Circumstantial Adverbs and Aspect1 David Adger Queen Mary University of London George Tsoulas University of York

1 The syntax and semantics of manners and locatives In this paper we focus on the syntactic licensing and structural position of manner adverbials (specifically those in ly in English) and locatives. We show that there is a correlation between the licensing of arguments and the licensing of these elements. We argue that the observed correlations can be captured by developing a theory of the licensing abilities of a series of functional heads in the verb phrase. It has been known since Harris (1968) that there is a correlation between the ability of certain verbs to take a manner adverbial and their ability to subcategorise for an affected object. Thus, verbs like resemble, have, cost etc. are ill formed with manner adverbs: (1) *John resembled Sue slowly. (2) *John had flu worriedly.2 (3) *The slave cost 600 denarii wholeheartedly These verbs, although they take an object which is apparently marked with accusative case, do not allow of-insertion in their nominalisations3: (4) a. b. c. *John's resembling of Sue *John's having of flue *The book's costing of 30

We can take this as showing that these verbs do not mark their objects with true structural accusative, but rather with inherent accusative case (see Torrego 1998 for evidence that accusative can be inherent). A fact which is linked to this is Chomsky's (1965) observation that certain verbs which do not passivise, also cannot occur with manner adverbials, a fact which he explained by allowing a passive-triggering morpheme to be generated in the subcategorised manner position: (5) a. b. c. *Sue was resembled by John *Flu was had by Maria *50 were cost by Rhyme and Reason.

Further facts which confirm this type of proposal come from the incompatibility of manner adverbs with psychological predicates: (12) a. b. c. a. b. *He aggravated me revoltingly *They enthused the audience excitedly *We loathed the pig-farmer fiercely *She desired a raise enthusiastically *You loved him deeply (ok on an extent reading)

(13)

Again, we find a link here between case and manner modification: psychverbs and verbs of desire are usually assumed to be unaccusative (Belletti & Rizzi 1988), and therefore to be unable to assign structural accusative case. One of the main ideas of this paper is that the functional structure that is involved in the licensing of manner adverbials is correlated with the functional structure that is involved in licensing Agents. In turn, this same functional structure is partially correlated with the assignment of accusative case to an affected object, leading to the observations above. Note that we do not directly correlate the ability to license manner adverbials with the ability to select an affected object, since manners may perfectly well appear in the absence of such objects: (14) John walked jerkily to the cliff edge (15) We responded politely to his request Rather we treat this correlation as an indirect one, mediated by functional material which licenses Agents (see section 4). Turning to locatives, we find a clear link between the aspectual specification of a predicate and its interaction with these adverbial phrases. As is well known (see Levin 1993 for discussion), certain verbs allow locative prepositions to drop, with a corresponding change in the lexical aspect of the predicate: the predicate without preposition denotes an action with a final result: (16) (17) a. b. a. b. They climbed up the mountain. They climbed the mountain. They shot at the tree They shot the tree

In the (b) examples, the event necessarily culminates in a resultant state (in fact, it is telic), while this is not the case in the (a) examples, where there is no specification for telicity (that is, the predicate is compatible with a non-telic interpretation).

A striking correlation between locatives and telicity is noted by Borer (1998b). She shows that, in Hebrew, certain inversion processes are sensitive to the telicity of the predicate, so that inversion is impossible with atelic verbs, giving the contrast between the (a) and (b) examples. (18) a. Parcu mehuma Erupted riot "A riot erupted" *avad ganan (atelic) Worked gardener "A gardener worked" (telic)

b.

Note that with the atelic predicate in (18b) inversion is impossible. Interestingly, when a locative element is inserted, inversion becomes possible: (18) c. avad sam/kan/ecli ganan Worked here/there/chez-me gardener "A gardener worked here/there/at my house"

Again, what we seem to have here is a close link between the expression of a locative and the aktionsart of the predicate, which may then have further syntactic effects. Of course, all of these constructions involve other interfering factors (sentence aspect, focus/presupposition structure) and it is not our intention to provide an analysis of all correlations between locatives and telicity. What we will try to do is outline a framework which is capable of making the necessary links, and show in a couple of core cases how the analytic potential of the system plays out. In this paper, then, we seek to give a unified account of the way that manner and locative adverbials interact with case and aspect specifications. In doing so, we are led to a particular view of these low-VP adverbials which essentially places them within the low functional structure of VP, and where their licensing takes place through featural mechanisms similar to the mechanisms which are thought to be involved in the licensing of true DP arguments. 2. Some further data Many accounts of manners and locatives place them low within the VP, with locative adverbials hierarchically superior (Andrews 1982, Bowers 1993, Ernst 2001). This approach can make sense of the fact that manner adverbials appear closer to the verb than locatives:

(19) We tortured the general slowly in the garden (20) ?We tortured the general in the garden slowly Example (20) is only well formed with a clear prosodic break between the two adverbial phrases, suggesting that the manner adverbial has been 'moved' rightwards (possibly in the prosodic component of the grammar Zubizarretta 1998), or that, at least, it is not in its canonical position. One traditional approach would be to assume that the manner adverbial is generated lower down than the locative, and both are right adjoined to some projection of the verb (21). This data then follows naturally. (21) [ [ [ V ] Manner] Locative] This type of approach also captures the fact that manner adverbials are far more restricted in their syntactic distribution than, say, temporals: (22) This bridge may (*badly) have (*badly) been (badly) designed (badly) by Brunel (badly). (23) *We slowly often tortured the general (24) We often slowly tortured the general Note that, in (22), the manner adverbial is restricted to positions very close to the verbal predicate itself, or to rightward positions which again may be assumed to arise because of prosodic factors. Similarly, (23) and (24) show that, while a manner adverb may appear to the left of the verb, it may only do so if it is adjacent to it. It is also well known that preverbal manner adverbials have a different interpretation in English from postverbal ones (Stalnaker & Thomason 1973): (25) a. b. He has been slowly testing some bulbs He has been testing some bulbs slowly

In (25b.), each particular test must be slow, whereas this is not the case in (25a.). One approach to this might be to assume that the preverbal adverb is actually adjoined to the lexical verb itself, rather than to some higher projection, giving the following (rough) structures: (26) (27) been [slowly testing] some bulbs been [testing some bulbs] slowly

In (26), the adverb modifies the event denoted by the verb directly, with the semantic consequence that the testing event is slow. In (27), the adverb modifies the VP, including the object so that each event of bulb-testing is slow. We are not wedded to this analysis, but we do assume that there is something syntactically special about pre-verbal manner adverbs, and we concentrate in our discussion on post-verbal ones. One further argument for the position of post-verbal manner adverbs can be constructed on the basis of Costas 1996 discussion of adverb placement. Costa argues that PP arguments which occur after manner adverbs are in their base position, since they do not show any of the freezing effects one would expect of PPs in extraposed positions: (28) Which woman did he glance quickly at a picture of t? (29) *Which woman did he glance yesterday at a picture of t? compare the sentence with a locative: (30) *Which woman did he glance in the Louvre at a picture of t? This paradigm suggests that locatives are in a zone of the sentence after which extraposed elements appear, whereas manners are not (or, at least, do not have to be). Note, again, however, that this does not push us into an analysis where locatives are generated higher than manners, since the extraposition zone may actually be rather low down (see, for example, Haider 1998, or Kayne 1994). Two final points to note in this discussion of the relationship between manners and locatives is, first, that that PP manner adverbials induce the same effect as locatives and temporals (31), and, second, that these manner phrases may not occur preverbally without comma intonation (32): (31) *Which woman did he glance in a sultry way at a picture of t? (32) *I have in a sultry way kissed him It is possible, then, that -ly manner adverbs and the whole class of PP adverbials are differentiated in their syntactic position. This discussion suggests that the manner adverbs under consideration are syntactically positioned close to the surface position of the verb, while locatives are more distant. There is evidence, though, that locatives at least are actually lower down than the surface position of the object. Note that in (33), the quantifier in object position can bind the pronoun in the locative, suggesting it ccommands it (see also Pesetsky 1995, p161): (33) Maire tortured every rabbiti in itsi hutch

A theory which assumes that locatives are right adjoined will have to deal with this data by assuming that the object raises to a position higher up than VP (perhaps [Spec, AgrO]), and that the verb raises higher still. This set of data forms the basic desiderata of a theory of the positions of these adverbials. The conservative position is that manner and locative are both adjoined low to VP, and that the object and subject raise to positions outside VP: (34) TP DP T F DPi Vk AgrO VP VP tk ti T FP AgrOP AgrO VP LOC MAN

