[Adverbial[Prly]] 

NorbertCorver

UtrechtUniversity,UiLͲOTS1



InthisarticleIexplorethenatureanddistributionof(mannerͲ)adverbialAPsinEnglish. Specifically, I address the following questions: (a) What is the nature of the adverbial marker–ly?(b)WhycanadverbialAPsbe“bare“(i.e.,without–ly)inpostverbalposition butnotinpreverbalposition.Theanswertothefirstquestionwillbethat–lyistheaffixal realizationofafunctionalcategoryPr.Theanswertothesecondquestionwillbetentative andmuchmoreexploratory.

 1.Introduction

Ever since Bowers (1975) and Emonds (1976), it is generally assumed within generative grammarthatlexicalitemssuchasthosein(1),i.e.wordsthataretraditionallyclassifiedas ,reallybelongtothecategoryofadjectives(seealsoAbney1987).

(1) quickly,easily,sharply,carefully

Aclearindicationoftheiradjectivalnatureisthefactthattheycanbespecifiedbythesame classofelements,viz.,degreewordslikeso,too,how,very,lessetcetera.

(2) a. Johnis[very/so/tooquick]  b. Johnran[very/so/tooquickly]  TheiradjectivalstatusisfurthermorecorroboratedbythefactthatinmanynonͲstandard varieties of English it is possible to realize the manner "" as a bare adjective (see Bowers1975:fn.4,Wolfram&SchillingͲEstes1998:337Ͳ338,Edwards1993).



 1 I would like to thank Noam Chomsky, Sabine Iatridou, Shigeru Miyagawa, Jairo Nunes, David PesetskyandMashaPolinskyfordiscussionofcertainpartsofthisarticle.Obviously,allerrorsare myown. 48

(3) a. Youpronouncedthatwordwrong. (Schidsbye1978)  b. Hedrovedeadslowroundthecorner. (Schidsbye1978)  c. Don’ttalksoloud!     (Zandvoort1963)  d. Ibeatthemeasy.     (Curme1977)  e. Heranquick.(Bowers1975)  f. Hewritesbad.(Bowers1975)  g. Theyansweredwrong.    (Wolfram&SchillingͲEstes1998)  h. You’redoingthatabittooslow.  (Edwards1993)  i. Itwasallcarpetedbeautiful.   (TagliamonteandIto2002)  TheaboveͲmentionedphenomenasuggestthattheformsin(1)arenotofthelexicalclass Adverb.TheyaresimplyinstancesofthecategoryAdjective.  As noted in Sugioka and Lehr (1983) and Ross (1984), the distribution of these bare adverbialAPsturnsouttoberestricted:theycanonlyoccurinpostverbalposition.Ifinthose English varieties that permit bare APs in postverbal position, the adverbial AP appears in preverbalposition,thepresenceofͲlyisobligatory.Thisisexemplifiedin(4)Ͳ(6);examples aretakenfromSchidsbye(1965),SugiokaandLehr(1983),andRoss(1984):  (4) a. Johnateitquick.  b. Johnquick*(ly)ateit. (5) a. Heguessedrightthatshewasfifty.  b. Heright*(ly)guessedthatshewasfifty. (6) a. Adamwrotehisnamecareful.  b. Adamcareful*(ly)wrotehisname.  Also in standard English, a bare AP is not allowed to occur in preverbal position. This is exemplifiedin(7).NotethatthesemanticallyequivalentadverbialAPquicklycánoccupythe preverbalposition.2  (7) a. Johnhas<*fast>lefttheroom  b. Johnhaslefttheroom   2 The bare adverbial AP fast can occur to the left of the  when it has undergone AͲbar movementto[Spec,CP],asin:   (i) Iwonder[howfast]ishecanrunti

49

Ifthe"adverbs"in(1)areadjectives(AP),thefollowingquestionsarise:(a)Whatisthenature oftheadverbialendingͲly?(b)HowdoweaccountforthefactthatbareadverbialAPsare permittedinpostverbalpositionbutnotinpreverbalposition.Inthisarticle,Iwilltrytogive answerstothesequestions,somebeingmorespeculative,otherslessso. Thearticleisorganizedasfollows:section2startswithadiscussionof"adverbformation"in Welsh.Itwillbeshownthat(mannerͲ)adverbialAPsaretypicallyintroducedbythelexical itemyn.IwillproposethatthisitemrealizesafunctionalcategoryPr,whichisacategorythat connectsapredicateandasubject.Insection3IproposethatEnglishadverbialͲly,justlike Welshyn,isaninstanceofthisfunctionalheadPr.Itwillbearguedthatitsaffixalstatus(A+Ͳ ly)followsfromEmonds’sprincipleof‘alternativerealization’.Section4exploresapproaches towardsthequestionastowhypreverbaladverbialAPscannotbe"bare"inEnglish.Section 5concludesthisarticle.  1. AdverbialAPsinWelsh  Adopting Chomsky’s (2001:2) Uniformity Principle, which states that “In the absence of compellingevidencetothecontrary,assumelanguagestobeuniform,withvarietyrestricted toeasilydetectablepropertiesofutterances”,Iwillstartmyinvestigationofthenatureand distributionoftheEnglishadverbialmarkerͲlywiththesyntaxofadverbialAPsinWelsh.The reasonforthisisthatWelshadverbialAPshaveaquitetransparantsyntacticstructure.The syntacticstructurethatIwillproposeforWelshadverbialAPswillformthestartingpointof myanalysisofEnglishadverbialAPs.  In Bowers (1993:fn. 4) it is proposed that the Welsh particle yn, which shows up in predicateAPandNPconstructionslike(8),isarealizationofthefunctionalcategory"Pr"(a mnemonic for predication). According to Bowers, Pr is a functional head present in the syntactic representation of all predication constructions, which functions as a mediator betweenapredicate(typically,thecomplementofPr)anditssubject(thespecifierofPr).3  (8) a. MaeRhysynathro isRhysPTCteacher ‘Rhysisateacher’

