Presented at the LSA by AEG, Jan 7, 1999
Obligatory Adjuncts
Adele E. Goldberg and Farrell Ackerman
University of Illinois and University of California, San Diego[1]
In this paper, it is argued that the existence of “obligatory adjuncts” in both predication and modification is best understood as following from general conversational pragmatics; no grammatical stipulation is necessary. In the case of clausal predication, the requirement corresponds to the familiar idea that every utterance requires a focus; adjuncts are just one of several ways in which the focal requirement can be satisfied. It is argued that the focal requirement itself is best understood in terms of Grice's maxim of Quantity or Horn's R-Principle, and that these latter principles also account for the appearance of obligatory adjuncts with nominal modification structures.
- Introduction
Consider the contrasting clauses with short passives in (1) and nominal modification structures in (2), first observed by Grimshaw and Vikner (1993). When uttered with “neutral” intonation, adjuncts are required in order to avoid a sense of anomaly: impressionistically, the (a) structures leave us yearning for more to be said, while the (b) structures somehow satisfy this yearning:
1a. #This house was built.
b. This house was built last year.
2a. # a built house
b. a recently built house
We will be examining these so-called “obligatory adjuncts”: the adjuncts such as last year and recentlywhich seem to rescue (1b) and (2b). We will critically examine a grammatical account offered by Grimshaw and Vikner (1993) and suggest instead a pragmatic account of obligatory adjuncts. We will argue that: predication or modification of an argument is only licensed when it is informative in the discourse context.
Our account of clausal predication as in (1a,b) is motivated by the widely accepted claim thatutterances require an information focusproviding an assertion that makes the contribution worth uttering in a conversation(Bolinger 1965; Rooth 1992; Kiss, 1998; Halliday 1967; Lambrecht 1994; Polinsky 1999).
By information focus, we follow Halliday (1967:204) who defines it as, “one kind of emphasis, that whereby the speaker marks out a part (which may be the whole) of a message block as that which he wishes to be interpreted as informative."
Lambrecht (1994:207) likewise defines the focus of a proposition as “the UNPREDICTABLE or pragmatically NON-RECOVERABLE element in an utterance”.
An explanation for the unacceptabilty of (1b), (#The house was built)thenis simply that the utterance does not contain an information focus, in that it conveys no new or informative information.More specifically, a clause with a definite subject presupposes the existence of the subject referent (Strawson 1964). Therefore it is possible to infer that at some point in the past, the referent was created.[2] Nothing informative is being said that can't be calculated by knowing how presupposition works in definite np subjects and the meaning of house. The fact that adjuncts are so often required for passive verbs of creation is expected, since we generally assume that artifacts are created in default ways.
As a heuristic for isolating the information focus, we can rely on Erteschik-Shir and Lappin's (1979) “lie” test. The focus of an utterance (the “dominant” part of an utterance in Erteschik-Shir's terminology) is that part which is denied by the assertion “That’s a lie.” Consider how the lie test operates on the short passives involving verbs of creation:
A: This house was built in 1992.
B: That’s a lie! It was built in 1972! Focus = `in 1992'
B’: That’s a lie! # It was not built.
Without a special context, it is more natural for B to deny the date in which the building was erected than to deny that the house was built at all. This is because, in a non-contrastive context, the mere fact that the house was built is not what is asserted by A's utterance. It is instead presupposed, and therefore, like presuppositions generally, cannot easily be negated.
We will see a little later that adjuncts are just one of several ways in which the focal requirement can be satisfied. The focal requirement itself can be understood in terms of Grice's maxim of Quantity or Horn's R-Principle, “make your contribution necessary; say no more than you must,”since it is not necessary to utter a sentence that contains only redundant or recoverable information, i.e., uttering a sentence without a focus violates the maxim of quantity.Following previous work by Ackerman and Goldberg (1996), we will see that this conversational principle also accounts for the appearance of obligatory adjuncts within nominal modification structures as in (2a,b).[3]
- An Event Structure Account
Grimshaw & Vikner (1993) provide a rare previous attempt to account for the contrasts in (1a-b) and (2a-b). Their proposal relies on the complex event structure of accomplishment predicates, sowe will refer to this as the event structure account. Accomplishments consist of two subevents, a process and a state. G&V suggest thateach subevent must be “identified" by some element in the sentence.
They observe thatonly certain accomplishment predicates require obligatory adjuncts as in (3a-b); these involve verbs of creation. No adjuncts are needed with other types of accomplishment verbs such as verbs of destruction, as in (4), nor with verbs in which a performance object is created such as record in (5).
3a. #This house was built/created/made/designed.
b. This house was built/created/made/designed by a 16th century architect.
4. This house was destroyed.
5. Your conversation was recorded.
Given that all of these predicates are accomplishments, and therefore consist of two subevents: a process and a state, the complex nature of the event structure itself cannot be sufficient to explain the different behaviors of the various verbs.
G&V hypothesize that in the case ofverbs of creation, the theme argument (y in the examples in 6 and in Figure 1) can only identify the state, since the theme does not exist until the process is complete. Therefore the process component of the complex event must be identified, they reason, either by the causer argument in an active sentence (x in 6a), or by an adjunct in a passive sentence (6c).
