Teacher Discussion Forums

I have a friend who asked a question that I think is more suited for linguists than grammarians. Could anyone help us out?

I have another grammar question that I'm having trouble finding an answer to, maybe because there is no answer. Why is it that some adverbs can come before or after the verb they modify while others only come after?
He walked slowly.
He slowly walked.
He walked fast.
He fast walked.
At first I thought that it must just be -ly adverbs that are "ambidextrous," but it seems like not all are. Then I thought that f the adverb form and adjective form of a word are written identically, the adverb is not used before a verb to avoid cnfusion, but that doesn't seem to always be the case either. The only thing that seems certain is that comparative and superlative adverbs always come after the verb. Sigh...

He fast-talked (his way out).
?He fast-walked (his way out).

<I have a friend who asked a question that I think is more suited for linguists than grammarians.>

Sorry Jotham but your "distinction" is as irritating as ever. 'Grammar' is not about right or wrong but about natural tendencies (note the plural) detectable in spontaneous usage. Pursuing power through language may be an entirely natural pursuit for some, but to most it is ultimately just so much camouflage. Linguists are interested in real grammar, prescriptivists (or pedants, or prats, or pri...) just in so-called "grammar".

I'm just looking for an answer -- no hidden agenda.

Then I suggest you stop putting 'grammarian' in almost every post - that, or put it in scare quotes or something, if you really must include the term.

And linguist too? But really, it's a bona fide question. I try to help friends regardless of the type of question asked. I don't criticize them for asking questions that don't pertain to my field or require resources I don't have. Then I ask other friends who are more interested in those things.
I only said it was more suited for linguists because grammarians aren't normally interested in (or don't write about) theoretic questions and the hows and whys of language. They are interested in a narrower field: that of usage alone, which most common people happen to be interested in and seek advice about. Linguists cover a much wider array of linguistic phenomena.

He fast-talked (his way out).

Is fast-talk a sort of idiom?

Thinking aloud more than laying down the law, there's something "on that occasion" with the pre adverb:

""QWERTYUIOP" he carefully typed"

"He was a good secretary. He typed carefully"

The first could also be

""QWERTYUIOP" he typed carefully"

"He carefully typed "QWERTYUIOP""

or

"He typed carefully ""QWERTYUIOP"

But

*"HE was a good secretary. He carefully typed."

"Quickly" pre seems to mean "straightaway" as well as "at high speed":

"He quickly answered the phone"

"Fast" pre seems to be ok in some fixed expressions:

I fast came to the conclusion/understanding/realisation

They don't google much but they sound reasonable to me.

Jotham,

As I understand it, many adverbs tend to be relatively constrained to certain specific positions within a sentence, initial, mid, or final.

(Initial) my dog eats earthworms.
My dog (mid) eats earthworms.
My dogs eats earthworms (final).

For me at least, it's very difficult to get a handle on any hard and fast rules for adverb placement. For example, many frequency adverbs seem to work just fine in any of the accepted positions, while others are a bit more demanding. Usually works just about anywhere, while never is generally placed in the mid position.

Here's a partial list of some typical adverb placement. Nothing's set in stone, obviously.

Initial position -- maybe, perhaps

Mid position -- almost, especially, just, hardly, nearly, completely, always, often, rarely, hardly ever, never, kind of, sort of, definitely, probably

Mid or Final position -- already, completely, partially

Final position -- well, badly, fast, hard, beautifully, aloud, early, late, again

Aso, most place and time adverbs fall either intially or finally.

To make matters even more confusing, you have many, many adverbs (particularly manner adverbs) which can go just about anywhere. What distinguishes these floaters from their more constrained cousins above is beyond me.

Echidna

This is one of those thorny areas where what rules there are are so complicated and full of exceptions that it's probably easier just to learn how the main adverbs behave individually.

In addition, Juan is right to point out that there are plenty of expressions which just have to be treated lexically.

I think a systemic functional linguist might be able to shed some light on this matter.

Look at these four examples.

She slowly typed the letter.
She typed the letter slowly
*She slowly types letters.
She types letters slowly.

Now why is the third incorrect. I believe we need to look at theme and focus (or theme and rheme if you prefer).

The focus of the first and second sentences is that she performed a certain action in the past. Therefore the placing of the adverb is optional.

The focus in the fourth sentence is that she is a slow typist.
The focus in the third sentence however is that she types letters as a habit. Pretty meaningless new information, and too weak to take the focus. The point is that in the present simple examples the focus is on slowly, which therefore must come to the appropriate place in the sentence to receive the emphasis.

Now, this explanation is only good for this example. I suspect there are a variety of factors at play affecting general placement of adjectives.

Thanks to Jotham for bringing up a very interesting matter though.

Thank you, Jotham, for posting such an interesting question.

First of all, I have to agree with Echnidna:

As I understand it, many adverbs tend to be relatively constrained to certain specific positions within a sentence, initial, mid, or final.

Therefore, when teaching adverbs, teachers need to explain each particular adverb's preferred placement.

Second, I believe teachers will help their students in this thorny area if they teach collocations, instead of individual adverbs. It's all well and good to know vocabulary, but if students are going to be able to use words, they need to understand what other words they collocate with. I am, of course, assuming those students who will be able to communicate beyond the survival English phrase book level.

I don't think I completely agree with Stephen Jones that his third example,

*She slowly types letters.

is incorrect. If the grammar focus is on writing in the present tense, then this sentence is correctly phrased. It is, in fact, the kind of construction that I expect from form one or form two students as they practice tenses. However, in that case, I am drilling tenses and not adverbs. Nevertheless, the sentence is correct for some purposes.

Nevertheless, the sentence is correct for some purposes.

Not a very meaningful statement.

There are six hits for "she slowly types". In every single case the present simple is being used as the Historical Present. That is to say it is describing an individual event (I think all six examples are screenplays).

There are 6 hits for "she types slowly", excluding repetitions. All of them are using the Present Simple as the unmarked tense, referring to habitual action.

Thanks everyone for your help. My friend designs curriculum for a prominent textbook company. He writes:

Yea, that all helps. I think the matter is probably beyond teaching deductively at the level this course is designed for, however. Probably I'll skirt around the issue, perhaps with a short mention that some adverbs tend to be placed in certain positions, not going into detail...
Thanks for your help with this.