 3Bower'sproposalthatpredicationrelationsinvolveaspecificsyntacticconfigurationinvolvinga mediatingelementisquitesimilartoDenDikken's(2006)proposalthatpredicationrelationships insyntaxinvolveanabstractfunctionalhead(hisRelatorͲhead)thatcanmanifestitselfindifferent forms(e.g.tobe,as). 50

 b. Mae’rbwsyngynnar isͲthebusPTCearly ‘Thebusisearly’  Bowersproposesthefollowingstructureforasentencelike(8a): 

(9) [IPmae[PrP[NPRhys][Pr’[Pryn][NPathro]]]]  Thefunctionalheadynin(9)takesthenominalpredicateathroasitscomplementandhas thesubject(externalargument)Rhysinitsspecifierposition.  Whatisinterestingisthattheparticleynisalsotheelementwhichisusedtoturnan adjective into an adverbial element. That is, what yn is for Welsh adverbial APs, Ͳly is for EnglishadverbialAPs.Someexamplesofthe"adverbformation"bymeansofynaregivenin (10);examplestakenfromKing(1993).  (10)a. cyflym quick a.’ yngyflym ‘quickly’  b. gofalus careful b.’ ynofalus ‘carefully’  c. prydlon punctual c.’ ynbrydlon ‘punctually’  d. araf  slow  d.’ ynaraf ‘slowly’  e. flynyddol annual e.’ ynflynyddol ‘annually’  ExtendingBowers’analysisofynasaninstanceofPrtotheadverbialexpressionsin(10),we getthefollowingstructurefortheseexpressions: 

(11)[PrPe[Pr’[Pryn]AP]]  Iproposethatinasentencelike(12a),themodificationrelationbetweentheverbandthe adverbial expression is established by coindexation of the ‘subject’ of PrP (the specifier position)andtheEventroleassociatedwiththeverb(see(12b));cf.Higginbotham(1985):  (12) a. Darllenwchyllyfrynynofalus ‘readthebookcarefully’

b. …ddarllenwych<,Ei>[PrPei[Pr’ynofalus]]  NotethatbesidessimplexAP(i.e.,APsthatonlyconsistofanadjectivalhead,asofalusin (12a)),itisalsopossibletohavemorecomplexAPsinthecomplementpositionofyn,for exampleAPsthatconsistofanadjectiveandaspecifyingdegreeword: 51

 (13) a. Dachchi’ngyrru’nrhyaraf ‘You’redrivingtooslowly.’ b. Gwnadyaithcartre’nfwygofalustronesa  'Doyourhomeworkmorecarefullynexttime.’  In(13a),wehavethesequence’nrhyaraf,i.e.,yn+too+slow,andin(1b)’nfwygofalus, i.e.,yn+more+careful.FollowingthesuggestionmadeinBowers(1993)thatynheads PrP,wegetthefollowingstructurefor’nfwygofalusin(13b): 

(14)[PrPe[Pr’yn[mwygofalus]]] (mÆfafteryn)  2. English–ly  HavingdiscussedthesyntaxofmannerͲadverbialAPsinWelsh,letusnowreturntothe English "adverbs" in (1). Adopting Chomsky's uniformity principle, I propose that an adverbialformlikecarefullyhasthebasestructurein(15).Accordingtothisanalysis,Ͳlyisa functionalcategorythatconnectsasubject(specifier)andapredicate(AP)inapredication configuration. 

