Chapter XXVIII



It is well known that there are several types of objects and some kind of classification has to be found for them. Objects differ from one another, on the one hand, by their morphological composition, that is, by the parts of speech or phrases which perform the function of object, and on the other hand, in some cases objects modifying a part of the sentence expressed by a verb form (and that is most usually the predicate) differ by the type of their relation to the action expressed by the verb (it is to this difference that the terms "direct object" and "indirect object" are due).

Since the latter distinction applies only to a certain morphological type of objects, it will be convenient to take first the classification according to morphological differences.

From this point of view we must draw a distinction between non-prepositional and prepositional objects. Under the latter heading we will include every object of the type "preposition + noun or pronoun", no matter what preposition makes part of it, whether it be a preposition with a very concrete meaning, such as between, or a most abstract one, such as of or to. In establishing the two types of objects (non-prepositional and prepositional) we do not ask the question whether a prepositional object can or cannot be synonymous with a non-prepositional (as is the case with some objects containing the preposition to).

Both non-prepositoinal and prepositional objects (more especially the latter) may sometimes be hard to distinguish from adverbial modifiers (see above, pp. 215 and 216).

We will not attempt to give an exhaustive list of possible morphological types of non-prepositional objects but we will content ourselves with pointing out the essential ones.

These, then, are the important morphological types. An object may be expressed by a noun, a pronoun (of different types), a substantivised adjective, an infinitive, and a gerund. In some few special cases an object may be expressed by an adverb (as in the sentence We will leave here next week). 1

The classification of objects into direct and indirect ones applies only to objects expressed by nouns or pronouns (and occasionally substantivised adjectives). It has no reference whatever to objects expressed by an infinitive, a gerund, or a phrase. With objects of these kinds the question whether they are direct or indirect would

1 The so-called complex object and related phenomena will be studied in Chapter XXXII (see p. 257 ff.).

218 Secondary Parts in Detail

be meaningless. But even with objects expressed by nouns or pronouns the distinction is far from being always clear.

We will begin our study of direct and indirect objects by a type of sentence in which both objects are found simultaneously and no other interpretation of the facts seems possible.

A case in point are sentences in which the predicate is expressed by the verbs send, show, lend, give, and the like. These verbs usually take two different kinds of objects simultaneously: (1)an object expressing the thing which is sent, shown, lent, given, etc., and (2) the person or persons to whom the thing is sent, shown, lent, given, etc. The difference between the two relations is clear enough: the direct object denotes the thing immediately affected by the action denoted by the predicate verb, whereas the indirect object expresses the person towards whom the thing is moved. This is familiar in sentences like We sent them a present, You showed my friend your pictures, etc. It is well known that when the two objects occur together in a sentence, they are distinguished by their relative places in the sentence, that is, by word order: the indirect object stands first, and the direct object comes after it. 1

However, even in sentences in which there are two objects simultaneously the distinction between direct and indirect objects is not always clear. With some verbs, and owing to their peculiar meanings, there are not sufficient objective facts to prove that one object is direct, and the other indirect. This is the case with the verbs tell and teach. They can take simultaneously two objects, one denoting the person addressed and the other the news told or the subject taught, as in the sentences, He told me the whole story, or She taught the children geography. So far the structure seems to be the same as in the above sentences with the verbs send, show, etc., and we might call the objects me and the children indirect, and the objects the whole story and geography direct. There is, however, something to be said against that view. The verbs tell and teach can also be used in a different way, as will be seen from the following sentences, He told me about his success, and She taught children. In the former sentence the first object denotes the person addressed but the second is expressed by a prepositional phrase and cannot be called a direct object; in the latter sentence there is no second object at all. Under these circumstances there would seem to be no reasonable objective ground for calling the first object in each of these sentences an indirect object.

There is another consideration here which rather tends toward the same conclusion. In studying different kinds of objects it is also essential to take into account the possibility of the correspond-

1 We are not at the moment speaking of objects expressed by prepositional phrases.

The Object 219

ing passive construction. It is well known that in English there is a greater variety of possible passive constructions than in many other languages. For instance, the sentence We gave him a present can have two passive equivalents: A present was given to him (here the subject corresponds to the direct object in the active construction), and He was given a present (here the subject corresponds to the indirect object of the active construction). However, the second passive variant is only possible if the direct object is there, too. The sentence He was given in this sense (without the direct object) would not be possible. Now, with the verbs tell and teach things are different. It is quite possible to say The story has been told many times and I have been told about it (in this case the subject corresponds to the indirect object of the active construction, and there is no direct object in the sentence). In a similar way, it is possible to say Geography is taught by a new teacher and also Children are taught by a new teacher (without any direct object and indeed without any object corresponding to "geography"). From this point of view the sentences with the verbs tell and teach are different from those with the verbs send, show, give, etc. With the former there are not sufficient objective grounds for saying that one object is direct, and the other indirect.

