5 Adverbials and other matters

DOI: 10.4324/9781003118916-6

Adjunct adverbials (VP-adverbials)

We’ve been looking at BASIC VPs – VPs containing just a
lexical V plus its (sister) complements. Here I look at
modifiers in VP and the distinction between complements
and modifiers.
We’ve already met PPs functioning as modifiers in
VP. Examples are:

[1]
Old Sam sunbathed
[2]
Max spotted those wildcats

These PPs are optional and can occur with almost any
verb, regardless of the sub-category of the verb. As
modifiers, they give additional, not grammatically essential,
information. When a constituent functions in a VP like the
PPs in [1] and [2], it is said to function as an ADJUNCT
ADVERBIAL (or simply ADJUNCT). [1] and [2], then, are
examples of intransitive and transitive sentences with
adjunct adverbials.
Some further examples of adjunct PPs – in intensive [3]
and [4], transitive [5], ditransitive [6], and complex
transitive [7] VPs:

[3] Nicholas became so successful by sheer cunning.

 Oscar was in the engine room during the whole
[4] voyage.
[5] Ed spent money like a maniac.
[6] William gave Millie some bleach on her birthday.
[7] Liza kept the wine under the bed as a precaution.

As you can see, adjuncts express a wide range of

ideas, including manner, means, purpose, reason,
place and time (including duration and frequency).
They answer questions like Where? Why? When? How? What
for? How long? How often? How many times?
Since adjunct is a type of ADVERBIAL function, you won’t be
surprised to hear that ADVERB PHRASES can also function as
adjunct adverbials. Even so, take care not to confuse the
term ADVERBIAL – this denotes a FUNCTION (not included in
phrase markers) – with ADVERB (Adv) and ADVERB PHRASE
(AdvP), which are CATEGORY labels and do figure in phrase
markers. Not all AdvPs function as adverbials: we’ve seen
they can modify adjectives, within APs. Conversely, not all
constituents functioning as adverbials are AdvPs: we’ve just
seen that PPs can function as adverbials.

PPs can function as { Complement in VP

Modifier in VP (= adverbial)
AdvPs can function as { Modifier in VP (= adverbial)
Modifier in AP

Here are examples of AdvPs functioning, like the PPs

above, as adverbials:

[8] Sam sunbathed very frequently.

[9] He spotted the wildcats quite accidentally.
[10] She put it under the bed surreptitiously.
 Many adverbs are not so easily identified by ending
in -ly – especially adverbs relating to time: again, yet,
still, already, seldom, often, always, ever, never.
In addition to AdvPs and PPs, there are NOUN
PHRASES that can function as (temporal) adverbials:
last year, yesterday, tonight, tomorrow, the day before
yesterday, the day after tomorrow, this afternoon …

Levels of Verb Phrase

How do adjunct adverbials fit into the structure of VPs? I’ve
said adjuncts are modifiers within VP but I haven’t yet said
exactly what they modify. Two possibilities seem to offer
themselves. In [2], for example, does in the spring modify
just the verb spotted, or does it modify spotted those
wildcats – that is, the verb plus its direct object? What do
you think?

We need to decide on the constituent analysis of spotted

those wildcats in the spring. If the PP modifies just the verb
spotted, then it should be a sister-of-V, along with those
wildcats, as in [11]:

[11]
On the other hand, if we want to say that in the spring
modifies spotted those wildcats, then it must be the sister of
a constituent consisting of [verb + direct object NP]. They
don’t form a constituent in [11], do they? So, if we choose
this second option, [11] cannot be the right analysis.
There are several reasons for taking this second option.
For a start, spotted those wildcats (V[trans] + NP) is surely a
VP whether or not we have in the spring as a modifier. But
it’s not represented as a VP in [11]. Those wildcats forms a
unit of sense with spotted and it does this independently of
the adjunct. Also, sister-of-V is just for complements of V;
but in [11] we have a modifier (in the spring) as sister-of-V.
Now, Max spotted those wildcats in the spring is a good
[NP + VP] sentence. Max is the subject NP. So spotted those
wildcats in the spring is clearly the VP. And, on the analysis
we are adopting, we are saying that in the spring modifies a
constituent of the form [V + NP] (spotted those wildcats).
This too is a VP. You now have all the information you need
to draw a phrase marker better than [11]. Use triangles for
those wildcats and in the spring.