(15)[PrPe[Pr’[PrͲly][APcareful]]]  Onemighthypothesizethattheformcarefullyisderivedbyheadmovementofcarefultothe boundͲmorphemic Pr Ͳly. However, deriving a form like carefully by means of AͲtoͲPr movement seems unlikely given examples like very carefully and too carefully, where a degree word combines with the adjective. Under a syntactic head movement analysis of carefully,wewouldexpectwordorderssuchascarefullyvery([carefuli+Ͳly[APveryti]])and carefullytootobewellͲformed.Obviously,theyarenot.  Analternativeapproachtowardstheformationofadverbialformslike(very)carefully could be based on Emonds's (1985, 1987) notion of 'alternative realization'. Alternative realizationreferstothephenomenonthatsomegrammaticalfeatureAassociatedwitha closed class (i.e., functional) category F surfaces as an inflectional feature on the complement C of F. Emonds argues, for example, that the English comparative bound morpheme –er, which is realized on the lexical head A (e.g. tallͲer), is an alternative realization of the abstract comparative feature in Spec,AP, which in other adjectival contextscansurfaceasthefreemorphememore(e.g.,moreintelligent).If–erispresent, thefreemorphememoremustbeabsent(i.e.,*moretallͲer);thus,Spec,APmustremain 52

emptyinthatcase(see(16a)).Anotherillustrationofalternativerealizationcomesfrom ‘adverbialcase’NPs,including,forexample,GermanandGreekdatives.Emondsargues thattheseareactuallyPPsheadedbyanemptyP.The‘prepositionalfeature’isrealizedas acaseinflectiononthenoun(phrase)selectedbythephoneticallyemptyP;see(16b)). 

(16)a. [AP[Spece][A'A[+comparative]]]

 b. [PP[Pe][NPNp]]  That the closed class category (i.e., functional category) must remain empty (i.e., not lexicallyinstantiated)followsfromEmonds’(1985,1987)InvisibleCategoryPrinciple(ICP), which states that a closed class category F bearing a feature A may remain empty throughoutasyntacticderivationifthefeatureisalternativelyrealizedinaphrasalsister ofB.Thus,apatternlikemoretallerisruledoutbyICP. Under a theory of alternative realization, the formation of adverbial APs like carefully can now be analyzed as follows: themediatingPrͲhead is realized as abound morphemeͲlyontheheadofitsadjectivalcomplement.Schematically: 

(17)[PrP[Pre][AP(very)careful[Pr]]] (whereaffixalPrsurfacesasͲly)  BydrawingaparallelwiththeinternalsyntaxofWelshadverbialAPs,Ihavearguedsofar thatEnglishadverbialformslikecarefullystartoutfromthesamebasestructureasWelsh adverbialAPs,andthatthetwolanguagesdifferfromeachotherintherealizationofthePrͲ head.InWelshitsurfaceasthefreemorphemeyn,inEnglishastheaffixalmorphemeͲly. Thequestion,ofcourse,arisesastowhetherthereisanyindependentsupportfortheidea thatͲlycorrespondstoaPrͲhead,thatisaheadwhichactsasamediatorinapredication configuration. In what follows, I will try to give some substance to the idea that Ͳly is an (affixal)Pr.  A first potential argument in support of an interpretation of –ly as a bound morphemicmanifestationofthefunctionalheadPrisbasedonitsrelationshipwiththe wordlike,whichcanberegardedasfreeͲmorphemicrealizationofthecategoryPr(see below).Fromahistoricalperspective,therelationshipbetween–lyandlikeisquiteclear. There is general agreement about the fact that the suffix –ly finds its origin in the Old Englishlic,whichwasanominalelementmeaning‘form,appearance,body’(cf.Jespersen 1961;Guimier1985;Nevalainen1997).Jespersen(1961:377)notesthatanexpressionlike manlikhasthe‘adjectival’interpretation:‘havingtheformorappearanceofaman’and arguesthatthisformispreͲdatedbythepatternmangeͲlic,wheregeͲlicisanadjective carryingthemeaning‘havingthesameappearancewith’(asinLatin:conͲformͲis).Inits 53

adverbialuse,theadverbsuffixͲewasattachedto–lic:e.g.,manͲlicͲe.InmiddleEnglish, finalunstressedvowelsweregraduallyweakenedandeventuallybecamemute.Thisled tothedisappearanceoftheadverbialsuffix–e.Consequently,theadjectivalsuffix–licand theadverbialsuffix–licewerenolongerdistinguishedandwerebothshortenedinto–ly. AsJespersenpointsout,insomecaseswestillhavecompetingformslikegentlemanlike andgentlemanly.  In presentͲday English, the lexical item like, which thus historically relates to –lice, is usedincontextslikethosein(18):  (18)a. Marywaslikeadaughter(toBill)  b. Youseemlikeasensibleman  In (18a), like establishes a predication relationship between the subject Mary and the predicatenominaladaughter.In(18b),youisthesubjectandasensiblemanthepredicate. InthelineofBowers(1993),Iwillinterpretlikeasalexicalrealizationofthefunctionalhead Pr(seealsoDenDikken2006). 

