A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbs

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of AdverbsRhanghyeyun Kim(Korea University)The purpose of this paper is to explain the distributional freedom andrestriction of adverbs. Firstly, I argued in consideration of meaning andsubcategorization that adverbs do not undergo movement at all and thusthe residual free distribution does not follow from the adverb movement.Secondly, I critically reviewed the four different types of adverb licensinganalysis (the head analysis, the spec analysis, the adjunct analysis, and thecomplement analysis), focusing on how well they capture the distributionof adverbs and how appropriate it is to treat adverbs as heads, specs,adjuncts, or complements. Thirdly, I proposed a local condition on adverblicensing based on the Phase Theory (Chomsky (1998, 1999)). Theproposed local condition, together with the adjunct/ complement-specdistinction, captures well the distributional freedom and restriction ofadverbs, including Class V and VI adverbs, which have not been given adeep research since Jackendoff (1972).1. IntroductionAdverbs appear to enjoy a free distribution within a sentence as shown in(1).(1) a. Cleverly, John has been answering their questions.b. John cleverly has been answering their questions.

Rhanghyeyun Kimc. John has cleverly been answering their questions.d. John has been cleverly answering their questions.e. John has been answering their questions cleverly.To account for this free distribution of adverbs, Keyser (1968) proposes theTransportability Convention for elements such as adverbs that are marked[+transportable] for any given language. This has the effect that in Englishadverbs may appear in a variety of positions. Emonds's (1976) rule of AdverbPlacement, as a variant of the Transportability Convention, also allows adverbsto appear before any major constituent. Baltin (1982), on the other hand, arguesthat adverbs, introduced as rightmost elements of a sentence, can move to anyof the landing sites to which other elements can move, i.e., to the peripheries ofVP, IP, CP. Is it really true that adverbs can move around in a sentence andthis makes possible the free distribution?As observed in Jackendoff (1972), Travis (1988), and Cinque (1999), the freedistribution of adverbs is only apparent, that is, the distribution of adverbs is infact fairly restricted, even if there remain some residual cases of the freedistribution. I will argue that even the residual free distribution does not followfrom the adverb movement since it is clear in consideration of meaning andsubcategorization that adverbs do not undergo movement at all.A question then arises on how to explain the residual free distribution as wellas the restricted distribution of adverbs. This question is closely related to thequestion of how adverbs are licensed in a sentence. This is the next concern ofthis paper; are adverbs licensed as heads, specs, adjuncts, or complements?How far are adverbs allowed to be away from licensers? Firstly I will criticallyreview the four different types of adverb licensing analysis (the head analysis,the spec analysis, the adjunct analysis, and the complement analysis), focusingon how well they capture the distribution of adverbs and how appropriate it isto treat adverbs as heads, specs, adjuncts, or complements. I will show that

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbsnone of the previous approaches explains the distribution of adverbssatisfactorily. As for the structural status of adverbs, I will conclude thatpre-verbal adverbs are best analyzed as adjuncts while postverbal adverbs arespecs or complements. This adjunct/ complement-spec distinction, together withmy proposal of a local condition on adverb licensing based on the Phase Theory(Chomsky (1998, 1999)), captures well the distribution of adverbs, includingClass V and VI adverbs, which have not been studied in depth since Jackendoff(1972).2. Adverb Distribution2.1. Free Distribution of Adverbs Is Only Apparent.Sentences in (1) above seem to show that adverbs can occur in variouspositions of a sentence without restrictions. However, it has been observed inthe literature that this free distribution in fact applies only to some types ofadverbs and further that even these types of adverbs exhibit meaning changedepending on the position in which they occur. In other words, the freedistribution of adverbs is only apparent. In this part I will briefly go over thisobservation.Jackendoff (1972) classifies adverbs into six major types with respect to theirpossibilities of occurrences in a sentence. According to him, only Class I andII adverbs among these six types exhibit the alleged free distribution as in (3)and (4).(2) Class I: Initial, Aux, VP-final (meaning change)cleverly, clumsily, carefully, carelessly, happily, truthfully

Rhanghyeyun KimClass II: Initial, Aux, VP-final (no meaning change)quickly, slowly, reluctantly, sadly, quietly, frequently(3) a. Clumsily, John dropped his cup of coffee.b. John clumsily dropped his cup of coffee.c. John dropped his cup of coffee clumsily.(4) a. Slowly, John dropped his cup of coffee.b. John slowly dropped his cup of coffee.c. John dropped his cup of coffee slowly.For Class III and IV adverbs, it is not the case that they may appear anywherein a sentence. Class III adverbs can appear in the initial position and in the Auxposition only as illustrated in (6), whereas Class IV adverbs can be located inthe Aux position and in the VP-final position only as shown in (7).(5) Class III: Initial, Auxevidently, probably, certainly, unfortunately, naturallyClass IV: Aux, VP-finalcompletely, easily, totally, handily, badly, mortally(6) a. Evidently George read the book.b. George evidently read the book.c. *George read the book evidently. (without comma intonation)(7) a. *Completely George read the book.b. George completely read the book.c. George read the book completely.Rochette (1990) notes that the distribution of Class III and IV adverbs is in factmuch more restricted than what Jackendoff (1972) claims. Consider the data in(8).

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbs(8) a. George probably/*completely has read the book.b. George will probably/*completely have read the book.c. George will have *probably/completely read the book.d. George has probably/completely read the book.Even if the data in (6) and (7) seem to show that both Class III and IV adverbscan occur in the same Aux position, the data in (8) with the addition ofauxiliary verbs indicate that the Aux position should be redefined depending onthe adverb class. The adverbs of Class III, like probably, can appearimmediately to the left or to the right of the first auxiliary, but they cannotappear after the second auxiliary. On the other hand, the adverbs of Class IV,like completely, can appear only in the position that immediately precedes themain verb, but not in the Aux position that is separated from the main verb.Therefore, Class III adverbs should be said to appear in the initial position andin the first Aux adjacent position only, whereas Class IV adverbs should be saidto appear in the immediately pre-verbal position and in the VP-final positiononly.The distribution of Class V and VI adverbs is much more restricted than thatof Class III and IV adverbs. As illustrated below, Class V adverbs can appearonly VP-finally, while Class VI adverbs can be located only in the Auxposition.(9) Class V: VP-finalhard, well, more, less, early, fast, home, slow, terriblyClass VI: Auxtruly, virtually, merely, simply, hardly, scarcely(10) a. *Hard John hit Bill.b. *John hard hit Bill.c. John hit Bill hard.

Rhanghyeyun Kim(11) a. *Simply Albert is being a fool.b. Albert is simply being a fool.c. *Albert is being a fool simply.The data from our informant 1 below show that Class VI adverbs cannot occurto the left of the first auxiliary position.(12) a. *Albert simply has been being a fool.b. Albert has simply been being a fool.c. Albert has been simply being a fool.(13) a. *He merely will be having the most exciting time of his life.b. He will merely be having the most exciting time of his life.c. He will be merely having the most exciting time of his life.That is, Class VI adverbs can only appear in the Aux position after the firstaux.Even for the adverbs of Class I and Class II which seem to enjoy the freedistribution, many linguists (Jackendoff (1972), Thomason and Stalnaker (1973),McConnell-Ginet (1982), Travis (1988), Rochette (1990), Cinque (1999)) 2 arguethat these adverbs exhibit meaning change depending on the position in whichthey occur. Consider (1), the example of Class I adverb, again.(1) a. Cleverly, John has been answering their questions.b. John cleverly has been answering their questions.c. John has cleverly been answering their questions.1. The data in (12) and (13) are due to Kari Eline Schenk (personal communication).2. More correctly, as for Jackendoff (1972), he claimed that only Class I adverbs showthe meaning difference depending on the positions. Other linguists later argued that bothClass I and Class II adverbs show the meaning difference.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbsd. John has been cleverly answering their questions.e. John has been answering their questions cleverly.Despite the apparent free distribution of the adverb cleverly in (1), the (1 a, b,c) sentences have the subject-oriented interpretation (14a) only, while themanner interpretation (14b) only is possible in the cases of (d, e) sentences.(14) a. It was clever of John to have answered their questions.b. The way John answered their questions was clever.The similar sort of meaning change depending on the position can be foundwith Class II adverbs as well. Consider (15).(15) a. Quickly, John will be arrested by the police.b. John quickly will be arrested by the police.c. John will be quickly arrested by the police.d. John will be arrested quickly by the police.Even though the adverb quickly shows the apparent free distribution in (15), itreceives different interpretations depending on its positions; in (15 a, b) itmodifies the event of arrest, while in (15 c, d) it modifies the process of thearrest. In other words, in (15 a, b) the arrest will happen right away, while in(15 c, d) the manner of the arrest will be hurried. Likewise, the interpretationof (16a) is that a relatively long time has elapsed from the start of someone'sleaving until everyone had left but it may be the case that most individuals leftquickly, whereas in (16b) the adverb slowly attributes slow leaving to eachindividual.

