THE SEMANTIC VARIABILITY OF PRESENT-PARTICIPIAL FREE ADJUNCTS

KATSUKO TOMOTSUGU

1. Introduction

A free adjunct is Ha nonfinite predicative phrase with the function of an

adverbial subordinate clause.") It is signaled by an intonational break in

speaking or by commas in writing. It has a verbal or a non-verbal head: a

verbal head can be a present participle, past participle, or infinitive, and a

non-verbal head can be a noun phrase, prepositional phrase, adjective

(phrase), or adverb (phrase). The adjunct construction poses an interpreta­

tion problem, i.e. the identification of the semantic relations between an

adjunct and its matrix clause. The aim of this paper is to elucidate a

mechanism of interpretation involved in the present-participial adjunct

construction.

The interpretation problem is attributed to the fact that the semantic

relations between the adjunct and the matrix clause are not determined in

form, i.e. adjuncts lack such subordinating conjunctions as when, because, if,

though, etc. Also, in adjuncts neither the tense nor the subject is marked.

Thus, two events are represented in a sentence without specifying their

semantic relations.

(1) Crossing the street, John was hit by a car.

Because of the indeterminacy in form, context plays an important role in

interpretation. This does not mean, however, that no systematic explanation

is possible in the adjunct construction. Stump demonstrates that both

[143)

144

semantic and pragmatic factors determine the role of free adjuncts. 2 His

semantic factors are modal verbs, relative frequency adverbs, and generaliza­

tion. His pragmatic factors are inferences by language users based on

linguistic forms and world knowledge. The roles of adjuncts range from a

temporal setting to a logical relation and to a speaker's attitude. Sweetser

offers a new approach to lexical polysemy and pragmatic ambiguity, showing

that the same linguistic form can be applied to a different domain. 3 Her

analyses of conjunctions and conditionals are applied to multiple uses of free

adjuncts that have been distinguished intuitively.

The next section summarizes the characteristics of the present-participial

adjunct construction. Section 3 deals with the relations of modal verbs in

matrix clauses to the adjunct interpretation based on Stump's work. In

section 4, factors that motivate logical relations rather than temporal

relations, and the three domains concerned with the adjunct interpretation

are discussed. Predicate types of adjuncts, and modification of speaker's

reasoning or speech act figure in the interpretation processes. Adjuncts with

overt subjects, called absolutes, such as Other things being equal, the difference

in cost was decisive, and adjuncts with subordinating conjunctions, such as

While crossing the street, John was hit by a car, are beyond the scope of the

paper.

2. The present-participial free adjunct construction

The adjunct denotes an event, and the semantic relations expressed by

present-participial adjuncts are time, cause or reason, condition, concession,

accompanying circumstances, and manner.

(2) Writing the final term paper, John gave a large sigh of relief. (3) Knowing the importance of his words, the witness kept silence.

The adjunct in (2) serves as temporal overlap (when he wrote) or cause

145

(because he wrote), whereas the adjunct in (3) serves as cause (because he

knew) or concession (although he knew). From the fact that adjuncts are

paraphrasable, traditional studies proposed reduction operations for free

adjuncts from their full adverbial clauses. Adjuncts expressing temporal

relations, cause, condition, and concession can be restated using subor­

dinating conjunctions. However, not all adjuncts are paraphrased by means

of adverbial clauses:

(4) Some of the apartments are of the terrace type, being on the ground floor so that entrance is direct.

(5) The siren sounded, indicating that a fire had broken out. (6) Bursting the paper cartridges, he scattered powder over the floor. (7) Tossing a ball and catching it, John talked to his mother.

Adjuncts expressing specification, explanation, and manner have no counter­

part adverbial clauses. Matrix clauses and adjuncts in (4)-(6) refer to one and

the same event or state, so that their relations are not expressed by

conjunctions connecting two events. The adjunct of accompanying circum­

stance in (7) shares the time and place with the matrix event and is asserted

simultaneously, rejecting a paraphrase by an adverbial clause.

