Subject-operator inversion after sentence-initial only
in a monolingual and a parallel translation corpus
Michaela Martinková
(Dept. of English and American Studies, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic)
ICAME 33: Corpora at the centre and crossroads of English linguistics, Leuven, Wednesday 30 May - Sunday 3 June 2012
Subject-operator (S-O) inversion after sentence-initial negative non-subject
elements in sentences with sentential negation (examples Rudanko 1982, 351,
but also Huddleston and Pullum 2002, 95, Haegeman 2000, 34)
(1)
a. With no job would John be happy.
(“there is no such job that John would be happy with”)
b. With no job, John would be happy.
(“John would be happy if he were out of job”)
What about only?
“Only is to some extent negative . . . If [only] focuses on a fronted initial element
other than the subject, it may occasionally (but need not) take subject-operator
inversion” (Quirk et al 1985, 781):
(2)
Only on Sundays do they eat with their children.
Only his mother will he obey.
Only his mother he will obey. ['It's only his mother that he will obey.']
Factors possibly relevant for S-O inversion after sentence-initial only:
1. Negative entailment of the whole sentence, cf. Rudanko (1982, 357):
(3)
a. *Only twice I went there.
b. Only twice did I go there.
(4)
a. Only yesterday I went there.
b. *Only yesterday did I go there.
“In [3] only has a restrictive or negative meaning: roughly, the sentence means
that the number of occasions on which I went there does not exceed two . . . By
contrast, in [4] the meaning is ‘as recently as’” and this non-negative paraphrase
of only blocks S-O inversion.
But Only yesterday I went there is in fact ambiguous between a) and b):
a) = I went there as recently as yesterday  It was only yesterday that I went there.
b) = I did not go there before yesterday = It was only yesterday that I went there.
- for b) US English seems to have S-O inversion:
Only yesterday did rebel guards receive orders to protect any
remaining evidence. [COCA:2001:NEWS_CSMonitor]
2. Role of the fronted element focused by only in the topic-focus articulation
(TFA). Haegeman (2000, 34) about fronted neg. elements: “The preposing of neg1
with inversion leading to sentential negation is an instance of focalization, while
neg2-preposing without inversion and leading to a constituent negation is an
instance of topicalization”. S-O inversion if the focus of only is the focus of the
whole sentence?
But: no corpus of English annotated for TFA, 1 and 2 hard to study on a corpus
Other factors, not mentioned in linguistic literature
3. Function of the focus of only in the sentence
4. Type of phrase of the focus of only
Fronted adverbials after sentence-initial only by the phrase type (Fig. 3, 4):
The NP status of yesterday, last week tenable
Deictic expressions
(H&P 2002, Larson 1985), but a few days later
do not trigger S-O inv.?
is an AdvP (H&P 2002, 96)
Focus of
S-O
no S-O
inversion
inversion
only
1
48
last N
0
42
_ N ago
1
41
this N
1
0
next N
0
7
yesterday
0
6
today
0
0
tomorrow
34
15
now*
Fig. 5: only ... later/earlier in BNC
* now is often a past time adverb  S-O inv.
2. Results
1. Not enough data for fronted objects, with fronted adverbials usage split between
inverting and not inverting S-O
2. While fronted AdvCl, AdvP, and PP focused by only trigger S-O inversion, fronted
NP seems not to (often deictic, i.e. thematic). Supported by the observation that (at
least in spoken language) even fronted direct objects (always NPs) focused by only
do not trigger inversion
Question: what about phrases with later and earlier?
“In monolingual corpora we can easily study forms and formal patterns, but
meanings are less accessible. One of the most fascinating aspects of
multilingual corpora is that they can make meanings visible through
translation” (Johansson 2007, 57).
B. Research on a parallel translation corpus (factors 1, 2): Research questions
2. Are there any correlations between the presence/absence of S-O inversion and
the form of the fronted element (type of phrase or clause) focused by only?
1. Is the negative entailment of English sentences with S-O inversion reflected in the
Czech translations by a negated Czech verb?
2. Is the difference between the focal role and the thematic role of the element
focused by only reflected in the word order of the Czech equivalent, e.g. is there a
tendency to place the element focused by only towards the end of the Czech
sentence if it is the information focus of the whole sentence?