Rhanghyeyun Kim(16) a. Slowly, everyone left.b. Everyone left slowly.This fact that Class I and II adverbs change meaning depending on the positionmeans that the alleged free distribution of these types of adverbs is not a realfree distribution.In sum, the distribution of adverbs are fairly restricted, contrary to the claimof some linguists that adverbs are freely distributed and adverb movement isresponsible for the free distribution of adverbs.2.2. The Residual Free DistributionIn the previous section, I have shown that the alleged free distribution ofadverbs, which seems to imply the adverb movement, is only apparent and thedistribution of adverbs is in fact fairly restricted. However, there still remain thefree distribution cases. These can be found in the alternation of the initialposition, the pre-aux position, and the post-aux position (Class I adverbs: (1a),(1b), and (1c), Class II adverbs: (15a) and (15b), Class III adverbs: (6a) and(6b)) and in the alternation of the pre-verbal position and the post-verbalposition (Class I adverbs: (1d) and (1e), Class II adverbs: (15c) and (15d), ClassIV adverbs: (7b) and (7c)). In the next section, I will argue that even thisresidual free distribution does not follow from the adverb movement, contrary tothe arguments of some linguists.2.3. Adverbs Do Not MoveIn this section, I will give two pieces of evidence against adverb movement:one from meaning consideration and the other from subcategorization

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbsconsideration. If it is true that adverbs do not move, then an alternativeexplanation for the residual free distribution must be sought for. I will discussthis in the next section.In section 1, I have shown that Class I and II adverbs change meaningdepending on the position in which they occur. Given the assumption thattransformations including movement do not change the meaning of sentences, Iargue that this fact indicates that adverbs do not move. That is, we cannot say,for example, (1b), repeated as (17a) below, is derived from (1e), repeated as(17b) below, through the movement of the adverb cleverly, since the twosentences have different meanings as mentioned above.(17) a. John cleverly has been answering their questions.b. John has been answering their questions cleverly.In fact, the two sentences in (17) can be combined as in (18), with twooccurrences of the adverb cleverly having two distinct interpretations; the formerthe subject-oriented interpretation and the latter the manner interpretation.(18) John cleverly has been answering their questions cleverly/stupidly.The grammaticality of (18) clearly implies that it is not the case that (17a) isderived from (17b) through the adverb movement.Even in the cases of the two adverb positions of the same mannerinterpretation in (1 d, e), repeated as (19 a, b) below, it is evident that they arenot transformationally related since only one (the postverbal and post-objectposition) but not the other (the pre-verbal position) can satisfy subcategorizationrequirements as shown in (20-23) and can license the middle interpretation as in(24).

Rhanghyeyun Kim(19) a. John has been cleverly answering their questions.b. John has been answering their questions cleverly.(20) a. John has worded the letter carefully.b. *John has carefully worded the letter.(21) a. John learned French perfectly.b. *John perfectly learned French.(22) a. Bill recited his lines poorly.b. *Bill poorly recited his lines.(23) a. Mary played the violin beautifully.b. *Mary beautifully played the violin.(24) a. This bag opens up easily.b. *This bag easily opens up.(as a middle construction. OK as a plain unaccusative)That is, the above observation made in Bowers (1993) and Cinque (1999) isanother piece of evidence for the argument that adverbs do not move. 3 If the(b) sentences in (20-23) were derived from the (a) sentences, the (b) sentenceswould be as grammatical as the (a) sentences since the (b) sentences couldsatisfy the subcategorization requirement at Deep Structure. Likewise, if (24b)were derived from (24a), (24b) would license the middle interpretation, whateverthe licensing mechanism is, as much as (24a) would.Now, if the argument that adverbs do not move 4 is on the right track, an3. Based on the fact in (20-24), Bowers (1993) and Cinque (1999) argue that thelicensing head of the pre-verbal manner adverb should be distinguished from that of thepostverbal manner adverb. As will be discussed later, Cinque (1999) argues that there are30 different positions of adverbs and these are in fact the specs of 30 different functionalheads.4. My argument against the adverb movement is in line with Chomsky's (1995) claim thatthe adjunction structure for an adverb is not derived by Move but by Merge since adverbshave no morphological properties that require XP-adjunction, even though I do notcompletely agree with Chomsky's (1995) claim on morphological properties of adverbs. The

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbsalternative explanation of the residual free distribution is called for; thealternation of the pre-verbal position and the postverbal position are nottransformationally related as we just saw from the subcategorization data.Likewise, the alternation of the initial position, the pre-aux position, and thepost-aux position cannot be connected through adverb movement. Then, how toexplain the residual free distribution as well as the restricted distribution ofadverbs? This question is closely related to the licensing of adverbs. In the nextsection, I will discuss several adverb-licensing approaches and how well theseapproaches can capture the adverb distribution.3. Licensing of AdverbsThere have been several different approaches to licensing of adjuncts. In thissection, firstly we will critically review the four different types of licensingmethods: adverbs as heads (Travis (1984)), adverbs as specs (Laenzlinger(1993), Rijkhoek (1994), Alexiadou (1997), Cinque (1995, 1999)), adverbs ascomplements (McConnel-Ginet (1982), Larson (1988, 1990), Stroik (1990)), andadverbs as adjuncts (Chomsky (1986, 1995, 1998, 1999), Zubizarreta (1982,1987), Sportiche (1988, 1994)). I will focus on how well they capture thedistribution of adverbs and how appropriate it is to treat adverbs as heads,specs, adjuncts, or complements. I will show that none of the previousapproaches gives a satisfactory account to the distribution of adverbs. As for thestructural status of adverbs, I will conclude that pre-verbal adverbs are bestonly kind of movement to which adverbs are subject is the movement of XP that containsadverbs such as Light Predicate Raising (refer to Cinque(1999) for detail) as in (i) orwh-movement as in (ii).() He hasn't [ XP completely ruined it] yett XP.() [How carefully] XP does he expect to fix the car t XP?

Rhanghyeyun Kimanalyzed as adjuncts while postverbal adverbs are as specs or complements. Inthe next section, I will show how well this adjunct/complement distinction,together with the Phase Theory (1998, 1999) of Chomsky, can capture therestricted distribution of adverbs and the residual free distribution.3.1. Adverbs as Heads3.1.1. Feature-LicensingThe data in (25) show that the adverb fearfully cannot take the complementPP of Bill, while the adjective fearful can.(25) a. fearful of Billb. *fearfully of BillBased on this observation of Jackendoff (1977) on the inability of adverbs totake complements, Travis (1988) argues that adverbs do not project to a phrasalcategory, that is, they remain simply as heads. Due to this head status ofadverbs, the licensing condition for adverbs, she claims, should be differentfrom that for maximal projections (theta-marking for arguments and predicationfor elements in predication structure). Proposing the head feature-licensing as alicensing condition for adverbs, she argues that this condition captures thedistribution of adverbs well.First, let us consider her account for the restricted distribution of adverbs.The core of the head feature-licensing is that adverbs are licensed by thedesignated feature of a head, which they should govern; epistemic 5 or sentential5. Epistemic Adverbs are those adverbs which express the speaker's degree of confidenceabout the truth of the proposition (based on the kind of information he/she has) such as

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbsadverbs are licensed by the event feature of I and therefore epistemic orsentential adverbs are licensed only when they govern I. Manner adverbs arelicensed by the manner feature of V. Hence, manner adverbs are licensed onlywhen they govern V. With this in mind, let us reconsider the restricteddistribution of Class III and IV adverbs in (6) and (7). (6c) is ungrammaticalsince the epistemic adverb evidently in the current position cannot govern I eventhough it should be licensed by the event feature of I. On the other hand, (7a)is ungrammatical since the manner adverb completely cannot govern V eventhough it should be licensed by the manner feature of V.(6) a. Evidently George read the book.b. George evidently read the book.c. *George read the book evidently. (without comma intonation)(7) a. *Completely George read the book.b. George completely read the book.c. George read the book completely.The meaning difference of Class I and II adverbs depending on the positionalso follows from the head feature-licensing; an adverb will have the subjectorientedor event reading when it govern I which bears the AGR and eventfeatures, whereas it will have the manner interpretation when it govern V whichbears the manner feature. The adverbs cleverly in (26) and quickly in (27)govern I. The former is licensed by the AGR feature of I and has thesubject-oriented reading. The latter is licensed by the event feature of I and hasthe event reading. On the other hand, the second adverb in each case, i.e.,stupidly and slowly, governs V and thus has the manner interpretation.probably, likely, presumably, supposedly.

