CARACTERÍSTICAS BÁSICAS

The final category below the level of TP we will consider are adverbials (AdvPs). First, we will look at adverbs which modify a DP (via an adjective).

(156) Joyce’s recently single nephew went on a date, and she told Hopper that.

Xthat: Joyce’s nephew went on a date. MATRIX CLAUSE

#that: Joyce’s nephew is recently single. ADVP

#that: Joyce’s nephew is single. MODIFIED BY ADVP

In (156), the adverb recently composes with the adjective single, to modify the DP recently single nephew. There are several propositions—potential propositional discourse referents, really—worth looking at in the first clause of (156). The proposition conveyed by the matrix clause is ‘Joyce’s nephew went on a date’, the proposition conveyed by the adverb is ‘Joyce’s nephew is recently single’, and the proposition conveyed by the structure the adverb modifies—that is, the DP minus the adverb—is ‘Joyce’s nephew is single’. We’ll distinguish between these last two not because it matters for (156), but because it bears on the distinction made in the previous subsection between (i) a phrase introducing its own propositional discourse referent and (ii) a discourse referent being introduced by an embedder for its argument.

As just hinted at, this distinction doesn’t matter for (156): the only proposition avail- able for anaphoric reference is the one conveyed by the matrix clause. The adverb doesn’t introduce a propositional discourse referent, either for its own phrase or for the phrase it modifies. This isn’t true just of recently; in fact, a wide range of DP adverbs show the same behavior.

(157) Dustin moved a surprisingly heavy box, but Lucas didn’t believe that.

Xthat: Dustin moved a box. MATRIX CLAUSE

#that: The box was surprisingly heavy. ADVP

#that: The box was heavy. MODIFIED BY ADVP

(158) Just before the storm, Mike found a fortunately large umbrella, but I didn’t believe that.

#that: Mike found an umbrella. MATRIX CLAUSE

#that: The umbrella was fortunately large. ADVP

#that: The umbrella was large. MODIFIED BY ADVP

(159) I just emailed a Craigslist poster about a hopefully available apartment, but Steve doesn’t believe that.

Xthat: I emailed a Craigslist poster. MATRIX CLAUSE

#that: The apartment is hopefully available. ADVP

#that: The apartment is available. MODIFIED BY ADVP

The proposition associated with each matrix clause in (157)–(159) is available for anaphoric reference, except for in the Moore’s paradox frame in (158). Just like (156), none of the adverbs in (157)–(159) make a proposition available for anaphoric reference, either for the proposition they convey or for that of the phrase they modify. This includes adverbs which are intensional (surprisingly in (157), fortunately in (158)) and an adverb derived from an attitude verb (hope, in (159)).

Epistemic adverbs, however, are a systematic exception to this pattern.

(160) The magician presented a seemingly normal deck of cards, but I didn’t believe that.

#that: The magician presented a deck of cards. MATRIX CLAUSE

#that: The deck of cards was seemingly normal. ADVP

Xthat: The deck of cards was normal. MODIFIED BY ADVP

(161) Steve introduced Nancy to the candidate apparently most qualified for the job, but she didn’t believe that.

X/?that: Steve introduced Nancy to a candidate. MATRIX CLAUSE #that: The candidate was apparently the most qualified for the job. ADVP Xthat: The candidate was the most qualified for the job. MODIFIED BY ADVP

(160) is presented in a Moore’s frame which renders the matrix clause proposition an unsuitable antecedent for anaphora. Trying to understand the anaphor that as refer- ring to the proposition associated with the adverbial—‘The deck of cards was seemingly normal’—results in a similarly Moore’s-like sense of self-contradiction. The sentence does have one very natural felicitous reading, though: the speaker didn’t believe the deck of cards was real. This reading has the anaphor coreferential with the phrase being modified by the adverb, so the adverb must be introducing a discourse referent. The same is true in (161), where the phrase modified by the adverb has an associated propositional discourse referent available for anaphoric reference. (Here, understanding the matrix clause as an- tecedent requires accommodating a disagreement about memory, where Nancy didn’t remember being introduced to a candidate.)

And, just to make the case that much stronger, we can construct minimal pairs to parallel (157) and (159) above.

(162) Dustin moved a seemingly heavy box, but Lucas didn’t believe that.

Xthat: Dustin moved a box. MATRIX CLAUSE

#that: The box was surprisingly heavy. ADVP

Xthat: The box was heavy. MODIFIED BY ADVP

(163) I just emailed a Craigslist poster about an allegedly available apartment, but Steve doesn’t believe that.

