 Hello and welcome back. Having discussed the central formal properties of present-day English adverbials in the e-lecture adverbials 1, let us now focus on their specific functional aspects and their integration into clause structure in this e-lecture. We will see that the discussion of the functional aspects allows us to define four main categories of adverbials. These differ in their syntactic status within the sentence. Let us illustrate this using the negation test. That is, to what extent is an adverbial affected by negation? Here is an example. Linda drank some wine where Linda is the subject, drank is the verb and some wine is the object. Let us now add some adverbials to this sentence after lunch, which is a prepositional phrase, and then three adverbs intentionally, surprisingly and however. It can easily be shown that these adverbials behave completely differently syntactically. Let's illustrate that using two criteria. Q focus, which means, can the adverbial be the focus of a question? And YN question, yes, no question, that is, can the adverbial be the answer to a yes, no question? Let's look at the question focus first. So, can we say something like, did Linda drink some wine after lunch? Of course, this is possible. Did Linda drink some wine intentionally? Yes, that's a good sentence. Did Linda drink some wine surprisingly? It's grammatically correct, but it's to some extent a little bit strange, isn't it? So, let's put this in brackets. Did Linda drink some wine, however, is of course ungrammatical. Well, and the second criterion, can the adverbial be the answer to a yes, no question? So, can we say something like, did Linda drink some wine? Yes, after lunch. Did Linda drink some wine? Yes, intentionally. Did Linda drink some wine? Yes, surprisingly. Well, that's again a little bit strange, isn't it? And did Linda drink some wine, however, is of course ungrammatical. Thus, we can observe a different grammatical behavior of our four adverbials. And this leads us to the definition of several functional subtypes of adverbials. Let's look at these functional subtypes first. Generally, we can divide the class of adverbials into two general subtypes. The class of adverbials, where the adverbials are fully integrated into the structure of their clause. That is, they are on par with the other elements of clause structure. Depending on the degree of integration, we can define two subtypes, adjuncts and subjuncts, where subjuncts are less integrated. We will come back to this. The second subtype is peripheral to clause structure. Peripheral adverbials are subdivided into disjuncts and conjuncts, where conjuncts primarily have a connective function. Let us look at these four types in more detail and let's begin with adjuncts. Adjuncts closely resemble the other elements of clause structure such as subjects, compliments and objects. They follow a number of grammatical principles. Let's illustrate these using the following sentence. Hilda helped Tony because of his injury, where because of his injury, the prepositional phrase is of course our adjunct. The first criterion says that adjuncts can be the focus of a cleft sentence just like subjects can be. So we can say something like, it was Hilda who helped Tony because of his injury. So the subject can be the focus of a cleft sentence, but also the adverbial. It was because of his injury that Hilda helped Tony. A second criterion says that adjuncts can be affected by negation. That is, they are similar to the other sentence elements in negative sentences. So let's take the subject first, not Hilda helped Tony but Linda. This is certainly possible. And what about the adverbial? Well, not because, so Hilda helped Tony not because of his injury but despite it. So the adverbial can be affected by negation. It can also be affected by interrogation. So we can say something like, did Hilda help Tony or did Bill help him? In which case the subject would be affected by interrogation. We could also say something like, did Hilda help Tony because of his injury? Or did she help him to please her mother? So you see the adverbial can be affected by negation. Well, and a fourth criterion I would like to mention is the possibility of eliciting adverbials by means of WH question just like we can elicit subjects by a question such as who helped Tony? The object Hilda helped whom? And now the adverbial in this case it is of course, why did Hilda help Tony? There are further criteria such as that adjuncts usually occur in the same tone unit as subject, verb and object. But these are the central criteria that apply to adjuncts. Let us test some adverbials in order to understand the application of these criteria. So here is our sentence again. Let's now add some adverbials. Yesterday, fortunately and however, they're all adverbs. If we now apply our criteria we can say, we can see that yesterday can occur in all these contexts. It was yesterday that Hilda helped Tony, not yesterday but tomorrow or not yesterday but two weeks ago. Did Hilda help Tony yesterday is possible? And of course we have the elicitation WH element. When did Hilda help Tony? Now if we take the other two, for example fortunately, then we can see that for fortunately only the first two criteria apply. It was fortunately that Hilda helped Tony, not fortunately but surprisingly we could say. Did Hilda help Tony fortunately? Well here we run into trouble and for fortunately we do not have an elicitation element. And if we take however, then of course we see that however is certainly impossible in all these contexts. It was however, not however but did Hilda help Tony however? And last but not least there is no elicitation element. Having defined the class of adjuncts by means of these four criteria, let's now look at a second class of adverbials that are integrated into claw structure, the so-called subjuncts. The term subjunct, which was added in the mid-1980s to the grammar of