Rhanghyeyun Kim(26) John cleverly has been answering their questions stupidly.(27) John quickly will be arrested slowly by the police.The residual free distribution, Travis (1988) argues, follows from the head statusof adverbs and the proposed feature percolation. That is, adverbs in English canappear anywhere along the projection line of the licensing head as in (28) and(29) since features percolate from the head to the maximal projection in Englishand thus adverbs as heads can adjoin to anyplace along the head projection line,i.e., to X o , X', and XP as in (30); probably can adjoin to IP as in (28a), to I'as in (28b), to I as in (28c) and slowly can adjoin to V as in (29a), to V' asin (29b), to VP as in (29c).(28) a. Probably George has read the book.b. George probably has read the book.c. George has probably read the book.(29) a. Mary will have slowly put the book on the table.b. Mary will have put the book slowly on the table.c. Mary will have put the book on the table slowly.(30) IPNP I'(28a)(28b) I VP(28c)V' XP(29c)V YP (29b)(29a)

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of AdverbsSo far I have shown Travis's (1988) account for the distribution of adverbs.The idea of feature-licensing is very intuitive one, especially in consideration ofthe recent feature-checking/agreeing theory (Chomsky (1995, 1988, 1999).However, there are some problems with her analysis as will be discussed in thenext section.3.1.2. ProblemsEven though treating adverbs as heads is attractive, there are some counterevidence against this claim. First of all, adverbs do not block verb movement.Adverbs can be crossed by verbs as discussed in Pollock (1989) and Belletti(1990) among others. Moreover, adverbs do show the properties of maximalprojection, even though mostly when adverbs occur sentence-initially orpost-verbally (unless with comma intonation): they can take complements as in(31a, b) contrary to Jackendoff and Travis's observation, they can be modifiedas in (31c), and they have comparative forms as in (31d).(31) a. They will decide independently of my view.b. Unfortunately for us, the man has already left.c. He dances very beautifully.d. He runs more quickly than we expected.Now, if it is wrong to treat adverbs as heads, then Travis's (1988) account forthe residual free distribution should be reconsidered since this account cruciallyrelies on the head status of adverbs.Furthermore, her proposal to capture the residual free distribution in factmake her analysis lose the account for the restricted distribution of adverbs.Note that her account for (28) and (29) does not distinguish left-adjunction from

Rhanghyeyun Kimright-adjunction; that is, she allows adverbs to either left-adjoin or right-adjointo get the residual free distribution and there seems to be no rules regulating theadjunction-direction. (6c), repeated as (32) here, then cannot be ruled out anymore since nothing prevents evidently from right-adjoining to IP or I'.(32) *George read the book evidently. (without comma intonation)Likewise, any Class I and II adverbs in the sentence-final position will beincorrectly allowed to have the subject-oriented or event reading, being licensedby the feature of I in the I'- or IP-right-adjoined position. Moreover, the socalled Case-adjacency effect as in (33) - an NP must be adjacent to the Caseassigner V - cannot be captured, since it is totally possible for an adverb toright-adjoin to V, intervening between V and NP.(33) *George read completely the book.With these problems, the head analysis seems to be hard to maintain as it is. Inthe next section, I will discuss the spec analysis as an alternative licensingcondition of adverbs.3.2. Adverbs as SpecsWhile Travis (1984) counts adverbs as heads, other linguists (Laenzlinger(1993), Rijkhoek (1994), Alexiadou (1997), Cinque (1995, 1999)) argue thatadverbs are best analyzed as Spec(ifier)s. In this section, I will discuss Cinque's(1999) Spec analysis of adverbs among others. The basic motivation of her Specanalysis is the so called relative sequencing effect of adverbs. Firstly, I willlook over the elaborated relative order that she suggests and then will discussher Spec analysis.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbs3.2.1. The Relative Sequencing of AdverbsAdverbs are strictly ordered with respect to each other. Even if severallinguists (Travis (1988), Bowers (1993), Alexiadou (1977), Cinque (1995, 1999))has discussed this relative sequencing effect since Jackendoff (1972), Cinque(1999) is the one who gives the most elaborate picture to this relative order. Letus go over her elaborated relative order.Cinque (1999) notes that speech act adverbs such as honestly 6 precedeevaluative adverbs such as unfortunately 7 as in (34), which in turn precedeevidential adverbs such as evidently 8 as in (35).(34) a. Honestly I am unfortunately unable to help you.b. *Unfortunately I am honestly unable to help you.(35) a. Fortunately he had evidently had his own opinion of the matter.b. *Evidently he had fortunately had his own opinion of the matter.Evidential adverbs like clearly precede epistemic adverbs like probably.(36) a. Clearly, John probably will quickly learn French perfectly.b. *Probably, John clearly will quickly learn French perfectly.Based on the above and other data, Cinque (1999) claims that pre-verbaladverbs 9 are divided into lower adverbs and higher adverbs and among higher6. Speech Act Adverbs such as frankly, honestly, sincerely, qualify the speaker's act ofdeclaration.7. Evaluative Adverbs such as (un)fortunately, luckily, regrettably, surprisingly, strangely/oddly(enough), (un)expectedly, express the speaker's positive, negative, or other evaluation ofthe state of affairs described in a proposition.8. Evidential Adverbs are adverbs which express the type of evidence the speaker has forhis/her assertion such as allegedly, reportedly, apparently, obviously, clearly, evidently.

Rhanghyeyun Kimadverbs speaker-oriented adverbs precede subject-oriented adverbs. Speakerorientedadverbs are ordered as in (37c). (37d) shows an example of howpre-verbal adverbs are ordered.(37) a. higher adverbs > lower adverbsb. speaker-oriented adverbs > subject-oriented adverbsc. domain > pragmatic > evaluative > modal (evidential > epistemic >tense) > irealisd. politically > honestly > fortunately > allegedly > probably >once/then > perhaps > wisely > usually > already > no longer >always > completely > wellShe argues that apparent counter-examples to the canonical order of adverbsoccur when an XP containing an adverb is raised across a higher adverb (e.g.,wh-movement, light predicate raising, etc.), when one adverb can bebase-generated in two different positions with the different meanings (e.g.,Jackendoff's (1972) Class I and II adverbs), when a non-inherently focusingadverb is used as a focusing adverb as in (38), 10 or when an adverb is usedparenthetically.(38) a. He hates probably everybody.9. Postverbal adverbs are ordered as in (i). Refer to Cinque (1999) for detail.() circumstantial adverbials (place, time, manner, means, company, reason, purpose,etc.; unordered) > focused lower adverbs > de-accented material (higher/circumstantial)10. The claim that the adverb probably is used as a focusing adverb is supported by thefact that the adjacency condition can be violated in (38) and that probably moves togetherwith the following NP in the topicalization sentence and the It-That cleft construction asshown below.() a. Probably everybody, he hates.b. It is probably John that he hates.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbsb. He has drunk already seven beers.Otherwise, adverbs are strictly ordered.3.2.2. The Spec AnalysisCinque (1999) observes that not only adverbs enter a rigidly orderedsequence but also the order of head morphemes is rigidly fixed. Furthermore,the hierarchy of adverbs and that of functional heads, she argues, matchessystematically from left to right. Based on these, she proposes that each adverbis the spec of the phrase projected by the corresponding functional headmorpheme. (39) is the hierarchical structure of clausal functional projections thespecs of which are filled with adverbs.(39) The Universal Hierarchy of Clausal Functional Projections[ frankly Mood speech act [ fortunately Mood evaluative [ allegedly Mood evidential [ probablyMod epistemic [ once T(past) [ then T(Future) [ perhaps Mood irrealis [ necessarilyMod necessity [ possibly Mod possibility [ usually Aspect habitual [ again Asp repetitive(I) [ oftenAsp frequentative(I) [ intentionally Mod volitional [ quickly Asp celerative(I) [ alreadyT(Anterior) [ no longer Asp terminative [ still Asp continuative [ always Asp perfect [ justAsp retrospective [ soon Asp proximative [ briefly Asp durative [ characteristicallyAsp generic/progressive [ almost Asp prospective [ completely Asp SGCompletive(I) [ tuttoAsp PLCompletive [ well Voice [ fast/early Asp celerative(II) [ again Asp repetitive(II) [ oftenAsp frequentative(II) [ completely Asp SGCompletive(II) ... ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]Cinque (1999) argues that the same, rich, hierarchy of functional projections ispresent in all languages and in every sentence of each language, even when nomorphological material overtly realizes the corresponding head or specifier. The

