Edinburgh Research Explorer The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’ in English Citation for published version: Giegerich, HJ 2012, 'The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’ in English', English Language and Linguistics, vol. 16, no. 03, pp. 341-359. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674312000147 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1017/S1360674312000147 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: English Language and Linguistics Publisher Rights Statement: © Cambridge University Press (2012). Giegerich, H., The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’ in English. English Language and Linguistics, 16, pp 341-359. doi:10.1017/S1360674312000147. Final publication available online at http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1360674312000147 General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 07. Feb. 2023 English Language and Linguistics http://journals.cambridge.org/ELL Additional services for English Language and Linguistics: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here The morphology of ­ly and the categorial status of  ‘adverbs’ in English HEINZ J. GIEGERICH English Language and Linguistics / Volume 16 / Issue 03 / November 2012, pp 341 ­ 359 DOI: 10.1017/S1360674312000147, Published online: 22 October 2012 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1360674312000147 How to cite this article: HEINZ J. GIEGERICH (2012). The morphology of ­ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’ in  English. English Language and Linguistics, 16, pp 341­359 doi:10.1017/S1360674312000147 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ELL, IP address: 129.215.19.197 on 15 Jul 2013 EnglishLanguageandLinguistics16.3: 341–359.(cid:2)C CambridgeUniversityPress2012 doi:10.1017/S1360674312000147 The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’ in English1 HEINZ J. GIEGERICH UniversityofEdinburgh (Received15June2011;revised9November2011) I argue in this article that adverb-forming -ly, unlike its adjective-forming counterpart, isaninflectionalsuffix,thatthereforeadverbscontaining-lyareinflectedadjectivesand that, consequently, adverbs not containing -ly are uninflected adjectives. I demonstrate thatinEnglish,thetraditionalcategoryAdverbismorphologicallynon-distinctfromthe categoryAdjectiveinthatithasnomorphologyofitsownbutinsteadsharesallrelevant aspects of the morphology of adjectives. I demonstrate moreover that such an analysis explains various aspects of morphological and phonological behaviour on the part of adverbial-lywhichdifferfromthebehaviourofadjectival-lyand/orfromthebehaviour ofderivationalsuffixes.AndIarguethatcontrarytoarecentclaim,thesyntacticbehaviour ofadverbspresentsnoobstacletothesingle-categoryanalysisofadjectivesandadverbs warrantedbythemorphology. 1 Introduction 1.1 Theproblem In English, suffixes of the form -ly figure in two – perhaps three – morphological processes:intheformationofde-adjectivaladverbs,ofde-nominaladjectivesaswell as (now unproductively: Marchand 1969: 330) of a small number of de-adjectival adjectives.Examplesofeacharegivenin(1a,b,c)respectively. (1) (a) nicely (b) manly (c) kindly slowly bodily deadly stupidly friendly lively consistently neighbourly sickly interestingly daily poorly Although superficially similar and historically closely related (see, for example, Pounder2001),thedifferentprocessesinvolving-lyshowsomestrikingdifferencesin behaviour.Whileanyadjective-forming-lycanoccurbeforeotherderivationalsuffixes (manliness,neighbourliness;deadliness,livelihood),adverb-forming-lycannotoccur insuchcontexts:∗niceliness,∗slowliness.Incontrast,adverbsnotformedwith-lydo 1 ThisarticleisatleastinpartaresponsetoPayne,Huddleston&Pullum(2010).Indeed,itprobablyowesits veryexistencetoconversationswithmydepartmentalcolleagueGeoffPullum,whosedisagreementIgratefully andcheerfullyacknowledge.HeikeBaeskow,NikGisborne,TracyHall,S.J.Hannahs,DonkaMinkova,Ingo Plag,Hans-JörgSchmid,GregStumpandtwoanonymousreviewershavealsoprovidedhelpfulcommentsand suggestions. 