Syntagmatic and paradigmatic peculiarities of adverbs in English

It wasn't any too warm yesterday [41].

Yesterday they had a snow-squall out west [41].

Circumstantial adverbs may be considered as the movable words [25, 284]. The most mobile are adverbs of time and place. They can occupy several positions without any change in their meaning, as in:

Usually he signs well.

He usually signs well.

He signs well usually. [25, 284]

When H. Sweet speaks of adverbs, as showing almost the last remains of normal free order in Modern English, it concerns, mostly, circumstantial adverbs [35].

Table 2: Characteristic features of quantitative adverbs

1. Lexico-grammatical meaning	Show the degree, measure, quantity of an action, quality, state
2. Typical stem-building affixes	Are often formed from adjectives by adding -ly
3. Morphological categories	-----------------------------------------
4. Typical patterns of combinability	Modify verbs, adjectives, statives, adverbs, indefinite pronouns, numerals, modals, and even nouns
5. Syntactic functions	Adverbial modifier of degree

Here is a list of adverbs of degree [16, 293]:

Absolutely

Somewhat

Adequately

Soundly

Almost

Strongly

Altogether

Sufficiently

Amazingly

Supremely

Awfully

Surprisingly

Badly

Terribly

Extraordinarily

Extremely

Fairly

Fantastically

Fully

Greatly

Half

Partly

Perfectly

Poorly

Positive

Powerfully

Practically

Petty

Completely

Totally

Considerably

Tremendously

Dearly

Truly

Deeply

Unbelievably

Drastically

Utterly

Dreadfully

Very

Enormously

Virtually

Entirely

Well

Exceedingly

Wonderfully

Excessively

Extensively

Hard

Hugely

Immensely

Credibly

Intensely

Just

Largely

Moderately

Nearly

Noticeably

Outright

Profoundly

Purely

Quite

Radically

Rather

Really

Reason

Remarkably

Significantly

Simply

Slightly

Circumstantial adverbs include [16, 294]:

1) adverbs of time: now, then, yesterday, lately, soon, afterwards, presently, immediately, eventually, when, etc.

2) adverbs of frequency: often, seldom, sometimes, always, hardly ever, never, constantly, occasionally, etc.

3) adverbs of place or direction: here, there, everywhere, downstairs, below, ashore, abroad, inside, outside, northward(s), to and fro, backwards, where, etc.

4) adverbs of consequence and cause: therefore, hence, consequently, accordingly, why, so, etc.

5) adverbs of purpose: purposely, intentionally, deliberately.

Barring some adverbs with the -ward(s) suffix (backwards, inwards), the -ice suffix (twice, thrice), circumstantial adverbs have no typical stem-building elements (Cf. with the -ly suffix incident to qualitative adverbs). They are often morphologically indivisible (north, home, down, etc.), even more often are they related by conversion with prepositions (in, out, behind), conjunctions (since, before), nouns (north, home), adjectives (late, fare).

Only a small group of circumstantial adverbs denoting indefinite time and place have opposites of comparison. Most adverbs of this subclass have no forms of any grammatical category.

Circumstantial adverbs are mostly used in the function of adverbial modifiers of time and place. But sometimes they can be used in other functions, for instance, as attribute:

See the notes above [38].

The room upstairs is vacant [38].

Among circumstantial adverbs there is also a special group of pronominal adverbs when, where, how, why used either as interrogative words to form questions, or as connectives to introduce subordinate clauses:

Where shall we go?

We'll go where you want. [16, 295]

In the former case, owing to their auxiliary function, they are called interrogative adverbs [16, 295]:

When did you see him last?

Where are you going?

How did you manage to do it? [16, 295]

In the latter case, also owing to their auxiliary function, they called conjunctive adverbs [16, 295]:

Sunday was the day when he was least busy.

The thing to find out is where he is now.

How it was done remains a mystery to me. [16, 295]

The adverb how, in addition to the above functions, may also be placed at the head of an exclamatory sentence. In this case it is often followed by an adjective or an adverb but it may also be used alone. This how is sometimes called the exclamatory how:

How unfair grown-ups are! [38]

Look how well I'm looked after! [38]

According to M. Y. Blokh, circumstantial adverbs are divided into notional and functional [13, 224].

The functional circumstantial adverbs are words of pronominal nature. Besides quantitative (numerical) adverbs mentioned above, they include adverbs of time, place, manner, cause, consequence. Many of these words are used as syntactic connectives and question-forming functionals. Here belong such words as now, here, when, where, so, thus, how, why, etc.

As for circumstantial adverbs of more self-dependent nature, they include two basic sets:

1) adverbs of time: today, tomorrow, already, ever, never, shortly, recently, seldom, early, late, etc.

2) adverbs of place: homeward, eastward, near, far, outside, ashore, etc.

The two varieties express a general idea of temporal and spatial orientation and essentially perform deictic (indicative) functions in the broader sense. Bearing this in mind, we may unite them under the general heading of "orientative" adverbs, reserving the term "circumstantial" to syntactic analysis of utterances [13, 225].

Thus, the whole class of adverbs will be divided, first, into nominal and pronominal, and the nominal adverbs will be subdivided into qualitative and orientative, the former including genuine qualitative adverbs and degree adverbs, the latter falling into temporal and local adverbs, with further possible subdivisions of more detailed specifications [13].