However, this approach does not explain why we find the extraction contrast discussed above, since both Locatives and manners are generated adjoined to VP. In addition, this approach cannot tie the putative differential positions of manners and locatives down to their syntactic licensing, since nothing is said here about licensing, and indeed the most recent proponent of this kind of structure puts the fact that manners are closer to the surface position of the verb than locatives down to purely semantic factors (see, e.g. Ernst 2001). 3. Recent accounts

Less conservative positions have also been adopted recently. The structure in (34) of course involves right adjunction, an option which UG has been argued to lack (see, notably, Kayne 1994). Right adjunction is barred under Kayne's assumptions because adjunction is barred, and because rightward merge to a head is barred unless the merged element is a complement. These constraints follow from a particular view of the way that PF linearisation is read off syntactic structures. Cinque (1999) develops some of Kayne's ideas within the context of a theory of adverbs, and essentially argues that adverbials are to be found in left specifier positions of various functional heads. He points out two ways of dealing with manner and locative adverbials: either they are generated as specifiers of light verb shells within the VP, or they are generated as complements of these heads, with the VP in their specifier (an idea he attributes to Nilsen 1998). Nilsen's proposal is similar to ideas first proposed within the Generative Semantics tradition by Geis (1970), and it is an idea he extends to all circumstantial adverbials. The core notion is that light v heads are involved which mediate a predication relation between the VP, which has already been constructed, and the adverbial. So for a sentence like (35) the VP "smoked banana-skins" is in the specifier of a light verb whose complement is "in the park" and whose semantic function is to locate the event denoted by the VP at the appropriate spatial point: (35) Johnny smoked banana-skins in the park (36) vP VP v smoked banana-skins v PP In the park This is, in many ways, an attractive idea, and leads to a fairly clean semantics for these adverbials. However, note that it still says nothing about the relative hierarchical ordering of manners and locatives. In addition, there is no evidence for the projection of these extra v heads: they have no phonological content, and their semantics is either vacuous, or uniformly predicational. If the latter, then it is impossible even to state the ordering of manners and locatives, since to do so would require the v heads to have different semantics from each other, or different syntactic properties.

A further problem here is the binding data noted above. Nilsens approach would assign a sentence like (33) the structure indicated: (37) Maire [tortured every rabbit] [in its hutch] In such a structure, no c-command relation holds between the quantifier phrase and the pronoun it binds. Cinque's own proposal suffers from the same problem. He suggests that this type of adjunct is generated in the specifier of a light verb shell above VP: (38) vP PP In the park v AdvP v quickly smoked banana skins Note that in order to achieve the correct word order, we need to posit further functional structure. The idea is that VP will raise into the specifier of a functional head (not shown above) immediately above the head that licenses the manner adverb, and then the projection of this head will raise into the specifier of a further head above the locative, giving rise to a type of 'leapfrogging' movement. Again, we reject this proposal on the grounds that it requires more functional structure than is motivated by the phonology or semantics of the constructions, and moreover it suffers from the same empirical problem we saw with Nilsens account, since the object will not ccommand a bound pronoun in the locative. 4. An alternative The three systems briefly discussed above, of course, were not primarily concerned with dealing with the data we outlined in section 1. However, we think that proper attention to this data actually allows us to motivate the v vP v VP

correct functional structure required to give an answer to questions of how these adverbials are licensed. Following much recent work, we adopt an articulated structure for the verb phrase, consisting of the lexical VP, surmounted by a number of functional heads which encode particular semantic relations. In particular, we adopt the idea defended by Travis (1991, 2000) and others (Borer, forthcoming, Ritter and Rosen 1998) that aktionsart (lexical aspect) is marked syntactically by an aspectual functional head which takes the verb itself as its sister. This head is itself the complement of the Agent introducing head little v (Kratzer 1995, Hale and Keyser 1993, Chomsky 1995). This gives us the following structure: (39) vP v Asp AspP VP

Johnson (1991), Lasnik (199), and others, argue, on the basis of diverse phenomena such as gapping and the interaction between particles and double object constructions, that the main verb in English raises out of the verb phrase proper to some higher head. The precise semantic nature of this head is not relevant for the discussion here, but we take it to encode sentence aspect, as opposed to the lexical aspect mentioned above. For convenience we will label the higher head Asp1 and the lower (the vp-internal one) Asp2. The full structure we adopt for the English verb phrase, then, is:

