Harmon Phrase structure and Linearization: Adverbs in ASL 1. Introduction The syntax of adverbs has posed a number of problems for syntactic analysis. The earliest analyses of adverbs are in terms of adjunction (eg Jackendoff 1972). Adverbs are modifiers, not arguments, and representing them as adjuncts distinguishes them from arguments in phrase structure. However, adjunction has always stood out as problematic with respect to the relationships of c-­‐command and dominance, as adjunction creates a structure where c-­‐command and dominance relationships can be interpreted in more than one way. This becomes particularly clear in Bare Phrase Structure (Chomsky 1995) where projections are relative, not absolute. Adjunction does not change the basic syntactic category of the modified constituent, so An NP with an AdjP adjoined remains an NP. Confusion arises since the relationships between the NP and other nodes in the structure have multiple NP nodes to consider. The second issue raised by adjunction is how hierarchical syntactic structure translates into word order. A desire to have syntax completely determine linear order has led to theories (eg Kayne 1994) where linear order is determined with asymmetric c-­‐command, and symmetric relationships are prohibited. Cinque (1999) looks at adverbs in several languages and finds that adverbs have a fixed order across languages, with the lowest adverbs having some freedom of ordering with respect to the verb. This order reflects the order of functional projections of the universal hierarchy. In Cinque’s (1999) analysis, adverbs are in the specifiers of their respective functional projections. The paper makes two novel contributions. First, it is noted here (for the first time, as far as I know) that while manner adverbs can occur non-­‐manually in ASL, all of the higher adverbs (temporal, modal, speaker-­‐oriented) have lexical manual signs. Second, it is suggested that this split in articulation points to different syntactic structures. In this paper I introduce evidence1 from American Sign Language (ASL) that 1) there is a distinction between manner and other adverbs and 2) that the syntax of adverbs still requires an adjunction structure for manner adverbs. ASL non-­‐manual adverbs are manner adverbs, while higher adverbs have manual signs. This split in the distribution of manuals versus non-­‐manuals can inform the discussion of both phrase structure and linearization. While the manual adverbs can be analyzed using a fixed hierarchy of phrases (Cinque 1999), I propose that the non-­‐manual adverbs are better analyzed as unlabeled concatenation/adjunction, where the mechanism of linearization is unspecified (Hornstein 2009). I argue that adjunction coupled with Hornstein’s (2009) labeling mechanism provides a useful way to analyze the ASL data. Adjuncts that are not labeled are unordered by the syntax. Adverbs in ASL can have either manual or non-­‐manual articulation. Manual adverbs, such as ‘fortunately’ in (1), are articulated with the hands in sequence with the other manual signs of an utterance. Manual adverbs pattern essentially like their spoken language counterparts. They appear in a linear order with other signs and have a fixed ordering relationship with other adverbs (cf Cinque 1999). 1 The data was elicited through work with ASL informants and a corpus search (ASLLRP). 1 Harmon Manual adverbs: (1) ZACH LUCKY READ BOOK Fortunately, Zach read the book. Manner adverbs are useful because they have the possibility of occurring non-­‐
manually. Manual manner adverbs behave like other manual adverbs, but some manner adverbs have a non-­‐manual articulation. Non-­‐manual adverbs are articulated with facial expressions simultaneously with the constituent they modify. In (2), the ‘clench’ facial expression is articulated with spread lips and clenched teeth. This expression can be used to convey the meaning ‘quickly’. There is no separate manual sign for the adverb ‘quickly’ in this clause. Non-­‐manual adverbs: (2) clench ZACH READ BOOK ‘Zach quickly read the book.’ I will argue that the difference in articulation – manual or non-­‐manual – corresponds to a difference in syntactic structure. Sign languages can inform the structure of adverbs because there is the possibility of having the adverb and the verb appear simultaneously. Manual signs are linearized with respect to each other, but non-­‐manual signs, like some adverbs, occur simultaneously with respect to other signs. These non-­‐manual adverbs are, in some sense, not linearized with respect to the verb they modify. This allows for the possibility of observing the effects of hypothesized structures where linearization does not follow from an asymmetrical relationship. These effects would not be visible if the adverbs were forced to be linearized in precedence relationships with respect to the verb, as they are in spoken language (Chomsky 2013). The possibility of simultaneous transmission from the syntactic system to the PF interface allows us to make a distinction between structures that are linearized because of an asymmetrical relationship and those that are linearized because it is only possible to say one word at a time. 2. Overview of the syntax of adverbs 2.1. Fixed-­‐order functional projections Adverbs have a fixed order across languages. This reflects the order of functional projections of the universal hierarchy (Cinque 1999, Alexiadou 1994). In Cinque’s (1999) analysis, adverbs are in the specifiers of their respective functional projections. As seen in (3), the evaluative mood phrase for ‘evidently’ is higher than the epistemic modality phrase for ‘probably’, so the respective adverbs in the specifiers of these phrases are ordered linearly based on the universal ordering of these phrases. Each adverb is in the specifier of a functional projection. (3) a. Gandalf evidently probably survived. b. *Gandalf probably evidently survived. 