Table 3: Characteristic features of circumstantial adverbs

1. Lexico-grammatical meaning	Name certain circumstances attending the action as a whole
2. Typical stem-building affixes	-ward(s) suffix, -ice suffix
3. Morphological categories	Only certain circumstantial adverbs denoting indefinite time and place (soon, late, often, near, far) can form degrees of comparison
4. Typical patterns of combinability	Modify verbs, sometimes nouns or words of nominal characters, occupy different places in the sentence
5. Syntactic functions	Adverbial modifier of time, place, cause, purpose, condition; attribute

Here is the list of adverbs which are used to indicate the circumstances in which an action takes place [16, 292]:

Accidentally

Privately

Alone

Publicly

Artificially

Regardless

Automatically

Retail

Bodily

Scientifically

Collectively

Secretly

Commercially

Solo

Deliberately

Specially

Directly

Symbolically

Duly

Wholesale

First-class

Full-time

Illegally

Independently

Indirectly

Individually

Innocently

Instinctively

Involuntarily

Jointly

Legally

Logically

Mechanically

Naturally

Officially

Openly

Overtly

Part-time

Personally

Politically

Chapter 3. Syntagmatic valency of adverbs and its actualization in speech

3.1 Syntactic valency and combinability patterns of adverbs

Every word is characterized by its semantic and syntactic valencies potentially inherent in it, which in syntagmatics become the actualization of these potentials, i.e. semantic (or lexical) and syntactic combinabilities.

The establishment of constructional syntagmatic relations is conditioned by the valent properties of the units entering into the syntagmatic relation. The valency of notional units is their potential ability to get into syntagmatic relations and to pattern with the units of appropriate types. The character of valency is predetermined by the semantic specialization and by the semantic completeness of the unit. These characteristics are evidently diametric: the more specialized a notional element is the less valent it is [1]. But it does not mean that semantically specialized notional units are devoid of any valency, they can pattern with extentions which are optional.

Syntagmatic valencies can be of categorial, subcategorial and individual character [26, 40]. The categorial valency is usually specified by the subcategorial valent properties of linguistic units. Their interaction makes the unit active in its syntagmatic behaviour when its valency is realized. For instance, every lexico-grammatical class of notional words possesses categorial and subcategorial valency.

Due to their central role in the sentence notional verbs are the most syntagmatically active elements which realize their valency functioning as “heads” in syntactic constructions of nominal and adverbial complementation.

According to their categorial valency substantive elements display patterning with the qualitative elements which are designed to denote qualities of objects and phenomena. The categorial valency of qualifying elements (adjectives and adverbs) is not strong, they pattern regularly with degree adverbs: too imposing, very short, extremely difficult, easily enough. The subcategorial and individual valencies are in full accord with the categorial valency of linguistic units [26, 42].

Grammatical valency of linguistic units reveals their ability to pattern with particular grammatical forms [4].

Since the valency of linguistic units is their potential ability to contract syntagmatic relations, it should be actualized in speech. This takes place in speech communication whenever linguistic units occur in actual speech units (utterances). The actualization of valency is achieved through the concrete combinability of linguistic units in quite concrete cases of their occurrence in speech units [4].

The realization and actualization of the valent properties pertaining to units and classes of units are conditioned by several factors among which the semantic compatibility of combining elements is of primary regulating significance [26, 42]. The actualization of valency is regulated and conditioned by contextual conditions or the distribution of a linguistic unit.

Here is the list of possible models of grammatical (syntactic) combinability of adverbs in modern English [12, 146]:

Adv + Adj

Adv + Adv

Adv + N

Adv + V

Adj + Adv

N + Adv

V + Adv

Adv + conj + Adj

Adv + conj + Adv

Adv + conj + N

Adv + conj + V

Adj + conj + Adv

N + conj + Adv

V + conj + Adv

Adv + link + Adj

Adv + link + Adv

Adv + link + N

Adv + link + V

Adj + link + Adv

N + link + Adv

V + link + Adv

Adv + prp + Adj

Adv + prp + Adv

Adv + prp + N

Adv + prp + V

Adj + prp + Adv

N + prp + Adv

V + prp + Adv

It follows that adverbs could realize their syntactic valent properties in 7 models of contact combinability and 21 models of distant combinability. But the results of numerous studies demonstrate that the following models of syntactic combinability of adverbs are typical for modern English [12, 147]:

1) Adv + Adj: very nice;

2) Adv + Adv: quite politely;

3) Adv + N: He is quite a child;

4) Adv + V: never come;

5) Adj + Adv: good enough;

6) N + Adv: a step aside;

7) V + Adv: run fast;

8) Adv + conj + Adj: We arrived earlier than usual;

9) Adv + conj + Adv: anywhere else than at home;

10) Adv + conj + V: He knows better than to start a quarrel;

11) Adj + conj + Adv: They were wider apa12) rt than before;

13) N + link + Adv: The sun is not enough;

14) Adv + prp + N: early in February;

15) N + prp + Adv: the writer of today.

English adverbs realize their syntactic valent properties in all of 7 models of contact combinability and only in 7 (out of 21) models of distant combinability. The nature of restrictions on combinability of adverbs in 14 models of distant combinability in some cases is conditioned by relations of objects and phenomena of extralinguistic reality (N + conj + Adv, V + conj + Adv, Adv + link + Adj, Adv + link + Adv, Adv + link + N, Adv + link + V, Adj + link + Adv, Adv + prp + Adj, Adv + prp + Adv, Adv + prp + V, Adj + prp + Adv, V + prp + Adv), in other cases it is conditioned by the system of the language (Adv + conj + N, V + link + Adv).

Morphological characteristics of the notional units can influence their syntactic valent properties or they can remain neutral with respect to these properties. For instance, the category of degrees of comparison of adverbs remains neutral with respect to valent properties of notional units in such models of combinability as Adv + Adv (well enough, better enough), Adj + Adv (good enough, better enough), V + Adv (move slowly, move more slowly), Adv + prp + N (early in February, earlier in February).