Your phrase marker analysis should show that there are two
VPs in our sentence, one inside the other. For convenience,
I’ve (temporarily) numbered the different VPs.
 [12]

With two levels of VP, this analysis allows us to represent

the difference in function between the complement NP
those wildcats (dO) and the modifying adjunct adverbial
(aA) PP in the spring. And, on this analysis, we can say that
adjunct adverbials are MODIFIERS of VPs. So they must be
sisters-of-VPs.
This, then, is the big idea of this chapter: the difference in
function between (necessary) complements of the verb and
(optional, modifying) adjunct adverbials is represented in
phrase markers as follows:

COMPLEMENTS of the verb are sisters of Verb (V)

ADJUNCT ADVERBIALS are sisters of Verb Phrase (VP).
 Further evidence that supports this analysis was touched
on in the Introduction. But first, draw the phrase markers for
[13] and [14] in the light of the discussion so far, bearing in
mind that mend is transitive and put is complex transitive.

[13] Albie mended his bike in the garage.

[14] Jon put his bike in the garage.

Since put is [complex], the PP in the garage in [14] is one of

the two complements of the verb. By contrast, in [13] it’s an
adjunct. So [15] and [16] are the two phrase markers.

[15]

[16]
In the Introduction, I noted that [17] is grammatical, but
[18] ungrammatical.

[17] Albie MENDED his bike in the garage and Jon did so in
the garden.
[18] *Albie PUT his bike in the garage and Jon did so in the
garden.

What’s the explanation for this? Why can’t we use do so

when put is the verb? Well, do so is used to avoid repeating
material that’s already appeared in the sentence. It replaces
that material. Expressions that perform this function are
called PRO-FORMS. (Pronouns are pro-forms; they replace NPs,
so they should really be called ‘pro-NP’s.) Now, do so (did
so, etc.) only ever replaces a VP. It’s a PRO-VP. So, if a
constituent is a VP, it can be replaced by a form of do so,
otherwise it can’t. Do you see now why [17] is OK but [18]
not?
In [17] did so clearly replaces mended his bike. This is
fine because, as [15] shows, mended his bike is indeed a VP
(VP1). If, as is natural, we take [18] to mean that Jon put his
bike in the garden, then did so is replacing put his bike. But
a quick look at [16] shows that put his bike is NOT a VP. It’s
not even a constituent (check!). Since did so only ever
replaces VPs, the ungrammaticality of [18] is predictable.
We have seen that did so in [17] replaces VP1 (mended
his bike) in [15]. Let’s now check if it can replace VP2
(mended his bike in the garage) in [15]:

[19] Albie mended his bike in the garage and Jon did so
(too).

This clearly means that Jon ‘mended his bike in the

garage’. Since it’s replacing a VP, it’s grammatical (though
and so did Jon is perhaps more natural). You can check for
yourself that did so can replace the single VP of [14]/[16].
The fact that did so, which replaces only VPs, can replace
two strings of words in [13] – one inside the other – provides
vivid evidence that [13] does have two VPs, as shown in
[15].
It is also good evidence for the distinction between
complement and modifier (adjuncts) in VP – and for
representing that as the distinction between sister-of-V
(complement) and sister-of-VP (adjunct). Remember,
complements are required to make a complete and
grammatical VP. So, verbs that require complements don’t
form a full VP on their own. For example, mend is [trans:] it
doesn’t form a VP without a direct object NP. If we replace
just mended in [13] by did so, we’d be replacing, not a Verb
Phrase (VP), but just a verb (V) and the result is
ungrammatical:

[20] *Albie mended his bike in the garage and Jon did so
his skateboard in the garden.

Now try drawing a phrase marker for Sam sunbathed beside

a stream. Remember, sunbathe is [intrans] and so forms a
full VP by itself. The phrase marker and a comment on it are
given as Discussion 1, page 96.

Notice that, since adjuncts are optional (their occurrence

is not determined by the verb), we can reiterate adjunct
adverbials (aA) to our hearts’ delight, as in [21]:

[21] [He] [guzzled] [cakes] [noisily] [under the blankets] [every night]
S V dO aA aA aA
 Now draw a phrase marker for [22], bearing in mind that
[23], [24] and [25] are all grammatical:

[22] Stella drove her car on the right in France.

[23] She drove her car on the right in France and Jean-Paul
did so (too).
[24] She drove her car on the right in France and did so in
Germany (too).
[25] She drove her car on the right in France but did so on
the left in Britain.

The phrase marker is given at the end of the chapter.

Discussion 2, page 96.
It may take a little time to get used to these different
levels of VP, so here’s a tip for drawing phrase markers.
When you’ve drawn the immediate VP of S (the predicate),
always ask yourself: does that VP include an adjunct? If
it does, then that VP must have another VP inside it
(as sister to the adjunct). And so on, for every VP.

Adverbials can move around

Well, this contrast between complements in the lowest
(basic) VP and adjunct adverbials in higher VPs looks nice
and neat. But adverbials can appear in all sorts of positions
in the sentence, not just following the V and its
complements. In fact, if you can move a PP around the
sentence, that’s a sure sign it’s functioning as an adverbial
and not as a complement of the V, as in [26], for example.

