Dimensiuni ale limbajului n context carceral

1.2. Syntactic Aspects
The adverbials under study are generally considered the product of “tertiary relations” 1 , which means that the
adverbial phrase is subordinated to the predicate, if the sentence inherently contains another element (i.e. any
syntactical function with the exception of the predicate) which conditions the existence of the semantic
features of exception.
This type of interpretation is used to explain the phenomenon from the traditional point of view. If we take
into consideration the X’ Bar format: XP→(SPEC) (X=HEAD) (COMPLEMENT) and we apply it to the case
of exception adverbials, we will notice that practically any element which enters an initial parallel structure
(i.e. any syntactic function) can Merge under the Head (i.e. specialized preposition/ complementizer). The
traditional point of view sustains that the functional frame integrates/ licenses its acquired complement in a
homogeneous fashion irrespective of the morphological nature of this structure.
It is here that we need to make three important distinctions. Firstly, there are indeed cases in which licensing
holds between the head and the complement (i.e. the element which Merges into complement position
changes its initial FFs – formal features). In this case, which is thoroughly present in grammars, we speak of
adverbials proper 2 . Secondly, there are cases where this licensing is blocked or suspended due to the fact that
the syntactic function which fills the complement position of the adverbial phrase maintains its initial status.
We speak, in this case, of syntactic functions in adverbial construction of exception. We will discuss these
aspects at points 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. Thirdly, there are cases, which do not make the object of study for exception
adverbials in the traditional sense, of the form Adverb + Syntactic Function, where the adverb functions as an
operator. This aspect will be discussed at point 2.4.
2. Three Adverbial Constructions
2.1. PP = P + ADJP
This is one of the most problematic issues that the analysis of exception adverbials poses. This aspect helps us
in underlying the fact that the traditional approach (according to which whatever is marked by specialized
prepositions/ complementizers expressing exception must be an adverbial of this kind) needs rethinking.
First of all, it is a known fact that an adjective cannot function alone. From a Relational point of view,
adjectives are Pred which agree with a 2. But even if we cast aside this modern interpretation, we will find, in
the majority of grammars, that adjectives agree with a nominal in NUM, GENDER and CASE. The adjective
- G A L R (2005) – Circumstanţialul de excepţie exprimă un tip special de restrângere a unei predicaţii semantice, indicând
ceea ce se exclude din relaţia predicativă.
- Irimia (2004) – Sub aspect semantic, complementul de excepţie exprimă detaşarea, izolarea unui sau a unei
coordinate circumstanţiale de restul componentelor unui ansamblu dat, în raport cu acţiunea verbului-predicat.
1 G A L R, (2005:587).
2 We speak of adverbials proper when the functional frame combines itself with nominals (which may have any syntactic function)
and with initial predicates/main, independent clauses. In the case of nominals Structural Acc. is assigned for both English and
Romanian and Structural Genitive for Romanian only.