Table Of ContentHarmon
1
Phrase
structure
and
Linearization:
Adverbs
in
ASL
Jessica
Harmon
In
this
paper,
I
address
two
issues
of
the
syntax
of
adverbs:
their
phrase
structure
and
the
mechanism
of
their
linearization.
Adverbs
can
be
analyzed
as
adjuncts
or
as
specifiers
of
heads.
The
phrase
structure
and
mechanism
of
linearization
of
adjuncts,
can
be
further
informed
by
looking
at
data
from
American
Sign
Language
(ASL).
Adverbs
in
ASL
can
be
articulated
either
as
manual
signs
or
as
non-‐manual
morphemes.
I
have
discovered
that
the
non-‐
manual
adverbs
are
manner
adverbs,
while
higher
adverbs
have
manual
signs.
This
split
in
the
distribution
of
manuals
versus
non-‐manuals
can
inform
the
discussion
of
both
phrase
structure
and
linearization.
While
the
manual
adverbs
can
be
analyzed
using
a
fixed
hierarchy
of
phrases
(Cinque
1999),
the
non-‐manual
adverbs
are
better
analyzed
as
unlabeled
concatenation/adjunction,
where
the
mechanism
of
linearization
is
unspecified.
These
non-‐manual
adverbs
show
us
that
strict
precedence
is
not
always
required
with
adjunction.
1
Introduction
First,
I
discuss
the
theoretical
status
of
of
adjunction
with
respect
to
adjunction
by
looking
at
the
behavior
of
adjuncts
and
the
operation
Merge.
In
section
2
I
examine
both
the
structure
and
mechanism
of
linearization
of
adverbs
described
in
Cinque
(1999)
and
compared
to
Hornstein
(2008).
In
section
3
I
give
a
brief
description
of
the
grammar
of
American
Sign
Language.
Section
4
presents
the
ASL
adverb
data,
making
a
distinction
between
the
manual
and
non-‐manual
adverbs.
I
section
5
I
give
an
analysis
of
these
adverbs,
using
Cinque’s
(1999)
fixed
hierarchy
analysis
for
the
higher
manual
adverbs
and
Hornstein’s
(2008)
concatenation
without
labeling
for
the
non-‐manual
adverbs.
This
allows
a
different
account
of
linearization
for
the
simultaneously-‐articulated
non-‐manual
adverbs.
1.1
The
problem
of
adjunction
for
syntactic
phrase
structure
A
distinction
between
complements
and
adjuncts
is
central
to
theories
of
syntax.
Complements
are
required
by
a
predicate
to
check
a
categorical
feature.
When
complements
are
merged
with
a
head,
as
in
(1),
a
different
constituent
is
created.
(1)
Here,
the
complement
YP
merged
with
the
head
X,
resulting
in
a
new
constituent,
XP.
Adjunction,
on
the
other
hand
is
an
operation
that
adds
a
modifier
B
to
a
constituent
A
and
creates
another
constituent
A:
Harmon
2
(2)
a.
b.
Here,
the
adjunct
B
is
attached
to
the
constituent
A.
The
resulting
constituent
is
still
A.
Adjunction
does
not
change
the
syntactic
category
of
the
modified
constituent,
so
An
NP
with
an
AdjP
adjoined
remains
an
NP.
This
distinction
between
adjuncts
and
complements
can
be
seen
in
the
Chomsky
(2000)
separation
of
the
operation
Merge
into
“pair-‐merge”
and
“set-‐
merge”.
The
operation
Merge
both
combines
elements
and
assigns
a
label
to
the
resulting
structure.
It
is
necessary
to
distinguish
the
two
types
of
Merge
with
different
labeling
mechanisms
because
there
is
nothing
else
to
distinguish
the
two
structures
otherwise.
Merge
is
such
a
basic
operation
for
combining
smaller
elements
into
a
larger
unit,
that
the
only
difference
between
attaching
an
adjunct
and
a
complement
is
in
the
label.
Chomsky
(2000)
makes
a
distinction
between
“set-‐
merge”
for
arguments
and
“pair-‐merge”
for
adjuncts.