The present participle -ing form does not necessarily denote the progres­

sive. The difference between the finite form and the progressive is

neutralized in adjuncts: crossing the street represents the clause when he crossed

the street or while he was crossing the street. Stative verbs that do not take the

progressive show the form in adjuncts such as knowing in (3). The sentence

He was knowing the importance of his words is not possible. The progressive

itself does not appear in adjuncts: • Being crossing the street, John was hit by a

car. The present participle does not refer to a specific temporal point to

which the matrix event is connected; its function is a linkage of the adjunct

predicate to the matrix predicate. Since the temporal relations are not

146

determined 1ll the form, predicate types assist In the interpretation.

The perfect participle appears in adjuncts denoting anterior events.

Anteriority allows causal interpretation because being anterior is the

prerequisite of a cause.

(8) Having failed the exam twice, he didn't want to try agalll.

The perfect-participial adjunct expresses an event that is true in the interval

whose upper boundary is the time of the matrix event. The time span between

the adjunct event and the matrix event is not restricted. The adjunct event

can be a day or even several years before the matrix event. Time adverbs that

co-occur with the past tense can be used in the perfect-participial adjunct.

(9) Having been on the bus yesterday, he knows about the accident.

The perfect participle neutralizes the distinction between the preterit and the

perfect. As for the tense and aspect of the adjunct construction, tense is

determined by the matrix clause or a time adverb, and aspect is not restricted

to the progressive.

Word order in the adjunct construction often reflects the iconic order of

event. Adjuncts of condition and earlier time tend to precede their matrix

clauses, and adjuncts of subsequent time, accompanying circumstances,

specification, and result tend to occur in final position. Based on a corpus

study, Kortmann has found that a high percentage of those present-participial

free adjuncts/absolutes expressing temporal succession obey the iconicity

constraint: more than 80% of those expressing anteriority and about 98% of

those expressing posteriority.4

3. Adjuncts in the modal environment

Lack of conjunctions to specify the relations between events induces

various interpretations. In his formal account of the semantic variability of

147

the adjunct construction, Stump concludes that semantic and pragmatic

factors work jointly to determine the interpretation. Stump rejects the

syntactic derivation of adjuncts from corresponding adverbial clauses and

also the exclusive context dependency that rules out any formal explanation.

He demonstrates that predicate types in adjuncts determine the semantic

relation (logical role) when the matrix clause has a modal verb.5

(lO) a Wearing that new outfit, Bill would fool everyone. b. Standing on a chair, John can touch the ceiling.

(ll) a Weighing only a few tons, the truck might reach the top of that hill.

b. Having unusually long arms, John can touch the ceiling.

The matrix clauses have modal verbs of would, can, and might. The adjuncts

in (10) serve as conditional: if he wore that new outfit and if he stands on a chair.

The adjuncts in (11) serve as causal: because it weighs only a few tons and

because he has unusually long arms. For (10) the actual truth of the adjuncts is

not entailed; for (11) the actual truth of the adjuncts is entailed. The adjuncts

in (10) are termed weak adjuncts, whose actual truth can fail to be entailed,

and the adjuncts in (11) are termed strong adjuncts, whose actual truth is

entailed. The weak and strong adjunct distinction coincides with the

distinction between stage-level and individual-level predicates developed

by Carlson.6 Stage-level predicates include all dynamic predicates and some

stative predicates such as drunk, asleep, and available, denoting properties of

spatio-temporal manifestation of individuals. Individual-level predicates

denote inherent, essential sorts of properties. To explain the conditional

interpretation of weak adjuncts in the environment of modal verbs, Stump

assumes that modals are binary operators which specify logical relations

between two arguments, and weak adjuncts occupy the first argument. The

rough translation for (lOa) can be shown as follows:

148

would' CBill-wears-that-new-outfit') CBill-fools-everyone').7

Weak adjuncts condition the interpretation of the modal would to give the

same function as an if-clause, and their truth is not entailed. On the contrary,

strong adjuncts are outside the scope of modals and function as main tense

adverbs. The translation of (lIb) can be shown roughly as,

LC J ohn-has-unusually-Iong-arms ') C J ohn-can-touch-the-ceiling'),

where L denotes a logical relation.

The role of weak adjuncts is directly determined by the semantics of

modals. Stump analyzes four modal verbs must, can, would, and might with a

notice that other modal verbs can be dealt with as well. Of the four modal

verbs the positive can has no epistemic sense. The examples Stump gives for

would and might reveal the epistemic sense. Must has some peculiar features

and its peculiarity is reflected in the adjunct interpretation. Although

referring to the content of each modal verb is beyond the scope of his

research, the following discussion about must and can will elaborate on

Stump's view that modal semantics affects the role of weak adjuncts.

