Divergent Views on Adverbs: A Comparative Analysis

Differ In Adverbs Definitions Of Given Two Sources

Verspoor & Sauter (2000) had defined that different kind of adverbs can have different functions. Some adverbs such as here, there, yesterday, home and so on expresses that when and where the event is going to take place. Adverbs such as when, where and how are used for interrogation and are also known as interrogative adverbs. Some of the adverbs just modify the single word in the sentence or the phrase and on the other hand, some of the adverbs may modify the complete sentence. Conjunctive adverbs express the logical relationship among the main clause of the sentence and the sentence itself. In a broader sense, adverb may have double functions and can be categories as interrogative adverbs and relative adverbs.

On the other hand, Huddleston & Pullum (2005) had defined that adverbs play a role of the modifier of the verbs in the sentences. The words which are used for modifying the verbs also modify the adjectives. According to this author, adverbs are considered under the open category because most of the adverbs are derived from the adjectives by adding a suffix.

Classification Of Adverbs According To The Given Two Sources

Verspoor & Sauter (2000) had classified the adverbs based on their different functions in the sentence. The authors had classified the words by their adverbial function in the sentence or clause such as:

Words such as when, where, how and why are considered as interrogative adverbs.

Some adverbs such as but, or, so, and connect one clause to another and they are termed as conjunctive adverbs.

Some adverbs explain more about the noun and such adverbs are termed as relative adverbs.

Words such as, thoroughly, and so are the verbs which can modify the complete sentences.

Huddleston & Pullum (2005) had classified the adverbs based on their modification in the sentence. The authors had classified the words as different adverbs, such as:

Some words are included in both adverbs and adjectives, and such words are categorised based on their function in the sentence.

The words ending with suffix ly is not always an adverb; it may be an adjective.

Adverbs are being classified as modifiers of al other categories except for the noun in the sentences or clauses.

Both the authors had classified the adverbs based on their different perceptions and patterns of explaining the English grammar.

Classification Of Words If Not As Adverbs

Huddleston & Pullum (2005) stated that the term adverb is created on the purpose of these words as improved as verbs. However, the adapting verbs also purpose as transformers to adjectives. Virtual, it is the adjective and after that modified as a noun. On the other hand, the corresponding adverb was virtually modifying the other three heads.

On the other hand, Verspoor and Saut (2000) stated that supplementary adverb transforms one specific word in a segment. Certain adverbs transform an entire expression. "However,", the conjunction adverb shows the thought link between sentences. The word, however, is not an adverb it would be conjunction because it joins two clauses. On the other hand, Verspoor and Saut (2000) mentioned that "almost" determine as an adverb but it would be a verb, adjective but it also it is not consequential from an adjective there is no corresponding noun transformer to complete the sentence. Verspoor and Saut (2000) also mentioned that noun modifier is adjective, and the others are adverbs. On the other hand, Huddleston & Pullum (2005) stated that not all the adverb has a suffix, and the ending is not only used for the adverbs but also some adjectives.

Justification For The Classification

Different linguists have a different approach to analyse and interpret English grammar. Depending upon their knowledge and perceptions regarding classifying or categorising the different parts of speech such as verbs, adverbs, adjectives, prepositions, and so on. Both the authors Verspoor and Sauter (2000) and Huddleston & Pullum (2005) define and classify the adverbs based on different approaches of English grammar.

Verspoor and Sauter (2000) adopt a traditional approach for defining and classifying the different parts of speech. For classifying the adverbs, these authors had considered the traditional classification of the words into the different classes. On the other hand, Huddleston & Pullum (2005) focuses on the detailed analysis for the classification of adverbs that how language is used in authentic situations. Verspoor and Sauter (2000) had just followed the traditional pattern for classification, but on the contrast, the Huddleston and Pullum (2005) had also acknowledged the differences among the British English and American English. Moreover, there are several differences in the classification of adverbs proposed by the Verspoor and Sauter (2000) and Huddleston and Pullum (2005).

Arguments For And Each Account

The approach adopted by Verspoor and Sauter (2000) was a more traditional one. They focused on classifying the words into different classes but with a formal sense of writing, which, according to them, is essential for English language students. However, on the other hand, Huddleston and Pullum (2005) ultimately rejected the traditional view by describing how the language used in different situations. They contradicted Verspoor and Sauter (2000) viewpoint that the English language is not only for the students, but almost every person on the planet uses it. Due to this reason, it must be developed, understood and used in a manner that does not force the people to learn it right from the beginning.