As to sentences containing one object only, there are no grounds at all for saying that the object is "indirect". Sentences with the verb help are a case in point. In the sentence We will help our friends, for instance, there is nothing to show whether the object is direct or indirect. 1

The object with verbs meaning 'to call by telephone or telegraph' is another case in point. We might suppose that the object with such verbs is indirect. The usual type of sentence, with the verb in the active voice, does not give any clue to this. For instance, in the following sentence there is nothing to show whether the object of telegraph is direct or indirect: "That's fine" she replied. "I'll telegraph Lee right away that I'm coming." (BUECHNER) But there are cases in which a verb of this category is used in the passive voice, e. g. Three days later, I was surprised to be rung up by Charles (SNOW) , that is, in the corresponding sentence with the predicate verb in the active voice, he rang me up, the object might equally be said to be a direct one.

Now, moreover, this question of direct and indirect objects is also connected with one type of object expressed by a phrase, namely the one of the pattern "to + noun or pronoun". It is common knowledge that the thought expressed in the sentence He gave me

1 The fact that in Russian the corresponding verb помогать takes an indirect object, that is, a noun or pronoun in the dative case, is of course totally irrelevant here.

220Secondary Parts in Detail

a present can also be expressed in a slightly different way, namely, He gave a present to me. 1 We may call the first of the two objects direct because it stands in the same relation to the predicate verb as in the sentence He gave me a present. As to the second object, which includes a preposition, it is doubtful whether it will serve any useful purpose to call it an indirect object, since objects of the pattern "preposition + noun or pronoun" cannot be direct,2 so that for objects of this kind there is no opposition of direct and indirect. If, however, we insist that the function of to me in this sentence is the same as that of me in the sentence He gave me a present, we shall have to include all prepositional objects under the heading of indirect objects and to change the system of classification which we have so far followed, in accordance with this view. It must be admitted that either way entails difficulties. If we follow the line adopted, we have to separate to me in the sentence He gave a present to me from me in the sentence He gave me a present; but then we can restrict the division of objects into direct and indirect to noun and pronoun objects (without preposition). If, on the other hand, we take to me to be an indirect object, we are obliged to extend the category of indirect objects to the prepositional ones; by way of compensation, we can keep up the connection between me in the sentence He gave me a present and to me in the sentence He gave a present to me. It would seem that, on the whole, the first alternative is preferable.

There is another question to be discussed concerning prepositional objects. Let us compare the following two sentences: We spoke about recent events, and We bought about twenty books. In the first sentence, the preposition denotes a relation between the action denoted by the verb and the thing denoted by the noun. The sentence is based on the pattern "speak about something". In the second sentence, the verb buy is not associated with a preposition: there is no pattern "buy about something". The word about does not denote any relation between the action and the thing, and bears in fact no relation at all to the verb. It is connected with the numeral only and shows that the number denoted by the numeral is not here given as exact. It is even doubtful whether the word about is here a preposition, as both its meaning and function are different from those of prepositions. 3 If we take this view, the object in this case will not be prepositional, and this is perhaps the best way out of the difficulty. If, however, we insist on the word about being a preposition we shall have to distinguish between two different types

1 There is a difference in emphasis between the two sentences, but we Deed not dwell on it here.

2 See, however, the next paragraph.

3 See above (p. 152) on the possibility of taking about as a particle.

The Attribute 221

of objects corresponding to the pattern "preposition + noun or pronoun"; a necessary feature of the type we are now considering would be the numeral preceding the noun, so that the pattern would be this: "preposition (about, over, under) + cardinal numeral + noun". A decisive point of difference between the types would be this. In type 1 (as in the sentence We spoke about recent events) the preposition cannot be left out: a sentence We spoke recent events is impossible. In type 2 the preposition can be left out without affecting the grammatical correctness of the sentence; only the idea of approximation conveyed by the word about in this context will disappear.


As we have already discussed the cases where the distinction between object and attribute is neutralised, so that a secondary part can equally be termed the one or the other (see above, p. 215), we need not dwell on these cases here but we can turn to the attribute as such.