Figure 1:
In the case of other accomplishment verbs, e.g., destroy, record, they suggest that the theme argument (corresponding to the y variable in example 7a,b and in Figure 2) simultaneously identifies both subevents, since, for example, the sound exists even as it is being recorded. Because both subevents are identified, no adjunct is required (7b).
Figure 2:
3. Problems for an Event Structure Account
Although this basic idea has been adopted by a number of theorists (e.g., van Hout 1996; Rappaport Hovav & Levin 1998, Levin 1999[4]), there remain outstanding empirical problems with the Event Structure account. There are two basic questions that we will focus on here:
1. Is the class of participating predicates really only accomplishment predicates?
2. What is the nature of the split behavior within the class of accomplishments?
2.1.Statives and activities as well as accomplishments can require adjuncts
The event structure account depends crucially on the complex nature of the event structure of verbs of creation. And yet we find predicates with simple event structures, both statives (8) and activities (9-10), also often require some type of adjunct when they appear in short passives.
8a. # The claim was believed.
b. The claim was believed by many/in the seventh century/in the South.
9a. # The book was read.
b. The book was read by many/yesterday/over the airwaves/in the shower.
10a. #The television program was watched.
b. The television program was watched all over the country/by millions/with anticipation.
3.3. Constructive accomplishments do not uniformly require adjuncts
Certain changes in tense as in (11), which was noted by G&V, can obviate the need for an adjunct. A further problem for the event structure account stems from the fact that in addition to changes in tense, variations in modality (12), polarity (13), and emphatic uses of auxiliaries as in (14) can eliminate the need for an adjunct as well.
11a The house will be built.
b. The house is being built
c. The house has been built.
12a. The house might be built.
- The house should be built.
- The house wasn't built.
14, The house WAS built.
It is not obvious that these factors alter either the event structure of accomplishments or the nature of identification associated with them. One might be led from this data to claim that all expressions with future or perfect tense, negative polarity or modals must have a simple event structure[5]; that is, the event structure account could be defended by claiming that none of the examples in 11-14 actually involve a complex event. We will suggest, however, that there is no need to make this drastic move.
To summarize, the event structure account is both too specific and too general, in that it does not explain why examples like (8a), (9a) and (10a) require an adjunct nor why examples such as (11-14) do not.
- Pragmatic Proposal
Recall the pragmatic proposal described at theoutset: the basic idea in the case of clausal predications is that utterances require a focus; adjuncts are just one way of satisfyingthis requirement. The idea that asserting something that is already presupposed is infelicitous conforms to Stalnaker's essential conditions on the rational employment of assertion in communication. He writes (1978:325):
"To assert something incompatible with what is presupposed
is self-defeating; one wants to reduce the context set, but not to eliminate
it altogether. And to assert something which is already presupposed is to
attempt to do something that is already done." [emphasis ours]
Notice that if a contrastive context is invoked, and we assume that what is asserted is that the house was in fact actually built (with stress on was), no adjunct is required:
15. This house WAS built.
In this case, there is an implicit contrast with a negative proposition, and the positive polarity of the copula verb provides a contrastive focus for the clause. Constrastive focal stress on the subject argument or on the verb can also, as expected, render bare passives felicitous since a focus is provided:
16. The HOUSE was built, (not the garage).
- The house was BUILT, (not just designed).
There are various other ways of providing a focus in simple sentences as well. In fact, and contrary to the blanket prohibition against constructive accomplishments in the event structure account, if the method of creation is somehow unusual, a verb of creation can itself play the role of focus, without emphatic stress.
18. This cake was microwaved.
19. These diamonds were synthesized.
With respect to tenses, those other than the simple past serve to inform the listener that the creation took place before, after or during a particular reference time:
20a. The house will be built.
b. The house has been built.
c. The house had been built.
d.The house is being built.
The pragmatic account does not depend on the event structure of the predicate. The examples in (8a), (9a) and (10a) repeated below each lack an information focus. We assume claims are believed, books are read and television programs are watched by someone or other; in a neutral context, these examples do not convey anything informative.
8a.# The claim was believed.
9a. #The book was read.
10a. #The television program was watched.
Since only definite subjects presuppose the existence of their referent, and therefore presuppose that the referent was created, an indefinite subject can render the short passive acceptable:
21a. A MANSION was built.
b. MANSIONS were built.
These sentences can be used to introduce one or more mansions into the discourse, as in the following context:
22b. The city expanded. MANSIONS were built. Roads were paved.
In this case, the subject argument must receive the sentence accent indicating that it is, or is part of, the focus domain (see Lambrecht 1994 for discussion). It cannot receive the default sentence final accent, except, as just mentioned, in a contrastive context (see 16):
23. # A mansion was BUILT.
To summarize, there are many ways of making a clause informative (i.e., providing a focus). An adjunct phrase is just one way. Without an adjunct or some other focal information, the clausal predication is infelicitous.
Middles
The same pragmatic explanation extends naturally to the English middle construction as well. It has frequently been observed that English middles often require some type of adjunct:
24a. #The car drives.
b. The car drives like a boat/easily /365 days a year/only in the summertime.
