James D. McCawley jmccawle at MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU
Tue Nov 3 21:58:49 UTC 1998

For once I'm going to say something unkind about my all-time linguistic
hero, Otto Jespersen. In the chapters on parts of speech in "The Philosophy
of Grammar", Jespersen combines some excellent arguments (like for the
conclusion that so-called subordinating constructions [I exclude here
complementizers, to which the arguments in question are irrelevant] are Ps
with S objects, so that the 3-way difference among "during, while, before"
is one of subcategorization: NP, S, or either one) with some
uncharacteristic sophistry that stacks the cards in favor of keeping the
category distinctions to a minimum, so that he can lump Ps together with
adverbs and all sorts of other things. As I argued in "Adverbial NPs: bare
or clad in see-through garb?" (Language, 1988), the external syntax of
adverbs is quite different from that of PPs: PPs but not Advs can be
adjuncts of an N':
	The repression of speech by illegal means is reprehensible.
	??The repression of speech illegally...
	[His tirades about administrators when he's annoyed at them] are no
big deal.
	*[His tirades about administrators occasionally] ...
Advs occur pretty freely as left-adjuncts of a V or V', while PPs are
heavily restricted as left adjuncts of a V' and completely excluded as left
adjuncts of a V or as left adjuncts within a preposed modifier in a NP:
	Smith may have subsequently withdrawn his lawsuit.
	??Smith may have on a subsequent day withdrawn his lawsuit.
	He carefully picked up the package.
	*He with care picked up the package.
	a subsequently withdrawn lawsuit
	*an on a subsequent day withdrawn lawsuit
"Adverbial NPs" (what have often incorrectly been called "Bare NP adverbs")
are in my analysis PPs with a zero P, since they have the external syntax
of PPs rather than of Advs, e.g.
	*a that day withdrawn lawsuit
	[His decision that day] greatly surprised us.

Jim McCawley

More information about the Lingtyp mailing list