The meaning of models of combinability of English adverbs with other notional units is determined by semantic relations which occur in the process of their interaction.

In accord with their categorial meaning, adverbs are characterised by combinability with verbs, adjectives and words of adverbial nature. The functions of adverbs in these combinations consist in expressing different adverbial modifiers. Adverbs can also refer to whole situations; in this function they are considered under the heading of situation-"determinants" [13, 220]:

The woman was crying hysterically. (an adverbial modifier of manner, in left-hand contact combination with the verb-predicate)

Wilson looked at him appraisingly. (an adverbial modifier of manner, in left-hand distant combination with the verb-predicate)

Without undressing she sat down to the poems, nervously anxious to like them... (an adverbial modifier of property qualification, in right-hand combination with a post-positional stative attribute-adjective)

You've gotten awfully brave, awfully suddenly. (an adverbial modifier of intensity, in right-hand combination with an adverb-aspective determinant of the situation)

Then he stamps his boots again and advances into the room. (two adverbial determinants of the situation: the first -- of time, in right-hand combination with the modified predicative construction; the second -- of recurrence, in left-hand combination with the modified predicative construction) [13, 220]

Adverbs can also combine with nouns acquiring in such cases a very peculiar adverbial-attributive function, essentially in post-position, but in some cases also in pre-position:

The world today presents a picture radically different from what it was before the Second World War.

Our vigil overnight was rewarded by good news: the operation seemed to have succeeded.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, proclaimed the "New Deal" -- a new Government economic policy. [13, 220]

The use of adverbs in outwardly attributive positions in such and like examples appears to be in contradiction with the functional destination of the adverb -- a word that is intended to qualify a non-nounal syntactic element by definition.

However, this seeming inconsistence of the theoretical interpretation of adverbs with their actual uses can be clarified and resolved in the light of the syntactic principle of nominalisation elaborated within the framework of the theory of paradigmatic syntax [13, 221]. In accord with this principle, each predicative syntactic construction paradigmatically correlates with a noun-phrase displaying basically the same semantic relations between its notional constituents. A predicative construction can be actually changed into a noun-phrase, by which change the dynamic situation expressed by the predicative construction receives a static name. Now, adverbs-determinants modifying in constructions of this kind the situation as a whole, are preserved in the corresponding nominalised phrases without a change in their inherent functional status:

The world that exists today. > The world today.

We kept vigil overnight. > Our vigil overnight.

Then he was the President. > The then President.

These paradigmatic transformational correlations explain the type of connection between the noun and its adverbial attribute even in cases where direct transformational changes would not be quite consistent with the concrete contextual features of constructions [13, 221]. What is important here, is the fact that the adverb used to modify a noun actually relates to the whole corresponding situation underlying the noun phrase.

3.2 Semantic and syntactic properties of adverbs of degree

Expounded in this chapter is the class of adverbs of degree as one of the most numerous and syntagmatically active classes of adverbs.

In English there is a class of lexical elements known as adverbs of degree [13] or intensifiers [18]. They are so labeled because they are considered to operate on certain linguistic elements to magnify the degree of intensification or to amplify certain qualities.

There is a substantial discrepancy of opinion concerning the terminology related to adverbs of degree. It can be argued that intensifier is a subcategory of adverbs of degree, since some (most) adverbs of degree are not necessarily intensifying. Another view is that an intensifier is a different category altogether. In this paper neither of these distinctions will be made, but adverb of degree and intensifier will be used interchangeably. The main reason for this is that there seems to be no distinction between degree adverb and intensifying adverb in academic literature.

There has been considerable academic interest in such adverbs for many years. Stoffel discusses intensive adverbs, noting that those which etymologically express completeness have a tendency to weaken over time [33]. There is a high turnover of such words and this area of language changes relatively quickly.

Stoffel's terms, `intensives' and `downtoners', are adopted by Quirk in the seminal Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985) [29]. Intensification is a pervasive function in language [10]. Dwight Bolinger expands the discussion of intensifiers from the use of adverbs to qualify adjectives and adverbs, to these and other parts of speech modifying the strength of nouns and verbs as well such as the intensifying adjective qualifying the noun:

It was utter heaven [14, 151].

He notes that some syntactic forms also function as intensifiers:

He talked back to her and was she mad! [14, 151]

More recently, intensifiers have been the object of corpus research. Partington relates the delexicalisation of intensifiers to syntactic flexibility. In his view the lower the semantic content of an intensifier, the more restricted the syntactic environments in which it may occur. The more restricted the syntactic flexibility of an item, the more reduced is its semantic potential [27, 190].

That is, an intensifier like `extremely' today occurs almost exclusively in premodifying position, whereas in the past it was also comfortable in postmodifying position:

A sinecure which would fitt me extremely [27, 190].

Or it could occupy position before a prepositional phrase:

Two humours equall abounding together, extremely in superfluite [27, 190].

This in turn relates to the phenomenon of collocation. In fact, the more delexicalised an intensifier, the more widely it collocates: the greater the range and number of modifiers it combines with [27, 183]. In other words, the less meaning is contained within the intensifier itself, the more it will acquire from its surrounding co-text.

Thus, adverbs of degree (or intensifiers) are those adverbs which function to increase or tone down the strength of another word in the sentence, usually an adjective, verb or another adverb. Intensifiers are said to have three different functions: they can emphasize, amplify, or downtone [11].