An attribute can either precede or follow the noun it modifies. Accordingly we use the terms "prepositive" and "postpositive" attribute. The position of an attribute with respect to its head word depends partly on the morphological peculiarities of the attribute itself, and partly on stylistic factors.

We will discuss this question at some length in the chapter on word order (see pp. 246—247).

The size of a prepositive attributive phrase can be large in Modern English. This is mainly due to the fact that whatever is included between the article (definite or indefinite) and the noun, is apprehended as an attribute to the noun. Examples of attributes reaching considerable length are met with in usual literary (though not in colloquial) style. This is what we can see in the following sentence: The younger, Leander, was above all young, it seemed to him, charmingly, crashingly so, with only a slightly greater than usual grace and a deep reserve to distinguish him from any of his friends who had joined them. (BUECHNER) The phrase slightly greater than usual is characterised as an attribute by its position between the indefinite article and the noun grace, so that no. misunderstanding is possible here. Compare the following example: . . . her courage was not equal to a wish of exploring them after dinner, either by the fading light of the sky between six and seven o'clock, or by the yet more partial though stronger illumination of a treacherous lamp. (J. AUSTEN) The attributive group here is rather long (yet more partial though stronger) but it is held together by being placed between the definite article and the noun illumination. It is essential that no other noun appears between the article and

222 Secondary Parts in Detail

illumination. In this example we have even the subordinating conjunction though introducing the second attributive adjective stronger, so that the structure of the attributive group almost oversteps the limits of a clause. Compare also the following sentence from a modern novel: He was relieved when I motioned to him and started to wrap the by now almost insensible figure of Melissa in the soft Bokhara rug. (DURRELL)

Such attributes can acquire enormous proportions in humorous writings, so that whole sentences with subordinate clauses are squeezed into them, as in the following example (from an article containing criticism of the most common types of British crime films): Here are two possibilities only, and the threadbare variations are endlessly woven around them: the "I-ain't-askin'-no-questions-just-tell-me-what-to-do" kind and the "My-God,-Henry,-you-must-believe-me" kind (which can also be described as the "Why-the-devil-can't-you-leave-my-wife-alone-Can't-you-see-she's-distraught" kind). The hyphens connecting the various elements do not of course mean that the whole has coalesced into one monstrous word: they merely serve to show the unity of the syntactical formation functioning as an attribute. It goes without saying that such possibilities are due to the absence of inflections for number, gender, and case in the part of speech which most usually performs the function of an attribute, namely, the adjective.

This consideration brings us to what is the most difficult question in the study of the attribute, its position in the general system of parts of the sentence. The question is briefly this: is the attribute a secondary part of the sentence standing on a footing of equality with the object and the adverbial modifier, or is it a unit of a lower rank? Approached from another angle, the question would be this: is the attribute a constituent of the sentence, or does it belong to the level of phrases? This is of course a problem of general linguistics, and it has been discussed with reference to different languages. Here we will treat it taking into account the specific conditions of Modern English.

The problem can best be approached in the following way. If we take the sentence: History only emerged in the eighteenth century as a literary art. . . (MOULTON) and if we want to state the parts of the sentence, we shall stop at the phrase in the eighteenth century. We shall have to choose between two views: (1) in the century is an adverbial modifier of time; eighteenth is an attribute; the two secondary parts of the sentence stand on the same syntactical level; (2) in the eighteenth century is an adverbial modifier of time and is (as a whole) a secondary member of the sentence, modifying the predicate verb emerged; eighteenth is part of that adverbial modifier, which is expressed by a phrase, and it is part of the phrase, not of the sentence: it stands on a lower level than the

The Attribute 228

sentence with its parts, i. e. it stands on the phrase level, being an attribute to the noun century.

The same reasoning and the same choice would of course apply to the phrase as a literary art. The two possible views of its syntactic function would be these: (1) as a(n) art is a part of the sentence, namely a predicative; literary is another part, namely an attribute, standing syntactically on the same level with it; (2) as a literary art as a whole is a part of the sentence, namely, a predicative; literary is part of the predicative, and thus not a separate part of the sentence: it is part of the phrase, namely an attribute to the noun art, and stands on a lower level than the sentence and its parts: it stands on the phrase level.