342 HEINZ J. GIEGERICH occasionally undergomorphologicalderivation: soonish, seldomness, etc.Itseemsto be the adverb-forming suffix, not the adverb status as such, of forms such as nicely, slowlythatbarsfurtherderivation. Moreover,whileanyadjectival-lycanbefollowedbyinflectionalsuffixes(manlier, deadliest,etc.),adverbial-lyagaincannotoccurinsuchcontexts:∗nicelier,∗slowliest. Suchformsareamenabletoperiphrasticgradationonly:morenicely,mostslowly.Again it seems to be the suffix, not the lexeme’s adverb status, which prevents inflectional gradation:someadverbswithout-lyarecapableofinflectionalgradation,regardlessof whethertheyhaveadjectivalhomonyms(earlier,faster)ornot(sooner,soonest). I will in this article subscribe to the claim that in English ‘adverb’ is not a lexical categorybutmerelyaspecificmodifierfunctionperformedbymembersofthecategory Adjective, associated with contexts other than those traditionally associated with adjectives.This‘single-categoryclaim’mightbetakentoimplythatthede-adjectival versions of adjective-forming and adverb-forming -ly, exemplified in (1c) and (1a) respectively,constitutethesamederivationalsuffix.Deadlyandnicelywouldthenhave identicalmorphologicalstructures,andwoulddiffermerelyintermsoftheirsyntactic distributions.Butsuchananalysis,howeverattractiveatfirstglance,wouldbeunable to account for the unusual behaviour of adverbial -ly which I noted above: adjectival -ly fails to share this behaviour. At any rate, contrary to what Baker (2003: 231) suggests,thesingle-categoryclaimcouldnotpossiblybebasedon,orsubstantiatedby, the observation that adjective-forming and adverb-forming -ly are of identical form. Suchanobservationisofdiachronicinterestonly:similarityofformdoesnotindicate synchronicrelatednessanymorethanhistoricalrelatednessdoes. Compare, for example, the two suffixes of the form -al found in English. Noun- forming -al (arrival, referral, withdrawal) attaches to end-stressed verbal bases only, but is itself stress-neutral, while adjective-forming -al, attaching to Latinate roots of which many also function as nouns, does not have such a restriction on its input selectionbutisitself‘stress-shifting’:matern-–maternal,pivot–pivotal,accident– accidental(Marchand1969:236ff.;Giegerich1999:54ff.,113f.).Englishsimplyhas two derivational suffixes which share the form -al; they are associated with different derivationalprocessesandgiverisetodifferentlexicalcategorymembership. However, merely asserting that similarly the two -ly suffixes are associated with different derivational processes would fare no better than the single-category claim alonedoesinexplainingtheunusualbehaviourofadverb-forming-ly.Iwilltherefore argue, in addition to subscribing to the single-category claim, that adjectival and adverbial -ly are in terms of the morphological system of English radically different suffixes:theformerisaderivationalsuffixwhilethelatterisinflectional.Indeadly,the suffix is derivational but non-category-changing (like, for example, -ish in greenish); but nicely is an inflected form of the adjective nice. I will demonstrate how such an analysis finds it easy to explain the various aspects of strange behaviour on the partofadverbial-ly,whileunderthetraditional,derivationalanalysisofadverbial-ly, whichaswesawmayormaynottreatadjectivesandadverbsascategoriallydistinct, such behaviour defies explanation. The ‘inflected-adjective claim’ then entails the THE MORPHOLOGY OF -LY AND THE CATEGORIAL STATUS 343 OF ‘ADVERBS’ IN ENGLISH single-categoryclaim(butnotviceversa):ifadverbial-lyisinflectionalthenadverbs cannotbecategoriallydistinctfromadjectives. It follows from the two related claims made here that lexemes performing the ‘adverb’functionwhichdonotendinthesuffix-ly(forexample,soon,seldom,early, fast, etc.) must be regarded as uninflected adjectives, which differ from traditional adjectives merely in terms of their distribution. I will demonstrate that, again, this analysisisadvantageousinthat,unlikeitsmoretraditionalalternative,itexplainsthe morphologicalbehaviourofsuchlexemes. 