Adverbs of degree exhibit a number of syntactic and semantic properties typical of an adverb. They are often used, for example, in a preverbal (including adjectival) position and form a syntactic sequence [20]:

Adverb of degree ??Adjective (Phrase) / Verb (Phrase)

e.g.: (1): Quitting my old job was an extremely difficult decision [40].

(2): He hardly noticed what she was saying [40].

(3): I am too tired to go out tonight [41].

(4): You absolutely have to confront this belief [41].

Examples (1)-(4) also represent some of the commonly recognized syntactic functions of adverbial elements, namely, as a modifier modifying a single verb or an adjective, or as an adverbial affecting the whole adjectival or verbal phrase. Thus, in example (1) extremely can be seen as modifying the adjective difficult, in (2) hardly modifies the verb notice, and in (3) and (4) adverbs of degree too and absolutely modify, respectively, verbal expressions.

Some intensifiers, however, occupy different position in the sentence. For instance, enough as an adverb meaning 'to the necessary degree', when it modifies an adjective or another adverb, is placed in post-position to them:

Is your coffee hot enough [38]? (adjective)

He didn't work hard enough [38]. (adverb)

It also goes before nouns, and means 'as much as is necessary'. In this case it is not an adverb, but a 'determiner':

We have enough bread [40].

They don't have enough food [40].

Adverbs of degree can also modify certain kinds of prepositional
phrases:

They lived nearly on the top of the hill [41].

I'm almost through with my work [41].

His remarks were not quite to the point [38].

There are a few intensifiers in English which can function as attributes modifying nouns:

He was fully master of the situation [38].

She was quite a child [41].

While the syntax and semantics of intensifiers are generally well understood, thanks to the work of descriptive grammarians, little has been done to investigate other patterns connected with intensifiers, notably, their freestanding use. The freestanding use here refers to a situation where adverb of degree is not followed by any adjectival or verbal predicate. This is illustrated by examples below:

(1) An interview between a reporter and a famous soprano:

Reporter: Was it a bit learning process doing that recording session with the playbacks?

Soprano: Oh, absolutely, also because it was one of my earliest recordings, and in fact in every recording, and in every performance, I learn something. [24]

(2) A dialogue between a parent and a child:

Parent: Have you finished your essay?

Child: Almost. I didn't have enough time for that. [24]

Quirk R. proposes a number of adverbial categories for English [29, 590, 613]. Relevant here are the categories of adjuncts and disjuncts, and the freestanding use of intensifiers presented in the above examples would be instances of disjuncts. The scholar mentions that unlike the intensifier adjuncts, which have a narrow orientation, disjuncts are more freestanding: they are syntactically more detached and have a scope that extends over the sentence as a whole [29, 613]. In fact Quirk R. notes that not only can disjuncts stand alone, but they also can be responses to questions or can be used as a comment on a previous utterance, usually accompanied by `yes' or `no' [29, 628]. Clearly the distinction made by Quirk between adjuncts and disjuncts is a useful one. Nevertheless a number of important properties concerning the freestanding disjuncts absolutely and almost have not been fully explored.

Firstly, the adverbial element absolutely is considered by Quirk R. as both an adjunct and a disjunct. The question is whether there is any connection between the adjunct, dependent use and the disjunct, freestanding use.

Secondly, the freestanding pattern, as exemplified above, is interesting not only in terms of the deviant syntactic behavior (a modifier without a head) from the point of view of a typical adverb, but also in terms of semantics and interactive pragmatics. From a semantic point of view, even without any adjectives or verbal elements (i.e., syntactic heads that are supposed to indicate the content of the semantic scale), absolutely alone can imply a positive answer or an affirmative action. Thus, in example (1) even though the interviewee does not state explicitly whether she agrees with the interviewer's assessment, the interviewer and the reader can infer unequivocally that she does.

Lastly, Quirk R. asserts that disjuncts are usually accompanied by `yes' or `no' [29, 628]. This statement leaves an impression that both affirmative and negative answering tokens are possible candidates with the disjuncts. However, there are preferred patterns in actual language use. It is necessary to look at actual language use and understand language structure, including modification structure, as a dynamic, unsettled phenomenon [14, 18]. The epistemic propensity of the lexical item and the context in which the modifier is used gives rise to the independent use.

3.3 The use of adverbs of degree with gradable and non-gradable adjectives

Most adjectives have a meaning which can be made stronger or weaker; these are called `gradable adjectives'. Here are some examples of adjectives used as gradable in their most common meanings [21, 134]:

Grading adverbs		Gradable adjectives
a bit, dreadfully, extremely, hugely, immensely, intensely, rather, reasonably, slightly, very	+	quiet, rich, strong, weak, young, angry, big, busy, clever, common, deep, fast, friendly, happy, important, low, popular

She was extremely rich [38].

The people there are reasonably friendly [41].

Other adjectives have a meaning which is extreme or absolute and cannot easily be made stronger or weaker. These are called `non-gradable adjectives'. With non-gradable adjectives can be used adverbs which emphasize their extreme or absolute nature, such as absolutely, completely etc. Many classifying adjectives which are used to say that something is of particular type (medical, environmental, chemical; annual, general, northern, etc.) are usually non-gradable. Here are some examples of adjectives used as non-gradable in their most common meanings [21, 134]:

Non-grading adverbs		Non-gradable adjectives
Absolutely, completely, entirely, perfectly, practically, simply, totally, utterly, virtually; almost, exclusively, fully, largely, mainly, nearly, primarily	+	Awful, excellent, huge, impossible, superb, terrible, unique, unknown, whole, domestic, environmental

She gave us a completely impossible problem to solve [38].