(19)a. [TPe[was[PrPMary[Pr’like[adaughter]]]]]

 b. [TPe[seem[PrPyou[Pr’like[asensibleman]]]]]  Observethatlikecontributesmeaningtothepredicationrelationship.Thisisclearwhenone comparesasentencelike(18a)witha‘simple’copularconstructionlikeMarywasadaughter ofBill.Inthelatterconstruction,MaryreallywasadaughterofBill.In(18a),onthecontrary, Mary was not really a daughter ofBill; she was someone with the same qualities as a daughter. Thus, like contributes comparative meaning. This comparative meaning is also foundinthefollowingsentenceswherethelikeͲphrasemodifiestheverb:  (20)a. Iworked[likeaslave]  b. Peterfought[likealion]  In these examples, the like phrase has a (figurative/metaphorical) manner interpretation. (20a),forexample,meansthatPeterfoughtinalionͲlikeway.Let’sassumethatthismanner interpretation is obtained by means of a predication relationship between the simileͲ expression and the event argument E of the verb. More specifically, the (empty) external argumentintheSpecͲpositionoflikeis coindexedwiththeEventͲargumentEoftheverb worked.Schematically:  54

(21) Iworked<1,Ei>[PrPei[Pr’[Prlike]aslave]]  Noticeheretoothatthereisasubtledifferenceinmeaningwithasentencelike(22),which featuresasratherthanlike.  (22) Iworkedasaslave  Informallystated,thissentence hasthemeaning:‘Iworkedand Iwasaslave’.InBowers (2001),the smallclauseasaslaveisanalysedasaPrP,whosesubjectpositionis occupiedbyPRO(coindexedwiththemainclausesubject)andwhosecomplementposition isoccupiedbythepredicatenominalaslave.Schematically: 

(23) Iiworked[PrPPROi[Pr’[Pras][NPaslave]]]  Letmegivesomeadditionalevidenceforthefactthatliketakesapredicateattributeasits complement.Afirstargumentcomesfromthefollowingexamples:  (24) a. Whenthecarispainted,itwilllook[likenew] b. Shewasshouting[likemad]  c. You’llhavetowork[likecrazy]togetthisfinished  d. Imissyou[likecrazy]  Intheseexamples,likeisfollowedbyanAP,i.e.,acategorywhosecanonicalmeaningis thatofaproperty.4NoticethatthefactthatlikecombineswithanAPsuggeststhatlikeis not a (regular) preposition, since prepositions do not generally combine with AP complements.AsimilarargumenthasbeenusedbyBowers(1993)fortheinterpretation ofas,whichcanalsocombinewithanAPͲcomplement,asin(25a).Bowerstakesthisfact to be in support of the existence of a functional category Pr which takes a predicate attributeasitscomplement,asin(25b):  (25) a. IregardJohnascrazy b. Iregard[PrPJohn[Pr’as[APcrazy]]]

 4Thesearesortoffixedexpressions.Note,forexample,thatmodificationoftheadjectiveisnot permitted:  (i)a. *Itwilllook[likeverynew] b. *You’llhavetowork[likeverycrazy] 55

 Although like often contributes comparative (simile) meaning to the predication relationship (‘in the same way as’), there are cases in which like does not seem to contribute comparative meaning. An interesting construction which features this characteristicistheinterrogativewhat...like?Ͳconstructiongivenin(26),whichistypically usedasarequestforadescription: 

(26)a. A:Whatiishisnewgirlfriend[liketi]?    B:Sheislovely.

 b. A:Whati’stheeducationalsystem[liketi]inyourcountry? B:It’shorrible.

 c. A:Whati’shismother[liketi]?  B:She’saveryniceperson  AsisclearfromtheanswersgivenbypersonB,what…likeasksforasimpleproperty.Thereis nowayinwhich‘comparativemeaning’isinvolved.Thus,likeintheseconstructionsismore ofa"pure"mediatorwhoseonlyfunctionistoestablishapredicationrelationshipbetween theinterrogativepredicateattributewhatandthesubject,e.g.hisnewgirlfriendin(26a). Adopting Bowers’ PrPͲhypothesis, I assign the following base structure to a sentence like (26a/A): 

(27)[TP…be[PrPhisnewgirlfriend[Pr’like[what]]]]  IflikeandͲlyarebothmanifestationsofthePrͲhead,thenitisexpectedunderEmonds's Invisible Category Principle discussed above that the two elements cannot coͲccur. The patternsin(28)suggestthatthisisindeedthecase.  (28)a. Johnshoutedlikemad  b. Johnshoutedmadly  c. *Johnshoutedlikemadly  4.BareadverbialAPsand“dressed”adverbialAPs  HavingproposedasyntacticstructureforadverbialAPslikecarefully,Iwilladdressinthis sectiontwootherissuesthatwereintroducedatthebeginningofthisarticle,namely(a) theexistenceofbare/nakedadverbialAPs(see(3)),and(b)theobligatorypresenceofͲly onpreverbaladverbialAPs(see(4)Ͳ(6)). 56

As for the first issue, I will simply assume, in line with Chomsky's uniformity principle,thatthesyntacticstructureofthetwoadverbialAPsisthesameandthattheir difference at the surface (e.g., quickly versus quick) is purely a matter ofSpellOut, i.e. morphologicalrealizationofthesyntacticstructure.Morespecifically,Iwillassumethatin bare adverbial APs the PrͲhead remains silent. In Standard English, the occurrence of silentPrislexicallyrestrictedinthesensethatitisonlypossiblewithalimitedclassof adjectives(e.g.,fastbutnotquick;see(7)).Inthosevarietiesthatexhibitalargerclassof bare"adverbs",theoccurrenceofsilentPrismorewidespread(seethepatternsin(3)). 

