7

According to the authors of the book, adjuncts are divided into two kinds: modifiers, which are thoroughly integrated into the syntactic structure of clauses, and supplements, which are much more loosely connected to the sentences in which they’re found. In other words, adjunct is an umbrella term to cover modifiers in the NP, VP, AdjP, AdvP, and PP construction, and supplements.

Here is what confuses me: when the authors explain the main dependents in the VP construction, they make a distinction between complements and adjuncts (p.65).

The dependents of the predicator in the VP are of two main kinds: complements and adjuncts.

However, when they explain the main dependants of the other constructions (NP (p.83), AdjP (p.118), and AdvP (p.124), they somehow specifically makes a distinction between complements and modifiers, not between complements and adjuncts.

Dependents in the structure of the NP are of three main types: determiners, complements, and modifiers. (p.83)

An AdjP consists of an adjective as head, alone or accompanied by one or more dependents. The dependents may be complements, licensed by the head, or modifiers, less restricted in their occurrence. (p.118)

The structure of AdvPs is similar to that of AdjPs, but somewhat simpler. Dependents can again be divided into complements and modifiers. (p.124)

So I'm wondering why VP gets such different treatment? Is there a reason they can't specifically pinpoint whether an adjunct in VP is either modifier or supplement?

Edit1: Here is the examples of the adjunct in SIEG 2nd edition, which indicate that 'adjunct' is used to cover modifiers in the NP, VP, AdjP, AdvP and PP construction, and supplements; not just modifiers in VP, Clauses and supplements as defined in CGEL, SIEG 1 This implies 'adjunct' include modifier in AdjP (ii), AdvP (iii), and PP (iv) This implies 'adjunct' includes modifier in AdjP (ii), AdvP (iii), and PP (iv) (p. 214)

enter image description here The adjunct in 4-iv is clearly a modifier in the NP [some item in the containing clause] (p. 224)

Edit2: It turns out the above examples are an oversight on the authors' part. They promise to fix it in the next reprint. Please refer to @BillJ comment under this question.