(40) Asp1

Asp1P vP DP V v Asp2 tv tv V tv Asp2P VP DP v

The DP in [Spec, vP] is interpreted (at least for some varieties of v, see Kratzer 1995) as the agent, and the verb raises through Asp2, and v to Asp1 in English. Our analysis of the adverbial facts will be couched in terms of the framework outlined in Chomsky (2000). In this framework, functional heads are assumed to bear features which set up dependencies with formatives that the head c-commands. These dependencies are formed when the functional head concerned is specified with uninterpretable features. These features are termed the probe. A probe essentially seeks matching features within its c-command domain (these matching features are the goal). The relationship between probe and goal is constrained by locality. Essentially, the relevant kinds of structures are like those in (41): (41) [ H{probe} [ ..... XP{goal} ... ]] (probe=goal)

The relation between the head H specified with the probe, and the formative specified with the goal, we will call the H-associate relation, extending Chomskys terminology. The formation of an H-associate relationship results in the deletion of the uninterpretable features involved in the relationship. Since it is the probe that is uninterpretable, the probe deletes. In addition to probes, heads may also be specified with EPP features. These features are selectional (i.e. involve category information) and are also uninterpretable. An EPP feature is satisfied when a category of the

10

appropriate featural specification is merged with the head bearing the feature. The XP that is merged can be either the goal itself, or some other phrase (for example, an expletive): (42) [ XP H{probe, EPP} [ ..... XP{goal} ... ]] (probe=goal)

The deletion of EPP feature is, in general, parameterised, so that some languages allow multiple subject constructions, as discussed in section 4.10.3 of Chomsky (1995). The system outlined there can be thought of as a set of conditions on the deletion of the EPP feature: a language does not have EPP (VSO languages); has EPP but merge into [Spec, HP] causes EPP to delete (SVO without Multiple Subject Constructions (MSCs)); has EPP but allows one element to merge without deleting EPP (SVO with MSCs); or allows arbitrarily many merges without deleting EPP (polysynthetic languages). We will adopt Chomskys idea that the EPP feature must be satisfied, and that when an H-associate relation is set up, the XP (usually determined by the goal of Hs probes) will be forced to raise to merge with the projection of H, satisfying EPP. In this situation, EPP deletes. We will, however, extend this picture, adapting Chomskys idea that deletion of EPP is an option that UG allows variation for. The core extension is the assumption that, when EPP is satisfied by an element which hasn't induced the H-associate relation, the EPP feature does not have to delete immediately4. Within a phasebased model (Chomsky 2001), we may suppose with Pesetsky and Torrego (2001) that deletion of features takes place at the phase level. Thus, for what concerns us here, an EPP feature that has not deleted immediately remains active until the current phase is completed at which point the feature is deleted, perhaps as part of the TRANSFER operation of Chomsky (2002). In essence, then, a single EPP feature may trigger Merge of an arbitrary number of non-Agreeing XPs. If no Agreeing XP is merged at all, the EPP feature is deleted at phase-level. If an Agreeing XP is Merged, then EPP is deleted immediately. It follows that we allow an arbitrary number of non-agreeing XPs to merge with H, in the general case: (43) [ XP YP ... ZP H{probe, EPP} [ (probe=goal) ..... XP{goal} ... ]]

In (43) EPP will only be forced to delete when XP is merged with the projection of H, since only XP is determined by the goal of Hs probe. This system gives rise to a potentially infinite number of adverbials in inner specifier positions, constrained by only processing considerations, and

11

the particular specification of the EPP feature (i.e. what it is a selectional feature for). Before seeing how this picture pans out in detail, we should state how the semantic interpretation of these structures is governed. Adapting proposals by Borer (1998a, b) among others (McClure 1995, van Hout 1996), let us assume that a telic interpretation of Asp arises when Asp's probe finds a matching goal. Put another way, only telic specifications of Asp have an uninterpretable probe which will match features of the object. The features that are relevant, in this case, are features governing the quantization of the object (following Verkuyl 1993). We will call this feature [Quant] and assume that it is interpretable on DP, but not on telic Asp. The specification of telic asp is then Asp[uQuant, EPP], where the u prefix signals that the feature is uninterpretble (following the notation of Pesetsky and Torrego 2001). This allows us to capture the well-known fact that quantized objects give rise to telic readings of certain predicates: (44) We built that house (telic) (45) We built houses (atelic) Having outlined the basic system of assumptions we adopt, the particular cases to be considered are as follows: when Asp's probe finds a matching goal in the VP but no locative phrase has been constructed from the numeration, the Asp-associate relation is established, a telic interpretation results, and the object raises to [Spec, Asp] to satisfy the EPP feature of Asp as in (46) (irrelevant details omitted): (46) vP DP v DP Asp2 V v Asp2P Asp2 VP DP