When
an
argument
and
a
head
are
merged,
a
set
is
created
and
the
category
of
the
new
constituent
comes
from
the
head;
this
is
set-‐merge.
Pair-‐merge
is
used
when
adjuncts
are
merged,
forming
an
ordered
pair.
When
the
complement
merged
with
a
head
(set-‐merge),
a
new
constituent
with
a
new
category
is
formed.
When
an
adjunct
merged,
the
new
constituent
retains
the
same
category
(pair-‐merge).
Below
in
(2)
the
adverb
'bravely'
is
adjoined
to
the
VP
'fought
a
monster'.
When
the
complement
DP
‘the
monster’
is
attached
to
the
V
‘fought’,
a
new
constituent,
‘fought
the
monster’
with
a
new
category,
VP,
is
formed.
However,
when
the
adjunct
AdvP
‘bravely’
is
attached
to
the
VP
‘fought
the
monster’,
the
new
constituent
remains
a
VP.
(3)
a.
b.
Harmon
3
Adjuncts,
as
well
as
complements,
have
linear
variation,
with
some
occurring
to
the
left
and
others
to
the
right
of
the
constituent
they
modify.
This
can
be
seen
in
a
structure
like
(3)b.,
where
the
adverb
'bravely'
is
attached
to
the
right
of
the
VP
it
modifies,
whereas
in
(3)a.,
it
is
attached
to
the
left.
Within
shell
theory,
the
external
argument
is
introduced
by
little
v.
So,
the
only
arguments
V
can
have
are
the
complement
and
specifier
(for
double-‐object
constructions).
If
indirect
objects
are
also
introduced
by
a
little
v
(different
from
the
first),
then
there
is
only
one
argument
per
head.
Unlike
arguments,
there
is
no
apparent
upper
bound
on
the
number
of
adjuncts
a
phrase
can
have.
An
adjunct
does
not
change
the
syntactic
category
of
the
element
it
modifies,
so
adjuncts
are
allowed
to
be
recursively
added.
An
adjunct
does
not
affect
the
distribution
of
an
expression:
if
an
XP
can
occur
in
some
position,
it
can
occur
in
that
position
with
any
number
of
its
adjuncts.
In
(4)
a.,
the
VP
‘fight
the
dragon’
can
be
fronted
to
the
beginning
of
its
clause.
In
order
for
VP
fronting
to
occur,
the
proposition
must
be
salient
to
the
immediately
preceding
discourse
(thus
the
conjoined
sentences
here).
So,
in
(4)
a.,
‘fight
the
dragon’
can
be
fronted
to
the
beginning
of
the
clause
‘
he
did
fight
the
dragon’.
VP-‐fronting
can
be
a
test
of
what
kind
of
constituent
a
VP
and
an
adjunct
form.
If
a
VP
with
an
adjunct
is
also
a
VP,
the
adjuncts
should
also
be
able
to
occur
before
‘he
did’,
as
indeed
they
do
in
c.
and
d.
(4)
a.
George
could
fight
the
dragon,
and
fight
the
dragon
he
did.
b.
George
could
fight
the
dragon
with
a
lance,
and
fight
the
dragon
he
did
with
a
lance.
c.
George
could
fight
the
dragon
cleverly
with
a
lance,
and
fight
the
dragon
cleverly
he
did
with
a
lance.
d.
George
could
fight
the
dragon
cleverly
with
a
lance,
and
fight
the
dragon
cleverly
with
a
lance
he
did.
The
addition
of
various
adjuncts
does
not
affect
the
VP
status
of
‘fight
the
dragon’,
as
‘fight
the
dragon’
can
be
moved
without
the
adjunct
as
in
(4)b.
The
various
adjuncts
plus
VP
are
also
VPs,
and
can
also
be
fronted,
but
the
complement
‘the
dragon’
cannot
be
left
behind:
(5)
*George
could
fight
the
dragon
and
fight
with
a
lance
he
did
the
dragon.
Because
‘fight’
by
itself
is
not
a
VP,
it
cannot
be
fronted,
even
with
the
adjunct
‘with
a
lance’.
Under
Bare
Phrase
Structure,
once
an
adjunct
is
merged,
the
maximal
projection
is
no
longer
maximal.