Must expresses present modality both in root and epistemic senses. An

obligation is present at the time of speech. Shalllwill have to replaces must to

refer to an obligation which does not exist at the time of speech but may arise

in the future, often dependent on the future fulfilment of a condition, e.g. If

you forget to take your passport, you 7l have tol *must come back for it.s Epistemic

must implies that the speaker has confidence in the truth of his utterance so

that it is not normally used when the logical conclusion concerns a future

situation, e.g. The parcel shouldl?must reach her tomorrow.9 The events on the

basis of which obligation or logical necessity is presented are actual. The

truth of the adjunct is entailed when its matrix clause has the modal must.

Therefore, even the weak adjunct receives a causal interpretation.

149

(12) Boiling the pot over, the woman must clean the stove.

The adjunct in (12) expresses the cause because she boiled the pot over, and not

the condition if she boils the pot over.

Another example in which modal verbs influence the adjunct interpreta­

tion is the sentence:

; (13) Standing on the chair, John can see the performance.

In the case of can referring to possibility, the truth of adjunct is not entailed:

if he stands on the chair. On the other hand, as a sub-group of can of ability, can

occurs with verbs of perception (see, hear, feel, etc.) only for the purpose of

stating the present aspect, because the progressive form of those verbs is not

acceptable: * he is seeing. 10 When can refers to the present state, the truth of the

adjunct is entailed. In that case, (13) entails that John is standing on the

chair.

Stump has found two other environments where the weak/strong adjunct

distinction is effective: matrix clauses with adverbs of relative frequency

such as sometimes, always, and generic or habitual sentencesY

(14) a Weighing four tons, our truck often makes the bridge shake. b. Being a businessman, John carries a briefcase.

(15) a Carrying a load of over 1500 Ibs., our truck often makes the bridge shake.

b. Riding the commuter train, John carries a briefcase.

Again the actual truth of the adjuncts in (14) is entailed with a causal

interpretation. The function of the weak adjuncts in (15) is to specify the

time intervals in which the proposition expressed by the matrix clause is

true. Frequency adverbs and the generalization operator coined by Stump for

generic or habitual sentences, denote two-term relations, the first argument

of which is occupied by the weak adjunct.

150

Stump shows three linguistic environments, I.e. modal verbs, relative

frequency adverbs, and generic or habitual sentences, where the adjunct

interpretation is explained formally. Semantic relations between adjuncts

and matrix clauses without modals, frequency adverbs, and generalization

are indeterminate and left to the inferences of language users. Factors that

constitute the language users' inferences are stage-levellindividual-level

predicate types, duration of events, iconic word order, world knowledge, and

the presence of such connective adverbs as meanwhile, thus, nevertheless, etc.

According to Stump, linguistic information or language users' inferences, or

a combination of the two, accounts for the adjunct interpretation. For him

both semantics and pragmatics are involved in the study. In the next section,

what Stump calls inferences of language users (henceforth, speakers) will be

discussed from a different approach.

4. Inferences of speakers in the adjunct construction

The semantic variability of a single construction involves two divergent

ways of explanation: one is to find linguistic information that corresponds to

a rigidly defined function, and the other is to characterize the speaker's

inferences that cause multiple form-to-function mappings. This section takes

the latter way of explanation and shows how diverse meanings are structured

around the speaker's conception. Two kinds of processing are proposed for

the approach: a choice between temporal and non-temporal relations, and the

speaker's involvement in· the matrix proposition which is realized as

application to different domains.

Two events are placed side by side in the adjunct construction with the

adjunct verbs being nonfinite. Temporal relations are fixed when the matrix

event is connected to a time interval in the adjunct. Dynamic predicates are

schematized as time intervals with the end points at the beginning and at the

end. The time interval in the adjunct to which the matrix event is connected

IS not determinate:

(l6) a Crossing the street, John was hit by a car. b. Crossing the street, John entered the bank.

151

The matrix event refers to a middle interval of the adjunct in (16a) and the

final interval of the adjunct in (16b). Duration of events, presence of

endpoints, and our knowledge on the plausibility of action determine the

temporal overlap or temporal succession in the adjunct construction.