Rhanghyeyun Kimsentences in (40) thus will have the same functional structures.(40) a. Prices rise.b. Prices must have not been being raised.c. Fortunately prices probably already no longer rise so rapidly.3.2.3. Adverb DistributionIn the previous two sections, I have shown the relative sequencing effect andthe spec analysis based on this effect. In this section, I will consider how thisspec analysis captures the adverb distribution.The relative sequencing effect of adverbs naturally follows from (39), i.e.,positing the strictly ordered hierarchy of functional projections and assumingthat adverbs are the specs of these strictly ordered functional projections. Ormore correctly, (39) is set up to capture the relative sequencing effect.However, the residual free distribution as in (41 a, b, c) cannot be explainedby (39).(41) a. Probably George will have read the book.b. George probably will have read the book.c. George will probably have read the book.d. *George will have probably read the book.To capture the residual free distribution, Cinque (1999) needs to assume theexistence of the DP-related functional projections in addition to the adverbrelatedones, and the movement of arguments and verbs. That is, Cinque (1999)argues that the residual free distribution as in (41) indicates that there are twosubject-related functional projections, one over and the other below the

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbsprobably-related one. The subject then can move to the spec of either subjectrelatedfunctional projections depending on the intended reading on theassumption that each DP-related positions are positions specialized for particularreadings (e.g., existential, distributive, or specific) or particular scopes(Moltmann (1990), Diesing (1992), Diesing and Jelinek (1995), Beghelli andStowell (1997)). The first auxiliary but not the second can optionally move tothe head of the DP-related functional projection. The residual free distribution in(41 a,b,c) thus follows.Once we adopt the strictly ordered adverb-related functional projections andthe DP-related ones interspersed among them, the restricted distribution ofadverbs as in (42) seems to be easily captured, even though we need to explainwhy the subject should obligatorily move to a position to the left of thecompletely-related functional projection in (42b) while there is an option in thecase of (41).(42) a. *George read the book evidently. (without comma intonation)b. *Completely George read the book.The spec analysis, at first glance, seems to capture the adverb distributionsomehow. However, as in the case of the head analysis, a further thought onthis spec analysis reveals many problems as will be discussed in the nextsection.3.2.4. ProblemsI have noted in the previous section that to capture the residual freedistribution in (41) Cinque (1999) assumes i) two subject-related functionalprojections in addition to the probably-related ones in (39), (ii) the movement of

Rhanghyeyun Kimthe subject to the spec of either subject-related functional projections, and iii)the optional movement of the first auxiliary. All of these assumptions haveproblems as discussed below.First, consider the assumption of two subject-related functional projections.Adding just two subject-related functional projections does not suffice since thesubject can be located to the right or the left of any of the higher adverbs.That is, the subject can be located in any V-marked position in (43).(43) honestly luckily evidently probably now perhaps necessarily willingly obligatorily wisely usually againoften quickly This means that we need to add 15 subject-related functional projections to the30 adverb-related ones in (39), which is already complicated enough. Moreover,Cinque (1999) argues that Swedish and Norwegian object shift data indicate thatthere are also object-related functional projections interspersed among theadverb-related ones. I am not quite sure that this move toward a highlycomplicated clausal structure is truly desirable. 11 It seems to me that herexplanation of the relative sequencing effect costs too much. That is, she has topay a highly articulated clausal structure (39) for the relative sequencing effectand, because of that payment, she needs to add DP-related functional projectionsto (39) when she wants to explain the residual free distribution. I would preferhaving a sort of scope principle regulating the relative sequencing of adverbsrather than complicating a clausal structure that much.Next, consider the movement of the subject to the spec of a subject-related11. Cinque (1999) also argues based on the data from Romance languages that a NegProjection can be base-generated over every single adverb-related functional projection belowMod epistemic.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbsfunctional projection. What is the nature of this movement? Even though Cinque(1999) argues that each projection has a specific semantic interpretation, it is notclear to me exactly how the sentences in (41 a, b) are different from each otherand what are the exact semantic properties of the various subject positionsimplicated in (43).The assumption of the optional movement of the first auxiliary also raisesmany questions. What is the nature of the movement and why is it optional?Why does it have to be the first auxiliary but not the first finite verb?On the top of everything else, treating adverbs as the specs of functionalprojections does not seem to be quite right, given Relativized Minimality inRizzi (1990). Adverbs never block A'-movement as shown in (44), whichindicates that adverbs do not function as A'-specs. They do not blockA-movement either as in (45).(44) a. John has been cleverly answering those questions carefully.b. How carefully has John been cleverly answering those questions?(45) a. The riddle has evidently been solved by Batman.b. John is unfortunately likely to be demoted.The spec analysis, with the problems mentioned above, does not seem to be anappropriate licensing mechanism of adverbs either. In the next section, I will goover the most-widely accepted analysis of adverbs, i.e., the adjunct analysis.3.3. Adverbs as AdjunctsWhile some linguists consider adverbs as heads or specs as we saw above,generally adverbs are taken to be adjuncts, i.e., elements that are not lexicallyselected by a predicate and do not obligatorily appear in a sentence. In

Rhanghyeyun Kimconsideration of the problems of the head and the spec analyses discussedabove, treating adverbs as adjuncts seems to be on the right track.However, this adjunct analysis of adverbs advocated by many linguists(Chomsky (1986, 1995, 1998, 1999), Zubizarreta (1982, 1987), Sportiche (1988,1994) among others) alone can hardly explain the distribution of adverbs. Wewould need the independent scope principle mentioned in the previous sectionto capture the relative sequencing effect. We also would need a separatemechanism that regulates the restricted distribution of adverbs and the residualfree distribution. In fact, Sportiche (1988), having noted this problem, proposesAdjunct Projection Principle (46).(46) Adjunct Projection PrincipleIf some semantic type X modifies some semantic type Y, and X and Yare syntactically realized as and , is projected as adjacent eitherto or to the head of .At the first sight, this proposal to capture the adverb distribution seems ratherintuitive, as it can account for the semantic mapping between adjuncts and therespective functional projections. However, this analysis does not really clarifythe semantic relations involved. Crucially, this proposal, as a variant of Travis(1988), inherits some problems of Travis (1988) that I have mentioned insection II.1: “adjacent” in (46) means being a sister to the constituent itmodifies, forming an adjoined structure. (47d) is thus correctly predicted to beungrammatical since probably cannot be a sister to IP or I.(47) a. Probably George has read the book. (sister to IP)b. George probably has read the book. (sister to I)c. George has probably read the book. (sister to I)

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbsd. *George has read probably the book. (inside VP)However, as in the case of Travis (1988), (46) would incorrectly allow (48) and(49) since (46) does not regulate the adjunction direction.(48) *George read the book evidently. (possibly right-adjoined to I' or IP)(49) *George read completely the book. (possibly right-adjoined to V)That is, Sportiche (1988), just as Travis (1988) does, fails to capture therestricted distribution of adverbs since she let adverbs adjoin to either side tocapture the residual free distribution. To account for the restricted distribution ofadverbs and the residual free distribution, we then need an alternativemechanism.Another problem for the current adjunct analysis of adverbs is that the dataindicate that it is not the case that all adverbs are adjuncts. Some adverbsshould be treated as complements. I will discuss this in the next section.3.4. Adverbs as ComplementsEven if adverbs generally are not lexically selected by a predicate, this is notalways true. There are several verbs which lexically select for an adverbial.Verbs of situation and behavior are some of the most well known cases asshown in (50).(50) a. He behaved *(awfully).b. John resides *(close to my house).c. John dresses *(well).

Rhanghyeyun KimThe subcategorization data in (20-23) in the previous section also indicate thatadverbs can be selected by a predicate.(20) a. John has worded the letter carefully.b. *John has carefully worded the letter.(21) a. John learned French perfectly.b. *John perfectly learned French.(22) a. Bill recited his lines poorly.b. *Bill poorly recited his lines.(23) a. Mary played the violin beautifully.b. *Mary beautifully played the violin.What the data in (50) and (20-23) indicate is that adverbs can function ascomplements as well as adjuncts.In fact, there are some linguists who treat adverbs as complements.McConnel-Ginet (1982) proposes that adverbs are arguments of the verb andthey are licensed through theta-role assignment. In a similar vein, Larson(1988, 1990) and Stroik (1990) argue that adverbs are the innermostcomplements of V; to account for Barss and Lasnik's (1986) observation on theasymmetries in the English double object construction as in (51-52), Larson(1988), assuming the Single Complement Hypothesis and the purely structuralc-command definition of binding domains, develops a VP-shell structure for thedouble object construction instead of the traditional structure.(51) a. I showed John himself in the mirror.b. *I showed himself John in the mirror.(52) a. I gave no one anything.b. *I gave anyone nothing.

