28.4531, Qs: Adjunction Site for Time Adverbials in English

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-4531. Mon Oct 30 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.4531, Qs: Adjunction Site for Time Adverbials in English

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Kenneth Steimel <ken at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:34:15
From: Carsten Breul [breul at uni-wuppertal.de]
Subject: Adjunction Site for Time Adverbials in English

 
Dear colleagues,

I am interested in finding out where in the syntactic structure of an English
clause positional time adverbials such as today, yesterday, this month, last
month etc. may be merged. More specifically, I would like to know whether such
adverbials may or must be merged below or above the base position of the
auxiliaries DO and HAVE. I am aware of the fact that there has been much
discussion about the syntax of adverbials and that many approaches have been
suggested in the literature that differ significantly in terms of basic
assumptions and details of analysis. For the time being, I would like to couch
my query within a framework that assumes time adverbials to be left- or
right-adjoined to a functional projection above VP after all arguments of the
verb have been merged (as in Ernst 2001, if I understand correctly). Within
such a framework, it should be possible to answer my query with the help of
data from verb phrase preposing: If a positional time adverbial can be
preposed together with the verb phrase, it must be possible to adjoin it below
an auxiliary; if a positional time adverbial can be left stranded by verb
phrase preposing, it must be possible to adjoin it above an auxiliary.
Unfortunately, my (non-native speaker) intuitions about relevant English
sentences are of no help at all, and the judgements I have so far collected
from native speakers of English are not clear-cut. It would be nice for me to
have some more judgements by native speakers of English on sentences such as
those below. And if anyone thinks that what I am after is off the track,
please tell me. 

(1) (Mary had promised not to smoke again,) but smoke yesterday she did.
(2) (Mary had promised not to smoke again,) but smoke she did yesterday.
(3) (Mary had promised not to smoke again,) but smoke last week she did.
(4) (Mary had promised not to smoke again,) but smoke she did last week.
(5) (Mary promised not to smoke again,) but {smoke/smoked} today she has.
(6) (Mary promised not to smoke again,) but {smoke/smoked} she has today. 
(7) (Mary promised not to smoke again,) but {smoke/smoked} this week she has.
(8) (Mary promised not to smoke again,) but {smoke/smoked} she has this week.

As for the verb form alternation in (5)-(8), please choose the form that you
would use if there was no adverbial in the sentences (I assume that you accept
'... but smoke she has.' or '... but smoked she has.' or, perhaps, both; if
you are interested in this alternation, you may want to see Breul 2014).
Finally I may point out that I am aware of Andrews 1982 and Pesetsky 1995,
where two or three examples similar to (1)-(8) are discussed, and of several
other works where the examples by Andrews and Pesetsky are quoted.

Thanks for your interest.

References
Andrews, A. 1982. A note on the constituent structure of adverbials and
auxiliaries. Linguistic inquiry 13;2: 313-317.
Breul, C. 2014. The perfect participle paradox: some implications for the
architecture of grammar. English language and linguistics 18;3: 449–470.
Ernst, T. 2001. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge (MA): MIT
Press.
 

Linguistic Field(s): Syntax

Subject Language(s): English (eng)



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-4531	
----------------------------------------------------------