When an adjunct fails to be related temporally to the matrix clause,

non-temporal relations are induced. Such cases are found in the adjuncts of

negation, and in the adjuncts with stative predicates that are not bounded

temporally. In both cases, it is hard to identify a time interval to connect

another event, and the adjuncts are interpreted causally.

(17) a Having crossed the border, John waited for the coming of the night.

b. Not having crossed the border, John waited for the coming of the night.

The adjunct in (17 a) is temporal and the adjunct in (17b) IS causal.

(18) a Being a drunk, he fell down the stairs. b. Being drunk, he fell down the stairs.

The sentence (18a) is odd, because the time he fell down the stairs is not

identified with a specific time interval of his drunkeness. 12 In contrast to the

adjunct in (18b) that is temporally bounded, the adjunct in (I8a) does not

serve to restrict the time of the matrix event but serves a reason for it.

The roles of present-participial adjunct range from temporal relations to

speech-act qualifiers such as putting it mildly,frankly speaking (style disjuncts)

or to viewpoint references such as looking at it objectively (viewpoint

subjuncts)Y For differences of usage found in perception verbs, modality,

152

conjunction, and conditionals, Sweetser observes the same conceptual

structure underlying these distinct semantic areas. She proposes three

domains: content domain for the real-world events and entities, epistemic

domain for the speaker's reasoning processes, and speech-act domain for

conversational interaction. For the ambiguity of modals between root and

epistemic senses, she posits the same image-schematic structure for content

and epistemic domains. For example, may is viewed as a potential barrier

which is not actually barring some potential path. This concept applies to

the content domain yielding permission and the epistemic domain yielding

possibility, i.e. there is no barrier to the speaker's reasoning process reaching

a conclusion. Sweets er attributes multiple possibilities for interpreting

conjoined or conditional sentences to pragmatic ambiguity among domains.

Her example shows the same expression can be interpreted differently

depending on a domain:

(l9) She went, because she left her book 1ll the mOVIe theater last night. 14

The because-clause gives a reason for the departure in the content domain,

implying intention to recover the lost book, or a premise for a logical

conclusion in the epistemic domain: I know she went, because I discovered

that she left her book in the movie theater.

The free adjunct construction shares the interpretation with conjunctions

and conditionals. Three domains can be assumed for the adjunct interpreta­

tion. In the epistemic domain, the speaker's knowledge state is conjoined to

his/her conclusion.

(20) a Wearing swimming trunks, you aren't going to the restaurant. b. Not being in the office, John has (evidently) gone home.

Sentences in (20) express causal conjunctions in the epistemic domain as

153

can be restated in (21).15

(21) a Since you are wearing swimming trunks, you aren't going to the restaurant, I conclude! guess! suppose.

b. Since John isn't in the office, he has (evidently) gone home.

Compared with the full adverbial clauses, the use of the adjunct in the

epistemic domain is restricted. One of the reasons is that the adjunct

construction keeps the unity of subject between the adjunct and the matrix

clause, leaving less chance to insert the speaker's view.

(22) a If John went to the party, he was trying to infuriate Miriam. b. If they're looking for an apartment, they're planning a wedding

before long.

These epistemic conditionals represent a reasoning process: If I know that X

is true, then I conclude that Y. 16 With the free adjuncts, their semantic relations

are reduced to the real-world relations as expressed in (23):

(23) a Going to the party, John was trying to infuriate Miriam. b .#Looking for an apartment, they're planning a wedding before

long.

The adjunct in (23a) does not represent the premise of the speaker but John's

manner for his plan. Sentence (23b) is unacceptable, because it fails to

express the speaker's reasoning from effect to cause which is encoded in

(22b). Furthermore, the adjunct does not express counterfactual con­

ditionality.

(24) *Having visited him in hospital, you would know that he was moved to a different room. 17

Some linguistic cues contribute to expressing the speaker's viewpoint.

One of the cues is the modal verbs in epistemic sense. Another is what Quirk

154

et al. call viewpoint subjuncts. The verbs in viewpoint subjuncts constitute a

restricted semantic set which includes verbs of visual or mental perception

(e.g. consider, look at, see, view), or verbs of inert cognition (e.g. assume,

presume, suppose)18 Diachronically, many of these participles have

developed into conjunctions (considering, seeing, supposing, etc.).