It was absolutely superb [38].

Gradable adjectives are sometimes used with non-grading adverbs such as absolutely and totally, and non-gradable adjectives are sometimes used with grading adverbs such as extremely, rather and very, particularly to add special emphasis or humorous effect:

What you're asking isn't just difficult - it's extremely impossible [21, 134]! (grading adverb + non-gradable adjective)

You've won a hundred pounds? Wow, you're virtually rich [21, 134]! (non-grading adverb + gradable adjective)

The adverbs fairly

(= to quite a large degree, but usually less then `very'), really (= `very (much)') and pretty (= similar to `fairly'; used in informal contexts) are commonly used with both gradable and non-gradable adjectives [21, 134]:

She is fairly popular at school.

I'm really busy at the moment.

It's a pretty important exam.

It was a fairly awful film.

The flooding was really terrible.

The bill was pretty huge.

However, fairly (or very) is not generally used with gradable adjectives such as essential, invaluable, perfect, superb, tremendous and wonderful which indicate that something is very good or necessary:

Some experience is really/pretty essential for the job [38].

The weather that day was really/pretty perfect [38].

Some adjectives have both gradable and non-gradable senses. Such group of adjectives includes [21, 136]:

1. Adjectives which have different senses when they are gradable and non-gradable (civil, clean, common, electric, empty, false, late, odd, old, original, particular, straight):

Smith is very common nam. (=frequently found; gradable)

We have a lot of common interests. (=shared; non-gradable)

The house is very old. (= existed many years; gradable)

I met my old politics professor the other day. (= former; non-gradable)

Sue's shoes are very clean. (= not dirty; gradable)

He left the town because he wanted to make a clean break with the past. (= starting again in different circumstances; non-gradable) [21, 136]

2. Adjectives which have similar meanings when they are gradable and non-gradable. However, when they are gradable they show the quality that a person or thing has (i. e. they are qualitative adjectives and therefore can be used with an adverb), and when they are non-gradable they indicate the category or type they belong to (i. e. they are classifying adjectives) (academic, adult, average, diplomatic, foreign, genuine, guilty, human, individual, innocent, mobile, private, professional, public, scientific, technical, true, wild):

I don't know where he came from, but he sounded slightly foreign. (= not from this country; gradable)

She is now advising on the government's foreign policy. (= concerning other countries; non-gradable)

They had a very public argument. (= seen/heard by a lot of people; gradable)

He was forced to resign by public pressure. (= from many people in the community; non-gradable) [21, 136]

3. Non-gradable nationality adjectives indicate that a person or thing comes from a particular country. Gradable nationality adjectives show that they have supposed characteristics of that country:

There's a shop around the corner that sells Italian bread [40].

Giovanni has lived in Britain for 20 years, but he's still very Italian [40].

3.4 Semantic preferences of amplifiers

A crucial factor in explaining the independent use of intensifiers is the collocation patterns of the dependent use. Different lexical items can have diverse collocation patterns. This diversity is realized at at least two levels:

1) the preference for different word forms. According to Kennedy G. 76-78 percent of the adjectives co-occurring with the adverb completely have an -ed suffix [24, 155];

2) the preference for different semantic association patterns, commonly known as semantic prosodies and semantic preferences [31; 25; 31].

This subchapter mainly is concerned with the notion of semantic preference.

According to Stubbs, semantic preference deals with the relation between a lemma or word-form and a set of semantically related words [34, 65]. With regard to the semantic preference of amplifiers, researchers who have looked at various types of British English data seem to be, in spirit, in agreement with Quirk R. that amplifiers can equally co-occur with both affirmative and negative terms [29]. Partington offers the following observation: a subset of amplifying intensifiers includes absolutely, perfectly, entirely, completely, thoroughly, totally and utterly. The first of these, absolutely, displays a distinct semantic preference in collocating with items which have a strong or superlative sense: among its significant collocates (i.e. those which co-occur with the keyword three times or more) in the Cobuild corpus were: delighted, enchanting, splendid, preposterous, appalling, intolerable. There appears to be an even balance between favourable and unfavourable items [27, 146]. This preference is well documented in modern corpus-based dictionaries: absolutely can be used to add force to a strong adjective [40].

It leads the author to conclude that absolutely has no strong preferences with regard to favorable or unfavorable semantic meanings in its collocates, and the only significant semantic pattern is that absolutely prefers superlative and hyperbolic expressions. Similarly, it is believed that absolutely tends to be associated with adjectives that are used hyperbolically (e.g., fabulous, marvelous, fantastic, brilliant, filthy, freezing); the adjectives have both positive (wonderful) and negative (disgusting) associations [24, 112]. However, even though it is true that both positive and negative associations are possible, positive cases outnumber negative ones by a large margin (Table 4).

Table 4: Semantic preference patterns of amplifiers in their dependent usage

Amplifier	Positive	Neutral	Negative	Total
absolutely	93	53	43	189
completely	127	112	244	483
deeply	31	53	91	175
entirely	76	48	71	195
extremely	268	156	262	686
perfectly	120	47	0	167
totally	87	61	187	335
utterly	26	14	92	132
very	326	259	302	887

Table 4 provides a tabular illustration of comparative ratios of semantic preferences of amplifiers in modern English dictionaries [37; 39; 42].

An element can be semantically positive, including affirmative, negative, or neutral. The semantic properties of the element following an amplifier are determined primarily locally, that is, by looking at the semantics of the collocate alone. Positive expressions in this paper include both favorable terms such as good, perfect, and beautiful, and affirmative terms such as right and correct (even when they are used to confirm a negative statement). Negative expressions are naturally the opposite of favorable and affirmative expressions, including such terms as ridiculous, horrible, and wrong. The terms without a clear positive or negative connotation are deemed neutral.

