specification as hedonistic or psychological is conditioned by syntactic and/or semantic context. We show that hedonistic evaluation adverbs possess lesser number of syntactic functions than general evaluation adverbs. We demonstrate syntactic differences in the degree of acceptability of the explicit experiencer and the implicit causing factor with the hedonistic evaluation adverbs, conditioned by the channel of perception encoded in adverb’s lexical meaning, and give them the cognitive explanation. The results of our analysis bring into question the syntactic criterion of adverbs with floating scope proposed by M. V. Filipenko (2003). According to this criterion the adverbs of taste and smell evaluation should have floating scope because they have predicative function, but as all hedonistic evaluation adverbs they have the fixed scope over the semantic predicate ‘feel’ implicit in their meaning. We argue that the only syntactic property that guarantees the floating scope for an adverb is its ability to govern the subordinate complement clause with the complementizer chto ‘that’.

This study presents a corpus-based analysis of adjective phrases consisting of a grading element (‘grader’), a deadjectival adverb and an adjectival head. The interest of this pattern derives from the fact that these three constituents can occur in three different orders, as exemplified by more cognitively complex, cognitively more complex and more complex cognitively. The analysis builds primarily on the distinction between domain and non-domain adverbs. ADJPs with domain adverbs have different patterns from ADJPs with other adverbs. Whereas the adverb–grader–adjective order predominates in ADJPs with domain adverbs, the grader–adverb–adjective order is the most frequent type in ADJPs with non-domain adverbs. Within the set of non-domain adverbs, a secondary distinction is made between lexical and more grammatical types. Lexical adverbs are found to preferentially associate with the grader–adverb–adjective order while the more grammatical adverbs gravitate towards the adverb–grader–adjective order. The following five factors account for the empirical results: branching direction, the frequent-unit-first hypothesis, proximity, analogy/uniformity and modifier–head order. Structural representations are argued to draw on lexical information which is not coded by terminal nodes.

RÉSUMÉ. La locution adverbiale à quel point appartient à une sous-classe particulière d’adverbes appelés adverbes de quantité, tout comme l’adverbe combien, qui sert souvent à la gloser. Cette classification établie à partir du trait sémantique fondamental de degré, permet de présenter les propriétés générales communes aux adverbes de quantité mais non d’en saisir les particularités. L’objectif de ce présent travail est donc d’élaborer une description minutieuse centrée sur à quel point (emploi exclamatif) afin de saisir les spécificités syntaxiques, distributionnelles et sémantiques de ce marqueur exclamatif. Pour ce faire, nous avons procédé par induction en rassemblant un corpus attesté, en français contemporain, représentatif des différents emplois exclamatifs de à quel point. L’observation des données rassemblées nous a permis, en autres, de montrer que, bien qu’appartenant à une même classe grammaticale et sémantique (adverbe indiquant le degré), à quel point et combien ont des fonctionnements syntaxiques différents et des sens en emploi fort singuliers. Mots-clés : adverbe, conformité, degré, évaluation, intensité, quantité, seuil.ABSTRACT. It is commonly acknowledged that the adverbial locution à quel point belongs to a particular sub-class of adverbs called quantity adverbs, as the adverb combien, which serves to replace it. This classification, established from the fundamental semantic trait of degree, allows us to display its common general properties to the quantity adverbs but not to fathom its specificities. The aim of the present study is to set up a minute description centered on à quel point (in its exclamatory use) to seize the syntactic, distributional and semantic specificities relative to this marker. In order to achieve this goal, we have proceeded by induction, i.e. by gathering a certified corpus of different exclamatory uses of à quel point in contemporary French. The analysis of the gathered data has allowed us to show that, while belonging to an identical grammatical and semantic class (an adverb indicating the degree), à quel point and combien have different syntactic functioning and very particular meanings in use.Keywords: adverb, conformity, degree, evaluation, intensity, quantity, threshold.

Fronting a noun phrase changes the focus structure of a sentence. Therefore, it may affect truth conditions, since some operators, in particular quantificational adverbs, are sensitive to focus. However, the position of the quantificational adverb itself, hence its informational status, is usually assumed not to have any semantic effect. In this paper I discuss a reading of some quantificational adverbs, the relative reading, which disappears if the adverb is fronted. I propose that this reading relies not only on focus, but on B-accent (fall-rise intonation) as well. A fronted Q-adverb is usually pronounced with a B-accent; since only one element can be B-accented, this means that the scope of the adverb contains no B-accented material, hence no relative readings. Thus, the effects of fronting range more widely than is usually assumed, and quantificational adverbs are a useful tool with which to investigate these effects.

The paper discusses the process of adverbialization in English, focusing on one type of adverb, subject-modifier adverbs such as sadly, thoughtfully and pinkly. It is also shown that the -ly suffix in English (unlike its cognates in the other Germanic languages) has become an extremely versatile adverb suffix. Finally, it is argued that in English, the manner adverb category is prototypical, whereas other adverb types, notably subject-modifier adverbs, are less central adverbs.

Abstract This article addresses the question of how the distribution and role of English evidential -ly adverbs in the noun phrase can be accounted for using the framework of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG). Both adverbs and adjectives occurring in noun phrases are categorized in various ways. The results of the categorization offer insights into the distribution of these adverbs and adjectives. Four generalizations are arrived at concerning the combination of evidential adverbs and adjectives in noun phrases. First, the lower in the FDG hierarchy the category of an adverb, the less frequent the occurrence of that category in the noun phrase. Thus, higher reportative adverbs are very frequent, and lower adverbs of event perception are very infrequent. Second, evidential adverbs do not modify adjectives that express the speaker’s subjective evaluation of the referent. Third, the higher-level reportative and inferential adverbs modify adjectives expressing permanent properties, whereas the lower adverbs of deduction and event perception do not. Finally, neither restrictiveness nor the evaluative vs descriptive nature of the adjective appears to solely determine the category of evidential modification of the adjective. We furthermore discuss the pragmatic effects of the evidential adverb in the noun phrase, such as distancing, and the stress shift that may accompany it.