Pernilla Hallonsten Halling

Why are adverbs different?

Throughout this dissertation, it has been emphasized that adverbs, like adjectives, are modifiers. Modification as such was discussed in depth in chapter 3, where a vital point was the secondary or intermediate nature of modification (Croft 2001: 97). In this respect, modification differs from reference and predication, which are primary functions. In fact, Croft does not only treat modification as intermediate, but also properties, in that they share some of the features of actions and some of the features of objects:

Properties are relational (like actions) but stative and permanent (like ob- jects...). Modification both helps to enrich reference...and to give a secondary assertion about the referent... (Croft 2001: 97)

However, the argumentation in this quote primarily builds on a focus on adjectives. This is also why Croft argues that “adjectives are less prominent as a typological prototype than nouns and verbs” due to the characteristics of properties and modification (2001: 97). But the quote is instructive about modification as such, in which adverbs are necessarily also included. Modification is a secondary function, because it must be used along with the primary functions of reference and predication, respectively. The function of modifi- cation per se is secondary in the same way for adjectives (modification within referring expression) and adverbs (modification within predicating expression). Properties, on the other hand, seem to differ in their semantic characteristics, depending on whether they are used as adjectives or adverbs. To clarify this, table 9.5 presents the way in which Croft defines the three major semantic classes (of which properties is one) that pattern with unmarked nouns, adjectives, and verbs.
Table 9.5. Semantic properties of prototypical parts of speech (Croft 2001: 87).

	Relationality	Stativity	Transitoriness	Gradability
Objects	nonrelational	state	permanent	nongradable