Xthat: I emailed a Craigslist poster. MATRIX CLAUSE

#that: The apartment is allegedly available. ADVP

Xthat: The apartment is available. MODIFIED BY ADVP

(162) differs from (157) only in which adverb is used, where only the epistemic seemingly makes a proposition available for anaphoric reference. The same is true for (159), which replaces (159)’s hopefully with the epistemic allegedly, with the consequence of now having an additional proposition as an available anaphoric antecedent. We can observe, then, that epistemic adverbs do introduce a propositional discourse referent for the phrases that they modify.

Like the small clause data, this represents a challenge to the Krifka 2013 proposal in two ways. Empirically, these epistemic adverbs are structures below TP which never- theless introduce a propositional discourse referent. And, theoretically, they suggest that the discourse referent introduced is for the phrase modified by the introducer, not for the clause containing it.

This last point is of particular note, here, because the adverb cases highlight a point that the small clauses make unclear: the structure for which a discourse referent is intro- duced isn’t obviously a syntactic constituent. For small clauses, there has been debate in the literature whether a small clause like [Nancy] [brave] is a constituent, but the brack- eting for an adverbial structure like (162) is [a [[seemingly heavy] box]]. The words most

closely associated with the non-matrix proposition we can felicitously refer to in (162) are heavy box, but [heavy box] is not a constituent of the sentence. This might be assuaged by having the epistemic adverb move out of the DP such that it can scope over (and take as an argument) the phrase which had contained it, but I won’t sketch out such an ac- count here. Even so, these data still represent a sub-TP structure introducing a discourse referent, contra Krifka 2013.

We can also look at adverbs which modify VP. Like the adverbs which modify DPs, most such adverbs don’t make a proposition available for anaphoric reference.

(164) Nancy ran quickly. Jonathan told me that.

Xthat: Nancy ran quickly. MATRIX CLAUSE

#that: Nancy ran. MODIFIED BY ADVP

(165) Dustin sat still, but the teacher didn’t believe that.

Xthat: Dustin sat still. MATRIX CLAUSE

#that: Dustin sat. MODIFIED BY ADVP

(166) Steve immediately fled, but Nancy doesn’t believe that.

Xthat: Steve immediately fled. MATRIX CLAUSE

#that: Steve fled. MODIFIED BY ADVP

In (164), we can’t understand Jonathan to have said only that Nancy ran (not mentioning the speed at which she ran): the anaphor that can’t be taken to refer to the phrase that the adverb modifies. The anaphor can only be taken to refer to the proposition associated with the matrix clause—here, ‘Nancy ran quickly’. The same is true for (165) and (166). In (165), it is perfectly consistent to believe that Dustin sat but didn’t sit still, but we can’t interpret (165) as felicitously describing such a situation; similarly, it is consistent to believe that Steve might have fled but not immediately, but (166) can’t describe Nancy as having that belief.

On the whole, most VP adverbs don’t make a proposition available for anaphoric reference. But, once again, the same class of exceptions exist here:

(167) Steve apparently fled, but Nancy doesn’t believe that.

Xthat: Steve apparently fled. MATRIX CLAUSE

Xthat: Steve fled. MODIFIED BY ADVP

(168) Steve allegedly fled, but I don’t believe that.

#that: Steve allegedly fled. MATRIX CLAUSE

Xthat: Steve fled. MODIFIED BY ADVP

Here we have two variants of (166), but with epistemic adverbs. (167) is a minimal pair with (166), and (168) is a near-minimal variant, only in a Moore’s frame to make the availability of the non-matrix proposition even clearer. In (167), the anaphor that can be taken to refer to either the matrix clause proposition (‘Steve apparently fled’) or to the proposition associated with adverb-modified VP (‘Steve fled’). In (168), the Moore’s frame precludes felicitous anaphoric reference to the matrix clause proposition; there is still a felicitous reading of (168), though, where the anaphor refers to the proposition donveyed by the allegedly-modified VP ‘Steve fled’.

VP adverbs with epistemic modal flavor make the proposition associated with the phrase they modify available for anaphoric reference, just like DP adverbs. And, just as with DP adverbs, this constitutes an objection to the Krifka 2013 proposal, in that VP adverbs operate below TP. On the whole, we can conclude that where most adverbs do not introduce propositional discourse referents, epistemic adverbs do.

A summary of the observations made about subclausal constructions in this section is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Subclausal constructions Construction Introduce Propositional Discourse Referent? Subclausal Names no (131) Definites no (132) Possessives no (133) Intersective adjectives no (136)

Verbs with lexical presuppositions no (139) Small clauses Secondary Predication no (141)

Causative no (144)

Resultative no (148)

Epistemic yes (150)

Adverbials Modifying DP some (160)

Modifying VP some (167)