As is evident from (24b), a wide variety of adjuncts can be used to rescue middles from infelicity.
Several researchers have observed that negated middles or middles that are overtly emphasized often attenuate the need for an adjunct (Keyser and Roeper 1984: 385; Fellbaum 1985: 9; Dixon 1991: 326):
25. That car doesn’t drive.
26. These red sports cars DO drive, don’t they? (Dixon 1991:326).
Fellbaum (1985) notes that the negation serves to supply “non-given” information, while the emphasized verb serves to indicate non-expectedness. That is, the change in polarity or emphasis provides a focus for the clause, making the expression informative and therefore acceptable. We assume that cars can be driven so asserting that they cannot be (25) is informative; in (26), the emphasized auxiliary is used to convey the idea that the cars drive really well or fast or easily.
In accord with this explanation, Rosta (1995: 132) notes that “the more `newsworthy' adjunctless mediopassives are, the less odd they are." He cites the following examples in this context:
27a.The car will steer, after all.
b. These beaurocrates bribe.
- Boy did that mountain climb!
- She sure did interview. (1995:132)
Recognizing the requirement for an adjunct to be a pragmatic requirement allows us to explain why many middles do not require an adjunct. For example,
27. <How do you close this purse?> It snaps/ It zips/ It buttons.
28. <Where do we enter the secret passageway?> The bookshelf opens.
In a context in which it is informative to assert that people should be able to perform a given action on the subject argument, no adjunct is required.[6]
Summary
Sometimes what would otherwise be a fully acceptable sentence, is unacceptable because it doesn’t count as saying enough to be licensed conversationally: it doesn't contribute more than could be calculated by knowing the word meanings and presupposition structure of the sentence. The conversational context and background assumptions are critical, so that the predications that appear odd in a “neutral” context can often be rescued by simply finding the right context.
We have relied on the idea that every utterance must contain a focus. As we noted at the outset, this constraint ultimately follows from Grice's maxim of Quantity, or Horn's R-Principle, since it is not normally necessary to utter sentences without an information focus, that is,sentences in which all information is redundant or recoverable. Viewing the focal requirement in these terms allows us to extend the present account to instance of obligatory adjuncts in certain modification structures. The use of modification must also be informative within the discourse context.
- Adjectival Past Participles
In Ackerman & Goldberg (1996), we demonstrated how conversational pragmatic principles account for obligatory adjuncts in nominal modificational structures. For example, it was argued that simply modifying house with built as in (29a) is not felicitous because it is not informative: we assume houses are built:
29a. #a built house
b. a recently built house
As expected, the felicity of a modification structure is dependent on the combination of a particular property and a particular head noun, not on the event structure of the deverbal adjective. Notice that the same modifier, paid, is odd in (30a), but fine in (30b). This is because we readily assume that physicians but not escorts, are paid:
30a. #paid physician
- paid escort
Notice also that, as we saw in the case of clausal predication, the modifiers can be rescued by a contrastive context: in this case the modification serves the function of differentiating the state of affairs from other states of affairs relevant to the discourse. Therefore the modification is informative, and as expected, acceptability results:
31. That particular physician was unpaid, but these are all paid physicians.
The idea that modification must be informative extends beyond instances of adjectival past participles to modification more generally. Consider cases of denominal adjectives with -ed suffixes:
32. # headed boy; but red-headed boy
Hirtle (1969) observed, “The very notion underlying boy brings in the notion of head with no outside help." Finally, underived adjectives also also have to be informative (33a-c):
33a. # dead corpse
- # liquid water
- #cold ice
Interestingly, what counts as informative, is somewhat context dependent. While wholly redundant information is not typically informative, it can be if the listener can infer something informative from the fact that the speaker bothered to utter it. For example, while out of context, as expected, cold ice seems odd since ice is always cold, the example in (34) is nonetheless fully acceptable:
34. The cold ice felt good on her throat.
In this context, mentioning the fact that the ice was cold is informative since it tells the addressee which aspect of the ice felt good. That is, the modification informs the addressee that it was the coldness of the ice that was relevant. Similarly, the following context rescues #solid rock:
35. After climbing out of the quicksand, she was grateful to sit on the solid rock.
- Conclusion
To conclude, we have argued that the distribution of “obligatory adjuncts” follows from discourse pragmatics. The general requirement is that:
Predication or modification of an argument is only licensed when it is informative in the discourse context.
This generalization follows from general conversational principles and thus requires no grammatical stipulation. Moreover it allows us to account for a much wider range of data than the event structure account; it explains why changes in tense and polarity as well as changes in context and background assumptions can all alleviate the need for an adjunct since they can make the predication or modification informative.
References
Ackerman, Farrell and Adele E. Goldberg. 1996. Constraints on Adjectival Past Participles. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, A. E. Goldberg, (ed.) CSLI Publications.
Bolinger, Dwight. (1965) Forms of English. Cambridge: Harvard.
Fellbaum, Christiane. 1985. On the Middle Construction in English. Indiana University Linguistics Club.