(29)[PrP[Pr‡][APcareful]] (whereaffixalPrsurfacesasͲly)  Let us next turn to the arguably more interesting question: why would a bare AP be impossibleinpreverbalposition(see(6),repeatedhereas(30))?Or,toputitdifferently, whatforcestheappearanceofa"dressed"(morphologicallyovert)adverbialform(i.e.AͲ ly)whentheadverbialAPisinpreverbalposition?  (30)a. Adamwrotehisnamecareful.  b. Adamcareful*(Ͳly)wrotehisname.  Unfortunately,Ihavenodefinitiveanswertothisintriguingquestion.ButwhatIcandois try to sketch potential approaches to this puzzle by drawing parallels with other phenomena that display an asymmetry between a postverbal occurrence of some constituent XP and a preverbal occurrence of that same constituent. Before turning to those phenomena, I will briefly say a few words about the syntactic placement of the postverbalmannerͲadverbialAPanditspreverbalcounterpart. IassumethatthebasepositionofthemannerͲadverbialAPisapostverbaloneand thatthepreverbalpositionisamovementͲderivedposition.Inlinewiththegeneraltheory ofmovement,thepreverbalmannerAPoccupiesapositionhigherintheclausalstructure than its postverbal counterpart (this under the assumption that movement is to a cͲ commandingposition).NotethatsuchananalysisisalsocompatiblewithKayne’s(1994) LinearCorrespondenceAxiom(LCA),whichimposesatightrelationbetweenhierarchical structureandlinearorder:i.e.,thelinearorder‘VͲadverbialAP’matcheswithadifferent hierarchicalstructurethanthelinearorder‘adverbialAPͲV’.  It should be noted here that the movement relationship between the preverbal ‘adverb’ position and the postverbal one has been argued for before in Emonds (1976, 1987).Heproposesa(structurepreserving)“mannermovement”transformation,which movesanadverbialAPunderaVPͲnodetoapositionjustprecedingtheheadV.Emonds 57

further notes that “When a manner adverbial appears in this position [i.e. a preverbal position; NC], it does not always seem to be an EXACT paraphrase of the postverbal manner adverbial, but the differences in meaning are slight and may well be due to surfacestructureinterpretationofwhatrepresentsthe“focus”or“newinformation”of the sentence”; Emonds 1976:157. This remark of Emonds clearly fits in a theory of semanticinterpretationaccordingtowhichthemeaningofexpressionsbreaksupintotwo parts (duality of meaning): Deep Structure interpretation and Surface Structure interpretation(Chomsky2002).Inthecaseofargumentexpressions,theformersemantic propertyhastodowiththematicrelations,suchasAgent,Patient,etcetera;thelatter semantic property involves scope or is more discourseͲrelated (new/old information, topicality, et cetera). This duality of meaning arguably extends to predicates, such as adverbial APs. In its (postverbal) base position, the mannerͲadverbial AP fulfils its predicative role, and in its ‘SͲstructure position’ (i.e., the position created by Internal Merge) the adverbial AP occupies a structural position associated with some scope or discourseͲrelated meaning property. Exactly what surface property/properties is/are associatedwiththedisplacedadverbialAPis(still)notentirelyclearandinneedoffurther investigation, but there do seem to be certain differences in meaning and grammatical behavior between preverbal and postverbal manner APs, which suggests that the two structural positions should be formally distinguished. In what follows I will give some illustrationsofthedifferentgrammaticalandsurfaceͲinterpretativebehaviorofpreverbal andpostverbal(manner)adverbialAPs,withouttryingtogiveanydeepexplanationofthe observedphenomena.  Firstofall,answersto(manner)howͲquestionstypicallymusthavethenarrowlyfocused adverbialAPinpostverbalposition(#standsfor‘infelicitous’):

(31)A: Howhasheansweredthequestion?  B: Hehasansweredthequestionintelligently  B’: #Hehasintelligentlyansweredthequestion  Secondly,inthefollowingdiscoursefragmentinwhichtheanswerofspeakerB/B’carries (contrastive) focus on the verb (writes), it is strongly preferred to have the ‘repeated’ adverbialAPinpostverbalposition.  (32)A: Marysingsbeautifully  B: Yeah,andshewritesbeautifullytoo  B’: *?Yeah,andshebeautifullywritestoo  58