[26] Beside a stream, old Sam sunbathed.

Which positions can very surreptitiously occupy in [27]?

 [27] She put it under the bed.

[28a] Very surreptitiously, she put it under the bed.

[28b] She very surreptitiously put it under the bed.
[28c] She put it very surreptitiously under the bed.
[28d] She put it under the bed very surreptitiously.

Notice it can’t go between the V and its direct object:

[29] *She put very surreptitiously it under the bed.

The position of the adjunct in [28d] is not new and poses

no problem for our analysis of adjuncts as sisters-of-VP in a
higher VP. And neither does its position in [28b]. Try drawing
a phrase marker for [28b].

We can represent very surreptitiously as a PRECEDING sister of

the VP within another VP as in [30]:

[30]

But in [28c], very surreptitiously will have to appear

within VP1 since it appears between the complements of the
V, between the dO and the oP. This is awkward for our
analysis. If we want to say that the adjunct modifies the VP,
it’s odd to find it actually inside that VP. And [28a] is also a
problem because there the fronted adverbial is completely
removed from the VP.
It’s beyond the scope of this book to deal properly with
these ‘displaced’ adverbials. So I’ll only use examples where
adjuncts can be represented as sisters of a VP within a
higher VP (either immediately preceding or following the VP
they modify). Bear in mind, though, this is a simplification.
Of course, if we’re simply listing the major functions in a
sentence, ignoring constituency, no problems arise: [28a]
can be listed as [aA–S–V–dO–oP], [28b] as [S–aA–V–dO–oP],
and [28c] as [S–V–dO–aA–oP].
Now, we have seen that adjuncts can precede or follow
the VP they modify. In [31]

[31] She hardly slept last night.

we have a preceding adjunct (the AdvP hardly) and a

following adjunct (the NP last night). In analysing [31] we
must decide, intuitively, whether hardly pre-modifies a VP of
the form slept last night or whether last night post-modifies
a VP of the form hardly slept. In other words, which of the
two adjunct adverbials is higher in the structure? Try to
decide this and then draw a phrase marker for the sentence.
Discussion 3, page 96.

Notice, finally, that the position of the adjunct can make a

difference to the meaning. Compare [32a] and [32b]:

[32a] They slowly answered all the questions.

[32b] They answered all the questions slowly.
(b) suggests they answered each individual question slowly,
but (a) suggests they were slow in answering the whole
batch of questions.

Phrasal verbs
Now think about the difference between [33] and [34]:

[33] Aisha called up the street.

[34] Aisha called up her friends.

In [33] up the street is a PP functioning as adjunct. It

modifies a VP that consists of the [intrans] V called. It tells
us in what direction she called. By contrast, in [34] the
string up her friends doesn’t form a sense unit; it’s not even
a constituent and so not a PP. Instead, up belongs more with
call, to form the PHRASAL VERB call up. Now, if called up is the
V of [34], what is the function of the NP her friends?

Her friends in [34] is the single NP complement of the

verb (call up), so it must be either subject-predicative or
direct object. In fact, it’s the direct object. So, call up is a
transitive phrasal verb.
Like many phrasal verbs, call up is an idiom. An IDIOM is
an expression whose meaning can’t be predicted
from the meaning of it parts. You couldn’t predict from
the meaning of call and up that it means what the verb
phone means. [34] can be represented as in [35]:
 [35]

There are many phrasal verbs in English, some more

idiomatic than others.

TRANS: call off, look up, put down, hand down, hand
over, sound out, drink up.
TRANS and INTRANS: give up, give in, throw up. (These
have different [trans] and [intran] senses.)
PREP: put up (with NP), go along (with NP), run out (of
NP), sign up (for NP).
INTENS: turn out, end up, wind up.

Although up, off, down, over and along, etc. look

suspiciously like prepositions, they are traditionally
distinguished from prepositions in this position and
categorised as PARTICLES. I’ll follow the tradition here: so, a
phrasal verb consists of [VERB + PARTICLE].
Notice that [36] is ambiguous.

[36] Aisha looked up the street.

On one interpretation, the VP consists of V + PP. Here she
looked up the street to see who was coming, for example.
Up the street indicates where she looked, and look is a
[prep] verb. On the other interpretation, look up is a [trans]
phrasal verb and the NP has the dO function (as in [34]).
Here she looked for mention of the street in a book. If we
replace the street with another dO (e.g. the answer, their
names, or his phone number) the ambiguity disappears.
A defining feature of particles is that they can shift
to a position FOLLOWING the direct object NP. This is
called PARTICLE SHIFT. Thus, [34] is paraphrased by [37].

[37] Aisha called her friends up.

The VP of [37] can be represented as in [38], with ‘particle’

abbreviated to ‘Prt’.