2 Harmon Some lower adverbs do not seem to have these same ordering restrictions. Cinque (1999) refers to these adverbs as ‘circumstantial’. Manner adverbs belong to this class and can be reordered. (4) a. Gandalf quietly quickly opened the door. b. Gandalf quickly quietly opened the door. This reordering of low adverbs is the same phenomenon I have observed for non-­‐manual adverbs in ASL: only low adverbs can be non-­‐manual. In neither spoken nor signed language does the syntax of the low adverbs necessarily provide instruction to PF on their linearization with respect to the expressions they modify. This lack of linearization instruction by the syntax translates into the possibility for the adverb to either precede or follow the constituent it modifies in spoken language. In ASL the lack of linearization instruction in the syntax translates into the possibility of expressing the adverb non-­‐manually. Despite of the absence of syntactically encoded linearization, the modality of the spoken language necessitates a temporal order as a last resort. When the constraints of the spoken modality are absent, as in ASL, the lack of intrinsic linearization is allowed to surface as co-­‐articulation. 2.2 Adjunction structure Hornstein (2008) lays out a theory of syntax based on an analysis of Merge as consisting of the combination of the operations Concatenate and Label. When an element is concatenated with another expression, a label is projected up the tree to label the new constituent. However, Hornstein, like Chametzsky 1994, also allows for the possibility that an element can be concatenated to an existing structure without being labeled. Adjuncts are independent enough that they can be interpreted with just concatenation not labeling, since they can be interpreted locally as modifiers and they are not selected by higher heads. Concatenation without labeling creates a multidominance structure such that the concatenated element “dangles off” the clause. (4) [vP V opened ^DP ‘the door’]^Adv ‘quickly’ TP (no label) T vP AdvP V DP quickly Opened the door 3 Harmon ‘opened the door quickly’ Hornstein shows how the non-­‐labeling mechanism can be a new and interesting way to account for adverb stranding in vP movement and vP-­‐ellipsis. If the adverb is just concatenated with the vP, but the structure is not labeled, when the vP moves the adverb is invisible to the operation and is left stranded. Concatenate is only applicable to constituents, so if ellipsis uses Concatenate, only constituents can be targets, but if Concatenate is not used, then the grammatical mechanism does not have this restriction. Hornstein does not discuss the implications for linearization, but this idea has consequences for linear order as well. This “no label” structure is a useful mechanism for the non-­‐manual adverbs in ASL. I suggest that non-­‐manual adverbs are always merged in the structure as adjuncts, and that they may or may not be further labeled. When they are not labeled, they can surface as non-­‐manuals in ASL. Since adverbs in ASL can be both manual and non-­‐manual, they provide evidence that adverbs can have both the unlabeled adjunct structures and the fixed-­‐order functional projections. 3. Evidence for fixed-­‐order functional projections in ASL If the adverbs modify a syntactic level higher than the vP, they are always articulated with manual signs. These signs also appear in a strict order, corresponding to Cinque’s (1999) universal hierarchy. These adverbs, like ‘probably’, ‘fortunately’, and ‘apparently’, can appear in more than one position in a clause, however, their order with respect to each other is fixed. These adverbs can occur at the beginning of the clause, at the end of the clause, or directly before the verb. (5) a. SEEM ZACH READ BOOK b. ZACH READ BOOK SEEM 2
c. ZACH SEEM READ BOOK ‘Apparently, Zach read the book.’ When more than one adverb occurs in a clause, the universal ordering of adverbs as shown in Cinque (1999) holds. (6) a. SADLY SEEM EMMA ACCIDENT b. *SEEM SADLY EMMA ACCIDENT Unfortunately, apparently Emma crashed her car. 2 The position where the adverb is not on the edge of the utterance, c., has a slightly different meaning from a. or b. According to the speakers interviewed, when adverbs appear at the beginning or end of the clause, there is a “pause” between the adverb and the rest of the clause; they are “separate comments”. This may be an indication that the initial and final adverb positions can be analyzed as separate utterances. The meaning difference is subtle, and is perhaps an indication of emphasis, i.e. putting the adverb in “a separate comment” highlights the adverb. 