To give another example, let us take the sentence In the rich brown atmosphere peculiar to back rooms in the mansion of a Forsyte, the Rembrandtesque effect of his great head, with its white hair, against the cushion of his high-backed seat, was spoiled by the moustache, which imparted a somewhat military look to his face. (GALSWORTHY) We will consider the following phrases: in the rich brown atmosphere; the Rembrandtesque effect; of his great head; with its white hair; a somewhat military look: With all of these the following two ways of analysis are possible: (1) in the atmosphere is an adverbial modifier of place, rich and brown are attributes — secondary parts of the sentence, on the same level as the adverbial modifier; the effect is the subject of the sentence, Rembrandtesque is an attribute — a secondary part of the sentence; with hair is an object, its and white are attributes; a look is an object, military an attribute, somewhat an adverbial modifier of degree, the last two being separate secondary parts and outside the object; (2) in the rich brown atmosphere is an adverbial modifier of place, rich and brown are parts of the phrase and, being attributes, stand on a lower level than secondary parts of the sentence; the Rembrandtesque effect is the subject of the sentence; Rembrandtesque, the attribute, is part of the phrase, not of the sentence as such; with its white hair is an object; white, the attribute, a part of the phrase; a somewhat military look is an object, military and somewhat are parts of the phrase, not of the sentence as such, military being an attribute to the noun look. 1

There obviously is much to be said in favour of the view that the attribute in each case is a part of a phrase, rather than of the sentence. For one thing, it should be noted that in some cases the attribute cannot be left out without making the text grammatically incorrect. For instance, if we leave out the attributes his and great in the phrase of his great head, we shall get the impossible

1 The function of the adverb somewhat and of other words in a similar position requires special discussion. See below, p. 224.

224 Secondary Parts in Detail

expression the effect of head. Then, in some cases, though the omission of an attribute would not make the construction wrong, it would deprive it of any reasonable sense, as in the end of our example, which would then run like this: . . .the moustache, which imparted a look to his face.

Against this latter point it may be argued that this is a semantic consideration which should have no influence on syntactic analysis, so that the point seems to remain doubtful. The first point seems more compelling, because it is strictly grammatical: the sentence without the attribute in question proves to be syntactically impossible.

Speaking more generally, the very fact that an attribute often comes within a part of the sentence (whether a main or a secondary one), for example, between the article and the noun to which the article belongs, and that in a number of cases it cannot be "extracted" without damaging the grammatical structure of the sentence, speaks strongly in favour of the view that the attribute stands on a lower level than the usual parts of the sentence (including the secondary ones) and that it should be considered a part of a phrase, not of a sentence. This view also gives the structure of the sentence a deeper perspective, as it opens up a syntactical sphere beyond that of parts of the sentence.

However, this view of the attribute also entails difficulties. To illustrate these, we may turn to the sentence from Galsworthy's "Man of Property" which we have just been considering. The end of the sentence runs like this: .. .which imparted a somewhat military look to his face. If we agree that the attribute military is not a separate part of the sentence but makes part of the phrase object whose centre is the noun look, this has its consequences for the adverb somewhat, which modifies the adjective military. If military is not a separate part of the sentence, somewhat obviously cannot be one either, as it is syntactically subordinate to a word which itself is not a part of the sentence. This leads to the conclusion that somewhat also makes part of the phrase of which look is the centre, and has to be treated accordingly. On the other hand, somewhat would seem to perform in this sentence a function similar to that which it performs in a sentence like His look was somewhat military, where military is the predicative, and somewhat an adverbial modifier belonging to it, and in this much a secondary part of the sentence. The functions of the word somewhat in the two sentences, though similar as far as its relation to its head word military is concerned, are different, according as the word military itself is a predicative or an attribute. It would seem to follow from this that a kind of double syntactic analysis is necessary. This question is a very difficult one indeed and a satisfactory solution has not so far been found.

The Adverbial Modifier 225


We must begin by stating that the term "adverbial modifier" cannot be said to be a very happy one, as it is apt to convey erroneous ideas about the essence of this secondary part. The word "adverbial" may give rise to two notions, both of them wrong. For one thing, we may suppose that an adverbial modifier is always expressed by an adverb, which of course is not true: an adverbial modifier may be expressed by different morphological means. Secondly, the term "adverbial" may give rise to the notion that an adverbial modifier always modifies a verb, which is also wrong! an adverbial modifier may modify a part of the sentence expressed by an adjective or by an adverb, as well as by a verb. As the term "adverbial modifier" is firmly established, it would be futile to try and substitute another term in its place. So we will keep the term, bearing in mind what has been said about its meaning.