[38]

Prepositions can’t perform this trick, so it doesn’t work

with [33], where the VP consists of [prep] V + PP.

[39] *Aisha called the street up.

Notice that particle shift is obligatory when the direct

object is a pronoun:
[40a] Aisha called them up.
[40b] *Aisha called up them.

Particle shift provides a reliable test for

distinguishing between [phrasal verb + NP] and [verb
+ PP]. So that, while She looked up the street is
ambiguous, She looked the street up is not ambiguous.
Since up has moved, it cannot be the P of the PP up the
street; it must be the Prt of the phrasal verb look up.
The particle can only shift over a direct object NP.
It can’t shift over a PP (he put up with John, *he put with
John up), nor can it shift over a subject-predicative NP (He
ended up a pauper, *He ended a pauper up).
Now decide, for each of the following VPs, whether it
includes a transitive phrasal verb + NP or a prepositional
verb + PP.

(a) shouted out the answers (b) looked out the window
(c) hangs about the office (d) handed over the money
(e) viciously turned on John (f) saw through the term
(g) gave in my essay (h) saw through her disguise

See Discussion 4, page 97, where I make a further

important point about the distinction between phrasal and
prepositional verbs.

Ellipsis
Now that I’ve introduced adjunct adverbials and
distinguished them from complements of the verb, we must
look at an issue that has a bearing on that distinction and
verb sub-categorisation.
Complements, remember, are a necessary part of
sentence structure: they can’t be omitted without
ungrammaticality. In this they contrast with adjunct
adverbials (optional). But look now at the following:

[41] William gave some bleach to Millie.

[42] William gave Millie some bleach.
[43] William gave some bleach.

In Chapter 4, give was sub-categorised as [ditrans]. This

amounts to saying that both dO (some bleach) and iO
(Millie, to Millie) are necessary, non-omissible. But [43]
doesn’t seem unacceptable, even though there’s no iO.
Should we say, then, that the iO NP in [42] or iO PP in [41]
are optional? What effect would this have on the sub-
category of the verb?

It would make give a [trans] verb. Alternatively, we might

want to assign give to both sub-categories: [ditrans] in [41]
and [42], but [trans] in [43].
Neither of these responses is desirable. The most
important reason is that neither response does justice to the
fact that, although [43] is acceptable, it seems incomplete.
Or, more to the point, it seems incomplete when considered
OUT OF CONTEXT. Out of context, we’d want to know who
William gave the bleach to. But in any context in which it
could be understood who had been given the bleach, [43] is
perfectly acceptable – for example, in the context of a
conversation about Millie’s birthday presents. But in the
context of a discussion of what had happened to the bleach
or of what William had done, say, its incompleteness would
be unacceptable. Note the oddity of [44b] as an answer to
[44a]:

[44a] What the hell happened to the bleach?

[44b] *William gave it.

When a sentence is actually used by a speaker (i.e. when

a speaker actually utters it), almost anything can be
omitted, provided the omitted elements can be understood
in the context of use. The omission of grammatically
necessary elements that can be understood in the
context of use is called ELLIPSIS. Ellipsis creates
acceptable, but strictly grammatically incomplete,
utterances. Even subjects can be ellipted, as in

[45] Visited Madame Sosostris this morning.

Almost certainly the ellipted subject is I. But we don’t want

to say, simply because [45] is acceptable in diary-writing,
for example, that subject NPs are grammatically optional in
English.
In saying that certain constituents are grammatically
necessary, then, I’ve been relying on an important
distinction in language description:

The GRAMMATICALITY of sentences vs. the

ACCEPTABILITY of utterances, i.e. the acceptability of
uttering a particular sentence in a context.

The study of syntax, in its purest form, is more concerned

with the concept of grammatical sentence than with the
concept of acceptable utterance. In other words, syntax is
concerned with the form of sentences, without
considering the effects of uttering them in context.
What counts as a grammatical sentence plays an important
part in our ability to interpret the utterances we hear (or
read), but it’s only a part.
 You may want to apply the sentence analysis offered in
this book to utterances – that is, to actual uses of sentences
by a speaker, whether in speech or in writing. If so, it’ll be
useful to have a way of representing ellipsis. This is easily
done. For example, we can capture the fact that, even
though [43] has no indirect object, it still counts as a
ditransitive sentence (albeit an elliptical one), as in [46]:

[46]

where ‘E’ indicates an ellipted element, here an NP

functioning as dO.
Before leaving ellipsis, a few words about how ellipsis
interacts with our decisions about verb sub-categorisation.
Compare [47] and [48]:

[47] Max played his trumpet in the street.

[48] Max played in the street.

