1

Parts of Speech vs. Syntactic Categories: the Case of English Adverbs

Handout

Gisa Rauh

University of Wuppertal

1. Introduction

It is often the case that parts of speech are analyzed as – or claimed to be equivalent to –

syntactic categories of words.

Bergenholtz and Schaeder (1977); Aoun (1981); Emonds (1987); Bisang (2010)

Sasse (1993): “The analysis of syntactic categories was familiar to the traditional

grammarians under the title part of speech.” (ibid.: 646) “In particular, there is

a notorious confusion of lexical and syntactic categories, for instance the use of

the term ‘syntactic categories’ for both, as in this article.” (ibid.: 247)

Haspelmath (2001): “the older term part of speech”: “ a roughly equivalent term … in

Chomskyan linguistics is ‘syntactic category’” (ibid.: 16539)

Croft (e.g. 1984, 1991): noun, verb, adjective = ‘syntactic categories’, renamed ‘parts

of speech’ (e.g. 2000, 2005)

I claim, however, that the two are word categories of a different kind. They are defined on

different grounds and they serve different purposes. This is what I will show in this talk,

finally discussing English adverbs as an example.

Structure of the talk: 2. Parts of speech: their origin, characterization and purpose

3. Syntactic categories: their purpose and selected descriptions

4. English adverbs: their categorial status

5. Conclusion

2. Parts of Speech

Origin: the grammar of Dionysius Thrax, the Tékhnē grammatikē, written at the end of the

second and the beginning of the first century BC

The Tékhnē grammatikē

- a grammar of classical Greek, a highly inflecting language

- the first comprehensive and systematic grammatical description published in the

western world, summing up what was developed by philosophers and philologists

before and at this time

The Tékhnē grammatikē starts with a general characterization of a grammar, followed by a list

of its constituent parts:

Grammar is an experimental knowledge (…) of the usages of language as generally

current among poets and prose writers. It is divided into six parts:

1. Trained reading with due regard to Prosody.

2. Explanation with respect to poetical figures.

3. Ready statement of dialect peculiarities and allusions.

2

4. Discovery of Etymology.

5. An accurate account of analogies.

6. Criticism of poetical constructions, which is the noblest part of grammatic art.

(translated by T. Davidson 1874: 326f.)

The guiding grammatical principle is “an accurate account of analogies”.

Primary outcome of the ‘accurate account of analogies’: a list of eight parts of speech,

characterized as follows:

1. A Noun is a declinable part of speech, signifying something either concrete or

abstract (concrete, as stone; abstract, as education); common or proper (common,

as man, horse; proper, as Socrates, Plato). It has five accidents: gender, species,

forms, numbers, and cases. (ibid.: 331)

2. A Verb is an indeclinable word, indicating time, person and number, and showing

activity or passivity. The verb has eight accidents: Moods, Dispositions (voices!),

Species, Forms, Numbers, Tenses, Persons, Conjugations. (ibid.: 335)

3. A Participle is a word partaking of the nature both of nouns and verbs. It has all the

accidents which belong to nouns as well as those which belong to verbs, except

mood and person. (ibid.: 336)

4. An Article is a declinable part of speech prefixed or subjoined to the various cases

of nouns… It has three accidents: Gender, Number and Case. (ibid.)

5. A Pronoun is a word assumed instead of a noun, and indicating definite persons. It

has six accidents: Person, Gender, Number, Case, Form, and Species. (ibid.)

6. A Preposition is a word placed before any of the parts of speech, both in

Composition and in Syntax. (ibid.: 337)

7. An Adverb is an indeclinable part of speech, said of a verb or added to a verb. Of

the Adverbs, some are Simple, and others Compound-…Some are indicative of

time… Some indicate manner…; some, quality…; some quantity…; some,

number…; some place… Some Adverbs signify a wish…; some express horror;

some, denial or negation. (ibid.: 337f.)

