Enfermedad sintomática (SIDA)

In this section, I forward the claim that adverbial jeweils is base-generated in a position

adjoined to VP (section 1.2.1). The adjunction analysis of adverbials follows the syntactic analyses of adverbials found e.g. in Jackendoff (1972) and Ernst (1998). It clashes with a recent proposal by Cinque (1999), where all (classes of) adverbials are treated as located in the specifier of some functional projection, i.e. in a fixed position created specifically for them. Cinque’s proposal is sketched in 1.2.2. Following this, I briefly state my reasons for keeping with the adjunction analysis.

1.2.1 The VP-Adjunction Analysis

The central claim regarding the syntax of adverbial jeweils is that it is adjoined to VP.

Notice that an adoption of the VP-internal subject hypothesis obviates the need to

postulate different adjunction sites for different classes of non-manner adverbs.4 _{Since the}

subject trace is located inside the VP, adverbials that take scope over the entire proposition including the subject need no longer be assumed to occur higher than IP (the surface position of the subject). For the semantics, it is sufficient that the adverb occurs higher than the subject’s trace, whose presence turns the VP into a proposition-denoting expression. This requirement is met if the adverb is adjoined to VP. As a result, adverbials that operate over entire propositions (e.g. speaker-oriented adverbs), or sets of events (adverbial quantifiers), can occur adjoined to VP.

If all adverbs (except for manner adverbs inside the VP) are adjoined to VP in their base-position, we expect them to be freely interchangeable. The question arises, then, of how to account for the restrictions on the relative order of different (semantic) classes of adverbials that were observed in the previous section. Following Jackendoff (1972:90) and Ernst (1998), I assume that the relative order of adverbials is syntactically free, but that the order restrictions follow from semantic considerations. Only certain orders of adverbials are interpretable, while others lead to semantic gibberish. Consider the relative order between the adverbial quantifiers and the event-modifying time or place adverbials in (11) and (12) above. In chapter IV.1, it will be argued that VPs denote sets of events, just as NPs denote sets of individuals. Such a set of events can be ascribed a place or time of occurrence (an event property) by an event-modifying adverbial, just as a set of

3 _{This test for classifying adverbs is found in Bartsch (1976).}

4 _{In the literature, adverbs are grouped into different classes according to differences in their syntactic}

distribution and interpretation. Modal and speaker-oriented adverbs are treated e.g. as sentence, or IP-adverbials. Other adverbials are treated as VP-adverbials (cf. e.g. Jackendoff 1972, Ernst 1998)

individuals (denoted by an NP) can be ascribed certain properties by a modifying adjective. Once a set of events is described in all its relevant properties, an adverbial quantifier can quantify over it, thus closing off the VP-denotation to further modification. A parallel situation is found in the nominal domain where quantifying expressions must also precede modifying expressions within the DP. The parallel order of quantifiers and modifiers in VPs and DPs is schematised in (18).

(18) a. adverbial quantifier >> event-modifying adverbial >> VP

jeweils ‘each time’ am Tag ‘during the day’ geschlafen ‘slept’

b. adnominal quantifier >> NP-modifying adjective >> NP

jedes ‘each’ weiße ‘white’ Haus ‘house’

When a time or place adverbial precedes an adverbial quantifier in violation of the scheme in (18a), it loses its modifying function because the adverbial quantifier has closed off the domain of modification. As a consequence, the adverbial cannot be interpreted at all (cf.12a), or it must receive an alternative interpretation. This happens in (12b), where the time adverbial denotes the restriction of the adverbial quantifier.

Similar arguments can be made concerning the other restrictions on the relative order

of adverbials.5 _{From this, it follows that there is no need to fix the linear order of adverbs}

in the syntactic component. This conclusion is in line with an analysis which treats all (non-manner) adverbials as adjoined to VP, no matter what their specific semantic class, and which fixes their relative order by filtering out the non-interpretable orders in the semantic component. The interested reader is referred to chapter IV.1 for a further discussion of the semantics of events and event-quantifying adverbials.

1.2.2 The Specifier Analysis

The VP-adjunction analysis disagrees with Cinque’s (1999) proposal concerning the syntax of adverbs. Cinque suggests that the order of adverbial is not governed by semantic requirements, but fixed in the syntactic component. In Cinque’s feature-based ‘specifier analysis’, adverbs of different semantic classes occupy the specifier position of different functional heads against which they can check their mood, modal, or aspectual features. By way of illustration, sentence (19a) with three adverbial expressions would receive the structure in (19b) on a Cinque-style analysis (I leave out tense and agreement projections). (19) a. Frankly, Peter has fortunately always won the game.

b. [MOODspeech-act Frankly F0, Peter has [MOODevaluative fortunately F0 [ASPfrequentative(I)

always F0 _[

VP won the game]]].