3. Do the Czech equivalents reflect the focus of only in phrases with later/earlier?
1. Methods and data analysis
1. Methods and data analysis
A. Research on a monolingual corpus (factors 3, 4): Research questions
1. Are there any correlations between the presence/absence of S-O inversion and
the syntactic function of the fronted element focused by only?
BNC-XML with Xaira: only at the beginning of the sentence (Query Builder)
written texts
spoken texts
total
7,000
756
per million w
77.8
75.6
analyzed
500
500
Comparable frequencies of sentence-initial only per million words in spoken and
written texts, but great differences in the structure of these sentences – cf.
frequencies of the syntactic functions of the element following sentence-initial only
in spoken (Fig.1) and written (Fig. 2) texts of the BNC:
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fronted direct object as the focus of only is NOT common:
In spoken texts (sample analyzed) just one token, plus two more in all spoken texts
of the BNC. Inversion NOT used: Only one saucepan we had! (KCN 2321)
In all written texts just 4 tokens, 3 with S-O inversions, 1 without S-O inversion
 lack of data for serious conclusions
InterCorp, subcorpus Cz-En (8 texts, 666,610 w), En-Cz (33 texts, 3,369,218 w)
CQL query <s> “Only”
 255 tokens in English source texts (ST) and 97 in English target texts (TT)
 only followed by adverbial: 77 tokens in En ST, 45 in En TT, but in 4 STs and 1 TT
the Czech equivalent of only is a conjunct - only is not a restrictive focusing modifier
 S-O inversion is not used
2. Results
1. Change of polarity in the Czech translation of an English sentence with S-O
inversion (the Czech verb is negated) confirms negative entailment of the original
sentence just once
2.Czech equivalent of only triggering S-O inversion (focus of only is the focus of the
whole sentence?) is not always placed at the end of the Czech sentence (just 5
tokens in total, 3 in Cz TT and 2 in Cz ST), S-O inversion even in sentences where
the element focused by only is NOT the focus of the whole sentence
3. Czech equivalents show explicitly the focus of only in sentences with later/earlier
Only twenty seconds later, it cut off again. [Clarke]
O pouhých dvacet sekund později tryska opět uhasla.
[by mere twenty seconds later]
- the adjective pouhý (equivalent of only) agrees with the head noun in number, case
and gender  the focus of only is just the premodifier of later, later outside its scope
Only decades later did I come to know that Joe occasionally fancied I had somehow
literally blinded her with my terrible fear . . . [Siddons]
Teprve za desítky let jsem se měla dozvědět . . .
[not until after tens of years, as late as tens of years later]
- temp. particle teprve close in function to highlighting particles (Karlík. 1995, 361)
- the focus of only is the adverb later, what precedes later is interpreted as its
intensifier; cf.:
Only considerably later were the Commons to aspire to comment
and participate in any other sense. [BNC HPW 1341]
Works cited:
Grepl, M., and P. Karlík. 1998. Skladba češtiny. Votobia, Olomouc.
Haegeman, L. 2000. Negative Preposing, Negative Inversion and the Split CP. Negation and Polarity:
Syntactic and Semantic Perspectives. L. R. Horn et al. eds, OUP, Oxford.
Huddleston, R., and G. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. CUP, Cambridge.
Johansson, S. 2007. Seeing through multilingual corpora. In: Corpus Linguistics 25 Years on. Facchinetti, R. (ed), Rodopi.
Larson, Richard K. 1985. “Bare-NP Adverbs.” Linguistic Inquiry 16. 595–621.
Martinková, M. 2012 (to appear). Subject-operator inversion after sentence-initial only seen through its
Czech equivalents. Linguistica Pragensia.
Martinková, M. 2011. Subject-operator inversion in sentences with fronted "only". In: Theories in Practice: Proceedings
of the Second International Conference on English and American Studies. Trušník, R. et al. eds, UTB, Zlín.
Quirk, R. et al. 1985. Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London.
But: two other temporal particles ještě [still, yet],
Rudanko, J. 1982. “Towards a description of negatively conditioned subject operator inversion in English.”
In: English Studies, 63.348 – 359.
už [already, as recently] equivalent to only do NOT trigger
Czech National Corpus - InterCorp. Institute of the Czech National Corpus FF UK, Praha. Accessible at WWW:
S-O inversion  future research on a monolingual corpus of Czech
http://ucnk.ff.cuni.cz/intercorp/
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing
Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
Correspondence: [email protected]
Davies, Mark. 2008-. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
ESF grant support: Language diversity and communication CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.006