12

Since an Asp-associate relation has been established, the EPP feature of Asp deletes and no further Merge into [Spec, AspP] is possible. However, if a locative phrase is accessible at a point in the derivation before DP raises, it may satisfy the EPP feature of Asp. By accessible at this point of the derivation, we simply mean previously constructed in the derivation, or accessible as a simple lexical item from the numeration. It may be the case that these locatives have been adjoined to VP, and move to an inner [Spec, AspP], but this is not necessary, and in fact might be ruled out, since nothing will force them to Merge with VP. The minimal solution is that they are simply present in the workspace of the derivation. Note that the EPP feature of Asp must be of the correct selectional type to allow a locative to Merge, and we will assume that locative PPs and quantized DP objects both are specified with interpretable (and therefore selectable) features which relate an event and an individual in terms of spatial measure: a locative measures out the physical extent over which an event is delimited, while a quantized DP measures out the physical extent of the result of the event. Locatives, then, are specified as [Quant]. Of course, the idea that certain predicates can select for particular semantic properties like this, and that such selection results in particular prepositions, or particular case forms, is a traditional one. The preposition within the locative establishes a probe-goal relationship with the DP in terms of its case requirements. Asps [uQuant] feature, on the other hand, cannot match with [Quant] on DP because [Quant] on the locative P intervenes. Our proposal leads to the possibility that a number of locatives may be merged with Asp. However, once the object has been merged, then the EPP feature deletes, and no further merge of locatives is possible, since merge of locatives is only made possible by the presence of an EPP feature. This gives the basic structure: (47) [Object Locative Locative Asp t] This predicts that the object will c-command the locative, as we noted in section 2 with respect to example (33) repeated here as (48): (48) Maire tortured every rabbit in its hutch. Consider now a case where there is no object within the verb phrase, but where a locative has been constructed. The locative will merge with Asp, satisfying its EPP feature, but no telic interpretation will result, because no probe-goal relation has been established. Asp, in this case, does not bear [uQuant] and is therefore not (obligatorily) telic. This is precisely what is behind the locative preposition drop phenomenon repeated below:

13

(49)

a.

They climbed up the mountain. b. They climbed the mountain.

(49a) converges because the EPP feature of Asp is satisfied by the locative. The locative preposition enters into a P-associate relation with the f-features of the DP the mountain resulting in it being essentially Caselicensed (more on which, see below). Asp itself cannot enter into an Aspassociate with this DP, since this would give rise to a locality violation (the preposition bearing [Quant] is closer). This, in turn, means that Asp cannot be specified as telic since only telic asp has a quantization probe, giving rise to the appropriate interpretation. If there is no object, we have a violation of EPP: (50) They climbed (50) can only be construed as unspecified object drop, the unspecified object satisfying EPP of Asp, but not giving rise to quantization effects; hence (50) may be interpreted as atelic. (49b), on the other hand, does involve an Asp-associate relation with the object DP, EPP is satisfied and the derivation converges. Let us now turn to the alternation in Hebrew, discussed by Borer. Recall that a lexically telic verb allowed inversion, but that an atelic one did not, unless it occurred with a locative clitic: (51) a. b. c. Parcu mehuma (telic) Erupted riot "A riot erupted" *avad ganan (atelic) Worked gardener "A gardener worked" avad sam/kan/ecli ganan Worked here/there/chez-me gardener "A gardener worked here/there/at my house"

On our account, a verb like parcu "erupt" lexically selects an Asp with active probes (that is, it bears an uninterpretable quantization feature) while a verb like 'avad "work" does not (this distinction is in addition to the different Merge positions of the single argument in each case). In (51a), the probe of Asp establishes the Asp-associate relation with the object (which then raises to satisfy the EPP feature of Asp). The object bears a case feature which needs to be checked. Following Chomsky (2001), we assume that case checking (which we can implement as deletion of a uCase feature) is parasitic on H-associate relationships established in terms of j-features only (see the discussion of the case licensing properties of little v below).