Rhanghyeyun Kimb. *Criticize her because Eunice arrived late!c. *Max burned it although Bill had given him the present.That is, the linguistic facts in (54-57) would not be captured if we assume thatobjects are complements, adverbs are VP- or V'-adjuncts, and thus adverbsc-command objects. The asymmetry in (54-57) can be captured only if adverbsare complements c-commanded by objects as in (53). 12I partially agree with Larson (1988, 1990) and Stroik (1990) that adverbs arecomplements. However, it is not likely that all adverbs are complements. Giventhe Single Complement Hypothesis, treating pre-verbal adverbs as complementsis not possible within the current X'-theory, even though it is possible in thecase of postverbal adverbs. Furthermore, none of the pre-verbal adverbs seemsto be selected by a head in the way some postverbal adverbs are selected by averb. I therefore conclude that Larson (1988, 1990) and Stroik (1990)'sargument applies only to postverbal adverbs, while pre-verbal adverbs are bestanalyzed as adjuncts.In sum in this section I have critically reviewed the four different types ofadverb licensing approach, focusing on how well they capture the distribution ofadverbs and how appropriate it is to treat adverbs as heads, specs, adjuncts, orcomplements. I have shown that none of the previous approaches gives asatisfactory account to the distribution of adverbs. As for the structural status ofadverbs, I concluded that pre-verbal adverbs are best analyzed as adjuncts, whilepostverbal adverbs are complements.12. If we adopt the claim that an object (or the features of an object) raises to AGRo (orv) overtly or covertly for checking (Lasnik and Saito (1991), Lasnik (1999)), we couldderive the asymmetry without assuming that adverbs are complements. In this paper Iassume with Chomsky (1998, 1999) that there is no object raising but only agreeing inEnglish.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbs4. ProposalI have concluded in the previous section that pre-verbal adverbs are adjuncts,whereas postverbal adverbs are complements. In this section I will firstlyreaddress the adjunct/complement distinction, adding some assumptions anddiscussions. I will then propose a local condition on adverb licensing based onthe Phase Theory (Chomsky (1998, 1999)). The local condition, together withthe adjunct/complement distinction, captures the distribution of adverbs well aswill be discussed below.4.1. Pre-verbal Adverbs as AdjunctsI have noted in III.3. that generally adverbs are taken to be adjuncts. I willtake this general assumption, as far as pre-verbal adverbs are concerned, as Iconcluded in the previous section. As for the adjunction site, I followChomsky's (1995) argument that adverbs can be base-adjoined only to X' or tomaximal phrases headed by v or functional categories: adverbs cannot bebase-adjoined to XP if XP has a semantic role at LF or more correctly XP istheta-related (an argument or a predicate). As for the adjunction direction, Iassume that adverbs are always left-adjoined in English. 134.2. Postverbal Adverbs as Complements or SpecsAs I have mentioned in III.4, even if adverbs generally are treated as adjuncts,it is not the case that all adverbs are adjuncts. Some adverbs are selected bypredicates. Furthermore, linguists like Larson (1988, 1990) and Stroik (1990)13. unless the adverbs have the comma intonation in the sentence-final position, in whichcase adverbs are right-adjoined.

Rhanghyeyun Kimargue that adverbs are the innermost complements of V. I concluded in theprevious section that Larson (1988, 1990) and Stroik (1990)'s argument appliesto postverbal adverbs, i.e., postverbal adverbs are complements, 14 whilepre-verbal adverbs are best analyzed as adjuncts.However, it is not that all postverbal adverbs are complements. Consider thecases where there are more than one adverb as in (58).(58) a. He attended classes every day of the week in a different university.b. He attended classes in each university on a different day of the week.c. He attended classes in each university with a different friend.d. He attended classes with each friend in a different university.Both adverbs cannot be complements in (58) since only one can be acomplement under the Single Complement Hypothesis. Further, the first adverbshould asymmetrically c-command the second adverb since the former has scopeover the latter in (58). To capture this scope fact, we could assume that the firstadverb adjoins to V' while the object is the spec of V and the second adverbis a complement of V. Or we could assume that the first adverb is a spec ofthe layered V as in (59).(59) VPHeV'VVPe classesV'VVPe in each U. V'attendedwith a different friend14. I use the term complement in a purely structural sense here.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of AdverbsEither choice would be fine but I will take (59) in the spirit of Chomsky's(1995) solution for the traditional Case-adjacency data in (60).(60) a. John reads often to his children.b. *John reads often books.c. John often reads books.Chomsky (1995) argues that when the structure (61), where often is the specof VP, is assumed, (60b) is ruled out since books cannot raise from thecomplement position of V to AgrO spec due to two closer intervening spec, i.e.,the subject John (in the spec of v) and often.(61) vPJohnv'vVPe often V'readsbooksThat is, Chomsky (1995) treats adverbs here as specs to capture the Caseadjacencydata. 15 As far as Chomsky's argument goes through, we could saythat postverbal adverbs can function as specs. 16I then conclude that postverbal adverbs are either complements or specs. Inthe next section I will propose a local condition of adverb licensing based on15. Within Chomsky (1998, 1999) where there is no object raising, adverbs can be saidto induce the intervention effect.16. Adverbs can be specs only when they are postverbal. Pre-verbal adverbs do notfunction as A- or A'-specs, that is, they are adjuncts, as argued above.

Rhanghyeyun Kimthe Phase Theory (Chomsky (1998, 1999)). I will show how the local condition,together with the adjunct/complement-spec distinction, captures the distributionof adverbs well.4.3. Adverb Distribution and the Phase TheoryIn this section I firstly will introduce the Phase Theory (Chomsky (1998,1999)). I will then show that the distribution of adverbs can be explained wellby the proposed local condition of adverb licensing based on the Phase Theory.4.3.1. The Phase TheoryChomsky (1998, 1999) introduces the notion of phase. Phases arepropositional syntactic objects, i.e., either a verb phrase in which all theta rolesare assigned or a full clause including tense and force. Derivations proceedphase by phase; at each stage of the derivation the computation extracts a subsetLA i, 17 which contains an occurrence of C or v, 18 determining clause or verbphrase. For example, (62) has the four phases bracketed.(62) [ CP1 John [ vP1 t thinks [ CP2 Tom will [ vP2 t win the prize]]]]Phases satisfy a cyclicity condition (63).17. Computational derivation selects a lexical array LA from LEX (Lexicon), dispensingwith further access to LEX. At each stage of the derivation a subset LAi is extracted fromLA.18. v is a light verb over the lexical verb V. Chomsky (1998, 1999) suggests that v is-complete only in a construction with full argument structure, i.e., a transitive orexperiencer construction, calling this v v*. Only v*P but not vP is a strong phase relevantfor the EPP features, movement, and the PIC, etc. In this paper I will not distinguish themunless the distinction is relevant.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbs(63) The head of a phase is inert after the phase is completed, triggering nofurther operations.That is, a phase head cannot trigger Merge or Agree 19 in a later phase.Therefore, all selectional requirements (including the EPP for T and for v/C andselection of the external argument for v if required) must be satisfied at thephase that are currently being derived. Otherwise, the derivation crashes at thephase level.The non-final stages of successive-cyclic movement (A- or A'-movement)target the edge of every phase due to the phase-impenetrability condition (thePIC) (64).(64) In phase with head H, the domain of H is not accessible tooperations outside , but only H and its edge( = specs or adjoinedelements).According to the PIC in (64), no element in the complement domain of a phasehead can undergo Merge, Agree, or Move once a phase is completed.Therefore, given the PIC, which article in (65), for example, can move to thecurrent position only when it has moved to the spec of vP 1 before the phasevP 1 is completed. In turn, it can move to the spec of vP 1 only when it hasmoved to the spec of CP 2, to which it can move again only when it has movedto the spec of vP 2 .19. Merge is an operation that takes two syntactic objects (,) and forms K(,)from them. Agree is an operation that establishes a relation (agreement, Case-checking)between a lexical item and a feature in some restricted search space. Combining Merge andAgree leads to the operation Move. The operation Move establishes agreement between and F and merges P(F) to P, where P(F) is a phrase determined by F and P is aprojection headed by . P(F) becomes SPEC-.

