Table Of ContentDOCUMENT 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