[47] is transitive with an adjunct PP (in the street). What

about [48]? Well, in context, it could be an elliptical version
of [47]. For example, if, as an utterance, it occurred in the
context of a conversation about the players of the
Chatanooga Stompers, and Max is known to be their
trumpet player, then [48] would be understood to mean
exactly what [47] means – with the dO NP ellipted. Out of
context (that is, as a sentence rather than an actual
utterance), or in another context, [48] is interpreted
differently. Here, play means the same as ‘play about’ or
‘amuse oneself’. This is an intransitive sense of play. As
sentences out of context, then, [47] and [48] indicate that
play belongs to two sub-categories [trans] and [intrans]. It
has a distinct sense in each.
Compare now [49] and [50].

[49] Jean-Pierre ate the couscous rapidly.

[50] Jean-Pierre ate rapidly.

Should we assign eat to two sub-categories, [trans] in [49]

and [intrans] in [50]? Or should we treat [50] as an elliptical
[trans] with the direct object omitted?
As we saw, one doesn’t always play something; it
depends on the sense of play. But one does always eat
something. So [50] should be treated as [transitive] with an
ellipted dO (ellipted perhaps because it’s irrelevant what he
ate).

Sentence adverbials (S-adverbials)

All the adverbials we’ve looked at are adjunct adverbials –
modifiers of a VP within a higher VP. So adjunct adverbials
could be called ‘VP-adverbials’. In this section I contrast
them with two other kinds of adverbial – DISJUNCT AND CONJUNCT
ADVERBIALS. I’ll group these together as SENTENCE
ADVERBIALS (S-ADVERBIALS).
Compare the [a] and [b] examples in the following pairs:

[51a] Buster admitted everything frankly.

[51b] Buster admitted everything, frankly.
[52a] Max can only do the tango rather awkwardly.
[52b] Max can only do the tango, rather awkwardly.
[53a] Helmut interfered between you and me.
[53b] Helmut interfered, between you and me.

In the [a] examples we have adjunct (VP) adverbials. In

[51a], frankly tells us the manner of Buster’s admission
(Buster was frank). But this is not how you understand
[51b], with the comma. Here, frankly describes how the
speaker/writer of [51b] feels she herself is expressing what
she has to say. Here it’s the speaker/writer who is being
frank in saying that Buster admitted everything. [52a], with
the VP-adverbial, expresses the idea that how Max dances
the tango is awkward (maybe he wobbles or keeps kicking
his partner). It doesn’t imply that the tango is his only
dance. In [52b], by contrast, nothing is said about how Max
dances the tango, but it does say the tango is his only
dance. [52b] expresses the idea that, however gracefully
Max might dance the tango, the speaker/writer feels that its
being his only dance is a rather awkward fact. The same
sort of distinction goes for [53a/b]. In [53b] between you
and me is being used to mean the same as confidentially
(the speaker/writer of [53b] is being confidential in saying
that Helmut interfered), but not in [53a].
The [b] examples are SENTENCE ADVERBIALS – more
specifically, they are DISJUNCT ADVERBIALS. Disjunct
adverbials provide some comment by the
speaker/writer about what she is reporting or about
how she feels she is expressing it. They are called ‘S-
adverbials’ because, in contrast to the VP-adverbials of the
last section and in the [a] examples above, the adverbial
doesn’t actually modify any constituent within the sentence.
It is not connected with the actual content of the sentence.
This feeling is borne out by the use of the comma in writing
and by a distinct intonation in speech.
Notice that the S-adverbial interpretation is the more
natural interpretation when the adverbial occurs at the
beginning (and in [52c] it’s the only possible interpretation):

[51c] Frankly, Buster admitted everything.

[52c] Rather awkwardly, Max can only do the tango.
[53c] Between you and me, Helmut interfered.

Some traditionalists object to the use of hopefully in [54b]

as against its use in [54a]:

[54a] He will look up hopefully.

[54b] He will look up, hopefully. (Hopefully, he will look up.)

But hopefully, just like frankly, between you and me,

confidentially and rather awkwardly – and many other
adverbials – can (and does) function either as a VP-adverbial
(as in [54a]) or as an S-adverbial (as in [54b]). Stupidly is
another example: compare [a] He answered the question
stupidly (= he gave a stupid answer) with [b] Stupidly, he
answered the question (= it was stupid of him to give any
answer).
As mentioned, instead of modifying some element within
the sentence, the S-adverbial relates to the sentence as a
whole, as a unit. So, as suggested by the terms ‘VP-
adverbial’ and ‘S-adverbial’, the distinction between [51a]
and [51b] is the distinction between frankly as sister of VP
and daughter of a higher VP [55a] vs. sister of S and
daughter of a higher S [55b]. In fact, it isn’t even right to
say that S-adverbials are ‘modifiers’ of the S. Instead
I’ll say that the sentence merely HOSTS the S-
adverbial.
 [55a]

[55b]

If the S-adverbial appears in sentence-initial position, it’ll be

represented as a preceding sister of the S that hosts it – see
[58] below.
All the adverbials we’ve looked at can function either as
VP (adjunct) adverbials or as S-adverbials. But some AdvPs
and PPs can only be interpreted as VP (adjunct) adverbials.
Examples (if you think about it) are:

sideways, daintily, noisily, with grace and speed.