14

We then have the following schematic derivation: (52) Asp[uQuant, EPP] DP[f, Quant, uCase] => (53) Asp[uQuant, EPP] DP[f, Quant, uCase] => (54) DP[f, Quant, uCase] Asp[uQuant, EPP] t In (51), no Asp-associate relation is established because the subject is Merged in the specifier of little v, and is therefore not c-commanded by Asp, and the single argument ganan must instead be checked by T's f probes, which also case license it (note, since this verb is agentive, the DP argument is merged in [Spec, vP] and is therefore too high to be a goal for Asps probes): (55) T[uf, EPP] DP[f, Quant, uCase] => (56) T[uf, EPP] DP[f, Quant, uCase] => (57) DP[f, Quant, uCase] T[uf, EPP] t If this relationship is established, ganan must raise to satisfy the EPP features of T. The next question is how the EPP features of T are satisfied in (51a)? In this case some null element must fill the specifier of TP, and we follow Pinto (199*), who convincingly argues on the basis of Italian, that verbs of this aspectual class can always select a covert locative. For us, this locative is merged to satisfy the EPP feature of telic Asp. From this position it raises to the specifier of T. The appearance of inversion here, then, arises because of a null locative in subject position, rather than the subject itself. Turning to (51c), this example is parallel to (51a), except that, again following Pintos work, the null locative is not available for atelic predicates. However, it is of course possible to select an overt locative in the numeration, and in this case this can satisfy the EPP feature of T, so that the subject remains in situ, giving rise to the apparent inversion. This system captures the core of the semantic and syntactic dependencies between locatives, objects and aspectual specification, although clearly there is more to be said. The system also automatically derives the apparent iterability of locatives, as well as the fact that objects must c-command locatives. In addition, the structures proposed involve only heads that are interpretable at the interfaces, rather than appealing to semantically empty functional structure. If we assume that T behaves in a similar fashion to Asp, then the system we have outlined leaves open the possibility that locatives may satisfy an EPP feature of T, after establishment of a T-associate relation with the single argument of an intransitive, as in the Hebrew example discussed above. In such cases, as in the cases above, the locative and subject are in the same minimal domain and therefore equidistant to the probes of T. Under this

15

scenario, T establishes an associate relation with both, but only one raises to satisfy (and delete) the EPP feature of T. The familiar case of Locative Inversion (Bresnan 1994) may exemplify exactly this situation: (58) a. b. In the garden sat a gnome A gnome sat in the garden

Note that the probe of T here would have to be person features only, since agreement is not triggered by conjoined inverted locatives. Of course, factors such as focus play an important role in Locative Inversion constructions, as does the thematic structure of the predicate (something we take as being at least partially reducible to aspectual considerations). However, the suggestion seems promising. Let us turn now to manner adverbials. As noted in section 2, -ly manner adverbs appear closer to the verb than locatives do, although there is no clear evidence that -ly manners c-command locatives or vice versa, and it appears that prepositional manners and locatives appear in the same position. Recall that Asp induces an Asp-associate relationship with the object. The goal in the object we took to be features associated with semantic quantization. We did not assume that the goal of Asps probes was related to Case, or to f-features. In our system, it is v that establishes a v-associate relationship with these features of the object. The licensing of the object takes place, then, via at least two different featural relationships between functional heads and different goals within the object. Asp probes for quantization, while v probes for f-features. To maintain maximal parallelism between the components of the extended verbal projection, v also has an EPP feature, which is satisfied and deleted by an XP determined by the goal of vs probes in this case the object. This is the standard assumption within Minimalist approaches to clause structure (see the extended discussion in Chomsky 1995, 2000, and Lasnik 1995s argument that movement to [Spec, AgrP] is always driven by EPP considerations). The object will then raise to Spec, vP, which we assume is its surface position in English (Johnson 1990, Koizumi 1993, and the papers collected in Lasnik 1998), with the verb raising outside the verb phrase, as discussed in the introduction to this section. This gives us the following structure:

16

(59) Asp1P Asp1 SUBJ V OBJ v tv LOC Asp2 V tv tv tOBJ v Asp2P Asp VP vP vP

In the same way that locatives satisfy the EPP feature of Asp without causing it to delete, -ly manner adverbs will satisfy the EPP feature of v, again without inducing deletion. This means that manner adverbials are inserted into the structure as inner specifiers of v. What is the actual structure of Manner adverbials themselves, and why are they licensed by the EPP feature of v? We tentatively suggest that manners are actually nominalisations of copies of the verb in the numeration, which are modified by adjectival modifiers. So a manner like slowly in the phrase slowly ran is essentially derived by copying the root ran in the derivation, modifying it with an adjectival predicate slow and then projecting a nominal functional structure above the new composite, so that the whole phrase is morphologically interpreted as slowly. This process can be seen overtly at work in many languages (see, for example, the discussion of manner modification in Modern Hebrew, in Glinert 1995), and

17

makes sense of the fact that manners relativise to their predicate, so that slowly running might involve speedier movement than quickly walking. Since the resulting phrase is nominal, it may satisfy the nominal EPP feature of v. (60) Asp1P Asp1 SUBJ V OBJ MAN v tv vP vP vP v Asp2P LOC Asp2 V tv tv Asp VP tOBJ

Inspecting the structure above, we predict a word order for English which is V Obj MAN LOC. This is of course the correct prediction. Note that in this structure the manner adverb c-commands the locative, something that we argued was at least a possibility in section 2. We also immediately predict that it is possible to iterate manner adverbials, as can be seen in the following examples: (61) They played loudly badly (from Ernst 2001).

18

This is, of course, because of the way that EPP features of functional heads can be satisfied, but not deleted, by elements that do not establish Hassociate relations with the functional heads probe. How do we account for the correlations noted in section 1, between the case licensing potential of the verb and its ability to occur with manner adverbs? Recall that the probe goal relationship set up by v is similar to the traditional case relationship (although technically it will involve uninterpretable phi-features, rather than case features). Clearly, a version of v which is not endowed with the appropriate probe will not license a case marked object (and such verbs will not have an Agent in their specifiers either, following the usual implementation of Burzios generalization in this framework Chomsky 1995). It follows that verbs like resemble etc. will not check structural accusative case of their object, thus accounting for their anomalous behaviour in of-insertion environments. There are a number of ways to implement this, but the simplest is just to assume that these verbs do not have a v embedded in their structure at all. Given that these predicates have an impoverished structure, specifically lacking in an EPP feature, they will not be able to license manner adverbials, explaining the old observation that predicates which do not assign structural accusative, do not take manner adverbials. (62) *John resembled Sue slowly. (63) *John had flu worriedly. (64) *The slave cost 600 denarii wholeheartedly If passivisation is simply an operation on v, say deleting the probe of v, then we also explain why these predicates do not passivise: (65) a. b. c. *Sue was resembled by John *Flu was had by Maria *50 were cost by Rhyme and Reason.

One final point to note is that, as mentioned in section 1, the kind of system we adopt assumes that agentive unergatives do actually contain a little v (cf. Hale and Keyser (1993), who argue that such verbs are actually transitive where the object has incorporated into the verb). It follows, then, that it is possible to have a manner adverb in the absence of an affected object: (66) John walked jerkily to the cliff edge. Following Hale and Keyser (1993), we assume that such unergatives do contain a little v, which is the licenser of the manner adverb.

19

5. Conclusion We have argued that that manner and locative adverbials are licensed by functional structure which is generated low down in the verb phrase, and that has independent semantic motivation (aspectual specification, and specification for agentivity). The heads we proposed were involved in licensing locatives and manners do so secondarily; their prime function is to build up the licensing and interpretations of arguments, and the mechanisms whereby low adverbials are licensed are simply a subset of those mechanisms which license arguments. The distinction between true arguments and low adverbials arises because of the way that the syntactic licensing of both classes interacts with interpretative mechanisms.

20

NOTES

A much earlier version of this paper appears as Adger and Tsoulas (2000).. Many thanks to two anonymous reviewers and to the volume editors for helpful comments. 2 Note that in cases like (i), only an extent interpretation is available for the adverb: (i) John had flu badly.
3

Note that there are verbs which disallow of-insertion but which are fine with adverbs. These seem to be copular verbs: (i) *John's becoming of a fool/John's being of a fool (ii) John became a Buddhist willingly/John was a doctor wholeheartedly Presumably the lack of of-insertion arises because these verbs take predicates as their complements, rather than true objects. 4 This is also reminiscent of the theory of adjunction developed in Saito and Fukui (1998) where they argue that multiple adjunction at the X level is possible until a specifier which agrees with the head is merged. In their terms, an agreeing specifier closes off the projection.