Both of these sources take into account that English is also a global language that consists of numerous dialects, linguistic varieties and accents which can be different from one region to another. One of the aspects that go in favour of traditional approach by Verspoor and Sauter (2000) is that it has been developed from classical Greek and Latin linguistics that focused on explaining how the language is used. Due to this reason, their approach sometimes seems to be more suitable.

Critical Assessment Of The Two Accounts

Verspoor and Sauter (2000) provided a detailed and thorough list of the words that should be treated as adverbs, but Huddleston and Pullum (2005) failed to provide a similar complete list of the words that must be considered as adverbs. Due to this reason authors such as Sagarra & Ellis (2013) and Giannakidou & Mari (2013) believe that the criteria and definition of adverb suggested by Verspoor and Sauter (2000) should be treated as more useful.

Both of these sources, although agree that adverbs are much shorter words than open classes, they also agree on the very existence of compounds and complexities that could be seen when determining the adverbs to be considered and used in the English language. However, they are contradicted by Ernst (2014) who states that these words can also coincide with traditional viewpoints regarding the very definition of adverbs wherein it could interfere with common interpretations of adverbs and how they are used in the language regularly.

More Compelling Account

Huddleston and Pullum (2005) are more compelling as compared to Verspoor and Sauter (2000). To corroborate the same, the syntax and analysis of Cambridge Grammar in the English Language need to be done. The discussion lay down by Huddleston and Pullum (2005) provided more opportunities on the ground of detailed syntactic evidence which is essential for better language formation. The corpus use of words is also witnessed in the discussion made by Huddleston and Pullum (2005) where the range of sources is highly vast which allow choosing words tactically and by keeping the environment in the centre. The possibilities of factual errors are also low in the viewpoint of Huddleston and Pullum (2005) where the emphasis is laid down on the understanding the language and its formation as well. In their discussion, the authors also mentioned that the semantic basis of the adjective and adverbs, to the core, is profoundly different from each another. It clarifies the use of words and the way they are used in the language. The semantic role of words and lexical categories is also diverse in the discussion of Huddleston and Pulluma (2005). Thus, it indicates the fact that Huddleston and Pulluma (2005) are more compelling due to these reasons.

More Useful For Practical Application

In terms of practical application, Huddleston and Pullum (2005) are more feasible to apply in general conversation and improving the language. The reason behind the same is that these authors consider the environment in which the adjectives and adverbs should be put into application. Other authors Verspoor and Sauter (2000) missed the environmental context where it becomes tough to understand the application of language in different contexts. The link of other elements like prepositions and adjectives are also well defined by Huddleston and Pullum (2005), which again increases the clarity of its applications in the language. In sentence framing, Huddleston and Pullum (2005) clarify the use of adverbs in a more concrete manner which could be helpful from the perspective of shaping the right sentence framing and eliminating the general language errors. The categories mentioned in the lexical formation are also clearly defined by Huddleston and Pullum (2005). The use of 'ly' or may depend upon the situation and environment where the difference in adverb and adjective needs to be understood. Thus, Huddleston and Pullum (2005) are more practical in the application as compared to Verspoor and Sauter (2000).

Conclusion

Adverbs are the modifiers which modify the part of the sentence or clause, or they may also modify the complete sentence as well. Different authors and linguist had proposed the different definitions of adverbs and their classification based on their patterns and approaches for explaining English grammar. The report mentioned above had explained the different approaches that are the traditional and the uses of the authentic situation where the adverbs are used by Verspoor and Sauter (2000) and Huddleston and Pullum (2005) for explaining, defining and classifying the adverbs. This report has mentioned that Huddleston and Pullum (2005) had explained and described the adverbs more appropriately and practically.

Dig deeper into Disability Rights: Legal Protections and Social Advocacy with our selection of articles.

References

Sagarra, N., & Ellis, N. (2013). From seeing adverbs to seeing verbal morphology: Language experience and adult acquisition of L2 tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 261-290.

Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2013). A two dimensional analysis of the future: modal adverbs and speaker’s bias. Programme Committee, 7.

Ernst, T. (2014). The syntax of adverbs. The Routledge handbook of syntax, 126-148.