Hostname: page-component-784d4fb959-hmhk7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-17T03:24:39.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Manner to Subject Modification: Adverbialization in English

Review products

SwanT.. From Manner to Subject Modification: Adverbialization in English. Nordic Journal of Linguistics20, 179–195.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

Toril Swan
Toril Swan
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway. Email: torils@isl.uit.no
Get access

Abstract

The paper discusses the process of adverbialization in English, focusing on one type of adverb, subject-modifier adverbs such as sadly, thoughtfully and pinkly. It is also shown that the -ly suffix in English (unlike its cognates in the other Germanic languages) has become an extremely versatile adverb suffix. Finally, it is argued that in English, the manner adverb category is prototypical, whereas other adverb types, notably subject-modifier adverbs, are less central adverbs.

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 20 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue on Adjuncts , December 1997 , pp. 179 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, J. 1989. Parameters of Syntactic Change. In Jones, C. (ed.), Historical Syntax. London: Longman, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Baayen, H. R. & Renouf, A. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive Lexical Innovations in an English Newspaper. Language 72, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellert, I. 1977. On Semantic and Distributional Properties of Sentential Adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 337–350.Google Scholar
Breivik, L. E. & Swan, T. 1994. Initial Adverbials and Word Order in English with Special Reference to Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 11–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1972. Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, S. 1984. A Shock to the System. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.Google Scholar
Bryson, B. 1996. Notes from a Small Island. London: Black Swan.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S. 1975. The Semantic Representation of Manner Adverbials. In Kraak, A. (ed.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1972–1973. Assen-Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, pp. 96–121.Google Scholar
Ernst, T. B. 1983. Towards an Integrated Theory of Adverb Position in English. Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1992. Syntax. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fremlin, C. 1996 (1st ed. 1958). The Hours before Dawn. London: Virago Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, L. 1982. On the Development of the Modals and Epistemic Function in English. In Ahlqvist, A. (ed.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 74–84.Google Scholar
Graham, C. 1990. Murder at Madingley Grange. London: Headline.Google Scholar
Grimes, M. 1995. Rainbow's End. London: Headline.Google Scholar
Hanson, K. 1987. On Subjectivity and the History of Epistemic Expressions in English. Papers from the 23rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society Part I, pp. 133–147.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. 1991. Some Principles of Grammaticalization. In Traugott, E. & Heine, B. (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, S. 1993. Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. & Lysvåg, P. 1987. Understanding English Grammar. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Killie, K. 1993. Early Modern English Subject-modifiers. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Killie, K. (forthcoming a). Stativity and Adverbial Derivation: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study.Google Scholar
Killie, K. (forthcoming b). The Spread of -ly to Present Participles. In Fisiak, J. & Krygier, M. (eds), English Historical Linguistics 1996. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, G. 1984. Why Great: Greatly but Not Big: *Bigly? Studia Linguistica 38, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lady, Fortescue. 1994 (1st ed. 1934). There's Rosemary, there's Rue. London: Black Swan.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. I. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1988. The Nature of Grammatical Valence. In Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 91–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Settings, Participants and Grammatical Relations. In Tsohatzidis, S. (ed.), Meanings and Prototypes. London: Routledge, pp. 213–238.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1995. The Symbolic Alternative. In Kardela, H. & Persson, G. (eds), New Trends in Semantics and Lexicography. Umeå: Swedish Science Press, pp. 89–118.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1996. Cognitive Grammar. In Brown, K. & Miller, J. (eds), Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. Cambridge: Pergamon, pp. 51–54.Google Scholar
Lessing, D. 1995. Under My Skin. London.Google Scholar
Long, R. 1993. Under the Baobab Tree. Orpington, Kent: Eric Dobby.Google Scholar
Macauley, R. 1995. The Adverbs of Authority. English World-Wide 16, 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. 1982. Adverbs and Logical Form: A Linguistically Realistic Theory. Language 58, 144–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGown, J. 1983. Murder at the Old Vicarage. New York: Fawcett Crest.Google Scholar
McGown, J. 1989. Gone to Her Death. New York: Fawcett Crest.Google Scholar
Nakamura, W. 1997. A Cognitive Approach to English Adverbs. Linguistics 35, 247–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. 1994. Aspects of Adverbial Change in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1972. A Contemporary Grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. 1997. A Short History of Linguistics (4th ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rushdie, S. 1994. The Moor's Last Sigh. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Stubbs, W. 1986. A Matter of Prolonged Fieldwork: Notes towards a Modal Grammar of English. Applied Linguistics 7, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, T. 1984. Adverbial Usage in Æfric's Lives of Saints. Nordlyd 9, 7–70.Google Scholar
Swan, T. 1988. Sentence Adverbials in English: A Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Swan, T. 1990. Subject-oriented Adverbs in 20th-century English. Nordlyd 16, 14–58.Google Scholar
Swan, T. 1991. Adverbial Shifts: Evidence from Norwegian and English. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 409–439.Google Scholar
Swan, T. 1996. A Note on Subject-modifiers in Ælfric's Lives of Saints. In Bjørhovde, G. & Rogne, G. (eds), Papers from the 6th Nordic Association of English Studies. University of Tromsø, pp. 477–485.Google Scholar
Swan, T. 1997. Old English Subject Modification and Adverbialization. In Fries, U., Müller, V. & Schneider, P. (eds), From Ælfric to the New York Times: Studies in English Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, T. & Breivik, L. E. 1997. Subject-oriented Adverbs in a Diachronic and Contrastive Perspective. In Hickey, R. & Puppel, S. (eds), Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 395–421.Google Scholar
Swan, T. & Breivik, L. E. (forthcoming). Subject Modification and Adverbialization in Old Norse and Old English.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. 1989. On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English. Language 65, 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. 1990. From More to Less Situated in Language. In Adamson, S., Law, V., Vincent, N. & Wright, S. (eds), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 497–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. 1995. Subjectification in Grammaticalization. In Stein, D. & Wright, S. (eds), Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. 1996a. Subjectification and the Development of Epistemic Meaning: The Case of Promise and Threaten. In Swan, T. & Westvik, O. (eds), Modality in Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–210.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. 1996b. Grammaticalization and Lexicalization. In Brown, K. & Miller, J. (eds), Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. Cambridge: Pergamon, pp. 181–187.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. 1995. Subjectification, Syntax, and Communication. In Stein, D. & Wright, S. (eds), Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, M. E. 1990. Toward a Theory of Syntactic Prototypes. In Tsohatzidis, S. (ed.), Meanings and Prototypes. London: Routledge, pp. 285–306.Google Scholar