NoticefurtherthatpreverbalorpostverbalplacementofanadverbialAPhasaneffectin multiplewhͲcontexts(theadverbialAPbeingoneofthewhͲphrases):  (33)a. WhowilldrivehowquicklytoNewYork?  b. ?*WhowillhowquicklydrivetoNewYork?  Observe that the illͲformedness of (33b) has nothing to do with the ‘complexity’ of the adverbialAP.Asshownin(34),amodifiedadverbialAPcánoccurinapreverbalposition:  (34)a. WhowilldriveveryquicklytoNewYork?  b. WhowillveryquicklydrivetoNewYork?  Afurtherillustrationthatsurfaceeffectsareinvolvedinthesyntacticplacementofadverbial expressionscomesfromthedistributionalbehavioroftheadverbialproͲformso,whichin viewofthefactsin(35)maybeinterpretedasaproͲpredicate(cf.Bouton1970,Corver1997, Schütze2001).  (35)a. IwasonceaCatholic–atleastmyguardianstriedtomakemeso. (Thomas,LafcadioHearn,p.14(citedbyKruisinga1932))  b. PerhapsSuewriteskindly,butshedoesn’tspeakso.  Note that in (35b), the soͲcalled identifier so (cf. Bolinger 1972) is mannerͲreferring; it receivesitsmannerinterpretationthroughthe‘antecedentpredicate’kindly.  Asshownin(36),themanner‘adverb’socanalsooccurinpreverbalposition((36a,b) takenfromBouton(1970)):  (36)a. Carlwastoldtorunwithhislegsstretchedtothepointofpain,andhad hesorun,hemighthavewon  b. Feliciaadvisedustofryourclamsindeepfat,butafterwehadsofriedthem, Circesaidweshouldhaveeatenthemraw  Intheseexamples,socanbeparaphrasedas:‘(in)thatway’.AsnotedinKehlerandWard (1999),theplacementoftheidentifiersoisdependentontheinformationalstructureofthe discourseinwhichitisused.Theypointout,forexample,thatpostverbalso(asopposedto preverbal so) permits situationally evoked referents (i.e., referents which have yet to be actuallyintroducedintothediscoursebutwhichnonethelessaresalientduetotheirposition 59

inthesurroundingenvironment).Thisisexemplifiedin(37),takenfromKehlerand Ward (1999):  (37) [Andyisholdinganewbornbabywithonehandbehindherhead,andshows Gregory.] Andy:It’simportanttoholdherso,becausethemusclesinherneckaren’tyet developed.  Asregardsthepreverbalsopattern,KehlerandWardpointoutthatthemannerͲinformation is typically discourseͲold (i.e., the ‘manner referent’ has already been introduced into the discourse).Theinterpretationofpreverbalsoin(36a),forexample,canbeparaphrasedas “(run)insuchawaythathislegsarestretched”.Thus,sorepresentsmannerinformationthat isdiscourseͲold.  In view of the above examples, which admittedly are in need of more extensive investigation, we may conclude that preverbal and postverbal manner ‘adverbials’ have a differentsurfaceinterpretation,aswasalreadyhintedatinEmonds(1976).Iwillassumethat the postverbal position is the one involved in ‘Deep Structure interpretation’ (i.e., the predicationrelationbetweenthepredicativeadverbialAPand(theEventroleof)theVPto which it is adjoined) and that the preͲverbal position (i.e., the landing site position) is associatedwithcertain‘SurfaceStructure’interpretativeeffects.  Having provided some motivation for (informationͲ)structurally distinguishing postverbalandpreverbaladverbialAPsandfortakingtheformertobebaseͲgeneratedand thelattertobederived,letusreturntothequestionastowhybareadverbialAPs(see(30)) arepossiblewhentheyoccurpostverballybutnotwhentheyoccurpreverbally(inthesoͲ calledmiddlefieldofthesentence).Forthesakeofexplicitness,Iassumethatthepostverbal placementoftheadverbialAPinvolves(baseͲ)adjunctiontoVPandthepreverbalplacement oftheadverbialAPinvolvesmovementtotheSpecͲpositionofsomefunctional(discourseͲ related)headF.Schematically: 

(38) Adam[VP[VPwrotehisname]carefully/careful] (baseposition)

(39) Adam[FPcarefullyi/*carefuli[F'F[VPwrotehisnameti]]] (derivedposition)  Asindicatedearlier,Iwillonlysketchpossibleapproachestowardsthecontrastsdepicted in(38)and(39).Atthemoment,Ihavenoconclusiveanswers.Afirstapproachtowards the asymmetry depicted in (39) may be characterized as an ECPͲapproach. That is, the occurrenceof"bare"carefulinpreverbalpositiontriggersanECPͲlikeeffect.Specifically, supposethefunctionalheadPrcanbephoneticallyemptywhenPrPisinitspostverbal 60