4 Harmon In (6), the evaluative mood adverb SADLY ‘unfortunately’ must precede the evidential mood adverb SEEM ‘apparently’. This agrees with the ordering of adverbs and their respective functional projections given in Cinque (1999). (7) a. LUCKY MAYBE ZACH READ BOOK b. *MAYBE LUCKY ZACH READ BOOK Fortunately, Zach probably read the book. In (7), the evaluative mood adverb LUCKY ‘fortunately’ must precede the epistemic modality adverb MAYBE ‘probably’. This also agrees with the universal order of adverbs described by Cinque (1999). The adverb ordering restrictions also hold when the adverbs appear after the subject: (8) a. ZACH LUCKY MAYBE READ BOOK b. *ZACH MAYBE LUCKY READ BOOK Fortunately, Zach probably read the book. (8) shows that the evaluative mood adverb LUCKY ‘fortunately’ must precede the epistemic modality adverb MAYBE ‘probably’, even when the adverbs must be analyzed as being a part of the main clause. In (7) it could be possible to analyze one or both of the adverbs as being “a separate comment”, as the speaker described it. The correspondence to the universal order is again confirmed in (9), where the evidential mood adverb SEEM ‘apparently’ precedes the epistemic modality adverb MAYBE ‘probably’. (9) a. EMMA SEEM MAYBE CAR CRASH b. *EMMA MAYBE SEEM CAR CRASH Apparently, Emma probably crashed her car. The order of the adverbs corresponds to the order of functional projections given by Cinque (1999): (10) [Moodevaluative [Moodevidential [Modepistemic The higher adverbs, like ‘fortunately’ and ‘probably’ show precedence relationships. They occur in a fixed order within the clause, and the manual signs must be linearized with respect to other manual signs. I adopt Cinque’s (1999) analysis of these adverbs. So, these adverbs are in the specifiers of functional projections, and the functional projections are in a fixed hierarchy. (11) a. ZACH LUCKY MAYBE READ BOOK Fortunately, Zach probably read the book. 5 Harmon ‘fortunately, probably read the book’ So here, the adverb LUCKY ‘fortunately’ is in the Spec of the evaluative mood phrase, and the adverb MAYBE ‘probably’ is in the Spec of the lower epistemic mood phrase. Linearization of these elements is clear as the asymmetrical relationships are clear from c-­‐command. The Specifier asymmetrically c-­‐commands the head of the phrase and its complement, as well as every expression contained in the complement, and thus the different adverb phrases are in asymmetrical relationships with each other. 4. Evidence for unlabeled adjunction structures in ASL Manner adverbs can occur as manual signs, or as facial movements. While some non-­‐manuals have been described as functional projections (eg. aspect, cf. Neidle 2000), the manner adverb facial movements should be analyzed as separate adverbs, as they have meanings that are not easily attributable to a functional projection like aspect or mood. The adverb ‘carelessly’, glossed “th” in the literature (Baker Shenk and Cokey 1980), is produced with the mouth slightly open and the tongue slightly protruding between the teeth, the cheeks are also puffed. This non-­‐
manual adverb occurs simultaneously with the verb. (12) th EMMA ACCIDENT ‘Emma carelessly crashed her car’ ‘Carelessly’ is not the meaning that would be expected from aspect marking. It is a contentful manner adverb. However, it is not marked with a manual sign, it is marked with a facial expression. Facial adverbs like the ‘clenched teeth’ expression used with the adverb ‘quickly’ can also occur with changes in verb movement. This facial expression is articulated with spread lips and clenched teeth. This expression can be used to convey the meaning ‘quickly’. However, the verb movement is also articulated relatively more quickly. The faster verb movement may be analyzed as aspect marking. 6 Harmon (13) clench ZACH READ-­‐ fast BOOK ‘Zach quickly read the book.’ In (13), the non-­‐manual ‘clench’ occurs for the duration of the (quickly-­‐articulated) verb, and the resulting meaning is ‘quickly read’. In (12) and (13) the non-­‐manual adverbs occur for the duration of the verb they modify. There is some evidence that the non-­‐manual adverbs can occur over the object as well. (14) furrowed brow HE WROTE COMPLAINT ‘He furiously wrote the complaint.’ This non-­‐manual is articulated with the eyebrows lowered and the lips pressed together. It has the meaning ‘furiously’ or ‘with concentration’. In this utterance, the same non-­‐manual occurs simultaneously with the verb and with the object, COMPLAINT. This could be analyzed as the adverb having scope over both and marking the entire duration of the vP. Because there is not a clear linear order between the verb and the adverb when they are simultaneous, the asymmetrical structure for the lower adverbs in Cinque (1999) does not adequately describe what is happening with non-­‐manual manner adverbs in ASL. If there is a clear asymmetrical hierarchy, why is there no clear linear order? However, if the non-­‐manual adverbs are analyzed as Hornstein’s unlabeled adjuncts, the mechanism of linear order is not asymmetrical structure. Hornstein’s (2008) concatenation without labeling is a mechanism that allows for an adverb to attach to a clause but not be given a linear order with respect to what it modifies. (15)
