Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 497–544 | Cite as

Speaker-oriented adverbs

  • Thomas ErnstEmail author
Original Paper


This paper presents an analysis of the ordering of speaker-oriented adverbs (SpOAs) with respect to each other and negation, arguing that SpOAs are positive polarity items, and therefore normally cannot follow negation. The adverbs represent a speaker’s subjective commitment to the truth of the proposition represented by the adverb, which is incompatible with the falsity of the same proposition required by negation. This also accounts for the usual unacceptability of SpOAs in other contexts, such as questions and conditionals. The analysis extends to other contexts where SpOAs are acceptable, such as negative questions and negative counterfactual conditionals, in such a way as to contribute support for Giannakidou’s (non)veridical theory of polarity over “strengthening” theories based on scalar implicatures. It is also shown that SpOAs’ underlying semantic property of being subjective also helps predict their linear order with respect to each other.


Adverbs Polarity Nonveridicality Modality Subjectivity Speaker orientation Phrase structure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb placement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  3. Baker, Carl L. 1970. Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 169–186. Google Scholar
  4. Bellert, Irena. 1977. On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 337–350. Google Scholar
  5. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2000. Adverbs: the hierarchy paradox. GLOT International 4(9/10): 27–28. Google Scholar
  6. Bybee, Joan, and Fleischmann. 1995. Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  7. Carston, Robyn. 1996. Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 309–330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Structures and beyond: the cartography of syntactic structures, ed. Adriana Belleti. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: implicatures of domain widening and the “Logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 535–590. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  11. Cinque, Gugielmo. 2004. Issues in adverbial syntax. Lingua 114: 683–710. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cormack, Annabel, and Neil Smith. 2002. Modals and negation in English. In Modality and its interaction with the verbal system, eds. Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema, and Wim van der Wurff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  13. Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  14. deHaan, Ferdinand. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18: 83–101. Google Scholar
  15. Delfitto, Denis. 2000. Adverbs and the syntax/semantics interface. Rivista di Linguistica 12: 13–53. Google Scholar
  16. Drubig, Hans. 2001. On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. Unpublished manuscript, Tubingen: University of Tubingen. Google Scholar
  17. Ernst, Thomas. 1984. Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English. Bloomington: IULC. Google Scholar
  18. Ernst, Thomas. 1991. On the scope principle. Linguistic Inquiry 22(4): 750–756. Google Scholar
  19. Ernst, Thomas. 1992. The phrase structure of English negation. The Linguistic Review 9(2): 109–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  21. Ernst, Thomas. 2007. On the role of semantics in a theory of adverb syntax. Lingua 117: 1008–1033. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Polarity and the scale principle. In Proceedings of the 11th meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, eds. R.E. Grossman, L.J. San, and T.J. Vance. Chicago. Google Scholar
  23. Foley, William, and Robert Van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Frey, Werner, and Karin Pittner. 1998. Zur Positionierung der Adverbiale im deutschen Mittelfeld (On the positioning of adverbials in the German middle field). Linguistische Berichte 176: 489–534. Google Scholar
  25. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2001. Varieties of polarity items and the (non)veridicality hypothesis. In Perspectives on negation and polarity items, eds. Jack Hoeksema, Hotze Rullman, Victor Sanchez-Valencia, and Ton van der Wouden. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  27. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2006. Only, emotive factive verbs, and the dual nature of polarity dependency. Language 82: 575–603. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2007. The landscape of EVEN. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25: 39–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press. Google Scholar
  30. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin. Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  31. Haider, Hubert. 2004. Pre- and postverbal adverbials in OV and VO. Lingua 114: 779–807. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haumann, Dagmar. 2007. Adverb licensing and clause structure in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  33. Hengeveld, Kees. 1988. Illocution, mood, and modality in a functional grammar of Spanish. Journal of Semantics 6: 227–269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Horn, Lawrence. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  35. Hoye, Leo. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. Harlow: Addison-Wesley, Longman. Google Scholar
  36. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  37. Iwata, Seizi. 1998. Some extensions of the echoic analysis of metalinguistic negation. Lingua 105: 49–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected writings, ed. Roman Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  39. Kadmon, Nirit, and Fred Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kamp, Hans, and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  41. Karttunnen, Lauri. 1972. Possible and must. In Syntax and semantics, ed. John F. Kimball. New York: Seminar Press. Google Scholar
  42. Karttunnen, Lauri. 1977. The syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  44. Kiefer, Ferenc. 1984. Focus and modality. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 24: 55–81. Google Scholar
  45. Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research, eds. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  46. Kratzer, Angelika. 2002. The notional category of modality. In Formal semantics: the essential readings, eds. Paul Portner and Barbara Partee. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  47. Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257. Google Scholar
  48. Ladusaw, William. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD dissertation. Austin: University of Texas. Google Scholar
  49. Ladusaw, William. 1996. Negation and polarity items. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. Shalom Lappin. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  50. Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Concept, image, and symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  51. Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  52. Lewis, David. 1973. Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  53. Linebarger, Marcia. 1980. The grammar of negative polarity. PhD dissertation, Cambridge: MIT. Google Scholar
  54. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  55. Nilsen, Øystein. 2004. Domains for adverbs. Lingua 114(6): 809–847. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nuyts, Jan. 2001a. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  57. Nuyts, Jan. 2001b. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 383–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Palmer, F.R. 2001. Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  59. Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: issues in the semantic-pragmatics interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  60. Papafragou, Anna. 2006. Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua 116: 1688–1702. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Quirk, Randolph, Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman. Google Scholar
  62. Ramat, Paolo, and Davide Ricca. 1998. Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, ed. Johan van der Auwera. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  63. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  64. Romero, Maribel, and Chung-hye Han. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 609–658. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. PhD dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Google Scholar
  66. Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–479. Google Scholar
  67. Speas, Margaret. 2004. Evidential paradigms, world variables, and person agreement features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16(4). Google Scholar
  68. Speas, Peggy, and Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  69. Stalnaker, Robert. 1968. A theory of conditionals. In Studies in logical theory, ed. Nicholas Rescher. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Google Scholar
  70. Stirling, Lesley. 1993. Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  71. Tenny, Carol. 2000. Core events and adverbial modification. In Events as grammatical objects, eds. Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  72. Thompson, Geoff, and Susan Hunston. 2000. Evaluation: an introduction. In Evaluation in text, eds. Susan Hunston and Geoffrey Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  73. van der Wouden, Ton. 1997. Negative contexts: collocation, polarity, and multiple negation. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  74. van Rooy, Robert. 2003. Negative polarity items in questions: strength as relevance. Journal of Semantics 20: 239–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. von Stechow, Arnim. 2006. Times as degrees. Unpublished manuscript. University of Tuebingen. Google Scholar
  76. Wright, Von. 1951. Deontic logic. Mind 60: 1–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zwarts, Frans. 1996. Three types of polarity. In Plurality and quantification, eds. Fritz Hamm and Erhard Hinrichs, 177–238. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics Department, South CollegeUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations