Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Previous Section

Next Section

3 Periphery 1: Adjuncts

In this chapter I deal with a number of problems with regard to one subclass of satellites, viz. Adjuncts (see p. 3). As was pointed out above, satellites differ from arguments in that their omission from a sentence does not result in the ungrammaticality of the remaining sentence, while also neither (a) the lexical meaning of the remaining constituents (b) the semantic relations between these remaining constituents nor change. In this chapter on Adjuncts I will first of all explain why it is not the case that any Adjunct can be added to any nuclear predication ( crosssection 3.1.). In crosssection 3.2. I will discuss the fact that certain lexemes and groups of lexemes can occur both in the nucleus and in the periphery, with the same semantic function. Then I will give a short survey of the semantic functions of Adjuncts ( crosssection 3.3.). In the final section ( crosssection 3.4.) I will deal with the close relation between the semantic function of an Adjunct and the lexical meaning of the constituent concerned; in this connection it will be considered whether it is at all useful to distinguish a variety of semantic functions.

3.1. Restrictions on the addibility of Adjuncts

It is not the case that any given nuclear predication can be extended by means of any type of Adjunct. It is, for instance, quite clear that an Adjunct with the semantic function Direction cannot be added to a nucleus with the predicate habitare (`to live, dwell'). In order to allow the addition of a Direction Adjunct, the nuclear predication must express a kind of `movement'. [1] In this case the meaning of the predicate is the decisive factor. In other cases the addibility of an Adjunct is determined by the semantic properties of the nuclear predication as a whole. In crosssection 2.4. we have already seen that certain categories of nuclear predication allow certain types of Adjunct and exclude others: the occurrence of Adjuncts with the semantic functions Instrument, Beneficiary, Purpose and (in part) Manner is limited to those nuclear predications which are controlled (viz. Actions and Positions, cf. p. 19). In (1)–(6) I give a number of normal cases of these types of Adjunct: Instrument ((1)–(2)); Beneficiary ((3)–(4)); Purpose ((5)–(6)). [2]

-- 26 --

(1) (lituo) … regiones vineae terminavit (`He marked out the vineyard into sections with the augural staff', Cic. N.D. 2.9)

(2) arcumque manu celerisque sagittas corripuit (`He seized in his hand his bow and swift arrows', Verg. A. 1.187–8)

(3) haec … ego non multis sed tibi (scribo) (`I write these things not for many people, but for you', Sen. Ep. 7.11)

(4) cui flavam religas comam (`For whom do you bind up your blond hair', Hor. C. 1.5.4)

(5) me a portu praemisit … ut haec nuntiem uxori suae (`He sent me ahead from the harbour, to report this to his wife', Pl. Am. 195)

(6) esse oportet ut vivas, non vivere ut edas (`One should eat in order to live, not live in order to eat', Rhet. Her. 4.39)

Common to all these instances is the fact that an animate being (Agent) executes the action expressed by the main verb. The verbs are in accordance with the criteria mentioned with regard to controllability (occurrence in the imperative, occurrence in clauses governed by verbs meaning `to order', occurrence in promises). Many Manner Adjuncts, too, exclusively occur in connection with controlled nuclear predications. However, there are Manner satellites which occur in connection with Processes, such as satellites which indicate Tempo: [3]

(7) paulatim licentia crevit (`Their licence gradually increased', Sal. Cat. 51.30)

On p. 18 we have already pointed out that the occurrence of Duration satellites depends in part on whether or not the nuclear predication is dynamic. With verbs expressing the accomplishment of something (i.e. those which have an effected Object, the so-called `terminative verbs'), for example, the addition of a Duration Adjunct is excluded (cf. crosssection 11.1.1). The following sentence would be impossible:

(8) *tres menses opus perfecit (`*For three months he completed the work') [4]

There are other factors which play a part in the addibility of Duration Adjuncts, such as the `definite/indefinite' distinction. Thus we find (9), but not (10):

(9) John ate rolls for an hour

(10) *John ate the rolls for an hour

Adjuncts with the semantic function `Time within which', on the other hand, cannot occur with non-dynamic nuclear predications, but are possible with nuclear predications such as the one seen in (8) above (see also chapter 11).

-- 27 --

Above a number of Adjuncts has been discussed with semantic functions which can only occur with certain categories of nuclear predication. `Control' and `dynamism' appear to be important factors in allowing certain Adjuncts to occur. Below I will treat a number of types of Adjunct which are not subject to such restrictions. Before doing so, however, it should be noted that the very fact that the nuclear predication functions as a whole (in the sense that the nuclear predication exerts a significant influence on the addition of Adjuncts) is yet another important argument for distinguishing between nuclear predication and periphery within the structure of the sentence.

Besides `nucleus-sensitive' Adjuncts such as Instrument and Beneficiary there are also types of Adjunct which are not limited in their occurrence to one or more defined semantic classes of nuclear predication. Examples are Cause Adjuncts ((11)–(12)) and Result Adjuncts ((13)–(14)):

(11) (sues), quarum odore praeterire nemo pistrinum potest (`Because of the smell of the pigs nobody is able to pass the mill', Pl. Capt. 808)

(12) aetate hoc corpus putret (`Owing to old age this body is rotting', Pac. 340)

(13) si quando non pluet, ut terra sitiat (`If at some point it does not rain, so that, as a result, the land is dry', Cato Agr. 151.4)

(14) (Romani) ex loco superiore … strage ac ruina fudere Gallos, ut numquam postea nec pars nec universi temptaverint tale pugnae genus (`From their higher position the Romans crushed the Gauls, so that after that they never tried this strategy again, neither together nor only part of them', Liv. 5.43.3) [5]

3.2. Arguments and Adjuncts with the same semantic function

Expressions indicating a `direction' can occur within the structure of the sentence in two ways: with some predicates they are obligatory (and therefore arguments), with others they are not (and therefore satellites). Examples are (15) and (16), respectively:

(15) quo me miser conferam (`Where can I go in my misery', Gracchus in Cic. de Orat. 3.214)

(16) quo ambulas tu? (`Where are you going', Pl. Am. 341)

Similarly, locative expressions form part of the nucleus of the predicate versari (`to live, stay'), while with many other nuclear predications they may occur as Adjuncts. This phenomenon – the fact that constituents with the same semantic function are syntactically different – also occurs within classes of (practically) synonymous predicates. With the predicate aestimare (`to estimate') a Value expression seems to be more easily omissible than with

-- 28 --

three-place predicates such as habere, putare and ducere in the sense of `to estimate, value'. In the previous chapter we have seen that Manner constituents, too, may occur in the nuclear predication. An example is (17):

(17) est oratoris proprium apte, ornate, distincte dicere (cf. p. 8)

With the predicate habitare (`to live, dwell') an argument with the semantic function Place is normal, but is often absent if a Manner constituent is present: [5a]

(18) habitare laxe et magnifice voluit (`He wanted to live freely and magnificently', Cic. Dom. 115)

Sometimes arguments are distinguished with the semantic function `Separativus' (with privare `to deprive', etc.) and arguments with the semantic function `Instrumentalis' (with uti `to use', frui `to enjoy', fungi `to fulfil', potiri `to acquire', vesci `to eat', niti `to lean on' and with verbs meaning `to provide with' and `to be provided with', such as complere, abundare). [6] The function Cause can be fulfilled by an argument which is Subject in the sentence or by an Adjunct:

(19) magnitudo periculi summo timore hominem afficit (`The magnitude of the danger instils the greatest fear in man', Cic. Quinct. 6)

(20) odore praeterire nemo pistrinum potest (ex. (11))

3.3. The semantic function of Adjuncts

In this section I give an enumeration of the semantic functions of Adjuncts. I leave out of account cases like (21)–(23), which in the literature are often treated as more or less equivalent to Adjuncts:

(21) mihi domino servus tu suscenses? (`You, a slave, criticize me, your master?', Pl. Ps. 472)

(22) hinc flens abiit (`He left here crying')

(23) tristis incedit (`He walked in grief')

These expressions will in this book be called `Praedicativa'. Like Adjuncts (and Disjuncts), they are omissible. They are, however, quite distinct from Adjuncts and Disjuncts in other respects. In fact, they cannot be regarded as satellites at all. Therefore, they will be discussed in chapter 8.

Adjuncts specify the state of affairs expressed by the nuclear predication. They do so in various ways. The first three types of Adjuncts listed below specify the event or situation referred to by the nuclear predication, more specifically the predicate; the other types of Adjunct mentioned below fit in the event or situation referred to by the nuclear predication in a wider perspective (accompanying circumstances, conditions, results, moment in time, purpose, etc.). [7] The list I give here is not exhaustive.

-- 29 --

(a)(i)Manner:eloquenter (`eloquently'), summa audacia (`with the greatest courage'), prospere (`with positive outcome')
(ii)Instrument:gladio aliquem necare (to kill someone `with a sword'), per litteras (`by means of a letter')
(iii)Degree:valde (`very, greatly'), multum (`much, greatly')
(b)(i)There is a relation of `co-involvement' between satellite and nuclear predication:
Beneficiary:ut maioribus natu adsurgatur (`that one gets up for older persons', Cic. Inv. 1. 48.)
Involved party:hic tibi rostra Cato advolat (`then, would you believe it, Cato ran to the stand', Cic. Att. 1.14.5 – so-called ethic dative)
Companion:degrediente eo magna prosequentium multitudine (`as he was leaving with a great throng of followers', Tac. A. 13. 14.1); cum magnis copiis adventare (`to arrive with many troops')
(ii)Location in'time:
Time Position:in illa tempestate (`in those times'); feriis Latinis (`during the Feriae Latinae')
Time Duration:diem unum supplicatio fuit (`for one day there was public thanksgiving')
Time within which:tribus mensibus villam suam aedificavit (`in three months he built his villa')
(iii)Location in space:
Place:terra marique (`on land and at sea'); in locis idoneis (`in suitable places')
Route along which:illo ascensu Haeduos mittit (`he sent the Haedui along that slope')
Place to which:in mensam manum porrigit (`he stretches out his hand to the table')
Place from which:Roma venire (`to come from Rome')
(iv)Circumstances, conditions, and the like:
Accompanying circumstances:degrediente eo (`as he was leaving' – so-called ablative absolute); qui potuisset assensu omnium dicere Ennius (`how could Ennius say with the assent of all?', Cic. N.D. 2.4.)
Cause:aetate in ex. (12)
Motive:ei vel aetate vel curae similitudine patres appellabantur (`these were called `fathers', either because of their age, or because their task resembled that of a father', Sal. Cat. 6.6)
Purpose:ut edas (`in order that you eat') in ex. (6); admonitum venimus te (`we come to remind you', Cic. de Orat. 3.17 – so-called supine)
Result:ut terra sitiat (`so that the land is dry') in ex. (13)

3.4. Semantic function and lexical meaning

In crosssection 3.1. we have seen that Adjuncts can be added to a nuclear predication provided that the nuclear predication has no semantic characteristics which prevent this. Besides such external restrictions there are also internal

-- 30 --

restrictions. Adjuncts with the semantic function `Time Position' can almost exclusively be formed with those nouns which through their meaning signify `moment in time' (see, however, feriis Latinis in crosssection 3.3.). Furthermore, prepositions which exclusively or frequently indicate a `location in time' are often used to mark specifications of Positions in time. In the case of subordinate clauses functioning as Adjuncts with the semantic function Time Position this function often appears from the subordinating temporal conjunction. What has been said here about the semantic function Time Position also holds, for example, the semantic function Place. This means that the satellite constituents involved in one way or the other convey the idea of Time Position themselves. I return to the connection between lexical meaning and semantic function in crosssection 5.2.4(f).

However, although the meaning of noun, preposition and subordinating conjunction often provides an indication for the semantic function of an Adjunct, there is nevertheless no one-to-one relationship between the lexical meaning of the constituent and the semantic function it fulfils. For this reason it is useful to distinguish semantic functions. The relevance of making such distinctions may be illustrated by the following phenomena:

(i) First of all, Latin, like English, has a number of question words which indicate different semantic functions, e.g. quo modo (`how'), cur (`why'), ubi (`quando'), quando (`when'). [8]

(ii) Support for distinguishing a number of semantic functions for Adjuncts is also provided by the fact that when several constituents with the same syntactic function (in this case Adjunct) occur in one sentence, they need not or cannot be coordinated. Thus Position in time Adjuncts and Manner Adjuncts may occur in the same sentence without being coordinated. An example is (24):

(24) confiteretur nunc libenter (`He would now confess with all his heart')

Coordination is, however, necessary between constituents with the same semantic function (and often also the same syntactic function). Coordination is impossible between constituents with different semantic functions. [9] This is why we find both (24) and (25), but not (26) and (27):

(25) confiteretur … si fecisset, et magno animo et libenter … (`If he had done it, he would confess magnanimously and with all his heart', Cic. Mil. 80)

(26) *confiteretur et nunc et libenter

(27) *confiteretur magno animo libenter [10]

-- 31 --

Bibliographical information

For the classification of the semantic functions of Adjuncts I refer to Scherer (1975: 195–7). A narrower classification may be found in Bartsch (1972) and Hoberg (1981). For Duration Adjuncts cf. Verkuyl (1972). For the coordination test see Pinkster (1972c: crosssection 7.3.3) and Dik (1980: 191–209).

-- 32 --

Previous Section

Next Section

Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Powered by PhiloLogic