In
(2)
or
(3),
once
the
adjunct
is
merged
into
the
sentence,
it
creates
another
segment
of
the
VP.
The
VP
‘fought
a
monster’
is
no
longer
a
maximal
projection,
since
there
is
another
VP
that
dominates
it.
Another
question
about
adjuncts
is
what
level
they
are
attached
to.
In
(2)
and
(3)
the
adjuncts
attach
at
the
VP
level.
In
X-‐bar
theory,
adjuncts
could
also
attach
at
the
V’
level:
Harmon
4
(6)
In
(6),
the
adverb
is
adjoined
to
the
V’,
and
the
resulting
constituent
is
also
a
V’.
Adjuncts
have
the
property
that
they
are
not
obligatory
to
the
syntactic
structure.
(7)
a.
He
killed
[the
monster]
[on
the
bridge]
b.
He
killed
[the
monster]
c.
He
killed
[on
the
bridge]
In
(7)
a.
and
b.
include
the
complement
of
the
verb
'killed',
[the
monster],
and
the
sentence
is
grammatical
with
(in
a.)
or
without
(in
b.)
the
modifying
PP
[on
the
bridge].
However,
if
the
complement
DP
[the
monster]
is
removed,
the
sentence
is
not
grammatical.
This
points
to
another
property
of
adjuncts:
they
are
not
essential
to
the
meaning
of
a
constituent.
Complements
make
up
part
of
the
inherent
meaning
of
the
head.
They
have
a
close
semantic
relationship
to
the
head.
'Killed'
above
requires
a
DP
complement
to
be
interpreted
as
the
patient.
The
relationship
of
a
verb
to
its
complements
is
idiosyncratic
in
the
sense
that
it
is
unpredictable
whether
the
complement
is
a
patient
(‘killed’)
or
a
theme
(‘see’)
or
whether
the
verb
is
intransitive
and
only
has
a
subject
(‘died’).
It
is
not
predictable
in
advance
which
verb
will
have
a
complement
or
how
to
interpret
that
complement.
Adjuncts,
which
for
verbs
modify
the
time,
locations,
manner,
etc,
are
not
required,
but
can
potentially
be
added.
That
is,
it
is
not
unpredictable
that
a
verb
can
be
modified
for
time,
location,
or
manner.
Adjuncts
add
extra
information
which
can
be
interpreted
just
by
virtue
of
being
adjoined
to
the
verb,
not
by
any
specific
requirements
of
the
verb
itself.
An
adjunct
can
be
defined
as
an
element
that
has
the
same
mother
and
sister.
When
an
element
is
adjoined,
it
is
not
only
that
the
categories
are
the
same,
it
is
that
it
is
two
segments
of
the
same
category
itself.
An
ambiguous
c-‐command
relationship
is
created
when
there
are
multiple
segments
of
the
same
category.
When
DP
is
merged
with
V,
a
new
category,
VP
is
made,
but
when
an
AdvP
is
merged
with
a
VP,
the
category
stays
the
same:
it
is
still
VP.
So,
the
mother
and
sister
of
AdvP
are
both
VP.
While
an
element
does
c-‐command
its
sister,
it
does
not
c-‐
Harmon
5
command
its
mother.
This
creates
a
structure
where
the
relationship
is
not
clear.
Does
an
adjunct
still
c-‐command
its
sister
even
if
it
is
dominated
by
another
segment
of
that
same
category?
1.2
The
problem
of
adjunction
for
linearization
Adjuncts
are
also
a
problem
for
linearization
at
the
PF
interface.
Linearization
of
constituents
relies
upon
asymmetrical
syntactic
relationships.
While
this
is
fine
for
most
structures,
the
linearization
of
adjuncts
is
less
clear
since
the
c-‐command
relationships
are
ambiguous.
If
adverbs
are
analyzed
as
adjuncts,
the
analyses
of
linearization
relying
on
asymmetrical
relationships
are
not
possible.
Adverbials
pose
a
problem
for
phrase
structure
because
their
mechanism
of
linearization
is
unspecified.
A
mechanism
of
adjunct
linearization
or
an
analysis
of
adverbs
without
adjunction
is
needed.