There are several ways of classifying adverbial modifiers: (1) according to their meaning, (2) according to their morphological peculiarities, (3) according to the type of their head word.

Of these, the classification according to meaning is not in itself a grammatical classification. For instance, the difference between an adverbial modifier of place and one of time is basically semantic and depends on the lexical meaning of the words functioning as adverbial modifiers. However, this classification may acquire some grammatical significance, especially when we analyse word order in a sentence and one semantic type of adverbial modifier proves to differ in this respect from another. Therefore the classification of adverbial modifiers according to their meaning cannot be ignored by syntactic theory.

Classification according to morphological peculiarities, i. e. according to the parts of speech and to phrase patterns, is essential: it has also something to do with word order, and stands in a certain relation to the classification according to meaning.

Classification according to the element modified is the syntactic classification proper. It is of course connected in some ways with the classification according to meaning; for instance, an adverbial modifier can modify a part of the sentence expressed by a verb only if the type of meaning of the word (or phrase) acting as modifier is compatible with the meaning of a verb, etc.

A complete classification of adverbial modifiers according to their meaning, i. e. a list of all possible meanings they can have, is impossible to achieve, and it would serve no useful purpose. A certain number of meanings can be found quite easily, such as place, time, condition, manner of an action, degree of a property, etc., but whatever list we may compile along these lines, there are bound to be special cases which will not fit in. For instance, in the sentence

226 Secondary Parts in Detail

I saw him at the concert it is hard to tell whether the adverbial modifier at the concert expresses place or time; and the dilemma appears to be futile. Since all this depends on the lexical meanings of words, possibilities here are practically boundless. We must therefore content ourselves with establishing some main categories and abstain from trying to squeeze every single adverbial modifier that may occur in a sentence into a "pigeonhole" prepared for it.

As to the classification according to morphological peculiarities, it can probably be made exhaustive, although some of the morphological types are met with very seldom indeed.

The most usual morphological type seems to be the adverb. This is testified, among other things, by the fact that the very term for this part of the sentence is derived (in English, and also, for instance, in German) from the term "adverb". In some grammar books the two notions are even mixed up. Occasionally an author speaks of adverbs, where he obviously means adverbial modifiers. 1

Another very frequent morphological type of adverbial modifier is the phrase pattern "preposition + noun" (also the type "preposition + adjective + noun" and other variations of this kind). This type of adverbial modifier is one of those which are sometimes indistinguishable from objects, or rather where the distinction between object and adverbial modifier is neutralised.

A noun without a preposition can also in certain circumstances be an adverbial modifier. To distinguish it from an object, we take into account the meanings of the words, namely the meaning of the verb functioning as predicate, and that of the noun in question. It must be admitted, though, that even this criterion will not yield quite definite results, and this means that the decision will be arbitrary, that is, the distinction between the two secondary parts is neutralised here, too. Let us consider, for instance, the function of the noun hour in a sentence like They appointed an hour and in a sentence like They waited an hour. Since the noun is the same in both cases, the distinction, if any, can only be due to the meaning of the verb in its relation to that of the noun. In the first sentence we will take the noun hour as an object — on the analogy of many other nouns, which can also follow this particular verb (e. g. appoint a director), and which can all be made the subject of this verb in a passive construction (e. g. A director has been appointed). In the second sentence, things are different, as the verb wait can only be followed by a very few nouns without a preposition (e. g. Wait a minute), and a passive construction is impossible. This appears to constitute an essential difference between the two.

However, we should not overestimate the force of these observations. In the first place, there are cases when a noun following the

1 See, for example, H. Sweet, A New English Grammar, Part II, § 1833.

The Adverbial Modifier 227

predicate verb is doubtless an object, and yet a corresponding passive construction does not exist. 1In the second place, a passive construction proves to be possible in some cases when we should rather call the noun in the active construction an adverbial modifier. Something similar is found in the familiar example The bed had not been slept in, which corresponds to a sentence with the verb in the active voice, Nobody had slept in the bed. If we had been given only the latter sentence for analysis, we should probably have said that in the bed was an adverbial modifier of place; the possibility of the corresponding passive construction rather shows that it is an object. But the absence of a corresponding passive construction is hardly final proof of the secondary part being an adverbial modifier. Perhaps we will do best to say that the opposition between object and adverbial modifier tends to be neutralised here, too.