T’ vP AdvP V DP th CRASHED CAR In (15) we have the “dangling off” adverb structure due to the adverb th ‘carelessly’ concatenating to the verb ‘crashed’ without being labeled. The asymmetrical relationships between the adverb+verb structure and the rest of the clause allow it to be linearized with respect to the rest of the clause. Because a higher-­‐up constituent (TP) is labeled, creating an asymmetrical structure, the adverb+verb structure can be linearized with respect to the subject and object and other elements in the clause. However, because there is no label on the adverb+verb structure, the asymmetrical relationship mechanism of linearization cannot occur. 7 Harmon Lower adverbs fit into phrase structure as constituents that are concatenated but not labeled. They are allowed to do this because adjunct adverbs do not need to be labeled to be interpreted. Hornstein (2008) notes that labeled structures can be linearized based on asymmetries in the structure, however a different mechanism is needed to linearize the unlabeled structures. The ASL data show a difference in linearization between the higher adverbs and the manner adverbs. The difference in linearization points to a difference in phrase structure. Why are the manner adverbs not linearized like the higher adverbs? What is the difference in structure that allows the manner adverbs to occur simultaneously? The higher adverbs are linearized based on the Spec-­‐head relationships, while the manner adverbs cannot be linearized with respect to the verbs based on asymmetrical relationships alone: there is no asymmetrical relationship. Hornstein’s (2008) “concatenate without labeling” mechanism allows adverbs to attach to the clause and be interpreted, but it does not by itself provide a mechanism of linearization. In ASL it is possible to see this difference in structure because the simultaneous adverb+verb structure shows no linearization of the adverb with respect to the verb. 7 Conclusion The fact that adverbs in ASL can be articulated either as manual signs or as non-­‐
manual morphemes reveals a difference in the phrase structure of adverbs that is not readily visible in spoken language. Analyzing the higher manual adverbs using a fixed hierarchy of phrases captures their fixed order and further shows the universality of such adverbs. The non-­‐manual adverbs, when analyzed as unlabeled concatenation/adjunction, provide evidence for a different mechanism of linearization. These non-­‐manual adverbs show us that strict precedence is not always required with adjunction. While the higher adverbs clearly have a linear order based on asymmetrical structural relationships, the linearization of the adjoined adverbs is not specified in the structure. The ASL data shows this difference in linearization: the higher manual adverbs are in a fixed linear order, while the precedence relationship between the verb and non-­‐manual adverbs is left unspecified. References ALEXIADOU, ARTEMIS. 1994. “Issues in the Syntax of Adverbs”. University of Potsdam Ph.D. dissertation.
BAKER-SHENK, CHARLOTTE LEE. 1991 American Sign Language: A teacher's resource text on grammar
and culture. Gallaudet University Press.
BICKFORD, ALBERT 2006 Mouth Morphemes in ASL. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research
Conference, Florianopolis, Brazil
BRIDGES, BYRON AND MELANIE METZGER. 1996. Deaf tend you: Non-manual signals in ASL. Silver Spring
MD: Calliope Press.
CHAMBERS, DIANE P. 1998. Communicating in Sign. Brooklyn, NY. Fireside.
CHAMETZSKY, ROBERT. 1994. “Chomsky Adjunction” Lingua, Volume 93, Issue 4, 245-264
CHOMSKY, NOAM 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
CHOMSKY, NOAM 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
CHOMSKY, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework,” in R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka
(eds.), Step by step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 91–155.
CHOMSKY, N. 2013. “Problems of Projection” Lingua Volume 130, 33-49
JACKENDOFF, RAY. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
LIDDELL, SCOTT K. 1980. American Sign Language Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
8 Harmon NEIDLE, C 2011. The National Center for Sign Language and Gesture Resources (NCSLGR) Corpus.
http://www.bu.edu/asllrp/, http://secrets.rutgers.edu/dai/queryPages/ .
NEIDLE, C. 2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language : Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press. NEIDLE C. AND VOGLER, C. 2012 "A New Web Interface to Facilitate Access to Corpora: Development of the ASLLRP Data Access Interface," Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between Corpus and Lexicon, LREC 2012, Istanbul, Turkey. PERLMUTTER, DAVID 1992. Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry
23:407-442. Reprinted as: Sonority and Syllable structure in American Sign Language. In Phonetics and
Phonology, Volume 3 Current Issues in ASL Phonology, ed. G Coulter. San Diego, CA: Academic Press
(1993).
POLLOCK, JEAN-YVES. 1989. “Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP”. Linguistic
Inquiry 20:365-424.
SANDLER, WENDY AND LILLO-MARTIN, DIANE. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge
University Press.
STRUXNESS, KEVIN. 1996. Mouth morphemes in American Sign Language. Video. DeBee
Communications.
VICARS, BILL 2004. American Sign Language University. Lifeprint.com.
ZEIJLSTRA, HEDDE H. 2004 Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. PhD Dissertation. Univesity of Amsterdam. Utrecht. LOT Publications. 9