This
will
be
illustrated
in
greater
detail
below.
1.3
Why
sign
languages?
Sign
languages
can
inform
the
structure
of
adverbs
because
there
is
the
possibility
of
having
the
adverb
and
the
verb
appear
simultaneously.
Manual
signs
are
linearized
with
respect
to
each
other,
but
non-‐manual
signs,
like
some
adverbs,
occur
simultaneously
with
respect
to
other
signs.
These
non-‐manual
adverbs
are,
in
some
sense,
not
linearized
with
respect
to
the
verb
they
modify.
This
allows
for
the
possibility
of
observing
effects
of
hypothesized
structures
where
linearization
does
not
follow
from
an
asymmetrical
relationship.
These
effects
would
not
be
visible
if
the
adverbs
were
forced
to
be
linearized
in
precedence
relationships
with
respect
to
the
verb,
as
they
are
in
spoken
language.
The
possibility
of
simultaneous
transmission
from
the
syntactic
system
to
the
PF
interface
allows
us
to
make
a
distinction
between
structures
that
are
linearized
because
of
an
asymmetrical
relationship
and
those
that
are
linearized
because
it
is
only
possible
to
say
one
word
at
a
time.
1.4
Adverbs
in
American
Sign
Language
Adverbs
in
American
Sign
Language
(ASL)
have
at
least
two
forms:
independent
manual
signs
and
non-‐manual
facial
expressions
that
occur
simultaneously
with
other
signs.
High
adverbs
(evidential,
speaker
attitude,
etc.)
occur
as
manual
signs
and
in
a
fixed
order,
corresponding
to
Cinque’s
(1999)
universal
order
of
functional
projections.
This
puts
these
adverbs
into
a
Spec-‐Head
relationship
in
functional
projections
corresponding
to
the
semantics
of
the
adverb.
This
asymmetric
relationship
can
be
linearized
using
Kayne’s
asymmetric
c-‐command
or
Hornstein’s
(2008)
Concatenate
and
Label
mechanisms.
These
adverbs
do
not
have
to
be
categorized
as
adjuncts,
so
they
can
be
analyzed
with
a
theory
of
phrase
structure
that
does
not
include
adjuncts.
Low
(e.g.
manner)
adverbs
can
be
non-‐manual
in
ASL.
They
occur
at
the
same
time
and
for
the
duration
of
the
verb.
Manner
adverbs
have
been
analyzed
as
adjuncts
in
languages
besides
ASL,
however,
their
place
in
phrase
structure
and
linearization
mechanism
is
unspecified.
Hornstein
(2008)
analyzes
adjuncts
as
Harmon
6
concatenation
without
labeling.
From
the
distribution
of
manual
vs.
non-‐manual
adverbs
in
ASL,
it
can
be
said
that
if
something
is
not
labeled
(is
an
adjunct),
then
it
can
be
non-‐manual.
The
fact
that
in
ASL
neither
the
verb
nor
its
adjunct
has
precedence
over
the
other
shows
that
a
precedence
relationship
is
not
necessary
for
grammaticality.
This
supports
Hornstein’s
concatenation
without
labeling
analysis
of
adjuncts.
2
Adverbs
in
theories
of
phrase
structure.
Adverbs
have
been
traditionally
analyzed
as
adjuncts
(Pollack
1989,
Chomsky
1986,
1995,
Hornstein
2008
among
others)
and
as
specifiers
to
functional
projections
(Cinque
1999)
depending
on
what
data
is
emphasized.
2.1
Hornstein’s
Concatenate
and
Label
Phrase
Structure
Hornstein
(2008)
lays
out
a
theory
of
syntax
based
on
an
analysis
of
Merge
as
consisting
of
the
combination
of
the
operations
Concatenate
and
Label.
Concatenate
is
not
a
specifically
linguistic
concept,
but
is
a
basic
step
for
many
cognitive
operations.
Concatenate
creates
longer
and
longer
strings
without
any
nesting.
Label
is
the
mechanism
that
creates
nested
syntactic
constituents
that
can
be
used
higher
up
in
the
tree.
Higher
constituents
can
only
‘see’
the
lower
parts
of
the
tree
if
they
are
properly
labeled.
