FACULTAD DE FILOSOFÍA Y LETRAS

ENGLISH SYNTAX II

A Comparative Analysis

of Stance Adverbials

2020

Sandoval María del Rosario

Introduction

In general, a difference in terminology exists in various grammars. This comparative

analysis at Biber et al.’s Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English and Quirk
and Greenbaum’s A Student’s Grammar of the English Language focuses on stance
adverbials or disjuncts. Not only is there a difference in the terms the authors choose, but
also on the theoretical framework each one proposes, which will be developed here.

The adverbial element

Quirk and Greenbaum consider that the adverbial element (A) has a wider range of roles
when compared to the other four clausal elements, subject (S), verb (V), object (O) and
complement (C). Adverbials have a wider range of meanings, forms, positions, and
grammatical functions. The ability to include several adverbial elements within a single
sentence perfectly reflects these characteristics:

Next Tuesday (A1), I shall probably (A2) visit her mother in London (A3) for an hour
or so (A4) to see if she’s feeling better (A5), unless she telephones me before that
(A6).

Quirk and Greenbaum identify the following semantic roles of adverbials: space (on the
grass), time (in 1980), process (clearly), respect (legally), contingency (if he reads the
book carefully), modality (probably) and degree (a little).

The authors also mention that the adverbial element can be realized by: an adverb phrase
with a closed-class adverbs as head (Then, the telephone rang); an adverbs phrase with
an open-class adverb as head (You should have opened it a bit more carefully); a noun
phrase (They had travelled a very long way); a prepositional phrase (She hurried across
the field); a verbless clause (When in doubt, the answer is ‘no’); a nonfinite clause (She
realized, lying there, what she must do); and a finite clause (We sent you because you
were absent yesterday). Some of these realization types occur more frequently than
others: prepositional phrases are very common and nonfinite clauses relatively rare, for
example.

Classification of adverbials

Quirk and Greenbaum’s and Biber et al.’s approaches to categorize adverbials are
different. According to the different grammatical functions they perform, Quirk and
Greenbaum classify adverbials into four classes: adjuncts, subjuncts, disjuncts, and
conjuncts. Adjuncts are presented as being equal to the other sentence elements such as
S and O, while subjuncts are attributed with subordinate or parenthetic role. Conjuncts
fulfill the function of joining two utterances or parts of an utterance and disjuncts are
described as “being somewhat detached from and superordinate to the rest of the
sentence” (1998, p.181).

Biber et al, on the other hand, distinguish three classes of adverbials: circumstance
adverbials, stance adverbials, and linking adverbials. Circumstance adverbials give
supplementing information about the action or state, stance adverbials express the
speaker’s comments of the content or the style of the utterance and linking adverbials
fulfill a connective function.

General overview of stance adverbials or disjuncts

The term ‘stance’ is proposed by Biber et al (1999, p. 966) in their book Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English. It is defined from the speaker’s perspective: in
addition to communicating propositional content, “speakers and writers commonly
express personal feelings, attitudes, value judgements, or assessments”; that is, they
express a ‘stance’. Stance adverbials, then, have the primary function of commenting on
the content or style of a clause or a particular part of a clause. For instance: Regrettably,
last night’s audience was a meagre one, but what they got was impressive.

According to Quirk and Greenbaum, disjuncts express the speaker’s comment on what is
being said either with respect to the form of communication or to its meaning. The authors
also mention that disjuncts have a superior role as compared with sentence elements; they
are syntactically more detached and, in some respects, ‘superordinate’, in that they seem
to have a scope that extends over the sentence as a whole. For instance: Sadly, the storm
destroyed the entire tobacco crop.

Biber and Quirk, then, show that they have a very similar perspective in order to make up
their definitions. That is why the terms ‘stance adverbials’ and ‘disjuncts’ can be taken as
synonyms.

Semantics of stance adverbials

In Biber et al.’s terminology, stance adverbials fall into three major semantic categories:
epistemic, attitude and style. Epistemic stance adverbials, as well as attitude stance
adverbials, convey a speaker’s comment on the content of a proposition. Epistemic
adverbials can express the author’s “judgement about the certainty, reliability, and
limitations of the proposition” (1999, Biber et al., p.854). They may also express
comments on the source of the knowledge. Attitude stance adverbials, as their name
implies, show the speaker’s attitude or value judgement towards the content of a
proposition. Style adverbials are used to describe the manner of speaking.

On the other hand, Quirk and Greenbaum distinguish two major semantic classes of
disjuncts: style and content. Style disjuncts convey the speaker’s comment on the style
and form of what he is saying, defining in some way under what conditions he is speaking
as the ‘authority’ for the utterance. Content disjuncts (also known as attitudinal disjuncts)
make observations on the actual content of the utterance and its truth conditions. These
two classes and their subclasses are displayed as follows:

Epistemic stance adverbials

Biber at al. claim that epistemic adverbials are the most diverse category of stance
adverbials. They typically convey one of the following six major areas of meaning:

A. Doubt and certainty

Doubt and certainty adverbials show the speaker’s certainty or doubt about the
proposition in the clause. They include both absolute judgements of certainty and
indication of belief in various levels of probability. For instance: That sort of gossip
certainly should be condemned.
This category overlaps with content disjuncts expressing degree of certainty (1998,
Quirk and Greenbaum, p. 183) as they are used to comment on the truth value of what
is said. Examples of such adverbials: certainly, definitely, indeed and undeniably.