1.2 Theresearchbackground Thesingle-categoryclaimforadverbial-lyisnotaltogethernew;ithasbeenmadeon syntacticgroundsforexamplebyLyons(1966),Emonds(1976),Bybee(1985),Radford (1988)andBaker(2003),allofwhombasetheirargumentationonthecomplementary distribution of adjectives and adverbs: adjective phrases function as predicates or as modifiers in the noun phrase; adverb phrases can be modifiers elsewhere. I return to thisissueinsection5below,whereIdiscussthecounterargumentstothatpositionput forwardbyPayneetal.(2010). The inflected-adjective claim derives some support from the syntactic single- categoryclaim(withoutfollowingfromit,aswesawabove)inthatthecomplementary distribution of adjectives and adverbs enables not only the distribution of adverbs, but thereby also that of adverbial -ly, to be treated as conditioned by the syntax. In morphological theories which make a systematic distinction between derivation and inflection, this is one criterion of several for inflectional status. Where inflection is further divided into ‘inherent inflection’ and ‘contextual inflection’ (Booij 1996), adverbial-lywouldbelongwiththelatter. Ofcourse,furthercriteriahavetobeinvokedtodeterminewhetheragivensuffixis inflectionalorderivational.ThusHockett(1958:210)observedthatadverbial-lyand suffixal gradation are mutually exclusive (∗quicklier, ∗quickerly). Given that suffixal gradation is held to be inflectional (for discussion see Stephany 1982; Zwicky 1989, 1995),-lybelongstothesameparadigm,andisthereforeitselfinflectional. Sugioka & Lehr (1983) make the inflected-adjective claim mainly on the grounds that adverbial -ly does not attach to adverbs where those are the first elements of compounds (widespread, fresh frozen), a feature shared by all regular inflection. (For discussionseeZwicky1995.)Idealwiththispointinmoredetailinsection3.1below. Sugioka&Lehr(1983)alsoarguethatthedialect-specificabsenceof-ly,forexample in John ate quick, supports the inflected-adjective claim – for discussion see again Zwicky(1995).Idealwiththispointinsection3.2below.Plag(2003),finally,regards the transparency and productivity of adverbial -ly as indicative of its inflectional status – another criterion that will deserve further discussion, provided below in section3.3. On the balance of the arguments known to them, both Zwicky (1995) and Payne etal.(2010)comedownonthesideofthetraditionalpositionwhichaffordsadverbs 344 HEINZ J. GIEGERICH categorialdistinctnessfromadjectivesandtreatsall-lyasderivational.Iwillarguein thefollowingsectionsthatthemorphologicalsystemofEnglishitself,aswellasamong other things the morphological behaviour of underived adverbs, provides important, but hitherto overlooked, additional arguments for the inflectional analysis of -ly, so that–again,onbalance–thatanalysisistobepreferred.2 2 ‘Adverbs’andtheorganisationofthemorphology Iargueinthissectionthataninflectionaltreatmentofadverbial-lyisconsistentwith themorphological system’sgeneralarchitecturewhileaderivationaltreatment isnot. Under an analysis which recognises Adverb as a lexical category, the behaviour of -lywouldmaskcentralaspectsofthatarchitectureandtherebyinhibitgeneralisations aboutit;andneithertheadjective-likemorphologicalbehaviourofunderivedadverbs northeinflection-likebehaviourofadverbial-lywouldhavesynchronicexplanations. 