When
an
element
is
concatenated,
a
label
is
projected
up
the
tree
to
label
the
new
constituent.
This
creates
a
phrase
structure
where
nodes
are
labeled
in
order
to
be
interpreted
at
the
next
level
of
structure.
An
adverb
in
this
structure
would
be
concatenated
to
whatever
level
of
structure
is
necessary
for
the
scope
of
that
adverb,
and
the
resulting
constituent
would
be
labeled
based
on
the
element
that
the
adverb
is
modifying.
(8)
‘Gandalf
often
survives.’
Here,
the
adverb
‘often
is
concatenated
to
the
V
and
the
resulting
constituent
is
labeled,
according
to
Bare
Phrase
Structure,
as
V.
The
label
allows
the
structure
to
be
seen
by
higher
elements.
However,
Hornstein
also
allows
for
the
possibility
that
an
element
can
be
concatenated
without
being
labeled.
Adjuncts
are
independent
enough
that
they
can
be
interpreted
with
just
concatenation.
There
is
no
need
to
label
them
so
they
can
be
“seen”
and
interpreted
further
up
in
the
structure,
as
they
do
not
need
to
enter
any
Harmon
7
further
dependency.
This
creates
a
multidominance
structure
such
that
the
concatenated
element
“dangles
off”
the
sentence.
(9)
[vP
V
opened
^DP
‘the
door’]^Adv
‘quickly’
T’ (no label)
vP AdvP
V DP quickly
opened the door
‘opened
the
door
quickly’
This
allows
for
multiple
adjuncts
to
be
concatenated
and
reordered
without
changing
the
structure
of
the
rest
of
the
sentence,
as
seen
in
(10).
(10)
a.
[vP
V
opened
^DP
‘the
door’]^PP
with
magic
^Adv
‘quickly’
‘opened
the
door
with
magic
quickly”
b.
[vP
V
opened
^DP
‘the
door’]^Adv
‘quickly’
^PP
with
magic
“opened
the
door
quickly
with
magic”
Adverbs
then
come
in
two
varieties
of
structure:
those
that
are
concatenated
and
labeled,
and
those
that
are
just
concatenated.
For
Hornstein
(2008)
the
distinction
comes
from
decomposing
Merge
into
its
two
steps,
and
the
phrase
structure
differs
depending
on
the
occurrence
of
labeled
or
unlabeled
constituents.
If
the
adverbs
are
just
concatenated,
without
labeling,
then
they
will
not
be
able
to
be
fronted
as
in
(4)
above.
Only
if
the
adjuncts
are
integrated
into
the
V-‐projection
by
concatenation
and
labeling
are
they
able
to
be
fronted.
Dangling,
unlabeled
adjuncts
are
interpreted
without
being
labeled
because
of
their
relationship
to
the
V,
but
because
they
do
not
enter
into
any
further
dependency,
they
are
not
able
to
be
moved
as
a
labeled
structure
would.
2.2
Cinque’s
universal
adverb
order
Adverbs
have
ordering
restrictions
such
that
certain
adverbs
always
precede
others.
This
can
be
seen
in
ordering
restrictions
of
English
adverbs
like
‘evidently’
and
‘probably’.
(11)
a.
Gandalf
evidently
probably
survived.
b.
*Gandalf
probably
evidently
survived.
Harmon
8
Cinque
(1999)
looks
at
adverbs
in
several
languages
and
finds
that
adverbs
have
a
fixed
order
across
languages.
This
order
reflects
the
order
of
functional
projections
of
the
universal
hierarchy.
In
Cinque’s
(1999)
analysis,
adverbs
are
in
the
specifiers
of
their
respective
functional
projections.
So
‘evidently’
is
in
the
specifier
of
the
evidential
mood
phrase,
and
‘probably’
is
in
the
specifier
of
the
slightly
lower
epistemic
modality
phrase.
The
ordering
restrictions
stem
from
the
universal
order
of
the
functional
projections.
The
higher
phrases
have
scope
over
the
lower
phrases.
(12)
In
(12),
the
evaluative
mood
phrase
is
higher
than
the
epistemic
modality
phrase,
so
the
respective
adverbs
in
the
specifiers
of
these
phrases
are
ordered
linearly
based
on
the
universal
ordering
of
these
phrases.