Sentences below exemplify positive semantic associations:

There are times when the calculator is an absolutely indispensable tool [39].

You know perfectly well what I mean [37].

I entirely agree with you [37].

It's a totally awesome experience [42].

Lexical items such as indispensable, well, agree, and awesome convey a clear positive meaning.

Here are some examples which present cases of neutral terms - that is, neither positive, nor negative, as indicated the use of divided, different, identical and female respectively:

Opinion is deeply divided on this issue [42].

We are so utterly different from each other [42].

How do you tell them apart? They look absolutely identical [39].

The audience was almost entirely female [39].

Finally, negative cases (e.g., fail, disturbed, abhorrent, unacceptable, and destroy) are captured in the examples below:

She utterly failed to convince them [37].

They were deeply disturbed by the accident [37].

I find the idea absolutely abhorrent [39].

This behaviour is totally unacceptable [42].

The explosion completely destroyed the building [39].

The most ambiguous cases involve instances where amplifiers collocate with a negator (no, not) or a negative suffix (im-, un-, in-, etc.) These cases should be analyzed in the larger environment to determine whether the overall meaning is negative or positive. In the following cases a combination of amplifiers with unbelievable and nothing would be treated as positive and neutral respectively:

That's on DVD compared to a VHS. It's completely unbelievable [39].

She looks absolutely nothing like you [37].

On the other hand, when there is a syntactic negation modifying a positive adverb ??adjective sequence, that sequence may be considered, following the local principle?mentioned earlier, positive if the adjective is positive:

I am not entirely happy about the proposal [39].

In this case, the adjective happy is positive [42].

Overall, as the data in table 4 show, some amplifiers tend to collocate with positive meanings, whereas others have negative semantic preferences. More positive association patterns are found in the collocates of absolutely. The number of positive cases more than doubles that of negative cases. When positive and neutral cases are combined, negative cases become a decided minority. What especially reveals positive association is the case of perfectly. It exhibits a strong positive semantic preference, with frequent collocates being good, well, legitimate. There is a preferred correlation between totally, completely, utterly, deeply and semantically negative collocates. However, some amplifiers have almost equal number of semantically positive and negative collocates (entirely, very).

Conclusion

The categorical meaning of the adverb is secondary property which implies qualitative, quantitative, or circumstantial characteristics of actions, states or qualities. In accordance with their categorial meaning, adverbs are characterised by combinability with verbs, adjectives and words of adverbial nature. The functions of adverbs in these combinations consist in expressing different adverbial modifiers. Adverbs can also refer to whole situations.

The only pattern of morphological change for adverbs is the same as for adjectives, the degrees of comparison. With regard to the category of the degrees of comparison adverbs (like adjectives) fall into comparables and non-comparables. The number of non-comparables is much greater among adverbs than among adjectives. Only adverbs of manner and certain adverbs of time and place can form degrees of comparison.

In accord with their word-building structure adverbs may be simple, derived, compound and composite. Simple adverbs are rather few, and nearly all of them display functional semantics, mostly of pronominal character. The typical adverbial affixes in affixal derivation are, first and foremost, the basic and only productive adverbial suffix -ly and then a couple of others of limited distribution.

Adverbs may perform different functions, modifying different types of words, phrases, sentences. Adverbs may function as adverbial modifiers of manner, place, time, degree to a finite or non-finite form of the verb.

Falling back on the compiled list of relevant lexical units drawn from the currently existing dictionaries and miscellaneous theoretical sources, the paper offers a semantic classification of adverbs into 10 classes and lexico-grammatical classification into 3 classes.

Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial. Qualitative adverbs express immediate, inherently non-graded qualities of actions and other qualities. The adverbs considered as quantitative include words of degree. These are specific lexical units of semi-functional nature expressing quality measure, or gradational evaluation of qualities. The functional circumstantial adverbs are of pronominal nature.

According to their meaning, adverbs fall into the following classes: adverbs of time, adverbs of frequency, adverbs of place and direction, adverbs of manner, adverbs of degree or intensifiers, attitudinal adverbs, viewpoint adverbs, and conjunctive adverbs.

The results of research reveal that English adverbs realize their syntactic valent properties in 7 models of contact combinability and in 7 models of distant combinability. The nature of restrictions on combinability of adverbs in 14 models of distant combinability in some cases is conditioned by relations of objects and phenomena of extralinguistic reality, in other cases it is conditioned by the system of the language, namely, by the distribution of adverbs which either favours or impedes the realization of their valent properties [12]. Morphological characteristics of adverbs and their collocates are either conducive or non-conducive or neutral to the adverb realizing its syntactic valency. Thus, adverbs of manner saying how an action is performed can freely occur with dynamic verbs, but not with stative verbs.

The meaning of models of combinability of English adverbs with other notional units is determined by semantic relations which occur in the process of their interaction.

One of the most syntagmatically active groups of adverbs is the adverbs of degree or intensifiers. The analysis leads to conclude that the more delexicalised an intensifier, the more widely it collocates: the greater the range and number of modifiers it combines with. In other words, the less meaning is contained within the intensifier itself, the more it will acquire from its surrounding co-text. Some degree adverbs tend to be distinguished in terms of positive, neutral or negative attitude.

Резюме

Дипломна робота присвячена дослідженню синтагматичних та парадигматичних особливостей прислівників у сучасній англійській мові.