B. Actuality and reality

Actuality and reality adverbials comment on the status of the proposition as real-life
fact. For example: In fact, I’m taller than the doors. There is a parallel with Quirk
and Greenbaum’s content disjuncts expressing degree of truth. “There is often
reference to the ‘reality’ or lack of ‘reality’ in what is said” (1985, Quirk et al., p.
621). Both Biber and Quirk mention the following adverbials as examples: actually,
really and factually.

C. Source of knowledge:

Adverbials of source of knowledge show the source of the information reported in the
associated proposition. These adverbials include adverbs such as evidently,
apparently, reportedly, and reputedly which allude to evidence supporting the
proposition: Evidently, the stock market believes that matters will not rest there and
Pearl’s share price raced up 87p to 639p.

According to Quirk and Greenbaum, these adverbials are classified as content disjuncts
that express certainty and more specifically, degree of truth. In the case of evidently,
the authors state that it expresses conviction as an appeal to general perception, thus,
firmly endorsing the truth value of what is said, while apparently, reportedly, and
reputedly express some degree of doubt.

Following Biber et al.’s classification, adverbials of source of knowledge may also

identify a specific source:

According to Mr. Kandil, nuclear power was the only clean energy alternative for
Egypt.

As Wardell (1986) notes, once managerial decisions are known they then become the
basis to organize the groups’ resistance and responses.

Quirk and Greenbaum do not mention ‘source of information’ as a function of

disjuncts, but they refer to the ‘authority’ on which the statement is made. “It is very
difficult to make a wholly objective utterance, and almost everything we say or write
conveys the impress of our attitude” (1985, Quirk et al., p. 613). Several adverbs with
-ed participle bases imply that the view not only of the speaker but of others is being
quoted: allegedly, reportedly, reputedly, supposedly. Among common formulas by
which the speaker identifies such an authority, however, the following two may be
mentioned: According to (Mary, the Government, the morning paper . . .), and By
(their, her, his, Mary’s, the Government’s . . .) own admission.

Biber et al. refer also to finite clauses, usually with the subordinator because, which
are used to state evidence for the main clause:

It doesn’t work apparently. Cos Jim who was in there last year said it didn’t work
when he was there.

Here, the adverbial clause does not provide the reason for the breakdown; rather, it
gives evidence to support the claim that the machine has broken down.

Quirk and Greenbaum present a similar case in which the because-clause is classified
as a style disjunct of respect: He was drunk, because he couldn’t stand. In this
example, the respect disjunct is realized by a because-clause that makes more explicit
the respect in which the comment is being ‘hedged’.

Limitation

Epistemic adverbials can mark the limitation of a proposition:

In most cases, he would have been quite right.

Typically, there is a pair of ganglia in each segment of the body.

Other stance adverbials commonly used to mark limitation include: generally, largely,
in general and in most cases. In comparison with these stance adverbials, circumstance
adverbials of respect limit the application of a proposition in somewhat different ways.

Quirk and Greenbaum classify these adverbials of limitation as style disjuncts of

respect:

Generally, the rainy season has already begun by September.

Strictly (in terms of the rules), she should have conceded the point to her opponent.
The authors also mark a distinction between these style disjuncts and adjuncts of
respect. Respect is a relationship often expressed by subjuncts and disjuncts, but when
adjuncts are involved, they are usually predicational and are placed in E.

Viewpoint or perspective

Epistemic adverbials can mark the viewpoint or perspective from which the
proposition is true: In our view, it would be a backward step.

Such stance adverbials often include a possessive pronoun, as in the above example
and the expression in my opinion.

Quirk and Greenbaum do not consider these adverbials as disjuncts but as viewpoint
subjuncts. They indicate the point of view from where the proposition is being judged:

From a personal viewpoint, he is likely to do well in this post.

Imprecision

A number of epistemic adverbials are used to show that the proposition being
conveyed is somehow imprecise:

It kept sort of pouring out of his pocket, my brother said. (1)

Indeed, the only real drawback, if you can call it that, is that people are continually
coming up and congratulating us on our victory over England.