21

References Adger, David & George Tsoulas. (2000) Aspect and lower VP adverbials. In Artemis Alexiadou & P. Svenonius (eds) Adverbs and Adjunction, pp. 1-18. Linguistics in Potsdam 6. Potsdam. Andrews, Avery. (1982) A note on the constituent structure of adverbials and auxiliaries. Linguistic Inquiry 13/3, 313 317. Belletti , Adriana. & Luigi Rizzi (1988) Psych-verbs and Theta Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6/2, 291 352. Borer, Hagit. (1998a) Deriving passive without theta roles. In: Steven Lapointe et al. (eds.) Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, CSLI: Stanford. -- (1998b) Licensing Aspectual Nodes Paper presented at the Afro-Asiatic Linguistics Conference, SOAS, London. --, forthcoming, The ExoSkeletal Trilogy, OUP. Bowers, John. (1993) The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24/4:591-656 Bresnan, Joan. (1994) Locative inversion and the architecture of universal grammar. Language, 70/1: 72 131. Chomsky, Noam. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press -- (1995) The Minimalist Program Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press -- (2000) Minimalist Inquiries. In Roger Martin et al. (eds) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, pp.89-156. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. -- (2001) Derivation by Phase. In Michael Kenstowitz (ed): Ken Hale: A Life in Language. pp. 1-52. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. -- (2002) Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. Ms MIT. Cinque, Guglielmo. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford, Oxford University Press Costa, Joao. (1996) Adverb positioning and V-movement in English: some more evidence. Studia Linguistica, 50/1, 22 34. Ernst, Thomas. (1984) Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English, IULC, Bloomingdale. -- (2001) The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Geis, John (1970) Lexical Insertion of locative and time prepositions, Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol 8. Glinert, Lewis (1995) The grammar of Modern Hebrew, Cambridge, CUP. Haider, Hubert, 1997, Extraposition, in Dorothee Beerman, David LeBlanc and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds) Rightward Movement, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 115-151. Hale, Ken. & Samuel. J. Keyser (1993) On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In: Ken Hale & Samuel J Keyser (eds) The view from Building 20; Cambridge, MIT Press.

Harris, Zelig. (1968) The mathematical structure of language, University of Chicago Press. van Hout, Angeliek. (1996) Event semantics of verb-frame alternations, PhD, Tilberg. Johnson, Kyle. (1991) Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9/4: 577 636. Kayne, Richard. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax.. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. Koizumi, Matsuo. (1993) Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis. In: MIT working papers in linguistics 18: Papers on Case and agreement I, 99 148. Kratzer, Angelika. (1995) The event argument, ms. UMass at Amherst. Lasnik, Howard. (1995) Case and expletives revisited: on greed and other human failings. Linguistic Inquiry 26/4: 615-633. --(1998) Minimalist Analysis. Oxford, Blackwells Levin, Beth. (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. McClure, William. (1995) Syntactic projections of the semantics of aspect, PhD Cornell. Nilsen, stein. (1998) The syntax of circumstantial adverbials. Ms. University of Troms. Pesetsky, David. (1995) Zero Syntax, MIT Press Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (2001): T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences. In Michael Kenstowitz (ed): Ken Hale: A Life in Language. pp. 355-426. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. Pinto, Manuela, 1997, Licensing and Interpretation of Inverted Subjects in Italian, PhD, Utrecht Ritter, Elizabeth and Rosen, Sarah, (1998) Delimiting Events in Syntax, in Miriam Butt and Willy Geuder, (eds): the Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Syntactic Constraints, 135-164, Stanford: CSLI. Saito, Mamoru. & Naoki. Fukui (1998) Order in Phrase Structure and Movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 29/3, 439 474. Stalnaker, Robert and Richmond H. Thomason (1973). A Semantic Theory of Adverbs." Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2):195-200. Tenny, Carol, 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax/Semantics Interface, Kluwer: Dordrecht Torrego,Esther. (1998) The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. Travis, Lisa. (1991) Inner aspect and the structure of VP. ms. McGill. -(2000) Event Structure in Syntax, in Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky, Events as grammatical Objects: the Converging perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, Stanford: CSLI.

Verkuyl, Henk. (1993), A theory of aspectuality: the interaction of temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge, CUP. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa (1998) Prosody, Focus and Word Order, MIT Press