And there are AdvPs and PPs that can only function as S-
adverbials. Examples are:

admittedly, certainly, of course, perhaps, possibly.

Furthermore, there’s a group of AdvPs and PPs that have

a quite specific interpretation and can only function as S-
adverbial. These are CONJUNCT ADVERBIALS. Examples
are:

(AdvP) nevertheless, therefore, furthermore, thus,

however, incidentally
(PP) on the contrary, by contrast, in other words, for
a start, in short, in conclusion, by the way, on the other
hand.

Conjunct adverbials are discourse-related. They

indicate what kind of relation holds between the host
sentence and the preceding or following discourse. Again, as
S-adverbials, they have no function within the host
sentence; they serve to link distinct and grammatically
unconnected sentences into a coherent discourse. As a
result, when a conjunct S-adverbial is present, the sentence
sounds odd in isolation, as if it’s been ripped out of a
discourse context:

[56] In short, you’re fired.

[57] You’ve got no clothes on, for a start.
[58]

The representation of S-adverbials as sisters of S (within

another S) is again a simplification, however. Like VP
(adjunct) adverbials, S-adverbials can appear in a variety of
positions, not only at the beginning and the end of
sentences, but actually inside the host sentence:

[59] Rashid, on the other hand, came dressed as a

washing machine.

In these first five chapters, I’ve outlined the general

structure of simple sentences. In the next two chapters,
I go into more detail on the structure of simple sentences.

Discussion of in-text exercises

1.
Beside a stream is a VP-adverbial. As an [intrans] V,
sunbathed forms a VP in its own right. Notice that we
could continue with … and Miranda did so on the
verandah, meaning ‘Miranda sunbathed on the
verandah’. Here, did so replaces the [intrans] VP,
sunbathed.
2.

3. Intuitively, last night modifies [hardly slept] and is thus

the higher of the two adjuncts. A hint that this analysis is
correct: last night can move to the front of the sentence
without change of meaning and this leaves hardly slept
as a clear VP. But hardly cannot move:
(a) Last night, she hardly slept
(b) *Hardly, she slept last night.
4. (a) Transitive phrasal verb + NP. The grammaticality of
… shouted the answers out shows we are dealing here
with the shiftable particle of a phrasal verb.
(b) Prepositional verb + PP (Note the ungrammaticality
of *… looked the window out).
(c) Prepositional verb + PP (*… hangs the office about).
(d) Transitive phrasal verb + NP (… handed the money
over).
(e) Prepositional verb + PP (cf. *… viciously turned John
on).

Viciously was included to rule out the interpretation

in which John is excited. On this other interpretation,
turned on John would clearly be a [phrasal verb +
NP] and in fact sounds better with the particle
shifted: turned John on.
 (f) Transitive phrasal verb + NP, meaning ‘completed
the term’ (saw the term through).
(g) Transitive phrasal verb + NP (handed my essay in).
(h) Prepositional verb + PP (*saw the disguise through).

What these examples show is that the contrast

between [phrasal verb + NP] and [prepositional verb
+ PP] is NOT a contrast between an idiomatic
construction and a non-idiomatic construction.
Although many (most?) phrasal verbs are idioms, (c),
(e) and (h) illustrate that the combination of
prepositional verb and PP (e.g. saw through the
disguise) can be just as idiomatic as a phrasal verb
+ NP (saw through the term). Idiomaticity is
independent of, and cuts across, the
phrasal/prepositional distinction. This is why the
Particle Shift test for phrasal verbs is so important.

There are grammars that categorise verbs as

[phrasal] simply on the grounds that they figure in
verb idioms. In doing so, they fail to explain when
and why particle shift is or is not possible.

Exercises

1. Identify the verb sub-category and the functions of the

major elements in the following sentences, using S, V,
dO, iO, sP, oP, PC, aA and (for sentence adverbials) sA.
(a) That so-called music soon drove him mad.
(b) Margaret and Michael celebrated their success with
a bottle of champagne.
(c) They were in the office for twelve hours every single
day.
 Incidentally, I sold your old vests to the museum for
(d)
a small fortune.
(e) The acrobats often sleep until ten o’clock.
(f) They very quickly gave up, unfortunately.
(g) Murdstone brought the child up too strictly, in my
opinion.
(h) Few students worry about exams until the end of
term.