Apart from the functional projections in (19b), Cinque assumes many more functional projections, each of which hosts its own class of adverbials in the specifier position. The “at first sight, outrageously rich” (Cinque 1999:106) functional architecture of the clause is indicated in (20).

5 _{For instance, adverbials that operate over propositions (speaker-oriented adverbs: glücklicherweise}

‘fortunately’, modal adverbs: möglicherweise ‘possibly’) take scope over the adverbial quantifier for the latter forms part of the proposition. Therefore, they are free to adjoin to the left of adverbial quantifiers.

(20) MoodSpeechAct – Moodevaluatiuve – Moodevidential - Modepistemic – T -…-Moodirrealis –

frankly fortunately allegedly probably perhaps

Modnecessity – Modpossibility - Asphabitual - Asprepetitive(I) –Aspfrequentative(I) - Modvolitional -

necessarily possibly usually again often intentionally

Aspcelerative(I) -…- Aspterminative - Aspcontinuative - … - AspSgCompletive(I) - AspPlCompletive –

quickly no longer still completely tutto

Voice - AspCelerative(II) - Asprepetitive(II) - Aspfrequentative(II) – AspSgCompletive(II)

well fast/early again often completely

Cinque’s analysis is based on the cross-linguistic observation that not all languages convey adverbial meanings by means of free adverbial forms. Many languages express the same meanings by way of suffixes that are incorporated in the verb. Now, the striking fact is that the order of these suffixes is the mirror image of the order of the corresponding adverbs in ‘adverb languages’. Based on Baker’s (1988) ‘Mirror Principle’, Cinque concludes that these suffixes are heads of functional projections underlyingly, which are picked up by the verb on its way to I (or T in his terminology). On the strong hypothesis that the same inventory of functional projections is present in all languages, it follows that (20) is also the functional structure of a language like English. With the structure present anyway (because of universality), there is no additional cost involved in placing the respective adverbials in the specifier of their functional projection. This way, we arrive at the structure in (19b). In addition, the observed restrictions on the relative order between adverbials and between adverbials and other functional heads fall out for free. The order of adverbials follows directly on the hierarchy of functional projections in (20).

The chief merit of Cinque’s analysis is that it derives the order of adverbs in adverb languages and the order of suffixes in non-adverb languages from a universal underlying structure. It establishes a plausible connection between two - at first sight – disparate phenomena. As such, it is a very strong hypothesis about the position of adverbs (or elements with adverbial readings) across languages, which furthermore seems to maintain the autonomy of syntax.

In contrast, the VP-adjunction analysis does not say anything directly about the conspicuous mirror image of the order of adverbs in adverb languages and the order of suffixes in non-adverb languages. However, on the plausible assumption that the semantic content of an ‘adverbial suffix’ matches that of its corresponding free adverb, the fixed relative (mirror) order of suffixes is due to the same reason as it is with free adverbials. Alternative orders of suffixes are uninterpretable and therefore ruled out for semantic reasons.6

More generally, the combined options of free base-generation and movement (for discourse reasons) make the VP-adjunction analysis somewhat weaker in its empirical predictions than Cinque’s. The VP-adjunction analysis predicts a more graded, less clear picture of the relative order of adverbs. The only restriction is that the resulting structure must be interpretable.

Pending a decisive answer as to which analysis is more adequate, I will assume the

VP-adjunction analysis for adverbial jeweils (and other adverbials). I do so for the simple

6 _{A potential problem arises in connection with propositional suffixes that attach to the verb (which normally}

does not denote a proposition). In order to solve this problem, one could assume that the verb has already incorporated its arguments in form of pronominal affixes before combining with the propositional suffix. This is possible in so-called ‘pronominal-argument languages’ (see Jelinek 1984, 1995, Faltz 1995). In this connection, it would be interesting to investigate to what extent the set of pronominal-argument languages overlaps with the set of non-adverb languages.

reason that the VP-adjunction analysis does the job for the purpose at hand. It captures the fact that adverbial quantifiers are located somewhere at the left edge of VP. Since this thesis is not mainly concerned with the syntactic position of adverbs, this is all that is required.

Finally, observe that an account which excludes certain relative orders of adverbs on the base of semantic considerations is in line with one of the basic assumptions of the thesis, namely that interpretive requirements can have an effect on syntactic structure,

e.g. in the form of a semantic filter which rules out certain structures as uninterpretable.7

Therefore, the order of adverbs can be derived at no additional cost in the present framework. There is no need, then, to encode the order of adverbs in the syntactic component.

1.3 Summary

In this section, I have shown that adverbial jeweils has the same syntactic distribution as

adverbial quantifiers. On the base of this, adverbial jeweils is analysed as an adverbial

quantifier, in a position adjoined to VP (above modifying adverbials). This is in contrast

to Cinque’s specifier analysis, which would locate jeweils in the specifier position of a

frequentative aspectual head.