baseposition(i.e.,adjoinedtoVP),becauseinthatpositiontheemptyheadissomehow structurallycloseenoughtotheverbtobe“properlygoverned”byit.WhenPrP,however, occupiesapreverbalposition(theSpecofthehigherFP),theemptyfunctionalheadPris nolongerwithinthe“governmentdomain”oftheverb.PresenceofanemptyPrͲheadin Spec,FPyieldsanECPͲviolation.Inthisstructuralposition,then,theoccurrenceof–lyasa lexicalrealizationofPrisobligatory (possiblyasalastresortstrategy).Inaway,thisis reminiscentofthecontrastbetweensententialsubjectsandsententialobjectsasregards theobligatorypresenceofanovertcomplementizer:  (40)a. Noonebelieved[(that)Marywasafraidofspiders]  b. [*(That)Marywasafraidofspiders]wasbelievedbynoone  InStowell(1981),thiscontrasthasbeeninterpretedintermsofECP:in(40a),theCͲhead can be empty since it is properly governed by the verb. In (40b), where CP occupies Spec,TP,theemptyCwouldnotbeproperlygoverned;thestructureisonlywellͲformedif Cisovertlyrealized. Another line of approach towards the obligatory appearance of Ͳly on adverbial APsinpreverbalpositionwouldbeonewhichtriestomakeaparallelwiththeobligatory appearanceoftobeinPredicateInversionconstructionslike(41b).Asshownbythebase pattern (i.e., subjectͲpredicate word order) in (41a), the  to be (which could be analyzedasaninstanceofPr;seealsoDenDikken's(2006)analysisofcopulasasRelatorͲ heads) is optionally present. In other words, the pattern without to be is permitted. In clausesinwhichPredicateInversionhasapplied(thatis,thepredicatephrasehasbeen moved to Spec,IP leaving the subjectͲnoun phrase in situ), the appearance of to be is obligatory(seeMoro1991,1997).Inotherwords,whenthepredicatenominalprecedes thesubject(i.e.,theelementpredicatedover)tobemustsurfaceovertly.Inthespiritof thisapproachtowardstheobligatoryappearanceofthecopulatobe,onemightwantto analyzetheobligatoryappearanceof–ly(aninstanceofPr)ontheinvertedadverbialAP in(39b)alongthesamelinesastheobligatoryappearanceoftobe(alsoaninstanceofPr) inPredicateInversioncontextslike(41b).  (41)a. Iconsider[John(tobe)thebestcandidate](subjectͲpredicatewordorder)  b. Iconsider[thebestcandidate*(tobe)John](predicateͲsubjectwordorder)  AlthoughasystematicandinͲdepthanalysisof(39)hastoawaitfutureresearch,itisclear from the distributional patterns in (39) that syntax is involved in the account of the distributionofadverbial–ly. 61

5.Conclusion  InthisarticleIhaveexploredthenatureanddistributionofadverbial–ly.Iarguedthat–ly is an (affixal) realization of the functional category Pr (i.e., Predicate head), which functions as a mediating element between a predicate attribute and a subject. I have exploredpotentialapproachestotheintriguingasymmetrybetweenpostverbaladverbial APs, which can be morphologically bare, and preverbal adverbial APs, which cannot be bare and must carry –ly. I further tried to show that there are reasons for structurally distinguishingpostverbalandpreverbaladverbialAPs;thatis,theyoccupyhierarchically different positions. A precise account of the formal contrast between postverbal and preverbaladverbialAPshasnotbeengiven;somepotentialapproachestotheproblem weresketched,though. ItseemsfairtosaythatourknowledgeofthesyntaxofadverbialAPsisstillvery limited. In this article, I have tried to make a small contribution to the study of this empiricaldomainofhumanlanguagebyfocusingonthenatureanddistributionofEnglish –ly.Maybethemoststrikingpuzzleremainstheasymmetryintheformalappearanceof postverbal and preverbal adverbial APs (i.e., with or without –ly). Importantly, this asymmetryisnotrestrictedtoEnglishbutisalsofoundinotherlanguages,asshownby theexamplesin(42)fromBrazilianPortugueseandtheexamplesin(43)fromWelsh.In otherwords,itisnotan“isolated”phenomenon.  (42)a. Elaterminouatareparapidamente/rápido Shefinishedthehomeworkquickly/quick ‘Shefinishedthehomeworkquickly.’  b. Elarapidamente/*rápidoterminouatarepa  (43)a. Maeowedicerddedyngyflym (Tallerman1999) IshePERFwalkPREDquick ‘Hehaswalkedquickly.’  b. Maeowedicylymgerdded IshePERFquickwalk ‘Hehaswalkedquickly.’  (42) shows that Brazilian Portuguese does not allow the short form rápido (which is a masculine formusedasadefaultform)inpreverbalposition.Inthatposition,onlythe “richer”formrapidamenteispermitted.Interestingly,in(43)weseethereversefroma 62