2.1 Nouns,verbsandadjectives,butnotadverbs,freelyderivefromeachother In the derivational morphology of English, the three lexical categories Noun, Verb and Adjective freely interact with each other. Nouns can be derived from both verbs andadjectives;verbscanbederivedfromadjectivesandnouns;andadjectivesinturn canbederivedfromnounsandverbs.Someexamplesaregivenin(2);theexhaustive descriptiveaccountgivenbyMarchand(1969)givesmanymore. (2) (a) de-verbalnouns (b) de-adjectivalnouns driver strangeness approval radicalism development sincerity (c) de-nominalverbs (d) de-adjectivalverbs victimise blacken beautify enlarge hyphenate nationalise (e) de-verbaladjectives (f) de-nominaladjectives drinkable joyful speculative meaningless repellent foolish Notallthederivationalprocessesbehindthecomplexlexemeslistedin(2)arefully productiveinPresent-dayEnglish;buttheproductivityofderivationalprocessesisnot atissuehere.ThepointisthatbetweenanytwoofthethreecategoriesAdjective,Noun and Verb there exist synchronically analysable two-way derivational relationships, to whichanumberofconversionprocessesmaybeaddedforcompleteness. 2 Intriguingly,theinflected-adjectiveclaimappearstobetacitlysharedbyMarchand(1969),whogivesadetailed accountofadjective-forming-ly(pp.329ff.)butmakesnomentionatallofthesuffix’sadverb-formingfunction. (SimilarlyHansenetal.1990.) THE MORPHOLOGY OF -LY AND THE CATEGORIAL STATUS 345 OF ‘ADVERBS’ IN ENGLISH Incontrast,whenadverbsarederivedfrommembersofotherlexicalcategoriesthen thesuffixinvolvedisalways-ly,andtheotherlexicalcategoryinvolvedisalwaysthat ofAdjective((1a)above).Noadverbsderivefromverbsornouns. Moreover, recall from section 1 that adjectival -ly can be followed by other derivational suffixes but adverbial -ly cannot: manliness vs ∗slowliness, ∗niceliness. Given also that morphologically complex adverbs such as unpleasantly can be uncontroversially analysed as [[unpleasant]ly] rather than [un[pleasantly]], we can make the general observation that -ly adverbs cannot be affixation bases in the derivationalmorphology:nothingcanbederivedfromthem. There are some other suffixes in the derivational morphology of English which, without major consequences for the morphological system, behave in this somewhat exceptional way: for example, -ism and -ity (Fabb 1988; Hay & Plag 2004). But the specific fact that adverbial -ly is a derivational dead-end does have consequences for themorphologicalsystemasawhole:giventheexclusiveroleof-lyintheformation of adverbs, it effectively isolates the putative category Adverb in the system. The derivational paths available in the morphology of English can then be schematically represented as in (3), where adverbial -ly is treated as derivational and Adverb as a lexicalcategory. (3) Theplaceofadverbsinthederivationalmorphology3 N V Adj Adv Inotedinsection1theoccasionaloccurrenceofderivativesfrommorphologically simple adverbs: soonish, seldomness, soonness, unseldom, and probably more, are attested. Payne et al. (2010: 63) cite the existence of such de-adverbial derivatives as supportforthecategorialintegrityofadverbs,notnoting,however,thatthederivational affixesinvolved–-ish,-ness,un-–areallprimarilyandproductivelyassociatedwithde- adjectivalprocesses.Greenish,kindness,unkindwouldserveasmoretypicalexamples oftheprocessesinvolvedthanoccasionaladverbderivativeslikesoonish. Itmightbearguedthatderivationalsuffixessuchasthoseinvolvedherearealready knowntosporadicallyattachtomembersofothercategories(eightish,oneness,unease), andthatthereforeAdverbisjustanothercategorythatsuchsuffixesstrayonto.Butthis would amount to giving soonish etc. an equally sporadic status, which in turn would miss a larger picture: the connection of all such ‘de-adverbal’ derivatives specifically withthede-adjectivalmorphology.Underivedadverbssimplydonottakesuffixesthat 3 Asimilardiagram,figuring,however,inanargumentunrelatedtothisarticle’stopic,appearsinSchmid(2011: 180). 346 HEINZ J. GIEGERICH arenotpredominantlyde-adjectival.Thederivationalbehaviourofunderivedadverbs supportstheclaim,then,that‘adverbs’aremembersofthecategoryAdjective.English hasnoderivationalprocesseswhichcouldbespecificallycalled‘de-adverbial’,justas it has no morphological processes specifically associated with minor categories such asDeterminer,Preposition,etc. Theseobservationsstronglysupportthesingle-categoryclaim.ThereisinEnglisha triangleoflexicalcategories–Noun,VerbandAdjective–withinwhichthederivational morphology is conducted. If there is a category Adverb then the derivational morphology of that category is at best that of an appendix to the category Adjective. Allderivedadverbshaveadjectivalbases;underivedadverbsbehavemorphologically likeadjectives. 