8. A Conjunction is a word binding together a thought I order and filling up the

hiatuses of speech. Of conjunctions, some are copulative, some disjunctive, some

conjunctive, some præter-conjunctive, some causative, some dubitative, some

conclusive, and some expletive. (ibid.: 338)

The recognizable ‘analogies’ that form the basis for the identification and description of the

parts of speech:

- morphological, i.e. inflectional and derivational properties, supplemented by

semantic properties; only exception: preposition

i.e. various recognizable shared properties of words

no syntactic properties, because syntax was unknown at that time

This shows that the following statement is at least misleading:

Dionysius Thrax in his Techne Grammatike (sic!) developed a theory in which eight

different word-classes were distinguished. In order to make the relevant distinctions, a

combination of morphological, syntactic and semantic criteria were applied. (Ansaldo,

Don, Pfau 2010: 1)

3

The purpose of identifying and describing the parts of speech:

The properties identified provided the basis for a further analysis of the words into

paradigms of declension classes or conjugation classes.

For a long time these paradigms formed the core of the so-called traditional grammar.

The grammatical approach of the Tékhnē grammatikē and with it the identification and

characterization of parts of speech was first transferred to Latin and then to other European

languages.

Latin, like classical Greek a highly inflecting language

same basis of identification

eight parts of speech, with interjections replacing articles, which do not occur in Latin

Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Provençal and Walachian), Grammatik

der romanischen Sprachen (Diez 1836-1839)

nine parts of speech subdivided into three groups

1. subject to inflection: substantive, adjective, numeral, pronoun

2. subject to conjugation: verb

3. subject to neither: adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection

article, comprising forms that accompany substantives, is added

if at all, semantic properties are mentioned only in passing

German, German Grammar (Wittich 1842)

description of declension forms: articles, substantives, adjectives, numerals, pronouns

description of conjugation forms: verbs

adverbs: in German not marked by a special marker like -ly; form comparatives and

superlatives

prepositions: some coalesce with the definite article (zum, am)

conjunctions: divided into copulative, combinative and connective ones

except for conjunctions, no semantic properties are mentioned

exactly the same set as that identified by Diez

English, Englische Grammatik (Mätzner 1880)

same set identified as by Diez and Wittich

same subdivision as by Diez

however: semantic properties are mentioned first, only then morphological properties

are discussed

inflectional properties often justified only considering Modern English as a successor

of Old English or Anglo-Saxon

- gender: three genders of Anglo-Saxon nouns preserved in Modern English but

recognizable only through the anaphoric use of the pronouns he, she and it

(1880: 263ff.)

- number: not always expressed by the inflectional marker -s because there are,

for example, collective nouns that occur in the singular but have a plural

meaning, such as fish and fowl (ibid.: 254)

4

- adjectives: strong and weak case, gender and number markers of Anglo-Saxon

are discussed before turning to comparative and superlative markers of Modern

English adjectives (ibid.: 286ff.)

What this shows:

Inflection in Modern English cannot provide the basis for identifying parts of speech.

In this language, they are first and foremost identified on semantic grounds.

Definitions of the parts of speech in a traditional grammar of English of the beginning of the

20th century based only on semantic properties (Curme 1935):

A noun, or substantive, is a word used as the name of a living being or lifeless thing:

Mary, John, horse, cow, dog; hat, house, tree; London Chicago; virtue. (ibid.: 1)

A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun. (ibid.: 7)

An adjective is a word that modifies a noun or pronoun, i.e. a word that is used with a

noun or pronoun to describe or point out the living being of lifeless thing designated

by the noun or pronoun: a little boy, that boy, this boy, a little house. (ibid.: 42)

The verb is that part of speech that predicates, assists in predication, asks a question,

or expresses a command: ‘The wind blows.’ ‘He is blind.’ ‘Did he do it?’ ‘Hurry!’

(ibid.: 63)

An adverb is a word that modifies a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. An

adverbial modifier may assume the form of an adverb, a prepositional phrase, or a

conjunctional clause: ‘He entered quietly.’ ‘Polish it well.’ He entered in haste

(prepositional phrase). ‘I could see the bird’s loaded beak from where I stood’

(prepositional clause). (ibid.: 71)

A preposition is a word that indicates a relation between the noun or pronoun it

governs and another word, which may be a verb, an adjective, or another noun or

pronoun: ‘I live in this house.’ (ibid.: 87)

A conjunction is a word that joins together sentences or parts of a sentence: ‘Sweep

the floor and dust the furniture.’ ‘He waited until I came.’ (ibid.: 92)

An interjection is an outcry to express pain, surprise, anger, pleasure, or some other

emotion, as Ouch! Oh! Alas! Why! (ibid.: 105)

Conclusions:

Parts of speech are originally defined as a small set of morpho-semantic categories of

words of a highly inflecting language.

Following the grammatical principle of analogy, they were grammatical categories

that served as the basis for identifying paradigms of words, the core of traditional

grammars.

As a side effect, they served the structuring of the vocabulary of a language.

If languages are poor in inflection, parts of speech loose their grammatical function.

5

3. Syntactic Categories (of words)

What do we mean by “syntax”?

Since structuralism syntax is concerned with the structures of the sentences of a given

language (initiated by Boas 1911).

The basic concept is that sentences exhibit a hierarchical structure of linearly ordered

items.

Syntactic categories in this context:

Syntactic categories are form-classes or distribution classes.

“All the forms which can fill a given position thereby constitute a form-class.”

(Bloomfield 1933: 185)

“The DISTRIBUTION of an element is the total of all environments in which it occurs,

e.g. the sum of all the (different) positions (or occurrences) of an element relative to

the occurrence of other elements.” (Harris 1951: 15f.)

Syntactic categories of words:

Syntactic categories of words are sets of words that may occur in the same positions of

the structures of the sentences of a given language, i.e. which have the same

distribution.

Sample descriptions of syntactic categories of words in selected post-structuralism linguistic

approaches:

The Standard Theory of Generative Grammar (Chomsky 1965)

Lexical entries

(sincerity, [+N, +Det―, –Count, +Abstract, …]) (frighten, [+V, + ―NP, +[+Abstract], Aux ― Det [+Animate], +Object-deletion, …])

(ibid.: 107)

Phrase structure rules (selection)

S → NP Predicate Phrase

NP → (Det) N (S’)

N → CS

[+Det] → [±Count]

[+Count] → [±Animate]

[-Common] → [±Animate]

[+Animate] → [±Human]

[-Count] → [±Abstract] (Chomsky 1965: 106f.)

Revision of contextual properties (Chomsky 1970)

NP → N Comp

Comp → NP, S, NP S, NP Prep-P, Prep-P Prep-P, etc. (ibid.: 195)

6

The Theory of Principles and Parameters (e.g. Chomsky 1981, 1986)

Lexical entries

boy: [+N, -V], [N’―]

die: [-N, +V], [V’―], <Patient>

give: [-N, +V]; [V’―NP PP], <Agent, Theme, Goal>

Syntactic principles

projection principle, X-bar theory, -theory, Case theory, Move

(e.g. Chomsky 1981, 1986)

Head-Driven Phrase-Structure Grammar (Pollard and Sag 1987, 1994)

Lexical entry

Syntactic principles, schemata and rules

Head Feature Principle comparable to the X-bar Theory, the Valence Principle (which

replaces the earlier Subcategorization Principle), the Argument Realization Principle

and schemata representing the Head-Specifier Rule, the Head-Complement Rule, the

Head-Modifier Rule and finally linearity rules.

Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1991, 2003)

Linguistic categories of words are “grammatical classes established on the basis of

either intrinsic or extrinsic properties” (Langacker 1991: 520); intrinsic: “semantic

properties (pertaining to the nature of the profile)”; extrinsic: “Elements are

categorized extrinsically by their occurrence in particular structural frames; since an

element tends to activate the frame in which it frequently occurs, those frames can be

thought of as part of its characterization”. (ibid.: 521)

Result:

Syntactic categories of words are described on the basis of shared inherent and

contextual syntactic or syntactically relevant properties.

They serve the purpose of determining which words may occur in which positions in

the structures of the sentences of a given language.

Their number by far exceeds the number of the parts of speech.

┌ ┌ ┌ ┌ ┐ ┐

│PHON <gives> │ │ │HEAD verb[finite] │ │

│ │ │CATEGORY │SUBCAT <NP[nom] 1 [3rd, sing], NP[acc] 2 , NP[acc] 3 > │ │

│ │ │ cat └ ┘ │

│ │ │ │

│ │ │ ┌ ┐ │

│ │ │ │RELATION give │ │

│ │ │ │GIVER 1 │ │

│SYNSEM │LOCAL │CONTENT │GIVEN 2 │ │

│ │ │ │GIFT 3 │ │

word └ synsem └ local └ psoa └ ┘ ┘

7

Comparing parts of speech and syntactic categories of words:

They are both categories of words.

They are identified on different grounds.

They serve different purposes.

Their number differs considerably.

In sum, parts of speech and syntactic categories of words are categories of very different

kinds, and should therefore be kept apart.

4. English Adverbs

What is an adverb? On which basis are adverbs identified?

A look at reference grammars shows that two approaches can be distinguished:

1. Definitions are provided which however do not match with the set of items which

subsequently are discussed as examples of adverbs. (cf. e.g. Curme 1935, see

above).

2. Grammarians start their discussion of adverbs without any definition or

characterization, instead pointing out their ‘great heterogeneity’ and remarking

that they are the ‘least satisfactory’ or the ‘most nebulous and puzzling’ of the

parts of speech (Quirk et al. 1972: 267, 1985: 438).

How do we know what is an adverb?

by extensional definitions, i.e. whatever has been discussed as an adverb in a grammar

that we have been exposed to is accepted as a member of this part of speech

Do adverbs form a category? If so, what kind of category is it and what purpose does it serve?

My claim:

English adverbs form two different kinds of categories:

1. various syntactic categories

2. one lexical part-of-speech category

ad 1. Syntactic categories of English adverbs

Gleason (1963: 129ff.), based on their distribution, excludes from the part of speech adverb:

intensifiers (e.g. very, extremely) modify adjectives or adverbs;

limiters (e.g. only, just, even) modify phrases of all types;

sentence introducers/connectors (e.g. nevertheless, however, furthermore);

forms like not, there (as in There once was a man) and the (as in the more the merrier).

8

Definition of the remaining set:

“Adverbs modify verbs, predicates, or whole sentences, but verbs can be considered as

heads of predicates and sentences.” (ibid.: 131).

In addition, he claims, there are “adverbs” that modify nouns and “typically follow the noun

immediately: The man downstairs, a junior year abroad, a desire within.” (ibid.)

Jackendoff (1973), based on their distribution shared with PPs, identifies a considerable

amount of items of the part of speech adverb as intransitive prepositions.

Gleason’s and Jackendoff’s suggestions reduce the set of items called ‘adverb’.

What is analyzed in more recent approaches is mostly the remaining set.

Syntax-driven specifier-based approaches: e.g. Alexiadou (1997), Cinque (1999, 2004),

Laenzlinger (2000, 2004), Haumann (2007)

Semantics-driven adjunction-based approaches: e.g. Costa (1996), Pittner (1999, 2002,

2004), Ernst (2002, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2007, 2009)

Haumann (2007), basically following Cinque, describes adverbs as specifiers of functional

heads in three layers:

Complementizer Layer: ForceP > TopP > EvalP > TopP > EvidP > SceneP > FocP >

TopP > SoP > TopP > PromP

Inflectional Layer: FinP > AgrSP > EpiP > NegP > TP > PrtP > ModP > ReltP > AspPhab.

> AspPrep. > AspPfreq. > AspPant. > AspPterm. > AspPcont. > AspP(im)perf. > AspPret. > AspPprox.

> AspPdur. > AspPpros. > AttP > PerfP > ProgP > AuxP > beP

Lexical Layer: vP > SpaceP > TelP > AgrIOP > AgrOP > AgentP > DomP > P > DegPerfP

> MeansP > FreqP > RepP > Aspcompletive > RestP > V (ibid.: 411)

ForceP: illocutionary adverbs

EvalP: evaluative adverbs

EvidP: evidential adverbs

SceneP: scene-setting adverbs

SoP: subject-oriented adverbs

EpiP: epistemic adverbs

NegP: sentence-negating not

ReltP: temporal adverbs

AspP*: aspectual adverbs

AttP: subject-attitude adverbs

SpaceP: spatial adverbs

AgentP: agent-oriented adverbs

DomP: pure domain adverbs

P: manner adverbs

DegPerfP: degree of perfection adverbs

MeansP: means-domain adverbs

FreqP: frequency adverbs

RepP: adverbs of repetition

AspPcompl: completion adverbs

RestP: restitutive again

9

AspP*: habitual > repetitive > frequentative > celerative > anterior > terminative >

continuative > (im)perfective > retrospective > proximative > durative > prospective (ibid.

411f.)

Ernst (2002, etc.), based on their distribution and their semantic scope, distinguishes (more or

less) the following (distributional) classes of adverbs/adverbials:

Predicational adverbs in the Low Range (L-syntax; event internal): manner, measure,

restitutive again, means-domain, PPP (participant PP)

Predicational adverbs in the Comp- or AuxRange (event external): subject-oriented,

speaker-oriented (evidential), speaker-oriented (modal/evaluative), speaker-oriented (speech-

act), (pure) domain, exocomparative

Functional adverbs in the Comp- or AuxRange (event external): negation,

focusing/clausal degree, time related (location-time, duration, aspectual), quantificational

(frequency, habitual, additive), clausal functional adjuncts (purpose, causal, conditional,

concessive, etc.) (cf. e.g. 2002: 333ff.)

The description of adverbs in all these approaches identifies them as a forming various

distributional classes, i.e. syntactic categories.

These categories serve the determination of the possible positions of the adverbs in the

structures of the sentences of a language, independent of their semantics (Gleason,

Jackendoff), including their semantics (Haumann) or focusing on their semantics

(Ernst).

Adverbs that represent a particular syntactic category are lexically specified for their

particular categoryhood.

- Specifier-based approaches: (semantically transparent) syntactic features that

form the basis for Spec-Head Agreement;

- Ernst: lexico-semantic selectional features that determine which Fact-Event-

Object (FEO) is selected and in addition features like [+Heavy]/[+Lite] (cf.

Ernst 2004a) and those that specify for ‘strong’/’week’ or

‘subjective’/’objective’ (SpOAs, Ernst 2009), for example.

ad 2: English adverbs as a lexical part-of-speech category

Adverbs are characterized on the basis of a heterogeneous set of properties

- “said of or being added to a verb” (Dionysius)

- modify categories other than nouns (Curme and others)

- are derived from adjectives by -ly

Not every English adverb exhibits all these properties.

English adverbs form a category with a prototypical structure, with the prototype

representing the central member and with other members related to the prototype or to

members related to the prototype by family resemblances. (Ramat and Ricca 1994)

The prototype of this category in English is a form with the following morphological,

functional and semantic properties, respectively: it is a -ly-form, it is a Verb Phrase

modifier and it expresses Manner. (cf. ibid.: 310)

Other members of the category are related to the prototype by sharing one or more of

these properties or they may occupy positions that may also be occupied by -ly-

adverbs.

10

Examples of English adverbs used in the context of sentences:

1. I only wanted to see you.

2. She is only nice, not intelligent.

3. Only John passed the exam.

4. Even/only John arrived on time.

5. She carefully cleaned the table.

6. They worked hard/quietly.

7. He behaved well/strangely.

8. The girl is improving remarkably.

9. The girl is improving remarkably fast.

10. She is very/extremely pretty.

11. I talked to him yesterday/recently.

12. He walked almost/nearly five miles.

13. She almost/practically always wins.

14. He opened the door again/repeatedly.

15. I arrived soon/shortly after it happened.

16. I never/often/frequently do such things.

17. Fortunately, they did not ask.

18. You perhaps/possibly underrate my ability.

19. I honestly do not like dogs.

20. He briefly talked about the event.

21. They evidently did not win.

22. Nevertheless/Consequently, they did not lie.

The category of English adverbs as characterized above is a lexical part-of-speech

category which is related to and yet different from the traditional parts of speech.

In contrast to the traditional parts of speech it is not a grammatical category, it does

not serve grammatical purposes.

Like the traditional parts of speech – and together with other part-of-speech categories

– it serves the structuring of the vocabulary.

5. Conclusion

English adverbs – supposedly like adverbs of other languages – are categorized in two

different ways:

1. They form various syntactic categories which serve the determination of the

possible positions of adverbs in the structures of the sentences of the language. In

this case, the category structure necessarily must be the classical Aristotelian one.

2. They form a lexical part-of-speech category which together with other part-of-

speech categories serves the structuring of the vocabulary of a language. This

category has a prototypical structure.

The relationship between the two types of categories is not one of subcategorization,

because a subcategory must be of the same type as the category it subcategorizes.

11

General final remarks:

It should always be clear why categories are formed and what purpose they serve.

Categories that do not serve an explicit purpose are useless.

References

Alexiadou, A. (1997). Adverb Placement: A Case Study In Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam

and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ansaldo, U., J. Don and R. Pfau (eds.) (2010). Parts of Speech. Empirical and Theoretical

Advances. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ansaldo, U., J. Don and R. Pfau (2010). Parts of speech. Particulars, universals and

theoretical constructs, in: Ansaldo, U., J. Don and R. Pfau (eds.). 1-4.

Aoun, Y. (1981). Parts of speech: a case of redistribution, in: A. Belletti (ed.), Theory of

Markedness in Generative Grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 3-24.

Austin, J.R., S. Engelberg and G. Rauh (eds.) (2004). Adverbials. The Interplay between

Meaning, Context and Syntactic Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bergenholtz, B., and Schaeder, B. (1977). Die Wortarten des Deutschen: Versuch einer

syntaktisch orientierten Klassifikation. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag

Bisang, W. (2010). Precategoriality and syntax-based parts of speech: The case of Late

Archaic Chinese, in: Ansaldo, U., J. Don and R. Pfau (eds.). 56-86.

Bloomfield. L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Boas, F. (1911). Handbook of American Indian Languages. Part I. Washington, DC:

Smithsonian Institution.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

--- (1970). Remarks on nominalization, in: R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.). Readings in

English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company. 184-221.

--- (1981). Lectures in Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

--- (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads – a Cross Linguistic Perspective. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

--- (2004). Issues in adverbial syntax. Lingua 114: 683-710.

Costa, J. (1996). Adverb positioning and V-movement in English: Some more evidence.

Studia Linguistica 50: 22-34.

Curme, G.O. (1935). A Grammar of the English Language. Volume II. Parts of Speech and

Accidence. Boston etc.: D.C. Heath and Company.

Davidson, T. (1874). The grammar of Dionysios Thrax: Translated from the Greek. Journal of

Speculative Philosophy 8: 326-339.

Diez, F. (1836-38). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. Erster und Zweiter Theil. Bonn:

Eduard Weber.

Emonds, J. (1987). Parts of speech in Generative Grammar. Linguistic Analysis 17: 3-42.

Ernst, T. (2002). The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--- (2003). Semantic features and the distribution of adverbs, in: E. Lang, C. Maienborn, and

C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds.). Modifying Adjuncts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 307-334.

--- (2004a). Principles of adverbial distribution in the lower clause. Lingua 114: 755-777.

--- (2004b). Domain adverbs and the syntax of adjuncts, in: J.R. Austin, S. Engelberg and G.

Rauh (eds.). 103-129.

--- (2007). On the role of semantics in a theory of adverb syntax. Lingua 117: 1008-1033.

--- (2009). Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 497-544.

12

Gleason, H.A. (1963). Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Harris, Z.S. (1951). Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press.

Haspelmath, M. (2001). Word classes and parts of speech, in: P. B. Baltes, and N. J. Smelser

(eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam:

Pergamon. 16538-45.

Haumann, D. (2007). Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. Amsterdam and

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Huddleston, R. and G.K. Pullum. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackendoff, R.S. (1973). The base rules for prepositional phrases, in: S. Anderson and P.

Kiparsky (eds.). A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

345-354.

Laenzlinger, C. (2000). More on adverb syntax, in: A. Alexiadou and P. Svenonius (eds.).

Linguistics in Potsdam, Vol. 6. Potsdam: University of Potsdam. 103-132.

--- (2004). A feature-based theory of adverb syntax, in: J.R. Austin, S. Engelberg and G. Rauh

(eds.). 205-252.

Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 2: Descriptive

Application. Stanford, CA.: Stanford Uninversity Press.

Mätzner, E. (1880). Englische Grammatik. Erster Theil. Die Lehre von dem Worte. Berlin:

Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.

Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus of minus two. Some limits on our

capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review 63: 81-97.

Pittner, K. (2002). Adverbien der Art und Weise im Deutschen und Englischen: zu ihrer

Stellung und Interpretation, in F. Schmöe (ed.). Adverb – Zentrum und Peripherie einer

Wortart. Wien: edition praesens. 32-59.

--- (2004). Where syntax and semantics meet: Adverbial positions in the German middle field,

in: J.R. Austin, S. Engelberg and G. Rauh (eds.). 253-287.

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. (1972). A Grammar of Contemporary

English. London: Longman Group Ltd.

--- (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of English. London: Longman Group Ltd.

Pollard, C., and Sag, I.A. (1987). Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 1:

Fundamentals. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

--- (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ramat, P. and D. Ricca. (1994). Prototypical adverbs: On the scalarity/radiality of the notion

ADVERB. Revista di Linguistica 6: 289-326.

Rauh, G. (1999). Adverb oder Präposition? Von der Notwendigkeit einer Abgrenzung von

Wortarten und grammatischen Kategorien und der Gefahr einer terminologiscen Falle, in:

E. Eggers, J. Becker, J. Udolph and D. Weber (eds.). Florilegium Linguisticum:

Festschrift für Wolfgang P. Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang:

367-392.

--- (2000a). Wi(e)der die Wortarten! Zum Problem linguistischer Kategorisierung.

Linguistische Berichte 184: 485-507.

--- (2000b). Don’t call it “X”! or: Why X does not represent grammatical categories, in: H.

Janßen (ed.) Verbal Projections. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1-21.

--- (2002a). Zum Problem der Wortarten in der Grammatik, in: W. Börner and K. Vogel

(eds.). Grammatik und Fremdsprachenunterricht: Kognitive, psycholinguistische und

erwerbstheoretische Perspektiven. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 3-26.

13

--- (2002b). Word classes as prototypical categories, in: S. Scholz, M. Klages, E. Hantson and

U. Römer (eds.). Language and Cognition: Papers in Honour of Wolf-Dietrich Bald’s 60th

birthday. München: Langenscheidt-Longman. 259-270.

--- (2010). Syntactic Categories: Their Identification and Description in Linguistic Theories.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. (German version: Syntaktische Kategorien. Ihre

Identifikation und Beschreibung in linguistischen Theorien.Tübingen: Stauffenburg.)

Sasse, H.-J. (1993). Syntactic categories and subcategories, in: J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W.

Sternefeld, T. Vennemann (eds.). Syntax. Ein internationals Handbuch zeitgenössischer

Forschung. Erster Halbband. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. 259-280.

Wittich, W. (1842). German Grammar. London: Taylor & Walton.