Rhanghyeyun Kim(65) [ CP1 Which article do you [ vP1 think [ CP2 that John will [ vP2 read t]]]]?In short, the PIC requires that an element move successive-cyclically throughthe spec of each phase head, having the effect of the economy condition shortmovement.4.3.2. Local Condition on Adverb LicensingIn the previous section I have introduced the Phase Theory. In this section Iwill propose a local condition on adverb licensing based on the Phase Theory.I have concluded in the previous section that pre-verbal adverbs are licensedas adjuncts, while postverbal adverbs are licensed as complements or specs.Now, let us consider what licenses adverbs. Travis (1988), Tang (1990), andLee (1994) argue that it is heads that license adverbs. Then, which headlicenses which adverb? On this matter, I assume that a head can be a licenserof an adverb if the projection of the head is the domain the adverb can modifyor have the scope over (Tang (1990), R. Lee (1994)). For example, manneradverbs can have the scope over VP - the syntactic counterpart of action (orstate) - and thus V is a licenser of these adverbs. Subject-oriented or eventadverbs can modify IP and speaker-oriented adverbs are CP-modifiers.Therefore, I is a licenser of subject-oriented or event adverbs and C is alicenser of speaker-oriented adverbs. Notice that different adverbs may belicensed by the same head since they may have the scope over the same domainand that the same adverbs may be licensed by different heads, for some adverbs(like temporal and locative expression) can modify different domains.Given the above assumption on the licensing head, one could wonder how faradverbs can be away from the licensing head. I propose the following localcondition on adverb licensing.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbs(66) Local Condition on Adverb LicensingAdverbs and the licensing head are in the same phase.According to (66), an adverb can be licensed by a head only when they are inthe same phase. (66) requires that manner adverbs should be in the same phaseas V. Subject-oriented or event adverbs should be in the same phase as I andspeaker-oriented adverbs should be in the same phase as C.I have noted in III.3. that even if the adjunct analysis of adverbs is advocatedby many linguists, we would need a separate mechanism to account for thedistributional restriction and freedom of (adjunctive) adverbs. The localcondition (66) is the mechanism. In the next section, I will show how (66) cancapture the distribution of (adjunctive) adverbs.4.3.3. Explaining the Distribution of AdverbsIn the previous section I have proposed a local condition of adverb licensingbased on the Phase Theory. In this section I will show how the local conditioncaptures the distributional restriction and freedom of adverbs.4.3.3.1. Class I and II AdverbsFirst, let us consider the meaning change of Class I and II adverbs dependingon the positions. We have seen that Class I adverb cleverly has a subjectorientedinterpretation in (1 a, b, c), whereas it has a manner interpretation in(1 d, e). We have also seen that Class II adverb quickly has an event readingin (15 a, b), while it has a process reading in (15 c, d).(1) a. Cleverly, John has been answering their questions.

Rhanghyeyun Kimb. John cleverly has been answering their questions.c. John has cleverly been answering their questions.d. John has been cleverly answering their questions.e. John has been answering their questions cleverly.(15) a. Quickly, John will be arrested by the police.b. John quickly will be arrested by the police.c. John will be quickly arrested by the police.d. John will be arrested quickly by the police.The meaning change can be explained well by the local condition in thefollowing way; cleverly in (1) can have scope over either IP or VP. To modifyIP, it must be licensed by I. To be licensed by I, it must be in the same phaseas I, i.e., the CP phase according to the local condition (66). On the other hand,to be a modifier of VP, it must be in the same phase as the licenser V, i.e., thevP phase. It is in the phase CP in (1 a, b, c) - being adjoined to CP or IP in(1a), to I' in (1b), and to AspP in (1c). 20 21 Since it is in the same phase asthe licenser I, the adverb can be licensed by I in these three sentences, havinga subject-oriented interpretation. However, it cannot have the manner20. I assume the tree structure on the left. Chomsky(1998, 1999) divides the tree into twophases as shown. I will argue below that the tree should be divided into three phases. Notethat the borderline of two phases (e.g., the vP adjoined position in the tree on the left)belongs to both phases due to the PIC.CPCP phaseTPAspPvPvP phaseVP21. Cleverly in (1c) is adjoined to AspP, which contains have, which has raised to I.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbsinterpretation here since it is not in the same phase with V. On the other hand,cleverly is in the phase vP in (1 d, e) - being adjoined to vP in (1d) and beingin the V-complement position in (1e). Therefore, it can be licensed by thelicenser V here, having a manner interpretation. Next, consider quickly in (15).It also can have scope over either IP or VP. To modify IP, it must be in thesame phase as the licenser I, i.e., the CP phase. On the other hand, to be amodifier of VP, it must be in the same phase as the licenser V, i.e., the vPphase. It has an event reading in (15 a, b) since it is in the phase CP (adjoinedto CP or IP in (15a) and to I' in (15b)) and is licensed by I here, while it hasa process reading in (15 c, d) since it is in the phase vP (adjoined to vP in(15c) and being a complement in (15d)) and is licensed by V here.4.3.3.2. Class III and IV AdverbsNext, let us consider the cases of Class III and IV adverbs. Class III adverbscan be located sentence-initially, sentence-medially, but not sentence-finally,while Class IV adverbs occurs sentence-medially, sentence-finally, but notsentence-initially.(6) a. Evidently George read the book.b. George evidently read the book.c. *George read the book evidently. (without comma intonation)(7) a. *Completely George read the book.b. George completely read the book.c. George read the book completely.This distributional fact can also be well-captured by the local condition in thefollowing way; an evidential adverb evidently in (6), as one of speaker-oriented

Rhanghyeyun Kimadverbs, should be in the phase CP to be licensed by C. It is in the phase CPin (6a) (adjoined to CP or IP) and (6b) (adjoined to I'), satisfying the condition(66). (6a) and (6b) are thus grammatical. On the other hand, it is in the phasevP in (6c) (being a complement). Due to the violation of the condition (66),(6c) is ruled out. A manner adverb completely in (7) should be in the phase vPto be licensed by V. It is in the phase vP in (7b) and (7c) (adjoined to vP in(7b) and being a complement in (7c)) but in the phase CP in (7a) (adjoined toCP or IP). Hence, the ungrammaticality of (7a).4.3.3.3. Class VI Adverbs and Aspectual Phrase PhaseEven though the local condition (66) has captured the distribution of otherclass adverbs very well so far, class VI adverbs pose problems to the condition.I will argue that these problems can be solved by positing the phase AspP inaddition to the phase CP and the phase vP. I will point out a consequence ofthis proposal and provide independent evidence for the phase AspP.4.3.3.3.1. Problems Raised by Class VI adverbsWe have seen above that Class VI adverbs can only appear sentence-mediallybut not to the left of the first auxiliary verb.(11) a. *Simply Albert is being a fool.b. Albert is simply being a fool.c. *Albert is being a fool simply.(12) a. *Albert simply has been being a fool.b. Albert has simply been being a fool.c. Albert has been simply being a fool.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbs(13) a. *He merely will be having the most exciting time of his life.b. He will merely be having the most exciting time of his life.c. He will be merely having the most exciting time of his life.How can we capture this fact? The distribution of Class VI adverbs has beenput aside by linguists since Jackendoff (1972). My local condition (66) cannotexplain it either; The deviance of (11c) indicates that the licenser for Class VIadverbs is not in the vP phase. Is it then in the CP phase? The grammaticalityof (b) sentences seems to indicate that it is. However, if the licenser is in theCP phase, (a) sentences should be grammatical too. But (a) sentences areungrammatical. In which phase is then the licenser?In the next section, I will claim that the current paradoxical problems can besolved by postulating the AspP phase.4.3.3.3.2. A Solution: The AspP PhasePhases are propositional syntactic objects. vP is a propositional object inwhich all theta roles are assigned. CP is a propositional object that adds tenseand force to the propositional vP. In the same vein, AspP can also be claimedto be a propositional object that supplements aspect to the propositional vP. 22 2322. Smith (1991) divides aspect into two types: situation aspect and viewpoint aspect(lexical aspect and grammatical aspect, respectively, in the terms of Dahl (1985) and Cinque(1999)). The situation aspect is the internal structure of the event, or situation, as lexicallyexpressed by the predicate and its arguments. According to Vendler's (1967) classicaltypology, some predicates denote state (know, love) and others activity (laugh, run). Stillothers are accomplishment predicates (build a house, run a mile) or achievement predicates(reach the top, find a wallet). The viewpoint aspect refers to the particular way in which thespeaker presents the event or situation, through grammatical means. Smith (1991)distinguishes between perfective and imperfective. Cinque (1999) postulates the followingeleven different types of viewpoint aspect: habitual, repetitive/frequency, celerative,