superficialpointofview:inpreverbalposition,the“richer”formyngyflymisimpossible; onlythe“bare”(i.e.,withoutyn)formcylymispermittedthere. Clearly,adverbialAPsdeservemoresystematicandinͲdepthinvestigation.   6.References  Abney,S.(1987).TheEnglishnounphraseinitssententialaspect.Ph.D.dissertation,MIT. Bolinger,D.(1972).Degreewords.TheHague&Paris:Mouton. Bouton,L.(1970).Doso:Do+Adverb.In:J.SadockandA.Vanek(eds.),Studiespresented toRobertB.Leesbyhisstudents.Edmonton:LinguisticsResearch,17Ͳ38. Bowers,J.(1975).AdjectivesandadverbsinEnglish.FoundationsofLanguage13,529Ͳ 562. Bowers,J.(1993).Thesyntaxofpredication.LinguisticInquiry24(4),591Ͳ656. Bowers,J.(2001).Predication.In:M.BaltinandC.Collins(eds.),Thehandbookof contemporarysyntactictheory.BlackwellPublishers,Malden,Massachusettsand Oxford,299Ͳ333. Chomsky,N.(2001).Derivationbyphase.In:M.Kenstowicz(ed.),KenHale:alifein language,Cambridge:MITPress. Chomsky,N.(2002).Onnatureandlanguage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Corver,N.(1997).MuchͲsupportasalastresort,LinguisticInquiry28,119Ͳ164. Curme,G.(1977(1931)).AgrammaroftheEnglishlanguage.Essex,Conn.:Verbatim. Dikken,M.den(2006).RelatorsandLinkers.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress. Edwards,V.(1993).ThegrammarofsouthernBritishEnglish.InJ.MilroyandL.Milroy (eds.),RealEnglish.ThegrammarofEnglishdialectsintheBritishisles.London: Longman,214Ͳ238. Emonds,J.(1976).AtransformationalapproachtoEnglishsyntax.NewYork:Academic Press. Emonds,J.(1985).Aunifiedtheoryofsyntacticcategories.Dordrecht:Foris. Emonds,J.(1987).Partsofspeechingenerativegrammar.LinguisticAnalysis17,3Ͳ42. Guimier,C.(1985).Ontheoriginofthesuffix–ly.In:J.Fisiak(ed.),Historicalsemantics, historicalwordͲformation.Berlin,NewYork,Amsterdam:MoutonPublishers,155Ͳ 170. Higginbotham,James(1985).Onsemantics.LinguistcInquiry16(4),547Ͳ593. Jespersen,O.(1961).AmodernEnglishgrammaronhistoricalprinciples.London:George, AllenandUnwin,Copenhagen:EjnarMunksgaard. Kayne,R.(1994).Theantisymmetryofsyntax.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress. 63

Kehler,A.andG.Ward(1999).Onthesemanticsandpragmaticsof‘identifierso’.Ms. King,G.(1993).ModernWelsh.Acomprehensivegrammar.LondonandNewYork: Routledge. Kruisinga(1932).AhandbookofpresentͲdayEnglish.Groningen. Moro,A.(1991).Theraisingofpredicates:Copula,expletivesandexistence,In:L.Cheng and H. Demirdache (eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics 15: Morepapers on whͲmovement.Dept.ofLinguisticsandPhilosophy,MIT,193Ͳ218. Moro, A. (1997). The raising of predicates: predicative noun phrases and the theory of clausestructure.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Nevalainen,T.(1997).TheprocessofadverbderivationinLateMiddleandEarlyModern English.In:M.Rissanen,M.KytöandK.Heikkonen(eds.),Grammatizalizationat work:StudiesoflongtermdevelopmentsinEnglish.BerlinandNewYork:Mouton deGruyter,145Ͳ189. Ross,C.(1984).Adverbialchange:Implicationsforatheoryoflexicalchange.In:D.Testen,V. Mishra,J.Drogo(eds.),PapersfromtheParasessiononLexicalSemantics.Chicago: ChicagoLinguisticSociety,243Ͳ249. Schidsbye,K.(1965).AModernEnglishgrammar.London:OxfordUniversityPress. Schütze,C.(2001).Semanticallyemptyheadsaslastresorts.In:N.CorverandH.van Riemsdijk(eds.),SemiͲlexicalcategories.Berlin,NewYork:MoutondeGruyter,127Ͳ 187. Stowell,T.(1981).OriginsofPhraseStructure.Ph.D.Dissertation,MIT,Cambridge,Mass. Sugioka,Y.andR.Lehr(1983).Adverbial–lyasaninflectionalaffix.In:Richardson,J.,M. marksandA,Chukerman(eds.),Papersfromtheparasessionontheinterplayof phonology,morphologyandsyntax.Chicago:ChicagoLinguisticSociety,293Ͳ300. Tagliamonte,S.andR.Ito(2002).Thinkreallydifferent:Continuityandspecializationinthe Englishdualformadverbs.JournalofSociolinguistics6,236Ͳ266. Tallerman,Maggie(1999).Welshsoftmutationandmarkedwordorder.In:M.Darnell,E. Moravcsik,F.Newmeyer,M.Noonan,K.Wheatley(eds.),Functionalismand FormalisminLinguistics.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,277Ͳ294. Wolfram,W.andN.SchillingͲEstes(1998).AmericanEnglish.Dialectandvariation.Malden, MA,Oxford:BlackwellPublishers. Zandvoort,R.W.(1963).AhandbookofEnglishgrammar.London,NewYork,Toronto: Longmans,GreenandCo.