Pernilla Hallonsten Halling

Back to modification

Adverbs are modifiers, and modification is a discourse function, which is also defined syntactically and semantically (see 3.1). It is the combination of these three components that defines modification. In section 3.3.1, we nonetheless saw that at least the semantic

4. 
   Back to modification
   

component, and perhaps also that of discourse, may be weakened when a modifier is fo- cused. There are other instances of modification, in which another component, or a pair of them, is weakened. In chapter 5, languages with adverbial affixation and incorporation will be presented (see section 5.3.5). In such cases, the syntactic component of the def- inition is weakened, although the semantic and discourse components remain the same. Among numerous other Verb suffixes, Urarina (isolate) has the “velocity suffix” -uri (with allomorphs), which may also indicate diminutive or politeness (Olawsky 2006: 471).

(3.23) Urarina (isolate) (Olawsky 2006: 195)

k0
there
kuru-ri-^˜i,
swallow-speeD-ptcp
nakwaa0ne^˜i
again
kwajte-0=ra,
repeat-imp-emp
na-a
say-3
ha˜0
because

‘He quickly swallowed it, and as he said “do it again”, [he caught another fish].’

In (3.23), it does not make sense to argue that any potential input expression has the same syntactic properties as the output expression, since the modifier is attested as the suffix

-uri. On the other hand, this construction could be analyzed as performing modification morphologically, implying a morphological component for modification. Either way, the semantic and discourse components clearly remain in the example from Urarina.
There are also cases of modification in which the discourse component is weakened. For instance, if a prototypical adjective (cf. section 2.5.1) is used adverbially.
(3.24) The fire gleamed red.

In (3.24), the prototypical English Adjective red is used to describe the way the fire appears when it gleams. The syntactic and semantic components remain: syntactically the properties are the same as those of The fire gleamed, and semantically the meaning is of the same kind. But the discourse component can be questioned, since the property red does not really act as a modifier in a predicating expression, as it seems to somehow primarily describe the fire. In conclusion, these examples serve to illustrate that although one or two components may be weakened in less typical instances of modification, it seems that another component always remains.

In section 3.2, the case of nested modification was treated, i.e. the implication that a modified expressions should also be able to serve as input for modification, by the definition proposed in (3.1). However, the input that modification takes may be highly restricted, by both semantic and language-specific requirements. For instance, different types of modifiers may give different types of modification, as illustrated by semantically fixed orders of modifiers in an NP, e.g., the big red house vs. *the red big house. Here, it is evident that modification interacts with other processes. While this thesis focuses on modification within predicating expressions, modification may naturally take place on different levels, as straightforwardly illustrated in Role and Reference Grammar (cf. section 2.3.1). Modification of nouns and verbs, noun and verb phrases, and whole clauses can be argued to instantiate tighter and looser types of modification. These more complex sides of modification do not alter the fundamental idea of modification as defined by the three components of discourse, syntax, and semantics.

4.