INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material subm itted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning beiow the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB RD., ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 8121859 Stump , G regory Thomas THE FORMAL SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS OF FREE ADJUNCTS AND ABSOLUTES IN ENGLISH The Ohio State University PH.D. 1981 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Copyright 1981 by Stump, Gregory Thomas All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or pages ______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______ 3. Photographs with dark background ______ 4. Illustrations are poor copy ______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy ______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page ______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements _____ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ______ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print ______ 11. Page(s)____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)____________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two p ag es num bered ____________ . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages ______ 15. Other ________________________________________________ _________________________ University Microfilms International THE FORMAL SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS OF FREE ADJUNCTS AND ABSOLUTES IN ENGLISH DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Gregory Thomas Stump, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1981 Reading Committee: Approved By Dr. David R. Dowty Dr. M ichael L. Geis Dr. Brian Joseph f a A dviser I Dr. Arnold M. Zwicky )epartm ent ent o fo fL L in in g gu uis is tic tic s s IDepartm For M arcia ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank the many people who contributed to the completion of this dissertation. I acknowledge with gratitude the help and encouragement of my adviser, David Dowty; his thoughtful guidance has resulted in many improvements in this work. I also sincerely acknow­ ledge the invaluable comments of the other members of my reading committee, Mike Geis, Brian Joseph, and Arnold Zwicky. I thank the students, staff, and faculty members in the Department of Linguistics for their discussion and good cheer; special thanks to Doug Fuller, John Nerbonne, and Marlene Payha. I thank my parents, Robert and Jeanne Stump, for their unfailing encouragement. Finally, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my wife, Marcia Hurlow, whose love and.support have made the fulfilment of this task possible. VITA January 29, 1954. Bom - Lawrence, Kansas 1976 ..................................... B.A., French, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 1977-1979 ....................... Teaching Assistant, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 197 8 ....................... M.A., Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 197 9 ..................................... Research Assistant, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS 'On the Interpretation of Two-Headed Stacked Relative Clauses,' Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics vol. 1. The University of Kansas Department of Linguistics, 1976. 'Interpretive Gapping in Montague Grammar,' Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen, and K, W. Todrys. Chicago, Illin o is, 1978. 'The Loss of the Subjunctive Mood in Yadi-Conditionals from Vedic to Epic Sanskrit,' Proceedings of the Mid-America Linguistics Conference. The University of Oklahoma Department of Communication, 1978. 'An Inflectional Approach to French C litics,' The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics no. 24. The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics, 1980. 'The Interpretation of Frequency Adjectives,' Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 221-258. 'The Elimination of Ergative Patterns of Case-Marking and Verbal Agreement in Modem Indie Languages,' The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics no. 26. The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics, to appear. iv ’Aspect in Free Adjuncts, 1 Proceedings of the Mid-America Linguistics Conference. The University of Kansas Department of Linguistics, to ap p ea r. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Linguistics Studies in Montague Grammar. Professor David R. Dowty Studies in Formal Syntax. Professors David R. Dowty, Michael L. Geis, and Arnold M. Zwicky Studies in Indo European Historical Linguistics. Professors Robert J. Jeffers, Use Lehiste, and Brian Joseph v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................... i i i VITA ................................ iv LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................... x INTRODUCTION .... .......................................................................... 1 C hapter I . THE SEMANTIC VERSATILITY OF FREE ADJUNCTS AND ABSOLUTES....................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction to free adjuncts and absolutes in English .............................................. 3 1.1 The free adjunct construction ......................... 3 1.2 The absolute construction .................................. 8 2. The problem of semantic versatility . 13 3. Traditional thoughts on the semantic versatility of free adjuncts and absolutes ........................................................ 15 4. Plan of the dissertation ....................................... 27 5. Some syntactic conventions .................................. 31 F o o tn o te s ....................................................................................... 43 I I . MODALITY AND THE INTERPRETATION OF FREE ADJUNCTS....................................................................................... 46 1. Son® basic rules for the syntax and interpretation of free adjuncts ................... 47 2. The semantic bifurcation of free adjuncts in modal contexts ................................................... 56 3. Explaining the entailment properties of strong and weak adjuncts in modal c o n te x ts .......................................................................... 59 3.1 Kratzer's theory of conditional m o d a lity .......................................................................... 59 3.2 The roles of strong and weak adjuncts in modal sentences ..... ................................ 69 4. A semantic correlate of the distinction between strong and weak adjuncts ................... 76 4.1 Carlson's ontology of stages and individuals ................................................................. 78 v i Chapter Page II. [Continued] 4.2 Be in Carlson's system ........................................... 85 4.2.1 Be^ e PjvI/predS. ............ 86 4.2.2 Be^ e Pll^/PRED* ........................................................ 88 4.2.3 Be^ e pivs/PREDi ......................................................... 89 4 .2 .4 Be4 z P iy S /PREDs ........................................................ 92 4.3 The stage/individual distinction as a semantic correlate of the weak/strong distinction ................................................................. 96 F o o tn o te s ....................................................................................... 102 I I I . TENSE