2.2 Nouns,verbsandadjectives,butnotadverbs,havedistinctinflectional morphologies Thesetofthreelexicalcategories–Noun,VerbandAdjective–isnotonlysignificantto thederivationalmorphology;itfiguressimilarlyintheinflectionalsystem.Ifweassume withmostoftheliteraturethatmorphologicalgradation(kinder,kindest)isinflectional (Stephany1982;Zwicky1989),forexamplebecausecertainsyntacticcontextsrequire comparativeforms–Xis_____thanY–thenthethreelexicalcategoriesNoun,Verb andAdjective,andonlythese,haveregularinflectionalmorphology. We saw in section 1 that -ly adverbs reject inflectional suffixes – recall ∗nicelier, ∗slowliest,whichareill-formedwhiletheiradjectivalcounterparts(manlier,deadliest) are grammatical. They reject plural (∗nicelies) and the inflectional morphology associated with verbs as well, of course. Underived adverbs may inflect for grade, just like adjectives, regardless of whether they have adjectival homonyms or not: sooner,soonest,faster,earliest.Itmaybeobservedherethatgradationisnototherwise strictly confined to adjectives, but may occur, for example, with prepositions which haveadjectivalhomonyms(close,near,far–Pullum&Huddleston2002b:609),but that does not invalidate the main point connected with the gradability of underived adverbs.ThemainpointisthatthetraditionalcategoryAdverbagainstandsapartfrom theotherthreelexicalcategories.Ithasnoinflectionalmorphologyofitsown,justas ithasnoderivationalmorphologyofitsown.Whenadverbsdoinflecttheybehaveas thoughtheywereadjectives. Thisaspectofadjective-likebehaviourisparticularlycompellinginthecaseofwell. Wherethisisanadjectiveasinawellman,regulargradationisavailableasexpected: thewellestmanintheworld.Incontrast,wellastheunderivedadverbcorresponding to adjectival good does not grade as ∗weller, ∗wellest, as one might expect after the model of other underived adverbs such as soon (sooner, soonest). It goes instead with the irregular gradation of the corresponding adjective, such that better, best are theirregulargradedformsofbothgoodandadverbialwell.Thisobservationstrongly suggeststhatthereisaparadigmaticrelationshipbetweengoodandadverbialwell(from whichadjectivalwellisexcluded):ifthesetwowereparadigmaticallyasunrelatedas THE MORPHOLOGY OF -LY AND THE CATEGORIAL STATUS 347 OF ‘ADVERBS’ IN ENGLISH they are in formal morphological terms then adverbial well would be expected to gradeweller,wellest,likeadjectivalwell.Moregenerally,thisobservationsupportsthe claim that graded adverbs such as faster, earlier, etc. are not just homonymous with gradedadjectiveswheresuchhomonymsareavailable,butthattheyinfactaregraded adjectives:again,withoutsuchaclaim,thefactthatwellsharestheparadigmofgood, althoughthatparadigmisitselfhighlyirregularandthereforenotofdefaultstatus,has toberegardedasastrangesynchroniccoincidence. The complete picture of morphological pathways is given in (4), now including inflection.RecallingHockett(1958)fromsection1.2,noticehowthe‘Adv’pathwayof (3) above (occupied by adverbial -ly) can be conflated with that of -er/-est. These observations again support the single-category claim, as well as at least lending plausibilitytotheinflected-adjectiveclaimfor-lyadverbs. (4) Thearchitectureofthemorphologicalsystem: N -s/-0 -s/-ing/-ed/-0 V Adj -er/-est/-ly In summary, the traditional analysis, defended by Zwicky (1995) and Payne et al. (2010), which accords adverbs lexical category status on a par with the other three, masksimportantgeneralisationsaboutthemorphologicalsystemofEnglishandabout the behaviour of its members. Only members of lexical categories are part of the morphological