A very frequent morphological type of adverbial modifier is the infinitive or an infinitive phrase. This is especially true of the adverbial modifier of purpose, which may be expressed by the infinitive preceded by the particle to or the phrase in order to. However, we cannot say that every infinitive or infinitive phrase acting as a secondary part of the sentence must necessarily be an adverbial modifier of purpose, or indeed an adverbial modifier of any kind.

Let us compare the following two sentences: I wanted to read the advertisement, and I stopped to read the advertisement. From a purely structural point of view there would seem to be no difference between the two sentences. It is the meanings of the verbs want and stop which lie at the bottom of the difference. Grammatically speaking, a transformation test is possible which will bring out the difference in function between the two infinitives. In the sentence I stopped to read the advertisement we can insert in order before the particle to, or, in other words, replace the particle to by the phrase in order to: in doing so, we get the sentence I stopped in order to read the advertisement, which is good English and does not differ in meaning from the original sentence. With the sentence I wanted to read the advertisement such a change would not be possible. If we consider this experiment to be a grammatical proof we can say that the difference in the functions of the infinitive in the two sentences is grammatical. If we deny this the conclusion will be that the distinction between the two secondary parts is neutralised here too.

There are also cases when the infinitive is an adverbial modifier, but not one of purpose. This is the case, on the one hand, in such sentences as I was glad to see him, where the meaning of the adjec-

1 Thus, for instance, the verb resemble can, and even must, have a direct object, but it cannot be used in the passive voice. •

228 Secondary Parts in Detail

tive glad shows the semantic relations, and, on the other hand, in such sentences as the following: Denis woke up the next morning to find the sun shining, the sky serene. (HUXLEY) It is clear from the lexical meanings of the words woke up and find that the infinitive as adverbial modifier does not indicate the purpose of the action but the circumstances that followed it (Denis woke up and found the sun shining). The infinitive to find is indeed typical of such adverbial modifiers, as has been pointed out by E. Korneyeva. 1

The same is seen in the following example: She balanced perilously there for a few more minutes, then lurched and fell back to awake with a start and grab at the horse .. . (BUECHNER) (the horse mentioned here is a statue). It is evident from the lexical meanings of the verbs fell and awake that the infinitive does not express purpose but ensuing circumstances: it would be impossible for a person to fall in order to awake. So the lexical meanings of words are of first-rate importance for the status of the infinitive: the form of the infinitive does not in itself determine anything beyond that the phrase in question is a secondary part of the sentence. The following sentence is also a clear example of this kind of infinitive modifier: A young man of twenty-two or so, wearing overalls and carrying an empty buckel, pushed open the wide, green doors of the aviary to be greeted by a gust of piercing whistles, trills, chirps and murmurings from the double row of cages that lined two walls of the long, low building. (BUECHNER) The infinitive in question is here passive, but the grammatical category of voice does not in itself give sufficient material to judge of the type of modifier we have here: a passive action might after all be the purpose of an action. It is rather the lexical meanings of the words and "common sense" that make everything clear: it could not be the man's purpose to be greeted by whistles, etc., of birds. Thus the modifier is clearly one of subsequent events.

A different kind of relation between an adverbial modifier and its head word is found when the head word is an adjective or adverb preceded by the adverb too: But Magnus's spirit was too robust and buoyant to admit of difficulties for long. (LINKLATER) At first he had been too surprised to feel any definite emotion. (Idem)

The actual meaning resulting from the pattern "too + adjective (adverb) + to + infinitive" of course is, that the action denoted by the infinitive does not take place.

Roughly speaking, in summing up the relations between the semantic and the morphological types of adverbial modifiers, we may say that some general statements on their relations can be

1 E. А. Корнеева, О некоторых обстоятельственных функциях приглагольного инфинитива в английском языке. Ученые записки ЛГПИ им. Герцена, т. 154, 1958.

Predicate, or Predicate and Adverbial Modifier 229

made: for example, an adverbial modifier of place can never be expressed by an infinitive; an infinitive can express either an adverbial modifier of purpose, or one of subsequent events, etc. No straightforward law about correspondences between the two classifications is possible.

As to the parts of the sentence which an adverbial modifier may modify, they have been enumerated on p. 213. It follows from this definition that an adverbial modifier cannot modify a part of the sentence expressed by a non-verbal noun; in other words, a secondary part modifying a part expressed by a noun cannot be an adverbial modifier. This may be taken as a guiding principle, though it is purely conventional, being the logical consequence of the definition adopted. But it must also be stated that from a scientific viewpoint it is irrelevant whether we call an adverb or phrase modifying a noun an attribute or an adverbial modifier.