Araucaria - him
  • 4,002
  • 1
  • 15
  • 39
IMissedmyflight
  • 71
  • 3
  • Supplements are not modifiers. Adjuncts only occur in clause structure, not phrase structure. A complement must be licensed by the head, whereas an adjunct doesn't. In other words, an adjunct cannot be a complement -- they are distinct functions. – BillJ Jul 21 '22 at 15:56
  • No: it is incorrect to say that an adjunct is an umbrella term to cover modifiers in the NP, VP, AdjP, AdvP construction, and supplements. Adjuncts only occur in clause structure, or as supplements, not phrase structure. In phrase structure, the dependents are either modifiers or complements, the latter being licensed by the head, the former not. – BillJ Jul 21 '22 at 16:06
  • 1
    @BillJ "Adjuncts only occur in clause structure, or as supplements, not phrase structure" That is what I formerly believed. However, on page 214 of the second edition of the book (recently publshed this year), the authors provide the examples of the adjunct that are clearly elements in phrase structures. Please refer to the screenshot in my answer as I cannot post a picture as a comment. – IMissedmyflight Jul 21 '22 at 17:03
  • 1
    I'm surprised by what appears to be a major change by the authors when compared to the first edition of SIEG. Previously, modifiers in phrase structure were not called adjuncts, but simply modifiers. I don't have a copy of the 2nd edition. In the first edition, 'Adjunct' is defined as a modifier in clause structure, or a supplement. Can you please look in the Glossary at the back of your book and see what it says for 'Adjunct'. Examples i and v-vii are adjuncts., but in SIEG ed 1, the others are simply modifiers in phrase structure. – BillJ Jul 21 '22 at 17:48
  • @BillJ The student resource webpage for the book (https://www.cambridge.org/sieg2 > View resources > Student Resources) provides the glossary, among other things. Unfortunately, the term 'adjunct' is not included in the glossary. – IMissedmyflight Jul 21 '22 at 18:00
  • @brett-reynolds is the co-author of the second edition and also a regular on this site. Maybe we can get some insight into this change. – IMissedmyflight Jul 21 '22 at 18:02
  • 1
    Well, can't wait to find out what Pullum will say. That being said, in The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar they do mention that in some theories of syntax adjuncts "can operate at phrase level (e.g. silly in a silly person) as well as clause level" (s.v. adjunct). Bas Aaarts also admits that he prefers to use "the functional label Adjunct inside phrases, rather than Modifier" (Aarts 2011: 351) This is not how I use these terms but why not? – Alex B. Jul 22 '22 at 17:10
  • 3
    @Araucauria et al. Got a reply from GKP,. It's unsatisfactory, I've emailed him back highlighting the inconsistency in the definition of Adjunct given in GGEL/SIEG 1 and that given (or implied) in SIEG 2. I've suggested that it needs urgent attention. Will update you all when I get a further reply. – BillJ Jul 22 '22 at 17:41
  • 3
    @AlexB. Well, because in CGEL and in their first edition of this book, they reserved the term specifically for modifiers within clauses or VPs, when most people were using the term to mean modifier. Now that loads of people have adopted their practice, they’ve swithered back to the original, which is confusing and doesn’t fit with CGEL. ASIEG is meant to be based on CGEL. – Araucaria - him Jul 22 '22 at 17:43
  • 2
    I was taught syntax at university shortly after 2005, and "adjuncts" were definitely not restricted only to clauses as BillJ says. I've never even heard of "supplements" before. I think the takeaway thing to learn is that even when discussing a single language, linguists don't agree on terminology. – curiousdannii Jul 22 '22 at 22:53
  • 1
    @Araucaria et al. Got a further reply from GKP. Here's what he says: "Okay; you convince me that there is inconsistency here, and that SIEG2 should be reworded to remove it. I hope we can do this with small changes in the second printing. I'll work on this with my collaborator Brett Reynolds, and we'll keep you in touch". – BillJ Jul 23 '22 at 07:07
  • 1
    @Missedmyflight. So, the authors will reword the next printing of SIEG2. Meanwhile, rest assured that the underlined items in [12] ii-iv on p214 are not adjuncts, but simply modifiers in phrase structure. – BillJ Jul 23 '22 at 07:16
  • I'm glad my small question can lead to such change. Thanks everyone for having a discussion, especially @BillJ who take your time to email GKP. – IMissedmyflight Jul 23 '22 at 14:39
  • @BillJ I'm veryglad they've decided to keep it consistent with ASIEG 1 and CGEL. Good work. I do note, though, the original choice in CGEL to use Adjunct as a clause-level label was kind of arbitrary. It's useful to have special names for consittuents (or supplements) at the clause/VP level, for example Object, Subject etc. The choice to use Adjunct for that purpose though, is just an arbitrary choice, I think. However, it is of paramount important to be consitent. Indeed that's one of the great strengths of CGEL! – Araucaria - him Jul 24 '22 at 18:56
  • @Araucaria-him I think you ask the same question as my original question, which still remained unanswered: Why the authors only reserve the term "adjunct" for elements in clause but not for elements in other types of phrase stureture? – IMissedmyflight Jul 25 '22 at 03:36
  • 1
    @IMissedmyflight It's just because it's useful to have a name specifically for elements at clause level. The natural thing to do is take one of the two modifier labels modifier and adjunct and use one for modifiers in general and the other for modifiers at clause level. Basically, they needed a term to replace the much abused and ambiguous adverbial label. – Araucaria - him Jul 25 '22 at 07:56
  • @AlexB. Which latest latest one? There've been a few! – Araucaria - him Jul 26 '22 at 16:37
  • @AlexB. I have presented some important information to GKP which I think will wrap this whole mess up. I'll post an update here as soon as he has had a chance to look at it. Just hold fire for now. – BillJ Jul 26 '22 at 18:19
  • 1