system; and adverbs are clearly not integrated in that system. They have neither a derivational nor an inflectional morphology of their own. Moreover, when adverbs in any way appear to undergo morphological processes – derivational orinflectional–thentheseprocessesarealwaysofthekindprimarilyassociatedwith adjectives,evenwherethosearethemselvesirregular(better,best).Anadjectivalanal- ysis accounts for the adjectival morphological behaviour of underived adverbs: these behave like adjectives simply because they are adjectives. It equally accounts for the oddbehaviourof-ly-derived‘adverbs’withinthemorphologicalsystem.Thesearenot derivedbutinflected;andgiventheiradjectivalbases,theymustbeinflectedadjectives. ThelexicalcategoriesofEnglishare,then,Noun,VerbandAdjective.Thecategory Adjective makes an inflectional distinction between the traditional ‘adjectival’ and ‘adverbial’functions,whichis,however,suspendedinthecomparativeandsuperlative grades,similarlytothewayinwhich,forexample,theverbalinflectiondoesnotexpress persondistinctionsinthepasttense. I will, in the remainder of this article, discuss further aspects of the behaviour of ‘adverb-forming’ -ly, and show that those either support, or are consistent with, 348 HEINZ J. GIEGERICH an inflectional analysis of this suffix. This will, perhaps unexpectedly, involve not only morphological and syntactic behaviour but also phonological behaviour. A brief discussionofthesyntacticbehaviourofadverbsandwhythatbehaviouragainsupports, orisconsistentwith,aninflectionalanalysisofadverbial-lywillconcludethearticle. 3 Furthermorphologicalaspectsoftheinflection-likebehaviourofadverbial-ly 3.1 Confinementtothemarginsoflexemes Adverbs formed with -ly cannot undergo morphological derivation, while underived adverbs as well as adjectives formed with -ly can: recall ∗niceliness vs soonness and manliness.Adverb-forming-lyalsocannotbefollowedbyinflectionalsuffixes:recall ∗nicelier, ∗slowliest (and again contrast non-ly adverbs and non-adverbial -ly: sooner and manlier). If adverbial -ly were a derivational suffix then it would be the only suchsuffixinEnglishtobeconfinedtotheabsolutelylexeme-finalposition:allother derivationalsuffixescanbefollowedbyinflectionaland/orotherderivationalsuffixes. But if adverbial -ly is treated as inflectional then this fact forms part of the much larger, though not uncontroversial, generalisation whereby regular inflection cannot occur inside lexemes but is confined to their margins (Kiparsky 1982; Rainer 1996; Cetnarowska2001).Thus,∗eventsful,∗peersless,∗watches-maker,∗rats-infestedareill- formeddespitethefactthattheembeddedpluralformsmaybesemanticallywarranted, whilelexemescontainingirregularinflection,suchasheadlice-repellent,mice-infested, arewell-formed.Similarly,andsupportingtheseparateclaimthatadjectivalgradation is inflectional, irregularly graded adjectives are occasionally found inside derivatives while regularly graded adjectives again cannot occur there: to better, to further, to lessen,toworsen;betterment,furtherance,etc.vs∗tonicer,∗tallerment,∗richerance, etc. Sugioka & Lehr (1983), among the first to defend the inflected-adjective claim on morphologicalgrounds,relyheavilyonthispositionalconstraintonregularinflection. Theyadducetwoconstructiontypesinsupportoftheirclaim,bothofwhichtheyregard as compounds and neither of which can contain -ly adverbs as first elements. I will argueherethatoneoftheseisnotactuallyofcompoundstatus,andhenceisirrelevant, butthattheotherisrelevantandthatthereisalsoathirdone. ThefirstconstructionadducedbySugioka&Lehr(1983)isexemplifiedin(5): (5) beautifuldancer quickthinker fastmover heavysmoker Eachoftheseisambiguous,suchthatabeautifuldancercanbeabeautifulpersonwho isadancerorsomeonewhodancesbeautifully(butmaybeofunattractiveappearance). ThelatterversionSugioka&Lehrregardasacompoundlexeme,presumablybecause it has a superficial similarity to synthetic compounds such as watch-maker: in both