2. Check the answers to Exercise 1 (page 99) and then

draw phrase markers for sentences (a)–(f), using
triangles where appropriate. As regards (e): it contains a
preceding adjunct and a following adjunct and, as in in-
text Exercise 3, you must decide which of these adjuncts
is the highest.

3. The following verbs are all transitive. Try to decide for

each verb whether the absence of a direct object should
be treated (a) as ellipsis or (b) as showing that the verb
also belongs to the intransitive sub-category (see the
discussion of play in this chapter).

read, launch, kick, jump, recall, pay.

4. Decide on the sub-category of the V and the functions of

the italicised constituents in the sentences below. Some
questions to ask: Does appear belong to one sub-
category or more than one? Does appear have the same
sense in all cases? Are any of the sentences ambiguous?
Is (e) elliptical?
(a) Hieronimo appeared rather jumpy.
(b) Hieronimo appeared a real tyrant.
(c) Hieronimo appeared in a flurry of snow.
(d) Hieronimo appeared in a dangerous mood.
 (e) Hieronimo appeared.

5. Let’s agree that (a) is ungrammatical but is supposed to

mean the same as (b):
(a) *Tim went to the circus and Max did so to the zoo.
(b) Tim went to the circus and Max went to the zoo.
Now try the following questions in order:

(1) What string of words does did so replace in (a)?

(2) What does the UNgrammaticality of (a) tell you
about the CATEGORY of the string it replaces?
(3) Given your answers to (1) and (2), decide whether
the PP to the circus is an adjunct or a complement
of the verb.
(4) Given your answer to (3), how should we sub-
categorise go in (a)?
(5) Look at the following two conversations between
Abe and Ben:

(c) Abe: Where’s Maria? Ben: She went.

(d) Abe: Great party, wasn’t it! Ben: Even Maria went!

What do you suggest is the sub-categorisation of go in

each of these uses?

6. The senses of discover in the following two sentences

are quite different.
(a) Kelvin discovered the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
in his lab.
(b) Max discovered rats in his lab.

The two senses correspond to two different verb sub-

categories. Draw phrase markers for (a) and (b) to reflect
this difference. (Abbreviate ‘the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics’ to ‘the law’.)

Discussion of exercises

1.

(a) [This so-called music] [soon] [drove] [him] [mad]

S aA V dO oP
[complex]
(b) [Margaret and Michael] [celebrated] [their success] [with a bottle of
champagne]
S V dO aA
[trans]
(c) [They] [were] [in the office] [for twelve hours] [every single day]
S V sP aA aA
[intens]
(d) [Incidentally] [I] [sold] [your vests] [to the museum] [for a small
fortune]
sA S V dO iO aA
[ditrans]
(e) [The acrobats] [often] [slept] [until ten o’clock]
S aA V aA
[intrans]
(f) [They] [very quickly] [gave up] [unfortunately]
S aA V sA
[phrasal]
[intrans]
(g) [Murdstone] [brought] [the child] [up] [too strictly] [in my
opinion]
S V dO Prt aA sA
[phrasal]
[trans]
(h) [Few students] [worry] [about exams] [until the end of term]
S V PC aA
[prep]
2. (a)

(b)
(c)

(d)
 (e)

Note: Often the acrobats sleep until ten vs. *Until ten
the acrobats often sleep.
(f)

3. This exercise is a matter of judgement rather than

getting the answer right or wrong. My judgements are as
follows. The verbs seem to fall into three groups:
(a) jump and kick (b) read and pay (c) recall and
launch
(a) Jump and kick are similar; you can jump a stack of
books and kick an obstinate car but, in another
 sense of the verb, you can jump without jumping
anything (jumping up and down or jumping in fright)
and you can just kick (babies do it all the time). So
jump and kick belong to both sub-categories [trans]
and [intrans].
(b) Read and pay are like eat. You do always read
SOMETHING. And when after a meal you tell your
partner that he/she is ‘paying’, they will understand
it’s the bill that is to be paid. So both read and pay
are [trans]; the absence of a dO is a matter of
ellipsis. Notice both pay and read are also [ditrans]:
They paid me the money and I read her a story. And
pay is also [prep]: She paid for the meal.
(c) I’ve grouped launch and recall separately from pay
since, while all three verbs are [trans], launch and
recall don’t allow for ellipsis of the dO. These are
[trans] only.

4. In (a) appear has an AP complement. So the verb must

be [intens], with the AP functioning as sP. The
complement NP in (b) has the same relation to the verb
(and the subject) as the AP in (a), so again the verb here
is [intens]. Now, we usually find that [intens] verbs can
be complemented by an AP, NP or PP. So we might
expect the verb in (c) to be [intens] again, with the PP
functioning as sP. But the sense of appear in (c) is quite
different from that in (a) and (b). (a) and (b) can be
paraphrased by (f) and (g):
(f)
Hieronimo appeared to be
(g)
It appeared that Hieronimo was
 Here the verb means the same as seem. (c), by
contrast, isn’t paraphrased in these ways:

(h?) Hieronimo appeared to be in a flurry of snow.