    @BillJ et al. I'm not sure what you are talking about but it seems like there is still disagreement on what 'adjunct' actually means in CGEL. To make the matter more complicated, I dig a little bit further and found the slide on Attribute modifiers on GKP website (http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/grammar/attrib_sli.pdf). On page 1 of the slide, you can see that GKP uses the term adjunct to include modifiers in noun phrase structures. – IMissedmyflight Jul 26 '22 at 18:40
  • 1
    @AlexB. Well, that was a very clear answer, indeed. I have to say I'm an avid reader of their books (CGEL, SIEG1,2) and I had believed that adjunct is meant to only include modifiers in VP, or Clauses and supplements, partly because, as GKP said, most examples in their books are modifiers in VP or Clauses. Now that in the latest edition of SIEG, they explicitly include modifiers in AdjP, AdvP, and PP in the adjunct chapter, it shed the light on how I have misunderstood the term for the whole time. – IMissedmyflight Jul 26 '22 at 19:03
  • 1
    @IMissedmyflight Be patient! – BillJ Jul 27 '22 at 11:52
  • @BillJ I'll keep checking on this question from time to time. Please keep me up to date. – IMissedmyflight Jul 27 '22 at 13:53
  • @AlexB. I see where you are coming from; I saw the email GKP wrote that you posted here the other day. But BillJ said he presented the authors with the evidence that might indicate otherwise so I'm waiting for their reply again to come to my own conclusion. – IMissedmyflight Jul 28 '22 at 19:18
  • @IMissedmyflight Update: I sent a reminder email to GKP yesterday. – BillJ Aug 20 '22 at 17:35
  • @BillJ Thanks for reminding me. Still checking on this question on a daily basis :) – IMissedmyflight Aug 21 '22 at 12:45
  • @IMissedmyflight I've just received an email from GKP. He still doesn't entirely agree with what we're all saying, but he does concede that parts of SIEG2 need to be revised in some cases so that the term "modifier" replaces "adjunct". I imagine the authors will do that at the second printing. – BillJ Aug 21 '22 at 12:54
  • 1
    @BillJ His reply seems to contradict each other, at least for me. We will have to just wait for the reprinted version of the book, then. – IMissedmyflight Aug 21 '22 at 13:21
  • 1
    @IMissedmyflight I sent another email to GKP, and at last he has agreed that SIEG2 is inconsistent with CGEL / SIEG1. In the first reprint of SIEG2, the word 'adjunct' will be replaced with the word 'modifier' where necessary – BillJ Aug 23 '22 at 06:24
  • @BillJ So does that mean he finally agrees with us that 'adjunct' is meant to include only modifiers in VPs or clauses and supplements? Also, thanks very much for all the efforts. – IMissedmyflight Aug 23 '22 at 12:28
  • 1
    @IMissedmyflight Yes, he does! It may be some time before the reprint comes out, though. – BillJ Aug 23 '22 at 13:02
  • @BillJ That's a great relief, honestly. – IMissedmyflight Aug 23 '22 at 13:58
  • 1
    @AlexB. Since I am not the one receiving a direct response from GKP himself like you guys, all I can do is make a conclusion based on hearsay. Maybe I should wait for the reprinted edition and confirm the fact myself. – IMissedmyflight Aug 27 '22 at 00:18
  • @BillJ I go back and read the chapter on adjunct from CGEL again and on page 665 I found that the authors, in fact, explicitly said: "the term ‘adjunct’ covers modifiers in the VP or clause together with related supplements" (by related supplements, I suppose they mean supplements with VP or clause as an anchor). So this might contradict GKP's reply to AlexB. – IMissedmyflight Aug 28 '22 at 02:01
  • @IMissedmyflight No, supplements can have virtually anything as their anchor, not just VPs and clauses. See CGEL pp 1350-1361. – BillJ Aug 28 '22 at 06:13
  • @BillJ I'm aware of that. But I suppose the authors use 'adjunct' to cover only supplements with VP and Clause as an anchor because they said 'related supplements' not 'supplements' in general. – IMissedmyflight Aug 28 '22 at 08:53
  • @IMissedmyflight "Related supplements" means supplements of any kind that are attached to a clause, all of which H&P call adjuncts. – BillJ Aug 28 '22 at 11:31
  • @BillJ I see. Thanks for clarifying the term. – IMissedmyflight Aug 28 '22 at 13:39
  • 1
    I think it's important to remember that CGEL is not a religious text (so no exegesis required here), we can simply ask the authors, and if they say that's not how they intended to use the terms in question, we have to accept that. Their use may be inconsistent, it may change etc. and this is totally normal in research. – Alex B. Sep 15 '22 at 16:30
  • If possible Id like to know what Prof Rodney (co other of CGEL) think of this, seeing that he is the first to redefind 'adjunct' in his original work in 1984. – IMissedmyflight Sep 16 '22 at 18:36
  • 1
    Why not ask him yourself, if you're so interested? He might have his own view on this, different from Pullum's (and that's fine, too!) https://languages-cultures.uq.edu.au/profile/1061/rodney-huddleston although cf. his remark that modifiers are "adjuncts which share the above properties with complements" (Huddleston 1984: 224) – Alex B. Sep 19 '22 at 03:47
  • I did email him once but got ignored. – IMissedmyflight Sep 19 '22 at 07:36
  • Also I misremembered the book in which he redefined 'adjunct.' He, in fact, dedicated the whole paragraph to defind 'adjunct' in his work in 1988 (which is basically a digest of his work in 1984). – IMissedmyflight Sep 19 '22 at 07:54
  • "Adjuncts are less tightly integrated into the structure of the clause than are complements: their occurrence is less governed by grammatical rule. They are always optional and their selection does not depend on the presence of a verb of a particular subclass (these are the criteria we used to distinguish them from complements); nor can we give grammatical rules excluding particular combinations of different kinds of adjunct or imposing a maximum number of adjuncts for any clause..." (p. 65) – IMissedmyflight Sep 19 '22 at 07:54
  • 1
    I see, I took a look at Huddleston 1988 (not just the quotes you shared here), everything is clear, all modifiers are adjuncts but not all adjuncts are modifiers, same as what Pullum has been saying. – Alex B. Sep 19 '22 at 22:51
  • Did he expand the definition of adjunct somewhere else in the book? If that is the case, then I have to agree that the authors have been consistent in using the term and we should bury the hatchet here. – IMissedmyflight Sep 20 '22 at 01:46

0 Answers0