Rhanghyeyun KimLet us then suppose that we have the AspP phase in addition to CP and vP.It is now clear-cut why (11c) and (a) sentences of (11-13) are bothungrammatical at the same time; if the licenser for Class VI adverbs is in theAspP phase (see the footnote 24), then these adverbs should also be in theAspP phase given the local condition (66). (11c) is ruled out because simply isin the vP phase and (a) sentences of (11-13) are deviant at the same time sincesimply and merely are in the CP phase. On the other hand, (b) sentences of(11-13) are grammatical since simply and merely are in the AspP phase (beingadjoined to AspP). (12c) and (13c) are grammatical since simply and merely,being adjoined to vP, can be licensed by Asp thanks to the PIC.In short, the paradoxical problems of Class VI adverbs can be resolved bypostulating the AspP phase. The current analysis can apply to other aspectualadverbs 24 such as just, almost, still, always, and usually which show the sameterminative, continuative, perfect/imperfect, retrospective and proximative, durative, generic/progressive, prospective, completive. AspP in this paper is a functional projection of thisviewpoint aspect.23. I assume the following internal structure for AspP. Just as v selects V, the functionalhead Asp selects a (null or phonetic) viewpoint-aspectual verb that denotes perfect/imperfect,generic/progressive, ..., or habitual. In the tree on the left, Asp selected a perfect verb have(which, I assume, also selected a progressive verb be in this particular case).AspPhavePhave -enbePbe -ing vP24. In a language without morphological viewpoint aspect, e.g., German, adverbs are usedto express aspectual differences. The adverbs that express the aspectual difference are namedas aspectual adverbs. Alexiadou (1997) classifies aspectual adverbs into two different types;durative/indefinite frequency adverbs such as usually and regularly and cardinal count/definite frequency adverbs such as just, immediately, and twice. Cinque (1999) posits elevendifferent types of aspectual adverbs which, she argues, are the specs of the eleven differentaspectual heads mentioned in the footnote 22. Class VI adverbs such as merely, simply can

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbsdistributional facts (James Seasholtz (personal communication)) as Class VIadverbs.I will show in the next section that positing the AspP phase is also necessaryto solve the problems raised by other adverbs.4.3.3.3.3. Problems Raised by Class I, II, and III adverbsEven though the local condition (66) seemed to capture the distribution ofClass I, II, III adverbs very well, a close look at the data reveals problems.First, let us reconsider (1d) and (15c), the cases of Class I and II adverbs.(1) d. John has been cleverly answering their questions.(15) c. John will be quickly arrested by the police.I have mentioned above that cleverly and quickly are adjoined to vP here andthus are in the vP phase. Hence, they can be licensed by V and have themanner interpretation. So far so good. The problem is that these adverbs canalso be in the CP phase thanks to the PIC without assuming the AspP phase.Then, since they are in the same phase as I, they should be able to be licensedby I, having the subject-oriented interpretation and the event interpretation,respectively. However, the fact is that they can have only the mannerinterpretation.Class III adverbs also raises problems in sentences with auxiliary verbs.Consider (67).(67) a. George probably will have been reading the book.be argued to be aspectual adverbs in that they also refer to the particular way in which thespeaker presents the event or situation.

Rhanghyeyun Kimb. George will probably have been reading the book.c. George will have *probably been reading the book.d. George will have been *probably reading the book.(due to Kari Eline Schenk (personal communication))Probably in (67 a, b), being in the CP phase (being adjoined to I' in (67a) andto AspP in (67b)), is licensed by C and therefore these two sentences arecorrectly predicted to be grammatical. The problematic case is (67c). Withoutassuming the AspP phase, probably here is in the CP phase- adjoined to theprojection of be [progressive] - and thus should be able to be licensed by C.However, the sentence is ungrammatical. (67d) and (41d) below are alsoproblematic just as (1d) and (15c) above are.(41) a. Probably George will have read the book.b. George probably will have read the book.c. George will probably have read the book.d. *George will have probably read the book.Probably is adjoined to vP in these cases. Given the PIC, the two sentences aresupposed to be grammatical since probably in the adjunction position of vP canbe licensed by C at the next phase, without assuming the AspP phase.However, the two sentences are ungrammatical.Now if we assume the AspP phase, all these problems can be solved. In (1d)and (15c) cleverly and quickly in the vP adjoined position cannot be licensed byI in the CP phase even with the PIC since the AspP phase intervenes betweenthe vP adjoined position and the CP phase. (67c) is deviant since probably hereis not in the CP phase but within the complement domain of Asp and thereforecannot be licensed by C in the CP phase. In the case of (67b), probably, being

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbsadjoined to AspP, can be licensed by C at the next phase thanks to the PIC.(67d) and (41d) are ungrammatical since probably, being adjoined to vP, cannotbe licensed by C in the CP phase across the AspP phase.In sum, I have shown in this section that positing the AspP phase helps tosolve the problems raised by the distribution of other Class adverbs.4.3.3.3.4. Evidence for the AspP Phase: Quantifier FloatingIn the previous sections I have shown that positing the AspP phase is crucialto capture the distribution of adverbs in the aspectual sentences. In this sectionI will show a piece of evidence for positing the AspP phase.We can find the evidence in quantifier floating. Consider the followingsentences.(68) a. All the boys will have read the book by tomorrow.b. The boys will all have read the book by tomorrow.c. The boys will have all read the book by tomorrow.(69) a. All the boys have been reading the book.b. The boys have all been reading the book.c. ??The boys have been all reading the book.(68b) and (69b) show that the quantifier all can be located to the right of thefirst auxiliary verb. If Sportiche (1988) is right in arguing that quantifier floatingjustifies VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis, i.e., reflects the movement history ofthe subject, 25 then the grammaticality of (b) sentences indicates that the subject25. Koopman and Sportiche (1985, 1987) argue that a subject is base-generatedVP-internally (V*-internally in their term) and is moved to the spec of I. Sportiche (1988)claims based on the data of French and English that certain properties of the floatingquantifiers receive an explanatory account if Koopman and Sportiche's (1985, 1987)

Rhanghyeyun Kimstops by the edge of AspP on the way to the TP spec. What does this mean?I have mentioned above Chomsky's (1998, 1999) claim that movement targetsthe edge of every phase due to the PIC. If we take this claim, thegrammaticality of (b) sentences then implies that AspP constitutes a phase.That is, the subject has to stop by the edge of AspP on the way to the TP specdue to the PIC since AspP constitutes a phase. In (b) sentences, the quantifierall is stranded at the edge of AspP.4.3.3.3.5. SummaryIn sum, in this section 4.3.3.3. I have shown that the distribution of Class VIadverbs can be well-captured by positing the AspP phase and the presence ofthe AspP phase is also needed in solving the problems raised by other adverbs.I have provided a piece of evidence for the proposal. Before we go on to ClassV adverbs, let me summarize our argument made up to now with the followingtree and diagram.argument is on the right track. A relevant property of the floating quantifiers is the fact thatthe floating quantifiers can occur to the left of a main verb and the second auxiliary verbas in (i) and (ii), Sportiche's (1988) data;() The carpets will have been being all dusted for two hours.() The carpets will all have been being dusted for two hours.() All the carpets will have been being dusted for two hours.Sportiche (1988) assumes that Qs may appear in NP-initial position. Given thisassumption, the occurrence of all in (i)-(ii), she argues, indicates that all the carpets startsVP-internally, drops by the spec of have (which is a raising verb according to her), andlands in the spec of I (will, another raising verb), being able to strand all at each stage ofmovement. That is, floating of all reflects the movement history of the subject.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of Adverbs(70)CPTPAspPCP phase*Class I*Class II*Class III*Class VIClass ICP phase Class IIClass IIIAspP phase Class VIvPClass IClass IVPvP phaseClass IIClass IVvP phaseClass IIClass IVThe diagram on the left of the arrows in (70) shows that when we assume justtwo phases, Class I, II, III, VI adverbs pose distributional problems to the localcondition (66); Firstly, Class I and II adverbs are incorrectly predicted to havesubject-oriented and event readings, respectively, in the vP-adjoined position.Next, Class III adverbs in the vP adjoined position are incorrectly ruled in.Finally, it is not clear why Class VI adverbs cannot occur to the left of the firstauxiliary verb while it can to the right.On the other hand, the right diagram shows that once we take the phaseAspP, the distribution of adverbs neatly falls under the local condition (66);Class I/II and III adverbs can be licensed by the licenser I and C, respectively,as long as they are in the CP phase (i.e., adjoined to CP, IP, I', AspP), ClassVI adverbs can be licensed by the licenser Asp, as long as they are in the AspPphase (i.e., adjoined to AspP, haveP, ..., vP), and Class I, II, IV adverbs can belicensed by the licenser V, as long as they are in the vP phase (i.e., adjoinedto vP or being a spec or a complement in VP). Crucially, vP adjoined positionsdo not belong to CP phase any longer due to the intervening AspP. Therefore,

