Korean Job Discussion Forums

[raewon]

Can someone please help me out with the following:

Why is it that

[A] quickly ran after [B].
and
[A] ran quickly after [B].

seem to have almost the same meaning, but

[A] soon ran after [B].
and
[A] ran soon after [B].

seem to carry different meanings. In the second pair, I interpret the first
sentence to mean that A didn't wait long before running after B. But the
second sentence seems to mean B ran ... and then A ran.

Am I way off (again) on this one?

[themagicbean]

I say they're the same. If we adjust your paraphrasing to accomodate the adverb:

"I interpret the firstsentence to mean that A didn't wait long before running after B. But the
second sentence seems to mean B ran ... and then A ran [not long after B did]."

[spyro25]

there seems to be a problem with the temporal nature of the second adverb soon vs. the manner of the adverb in the first example.

the first example is wholly correct, the adverb 'quickly' is referencing the manner in which the running was done.

in the second example, the adverb 'soon' is a temporal one (related to time, not manner). in this example, different times appear to be suggested by the ambiguity.

[A] soon ran after [B]. Suggests B may have finished his run at a point in time while A may have started either during, or after B's run.

[A] ran soon after [B]. seems to suggest that B had not finished his run before A started to follow.

what leads us to this intuition?

The chances are that it is a case of frequency. the second construction could well be found in more instances where the second participant in the clause had not completed their action, while the same might not be true in the first instance. use corpora to check this out for yourself.

hope that helps

spyro25

[seonsengnimble]

Keep 'em coming, Raewon. Figuring out the logic behind grammatical rules is much more interesting than deciding if Americans or Koreans are more racist.

[raewon]

Thanks for the replies.

spyro25
- thanks for a good explanation between the two sets of sentences.
But your interpretation seems to be opposite of what I was thinking.
When I read "[A] soon ran after [B]" - I immediately picture B still running.
I'm not sure if this is a "right" or "wrong" image, but now I'm wondering whether or not the majority would picture the sentence the way you have.

[Bondrock]

Part of the confusion here is that
"ran after" is a phrasal verb meaning 'chase'. however, putting an adverbial modifier in the middle changes the structure. i.e. ran quickly after.

as stated 'soon' denotes an element of time, whereas 'quickly' modifies the verb in a different, more direct fashion.

I quickly ran home.
I soon ran home.

Quite a difference in meaning because the first one indicates the manner of running, the second indicates the proximity of the action based on a pre-existing moment in time.

[spyro25]

[spyro25]

just had another thought on this.

it could be the collocation 'ran after' that is throwing us off. run after is very close match to the lexical item 'chased', so 'soon ran after' could be hinting that A was trying to chase B

in the other instance 'run soon after' the collocation run after is broken up and thus we are left with not with the lexical item 'chased' but perhaps 'followed' might be a better match.

lots to play with in this question. if this is the case, again perhaps it shouldnt be part of what you are trying to teach here.

[The Cosmic Hum]

Some great feedback on this thread.

Part of the confusion is that 'ran after' can be either
a) phrasal verb
b) verb + prepositional phrase

Depending how the reader takes it, it could have multiple meanings.
I (ran after) him. I chased him. - (phrasal verb)
I ran (after him). He ran first, then I ran. - (verb + prepositional phrase)

Lots of ways to dissect this syntactically...semantically and pragmatically.

All in good fun.