(i?) It appeared that Hieronimo was in a flurry of snow.
Here the verb means ‘come into view’ or ‘turn up’.
It can be paraphrased by (j).
(j) Hieronimo appeared – and did so in a flurry of snow.
Contrast this with (a) and (b). Do so, remember,
replaces VPs. So, appear in (c)/(j) is an [intrans] VP
and the PP is functioning as an adverbial.
As for (d), notice it’s ambiguous: it can have either
the sense it has in (a) and (b) (Hieronimo appeared
to be in a dangerous mood) or the sense it has in (c)
(Hieronimo appeared and did so in a dangerous
mood). On the first interpretation, appear is [intens]
and the PP has the sP function. On the second, it’s
[intrans] and the PP has the aA function.
Finally (e): appear here is clearly [intrans],
meaning ‘came into view’ or ‘turned up’.

5. (1) Did so replaces went.

(2) Since do so only replaces VPs and since (a) is
UNgrammatical, went does not constitute, in itself, a
VP (but just a V).
(3) If to the circus was an adjunct, it would be the sister
of a VP (within a higher VP). In that case, went
would be a VP. But it isn’t a VP (as shown in (2)). So
the PP can’t be an adjunct; it must be a complement
(sister-of-V and only forming a VP with that V). And
notice that do so can indeed replace the string went
to the circus as in:
Max went to the circus and Hogarth did so (too).
 (4) We must analyse go as a prepositional verb.
(5) Two quite different senses of go are involved here. In
(c), the verb is used in the sense of ‘leave’ or
‘depart’ and is [intransitive]. Go, therefore, is both
an [intransitive] and a [prepositional] verb. In (d), on
the other hand, the verb is interpreted, in the
context of that second conversation, as went to the
party. The prepositional complement is understood.
This is an elliptical use of the [prepositional] verb.

6. (a)
 (b)

In (b) there is an intensive (predicative) relation

between rats and in his lab – Max discovered that
rats were in his lab. Kelvin of course did not discover
that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was in his lab
(hiding behind the door??). No: he was in his lab
when he discovered the law.

Further exercises
Here are three sets of sentences, illustrating all the points
made in the last two chapters. Draw phrase markers for
them. You’ll need plenty of room. Ambiguous examples will
need two phrase markers. The examples become more
intricate, and may admit of more discussion, as the sets
progress. Those in Set I don’t include sentence adverbials,
so you can focus just on the contrast between complements
(sisters-of-V) and adjunct adverbials (sisters-of-VP).

Example: Their spokesman’s pronouncements quickly

landed him in gaol.
Set I

1. The trainees got much quicker over those three

months.
2. All our planes landed within twenty minutes.
3. Millie silently bottled up her feelings.
4. The speaker made this the main point of his argument.
5. The boss wished all his staff a Merry Christmas.
6. The housekeeper never believed in ghosts.
7. Matilda and her friends polished off the toast by eight
thirty.
8. He opened his mail very reluctantly that morning.
9. It rained for three hours on the Continent last night.
10. Martha left the bathroom in a mess. (ambiguous)

Set II

1. They often seem really nervous at first.

2. They lived in Paris quite happily for a good ten years.
3. The old man grew increasingly intolerant, in my
opinion.
 4. They decided on the train. (ambiguous; elliptical on one
interpretation)
5. You turned the high-wire into a death-trap, for your
information!
6. The trapeze artistes asked for a meeting with the circus
management.
7. Floyd’s surprise puddings always blow up in your face.
8. He cooked us a delicious meal with pasta and tomato
sauce for the price of a Coke.
9. The architects positioned the windows too close to
each other in the earlier building.
10. Amazingly, they allowed him total freedom without a
thought for the consequences.

Set III

1. The drunken recruits repeatedly tripped over the guy

ropes until the early hours.
2. He never looked back on his years at sea with much
nostalgia, however.
3. Unfortunately, his new rotting compound quickly leaked
into the foundations.
4. Several figures gingerly edged towards the precipice in
full view of the police.
5. She ignored all those people in the studio. (ambiguous)
6. She kept all those people in the studio. (ambiguous)
7. Interestingly, Matilda barely gets on with her new
colleagues.
8. They soon ran out of energy and for ten hours slept like
babies.
9. The butler usually mopped up the crumbs after each
course in the old days. (This will need careful attention
 to the meaning in deciding what constituents each of
the (three) adverbials is modifying.)
10. Time flies like an arrow but fruit flies like a banana.
(Groucho Marx)