У роботі розглянуто питання функціональних особливостей прислівників: від з'ясування насамперед валентних функцій до дослідження їхнього семантичного простору. Проте суто одноплановий, синтагматичний підхід до сутності й функціонування прислівників без аналізу їхнього парадигматичного статусу не дає можливості виявити усі закономірності їхнього функціонування. Тому дане дослідження включає також і аналіз парадигматики англійських прислівників. Це дає можливість пояснити не лише вживання прислівників у контексті, але й іманентну семантичну ознаку прислівника як елемента лексико-семантичної системи. У роботі проаналізовано дериваційний статус та дериваційні тенденції прислівників.

Для вирішення поставлених завдань використовувались такі методи:

- дистрибутивний і валентний аналіз;

- структурно-семантичний аналіз;

- елементи кількісного аналізу.

Основну увагу дослідження зосереджено на прислівниках ступеня, оскільки цьому виду прислівників характерна найбільш висока синтагматична активність. Деякі прислівники ступеня розглядаються з точки зору позитивних або негативних семантичних преференцій. Дана робота містить аналіз семантичних преференцій прислівників ступеня на матеріалі словосполучень, що були вилучені методом суцільної вибірки з трьох сучасних англійських словників сполучуваності.

List of References

1. Аракин В.Д. О лексической сочетаемости // К проблеме лексической сочетаемости. Сб. науч. тр. - М., 1972. - С. 5-12.

2. Гарипова Н.Д. Смысловая структура отадьективных наречий в ее отношении к смысловой структуре базовых прилагательных // Исследования по семантике. - Уфа, 1975. - С. 18-30.

3. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В. В., Почепцов Г. Г., Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. - М., 1981.

4. Кацнелсон С.Д. К понятию типов валентности // Вопросы языкознания. - 1987. - №3. - С. 20-32.

5. Кубрякова Е.С. Ассиметрия смысловых структур и отграничение словообразования от других типов морфологической деривации // Русский язык: вопросы его истории и современного состояния. М.: Наука, 1978. С. 18-30.

6. Кубрякова Е.С. О формообразовании, словоизменении, словообразовании и их соотношении // Изв. АН СССР, ОЛЯ, 1976. т. 35, вып. 6. - С. 514-526.

7. Кузнєцова Ф.М. Семантико-синтаксическая характеристика -ly в новом английском языке (adverbs of respect). - М., 1981.

8. Романова Т.А. Лексическая сочетаемость наречий с глаголами в современном английском языке: Автореф. дис. …канд. филол. наук. - Одесса, 1990.

9. Смирницкий А.И. Морфология английского языка. - М., 1959.

10. Туранский И.И. Семантическая категория интенсивности в английском языке. - М., 1990.

11. Удовиченко І.В. Експресивна функція адвербіальних інтенсифікаторів дії // Іноземні мови та методика їх викладання. - Харків, 2001. - с. 117-118.

12. Фролов А.С. Значение наречий и реализация их валентных свойств (на материале английского языка) // Лексическая семантика и фразеология. Сб. науч. тр. - Л., 1987. - С. 145-150.

13. Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. - Moskow, 1983.

14. Bolinger D.L.M. Degree words. - The Hague - Paris, 1972.

15. Bybee J. Morphology. - Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985.

16. Collins COBUILD English Grammar. - London, 1992.

17. Fedorenko O.I., Sukhorolska S. M. English Grammar. Theory. - Lviv, 2008.

18. Gordon E.M., Krylova I.P. A Grammar of Present-Day English (Parts of Speech). - Moscow, 1980.

19. Greenbaum S. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. - London, 1989.

20. Greenbaum S. Verb-Intensifier Collocations in English. - The Hague - Paris, 1970.

21. Hewings M. Advanced Grammar in Use. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

22. Ilyish B. The Structure of Modern English. - Moscow, 1965.

23. Kellner L. Historical outlines of English Syntax, 1999.

24. Kennedy G. Absolutely Diabolical or Relatively Straightforward? Modification of adjectives by Degree Adverbs in the British National Corpus // Text Types and Corpora: Studies in Honor of Udo Fries. - Tьbingen, 2002. - P. 63-151.

25. Kobrina N.A. Korneyeva E. A., Ossovskaya M. I., Guzeyeva K. An English Grammar. Morphology. - Moscow, 1985.

26. Morokhovska E.J. Fundamentals of Theoretical English Grammar. - Kyiv, 1993.

27. Partington A. Patterns and Meanings. - Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998.

28. Partington A. “Utterly Content in Each other's Company”: Semantic Prosody and Semantic Preference // International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1), 2004. - P. 56-131.

29. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. - London: Longman, 1985.

30. Rayevska N.M. Modern English Grammar. - Kyiv, 1976.

31. Sinclair J.M. Collocation // Language Topics / eds. R. Steele and T. Threadgold. - Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1988. - P. 321-334.

32. Solntsev V.M. Language: a System and a Structure. - Moscow: Nauka Publishing House, 1983.

33. Stoffel C. Intensives and Down-toners: A Study in English Adverbs. - Heidelberg: Carl Winter's Universitдtsbuchhandlung, 1901.

34. Stubbs M. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies in Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.

35. Sweet H. A Short Historical English Grammar. - Oxford University Press, 1892.

36. Thomson A.J., Martinet A.V. A Practical English Grammar. - Oxford University Press, 1986.

37. Benson M., Benson E., Ilson R. The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English. - Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990. (CDE)

38. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. - London: Harper Collins, 1987.

39. Collins Cobuild English Words in Use - A Dictionary of Collocations. - London: Harper Collins, 1991.

40. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. - Pearson Education Limited, 2003.

41. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary / Ed. by S. Wehmeier. - Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

42. Oxford Collocations Dictionary for students of English / Ed. by Colin McIntosh. - Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Appendix

1. Adjectives used with absolutely:

abhorrent, absurd, amazed, amazing, appalling, astonished, astonishing, awful, beautiful, binding, bonkers, bound, breathtaking, brilliant, catastrophic, central, certain, charming, clear, committed, conclusive, confident, confidential, consistent, constant, convinced, correct, covered, crazy, critical, crucial, dedicated, delicious, delighted, delightful, dependent, desperate, despicable, determined, devoted, disastrous, disgraceful, disgusted, disgusting, distraught, dreadful, ecstatic, elated, equal, essential, even, excellent, exhausted, explicit, extraordinary, fair, faithful, false, fantastic, fascinating, fatal, fearless, fed up, filthy, fine, flat, foolproof, frank, frantic, free, freezing, full, fundamental, furious, genuine, gorgeous, great, harmless, helpless, honest, hopeless, horrible, horrific, huge, hysterical, ideal, identical, immaculate, imperative, impossible, incapable, incorrect, incredible, indispensable, insane, inseparable, intolerable, invaluable, lethal, level, logical, lovely, loyal, ludicrous, mad, magical, magnificent, marvellous, meaningless, miserable, motionless, necessary, opposed, outrageous, outstanding, perfect, phenomenal, plain, pointless, positive, precise, quiet, reliable, remarkable, ridiculous, right, rigid, sacred, safe, secure, senseless, serious, shattered, shocked, shocking, sick, silent, sincere, soaked, solid, spectacular, splendid, square, staggered, staggering, steady, still, straight, stunned, stunning, stupid, superb, sure, terrible, terrified, thrilled, true, truthful, typical, unacceptable, unavoidable, unbearable, unbelievable, unforgettable, unheard-of, united, unthinkable, useless, valid, vital, wild, wonderful, worthless, wrong.

Verbs used with absolutely:

adore, agree, despise, dominate, dread, forbid, guarantee, hate, insist, love, overwhelm, refuse, require, seethe.

2. Adjectives used with completely:

absent, absorbed, absurd, acceptable, accidental, accurate, alien, alone, amazed, anonymous, arbitrary, artificial, automatic, autonomous, avoidable, baffled, balanced, bald, bare, barren, believable, bewildered, bewildering, black, blameless, blank, blind, bogus, bonkers, boring, broke, calm, clean, clear, closed, coincidental, comfortable, committed, confident, confidential, confused, conscious, consistent, contradictory, contrary, convinced, convincing, cool, correct, covered, crazy, credible, cynical, daft, dark, deaf, decayed, defenceless, dejected, dependent, deranged, deserted, detached, devoid, devoted, different, disastrous, disillusioned, dismissive, disorganized, disproportionate, dissimilar, distinct, distraught, dominant, drunk, dry, effective, empty, engrossed, erect, erratic, estranged, even, evil, exempt, exhausted, exposed, extinct, fair, faithful, false, familiar, fearless, fed up, fictional, fictitious, fine, flat, flexible, foolish, foreign, free, fruitless, frustrated, full, futile, genuine, grey, groundless, happy, harmless, healthy, helpless, honest, honourable, hooked, hopeless, hysterical, identical, ignorant, illegitimate, illiterate, illogical, imaginary, immaterial, immobile, immoral, immune, impartial, impassable, impassive, impervious, impossible, impotent, impracticable, impractical, inaccessible, inaccurate, inactive, inadequate, inappropriate, incapable, incompatible, incompetent, incomprehensible, incongruous, incorrect, independent, indifferent, ineffective, inept, inert, inexplicable, inflexible, innocent, insane, insensitive, inseparable, insignificant, insulated, intact, invisible, irrational, irrelevant, irresponsible, isolated, justifiable, justified, lacking, lame, legal, legitimate, level, lifeless, limp, logical, lost, loyal, ludicrous, mad, miserable, misleading, missing, mistaken, motionless, mystified, naked, natural, negative, neutral, new, non-existent, normal, novel, nude, objective, oblivious, obscure, obsolete, obvious, one-sided, opaque, open, opposed, organic, original, outrageous, overcast, overgrown, overwhelming, painless, passive, perfect, perplexed, plain, pointless, powerless, predictable, preoccupied, puzzled, quiet, random, rational, ready, recognizable, recyclable, red, redundant, relaxed, reliable, reliant, relieved, repulsive, resistant, responsible, reversible, ridiculous, rigid, safe, sane, satisfactory, satisfied, satisfying, secluded, secular, secure, self-contained, self-sufficient, selfish, senseless, separable, separate, serious, shattered, shocked, silent, sincere, slack, smooth, soaked, sober, solid, soluble, speechless, stable, static, sterile, still, straight, stressed, stuck, stunned, stupid, subjective, submerged, subordinate, superfluous, sure, surprised, terrified, transparent, trivial, true, truthful, unable, unacceptable, unaffected, unaware, unbalanced, unbearable, unbelievable, unchanged, uncharacteristic, unconcerned, unconscious, uncontrollable, understandable, undressed, unexpected, unfamiliar, unfashionable, unfit, unfounded, unheard-of, uninhabitable, uninhibited, unintelligible, uninterested, unique, unknown, unmoved, unnecessary, unnoticed, unprovoked, unreal, unreasonable, unscathed, unscrupulous, unsuitable, unsure, unthinkable, unused to, unwarranted, up to date, upright, useless, valid, valueless, visible, voluntary, vulnerable, worthless, wrong.