As in the example above, the adverbials showing imprecision can be focused on a

particular element of the clause - e.g. marking the word drawback as questionable.
Other expressions typically used as stance adverbials of imprecision include: about,
kind of, roughly, sort of and so to speak. All of these markers of imprecision can be
considered hedges. As Biber points out: “Hedges are informal, less specific markers
of probability or uncertainty. Downtoners give some indication of the degree of
uncertainty; hedges simply mark a proposition as uncertain.” (1988, p. 240)

Quirk and Greenbaum do not mention adverbials of imprecision but they consider the
use of disjuncts in the case of metalinguistic comment. An overt reference to the
linguistic medium, such as in the selection or coining of an appropriate expression is
not peculiar to adverbials. Nonetheless, adverbials lend themselves very conveniently
 to incorporating metalinguistic comment into a sentence whose purpose is not itself
merely metalinguistic. For instance, the style disjunct so to say:

The directors have not, so to say, ‘combined’ their resources; rather they have agreed
to make some joint decisions.

Biber et al would call this adverbial ‘so to say’ a marker of imprecision that is focused
on the word combined. By contrast, Quirk and Greenbaum classify the same adverbial
as a style disjunct. It should be noted that in this example, they are concerned both
with the issue of whether or not “the directors have combined their resources” and also
with the issue of whether the word ‘combined’ is a fitting term to express what the
directors did. Biber et al. and Quirk and Greenbaum disagree in the function of the
adverbial ‘so to say’.

However, they agree that hedges or metalinguistic comments are mixed up with
expressions of degree. But again, they propose a different classification of adverbials.
While Biber et al. take ‘sort of’ as an adverbial of imprecision in (1), Quirk and
Greenbaum classify the same adverbial as a downtoner compromiser subjunct. For
instance: She sort of laughed at the idea. This type of downtoner has a slight lowering
effect and tends to call in question the appropriateness of the verb concerned. Some
speakers use kind of and sort of as approximators with non-gradable verbs meaning
‘You could almost say she laughed at the idea’.

Attitude adverbials

Biber et al. define attitude adverbials as adverbials that express the writer’s or speaker’s
attitude toward the proposition typically conveying an evaluation, value judgement, or
assessment of expectation:

Fortunately, during my first few months here, I kept a journal.

Often these adverbials can be restated as to-clauses or that-clauses with adjectives

describing attitude, e.g. It is fortunate that I kept / should keep a journal during my first
few months here.

In addition, the adverb hopefully is sometimes used as an attitude stance adverbial:

Hopefully, it’s self-explanatory.

In this example, the meaning might be glossed as I am hopeful that ...

Similarly, Quirk and Greenbaum classify these adverbials as content disjunct relating to
evaluation or value judgement. Disjuncts of this type express a judgement on what is
being said as a whole and they normally apply the same judgement simultaneously to the
subject of the clause. For example:

Rightly, Mrs. Jensen consulted her lawyer. [She was right and her action was right]

This group of disjuncts can also express a judgement with no implication applied to the
subject of the clause. For instance:

Remarkably, Mrs. Jensen consulted her lawyer. [Her action was remarkable; the speaker
is not suggesting that Mrs. Jensen was remarkable]

Style adverbials

According to Biber, stance adverbials focused on style comment on the manner of

conveying the message (e.g. frankly, honestly, truthfully):

Honestly, I don’t know. [I am being honest when I say I don’t know]

Other typical style adverbials include: confidentially, in a word, in short, strictly,

truthfully.

Finite clauses are also occasionally used as style adverbials, often with the subordinator
if: Is it a fact that you have refused to take any fee for the work you are doing, if you don’t
mind my asking? This example shows that the speaker views himself as speaking bluntly
or in a potentially offensive way.

Similarly, Quirk and Greenbaum classify this category as style disjuncts of manner and
modality. They also mention the informal use of an if-disjunct but to express indignation:

If you don’t mind, that is my seat. [If you don’t mind my saying so]

Ambiguity with other adverbial classes

Biber et al. present a section in which they explain the ambiguous or multiple functions
of certain stance adverbials. The examples they present are not restricted to one meaning,
so it seems that the authors accept blended meanings and various possibilities according
to a wider context.
By contrast, when Quirk and Greenbaum present ambiguous cases, their examples are
specific to one meaning and, in that way, the contrast and the explanation are more clear-
cut.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to compare and contrast stance adverbials or disjuncts from two
different perspectives: Biber et al and Quirk and Greenbaum. The greatest difference is
in the semantic classification. In addition, it is important to mention that Biber et al.’s
exemplifies the theory by giving samples from a variety of texts ranging from fiction,
news reports and conversations. By contrast, Quirk and Greenbaum tend to work with
sentences that have been standardized and decontextualized. The Longman Spoken and
Written English by Douglas Biber et al. (1999) and A Student’s Grammar of the English
Language by Quirk and Greenbaum (1990) are both necessary in order to get a complete
study on stance adverbials or disjuncts.
Bibliography

1. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward
Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English.
2. Greenbaum, Sidney; Quirk, Randolph (1990). A Student’s Grammar of the
English Language.
3. Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; Svartvik, Jan (1985). A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.
4. Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation across Speech and Language.
5. Marek Kotrč (2012). Adverbials in the Language of the Press.