Rhanghyeyun KimClass I and II adverbs in the vP adjoined position will not have subject-orientedor event readings. A desired result. Class III adverbs will not be allowed in thevP adjoined position. Another welcoming result. Class VI adverbs are correctlypredicted not to occur to the left of the first auxiliary verb.4.3.3.4. Class V AdverbsI have shown above how the local condition based on the Phase Theory,together with the AspP hypothesis, can explain the distribution of adverbs verywell. The distinction between adjunct adverbs and complement-spec adverbs hasnot been important so far. In this section I will show that while the distributionof adjunctive adverbs can be well captured by the proposed local condition (66),we need a more restricting condition for complemental adverbs.Consider the following sentences.(19) a. John has been cleverly answering their questions.b. John has been answering their questions cleverly.In (19) cleverly, with a manner interpretation, can be located to the left orthe right of the main verb. I have argued above that in both cases cleverly isin the vP phase (being adjoined to vP in (19a) and being a complement in(19b)) and thus is licensed by V. By analogy, if the Class V adverb hard in(10) is licensed by V, it should be able to be located to the left or the right ofthe main verb.(10) a. *Hard John hit Bill.b. *John hard hit Bill.c. John hit Bill hard.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of AdverbsHowever, hard can be located only to the right of the verb as illustrated. Whyis (10b) ungrammatical?At this point, we can recall the above subcategorization data.(20) a. John has worded the letter carefully.b. *John has carefully worded the letter.(21) a. John learned French perfectly.b. *John perfectly learned French.(22) a. Bill recited his lines poorly.b. *Bill poorly recited his lines.(23) a. Mary played the violin beautifully.b. *Mary beautifully played the violin.The adverbs in (a) sentences are selected by the verb. Let me then say thatClass V adverbs are selected by a verb and thus their distribution is restrictedas much as that of other verb complements are. That is, the structural conditionon complements (71) restricts the distribution of Class V adverbs.(71) Complements are in the c-domain of a head.Class V adverbs, being selected by a verb, then is subject to (71) as well as(66); they should be in the same phase as a licenser and at the same time inthe c-domain of the selector head. (10b) is then ruled out since hard here is notin the c-domain of the verb hit, even if it is in the same phase as the verb.Likewise, the (b) sentences in (20-23) are ungrammatical due to a violation of(71). Class V adverbs are thus postverbal.(71) could apply to all other postverbal adverbs, i.e., the so calledcircumstantial adverbs (place, time, manner, means, company, reason, purpose,

Rhanghyeyun Kimetc.) of Cinque (1999). These circumstantial adverbs never occur to the left ofa verb even though they can occur to the right of a verb. 26 The reason whythese circumstantial adverbials cannot occur there could be because they are notadjunctive but complemental when their modification domain is vP and thusthey are subject to the condition (71) as well as (66). That is, they arecomplements (in a purely structural term) of V and thus they should be in thec-domain of V. Hence, they are postverbal.In sum, I have shown in this section that the distribution of Class V adverbs,probably of all complemental (including purely structurally complemental)adverbs, is restricted not only by the condition (66) but also by the condition(71).5. Summary and ConclusionContrary to the argument of some linguists that adverbs are freely distributedin a sentence thanks to adverb movement (Keyser (1968), Emonds (1976),Baltin (1982)), the distribution of adverbs is in fact fairly restricted, even ifthere remain some residual cases of the free distribution (Jackendoff (1972),Travis (1988), and Cinque (1999)).In this paper I argued that even the residual free distribution does not followfrom the adverb movement since it is clear in consideration of meaning andsubcategorization that adverbs do not undergo movement at all.I critically reviewed the four different types of licensing methods: adverbs asheads (Travis (1984)), adverbs as specs (Laenzlinger (1993), Rijkhoek (1994),Alexiadou (1997), Cinque (1995, 1999)), adverbs as complements (McConnel-26. These adverbs can occur sentence-initially, which, we think, is possible since theseadverbs can have the scope over a sentence as well as vP.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of AdverbsGinet (1982), Larson (1988, 1990), Stroik (1990)), and adverbs as adjuncts(Chomsky (1986, 1995, 1998, 1999), Zubizarreta (1982, 1987), Sportiche (1988,1994)). I showed that none of the previous approaches account for thedistribution of adverbs satisfactorily. As for the constructional status of adverbs,I concluded that pre-verbal adverbs are best analyzed as adjuncts whilepostverbal adverbs are as specs or complements.I proposed a local condition of adverb licensing based on the Phase Theory(Chomsky (1998, 1999)). I showed that this local condition, together with theadjunct/ complement-spec distintion, neatly accounts for the distributionalrestriction and freedom of adverbs, including Class V and VI adverbs, whichhave not been given a deep research since Jackendoff (1972).ReferencesAlexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb Placement, John Benjamins PublishingCompany.Baltin, M. R. 1982. A Landing Site Theory of Movement Rules, LinguisticInquiry 13:1-38.Barss, Andrew and Howard Lasnik. 1986. A Note on Anaphora and DoubleObjects, A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects, Linguistic Inquiry 17:347-354.Beghelli, Filippo and Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and Negation: TheSyntax of each and every, Ways of Scope Taking, Kluwer, Dordrecht:71-107.Bellert, Irene. 1977. On the Semantic and Distributional Properties of SententialAdverbs, Linguistic Inquiry 7:337-351.Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Syntax,

Rhanghyeyun KimTorino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Bowers, John. 1975. Adjectives ann Adverbs in English, Foundations ofLanguage 13:529-562.Bowers, John. 1993. The Syntax of Predication, Linguistic Inquiry 24:591-656.Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Knowledge of Language, Praeger, New York.Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework, MIT OccasionalPapers in Linguistics 15.Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by Phase, MIT Occasional Papers inLinguistics 18.Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads, Oxford UniversityPress.Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect System, Blackwell, Oxford.Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Diesing, Molly and Eloise Jelinek. 1995. Distributing Arguments, NaturalLanguage Semantics 3:123-176.Emonds, J. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax; Root,Structure-Preserving, and Local Transformation, New York; AcademicPress.Ernst, Thomas. 1984. Towards an Integrated Theory of Adverb Position inEnglish, Doctoral Dissertation, distributed by Indiana Linguistics Club.Higginbotham, J. 1985. On Semantics, Linguistic Inquiry 16:547-593.Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MITPress, Cambridge, Massachusettes.Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X' Syntax: a Study of Phrase Structure, Cambridge,Mass: MIT Press.

A Minimalist Account of the Distribution of AdverbsKeyser, S. J. 1968. Review of Sven Jacobson Adverbial Position in English,Language 44:357-374.Laenzlinger, Christopher. 1993. Principles for a Formal and ComputationalAccount of Adverbial Syntax, ms., Universite de Geneve.Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction, Linguistic Inquiry,19:335-391.Larson, Richard. 1990. Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff,Linguistic Inquiry 21:589-623.Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist Analysis, Blackwell.Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1991. On the Subject of Infinitives, CLS27, University of Chicago.Lee, Rhanghyeyun K. 1994. Economy of Representation, Doctoral Dissertation,University of Connecticut.McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1982. Adverbs and Logical Form, Language 58:144-184.Moltmann, Friederike. 1990. Scrambling in German and the Specificity Effect,ms., MIT.Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and theStructure of IP, Linguistic Inquiry 20:365-424.Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.Rijhoek, Pauline. 1994. On Adverbs and Antisymmetric Minimalism, MA Thesis,University of Groningen.Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Roberts, Ian. 1987. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects,Dordrecht: Foris.Rochette, A. 1990. The Selectional Properties of Adverbs.Smith, Carlotta. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect, Dordrecht, Kluwer.

Rhanghyeyun KimSportiche, Dominique. 1988. A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and ItsCorollaries for Constituent Structure, Linguistic Inquiry 19:425-449.Sportiche, Dominique. 1994. Adjuncts and Adjunction, GLOW Newsletter 32:54-55.Stroik, Thomas. 1990. Adverbs as V-Sisters, Linguistic Inquiry 21:654-661.Thomason, Richmond and Robert Stalnaker. 1973. A Semantic Theory ofAdverbs, Linguistic Inquiry 4:195-220.Tang, C.-C. Jane. 1990. Chinese Phrase Structure and Extended X-bar Theory,Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.Travis, Lisa. 1988. The Syntax of Adverbs, McGill Working Papers inLinguistics.Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy, Cornell University Press, Ithaca,N.Y.Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1982. On the Relationship of the Lexicon to Syntax,Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and inthe Syntax, Dordrecht: Foris.Department of English Language and LinguisticsKorea UniversityChichiwonChungnam 339-800rhylee@tiger.korea.ac.kr