present-day English by Randolph Quirk and his colleagues, applies to adverbials which, unlike adjuncts, lack the grammatical parity with other functional elements of claw structure. There are two central types of subjuncts with different subtypes. The first of these is referred to as subjuncts with wide orientation and they are related to the sentence as a whole. In our two examples, first the plans represent a magnificence. Concept, we could add the subjunct architecturally, the plans represent a magnificent concept, in which case we would have a viewpoint subjunct. And kindly, while here is a special courtesy, subjunct, she kindly offered me her seat. And you see the criteria which we have applied to adjuncts do not work here. It was architecturally, it was kindly, not kindly but now well, here it works, the not criterion works to some extent. Both subjuncts show their subjunct character intending to achieve this through a particular relationship with one of the clause elements. Typically, the subject, this is why they're referred to as subjuncts. And then we have subjuncts with narrow orientation. They are chiefly related to the predication or to particular parts of the predication. For example, we have emphasisers such as I really can't believe a word. I just can't believe a word. Or we have intensifiers or intensifying subjects such as fully. They fully appreciate the problem. Or we have focusing subjuncts such as I merely wanted to know his name. I didn't want to know anything else. So there are several subclasses of subjuncts with narrow orientation. Let us now turn to those adverbials that are less integrated into clause structure. The first of these are disjuncts. Where adjuncts are seen as on par with such sentence elements as subjects or objects. And subjuncts are seen as having a lesser or more reduced role. Disjuncts have by contrast a superior role to sentence elements. Being somewhat detached from the sentence and superordinate to the rest of the sentence. Two different types of disjuncts with several subtypes can be defined. Here is the first, the so-called style disjuncts. The class of style disjuncts is relatively small. In some ways, style disjuncts define the conditions under which authority is being assumed for a statement. Furthermore, style disjuncts convey the speaker's comment on the style and the form of what is being said. In the sentence Mr. Forster neglects his children, we are confronted with an unsupported fact. Now with a style disjunct, according to my observation, we can support this fact and express the idea that it is according to what I think. Style disjuncts can also express modality and manner as well as respect. Although they are not restricted to position, most of them appear initially and many of them can be seen as abbreviated clauses. For example, briefly, which stands for to put it briefly, Mr. Forster neglects his children. Well, and then we have the class of content disjuncts. Again, we are using the same sentence, Mr. Forster neglects his children. The class of content disjuncts is much larger than the class of style disjuncts. Content disjuncts make observations on the actual content of a natural and on its truth conditions. So, for example, we could say to the disgust of his neighbors, Mr. Forster neglects his children. And so content disjuncts comment on the certainty of the truth value of what is said. We could also say something like, perhaps Mr. Forster neglects his children, or we could evaluate the content and say something like, unfortunately, Mr. Forster neglects his children. So, evaluation, commenting function, commenting on the certainty of truth functions, that is a typical aspect of these content disjuncts. Let's finally discuss conjuncts. Conjuncts serve to conjoin two utterances, or parts of an utterance. They do so by expressing at the same time the semantic relationship between holding between them. Conjuncts occur in all three positions, initially, immediately, and finally. Here is an example. Hilda helped Tony, and of course, if we add the conjunct, however, we can put it into the initial position. We can add it between subject and verb, or we can place it finally. Nevertheless, despite this freedom of positioning, most of them occur initially. When they're used finally, Hilda helped Tony, however. When they're used finally, their position can somewhat obscure their connective role. Let's look at some conjuncts and see how they can be associated with specific semantic roles. For example, we have listing conjuncts, such as moreover. Summative conjuncts. To sum up, some of them can be defined as a positive conjuncts. Here is an example for example. To express the relationship of a result, you can use the conjunct so. Inferential conjuncts, well, here is an example in other words. We already discussed, however, which expresses an adversative relation or the relationship of contrast. And then finally, here is an example that expresses transitional relationships, such as eventually. Note that conjuncts from different sets can co-occur with each other within the same sentence, so we can combine them. Okay, let's summarize. In this e-lecture, on present-day English adverbials, we looked at their function and saw that four functional subclasses can be established. Adjuncts and subjuncts, which are fully integrated in clause structure, on the one hand, and the two peripheral classes, disjuncts and conjuncts on the other. With this subdivision and the formal classification of adverbials that we discussed in the e-lecture, the adverbial part one, you should now have a sufficient background that allows you to embark on further studies on the precise definition of the meaning of present-day English adverbials. I hope the two e-lectures on present-day English adverbials were informative enough to achieve an understanding of this complex class of syntactic functions in present-day English. Thank you very much and see you again.