Each
adverb
is
in
the
specifier
of
a
functional
projection.
Some
lower
adverbs
do
not
seem
to
have
these
same
ordering
restrictions.
Cinque
(1999)
refers
to
these
adverbs
as
‘circumstantial’.
Manner
adverbs
belong
to
this
class
and
can
be
reordered.
(13)
a.
Gandalf
quietly
quickly
opened
the
door.
b.
Gandalf
quickly
quietly
opened
the
door.
Cinque
(1999)
says
that
these
adverbs
are
not
inherently
affiliated
with
any
specific
functional
projection,
but
are
in
a
relationship
with
vP.
Cinque
retains
a
Spec-‐head
relationship
for
these
adverbs,
but
allows
that
there
may
be
multiple
vP
heads
and
that
they
can
be
reordered.
Harmon
9
(14)
In
(14)
the
manner
adverbs
are
in
the
specifiers
of
little
v.
The
phrases
could
be
reordered
in
into
to
obtain
the
various
adverbs
orders.
2.3
Linearization
2.3.1
Kayne
and
the
LCA
Kayne
(1994)
proposes
that
phrase
structure
completely
determines
linear
order.
If
phrases
are
linearized
differently,
there
must
be
a
difference
in
structure.
The
mechanism
of
linearization
relies
on
c-‐command,
particularly,
asymmetrical
c-‐
command.
A
distinction
between
categories
and
segments
(maximal/minimal
projections)
is
also
made.
C-‐command
is
defined:
X
c-‐commands
Y
iff
Y
and
Y
are
categories
and
X
excludes
Y
and
every
category
that
dominates
X
dominates
Y.
Kayne
proposes
the
Linear
Correspondence
Axiom,
which
applies
to
categories:
Linear
Correspondence
Axiom:
α
precedes
β
if
α
asymmetrically
c-‐commands
β
The
LCA
leads
to
the
specific
hypotheses
that
complements
follow
their
heads
and
specifiers
precede
their
phrases.
Kayne’s
proposal
does
not
allow
for
unclear
hierarchical
relationships.
Harmon
10
(15)
In
this
tree,
A
asymmetrically
c-‐commands
D,
so
A
(and
thus
maximal
projection
a)
precedes
D
(and
d).
Kayne
(1994)
allows
for
adjunction
in
the
case
of
specifiers,
using
the
segment/category
distinction
to
create
the
asymmetrical
relationship
necessary
for
linearization.
(16)
Here,
G
is
adjoined
to
F,
but
F
does
not
dominate
G
(only
one
of
its
segments
does).
Since
the
lower
F
is
a
segment,
not
a
category,
it
cannot
c-‐command.
So,
the
c-‐
command
relationships
in
(16)
are:
G
asymmetrically
c-‐commands
I,
J,
and
K,
and
I
asymmetrically
c-‐commands
K.
This
gives
the
complete
linear
order
of
the
terminal
nodes:
h
precedes
I,
h
precedes
k,
and
I
precedes
k.,
for
a
final
order
of
h,
I,
k.
Other
adjunction
structures
are
ruled
out
because
the
mechanism
of
linearization
does
not
provide
a
single
complete
order.
Kayne’s
phrase
structure
predicts
that
adverbs
will
be
in
an
asymmetric
relationship
with
the
phrase
they
modify.
The
c-‐command
relationships
between
all
the
elements
must
be
clear.
That
is
the
only
way
they
can
be
linearized,
as
adjunction
creates
ambiguity
in
ordering.
2.3.2
Hornstein
For
Hornstein,
linearization
does
not
happen
because
of
a
c-‐command
relationship
(since
sisters
also
c-‐command
each
other),
but
because
of
an
asymmetrical
relationship.
When
a
concatenated
structure
is
labeled,
it
creates
an
Description:In this paper, I address two issues of the syntax of adverbs: their phrase structure and the A distinction between complements and adjuncts is central to theories of syntax. This can be seen in ordering restrictions of English adverbs like 'evidently' and. 'probably'. (11) a. LIDDELL, SCOTT K. 198