As for the speech-act domain, English has a rather stereotyped expression

related to the act of speaking: putting it mildly, frankly speaking, etc. When an

utterance is interrogative or imperative, the adjunct is conjoined at the

speech-act domain.

(25) a Having done the washing-up, can you do the ironing, toO?19 b. Wearing swimming trunks, you aren't going to the restaurant!

The meaning of (25a) can be restated I ask you to do the ironing since/after you

have done the washing-up. Sentence (25b), which is the same construction we

have examined in the epistemic domain, means that I won't allow you to enter

the restaurant since you wear swimming trunks. These adjuncts are related not to

the content of the matrix clauses but to the act of asking and ordering.

Although Sweetser does not pose an image-schematic mapping in her

analysis of conjunctions and conditionals, some expressions show metaphor­

ical mapping among domains. The order of adjuncts often reflects the order

of events. Event sequences are followed easily when the events are arranged

on a time line as well as spatially on a path.

(26) Leaving the base camp at five, we reached the top at noon.

Adjuncts with verbs indicating direction are used as shifting devices III

discourse, making explicit the place for the statement: e.g. moving back to the

second step, returning to the old question, going a step further.

In this section we have seen two processes that characterize the speaker's

inferences. One is concerned with a transition between different semantic

155

areas: from temporal to causal. The other is the application of event relations

in different domains, encoding the speaker's reasoning process or his speech

act.

5. Conclusion

For the various interpretations of free adjuncts, studies based exclusively

on form or context are inadequate. This paper reinforces the view that both

semantics and pragmatics are necessary for the adjunct construction. The

presence of modal verbs, relative frequency adverbs, and generalization

reduces the semantic variability of free adjuncts in two groups. Modal

semantics and predicate distinction determine the adjunct interpretation

from temporal to causal or conditional in these environments. Inferences of

speakers in the adjunct interpretation concern the transition between

semantic areas on one hand, and the three domains in each semantic area on

the other. The three domains by means of which Sweetser analyzes full

adverbial clauses are applicable to the analysis of free adjuncts. Content,

epistemic, and speech-act domains are posed either for temporal, causal, or

conditional relations, so that the domain analysis gives an extensive

explanation for the semantic variability of free adjuncts, including the

speaker's reasoning or his attitude in speaking.

NOTES

1 Gregory T. Stump, The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions (Dordrecht:

Reidel, 1985) 4.

2 Stump (1985). Its theoretical framework-is the formal semantics developed by

Richard Montague. The theoretical adequacy is of little concern to the present

paper.

3 Eve E. Sweetser, From Etymology to Pragmatics (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1990).

156

4 Bernd Kortmann, Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English (London: Routledge,

1991) 117.

5 Examples (10) and (11) are discussed in Stump (1985).

6 Gregory N. Carlson, Reference to Kinds in English, University of Massachusetts

doctoral dissertation, 1977.

7 The full translation is

would' (D(cbWBill-wears-that-new-outfit')) ("Bill-fools-everyone').

Here, cb stands for the conversational background and D is the operator that

combines the set of proposition representing the conversational background with

the proposition expressed by the adjunct. See Stump 54. The problem of

identifying the underlying subject of adjuncts is neglected in the present

discussion:

8 Renaat Declerck, A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English (Tokyo:

Kaitakusha, 1991) 384.

9 Declerck 409.

10 Jennifer Coates, The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries (London: Croom Helm,

1983) 90.

11 Examples (14) and (15) are discussed in Stump (1985). Sentences (14b) and

(15b) are modified from his original examples to give a plausible situation.

12 See Stump 309-310 for the relevant discussion.

13 Style disjuncts and viewpoint subjuncts are terms used in Randolph Quirk et

aI., A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (London: Longman, 1985).

14 Example (19) is discussed in Sweetser 77.

15 Sentences (21a) and (21b) are modified examples which are originally used in

Sweetser 80 and 78, respectively.

16 Examples (22a) and (22b) are cited from Sweetser 116 and 128, respectively.

17 Kortmann 231.

18 Kortmann 159.

19 Kortmann 231.