=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2870/paper34
|storemode=property
|title=On Marking NPs by Exclusive Only in EEBO Corpus: Syntactic and Information Structural Considerations
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2870/paper34.pdf
|volume=Vol-2870
|authors=Olena Andrushenko
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/colins/Andrushenko21
}}
==On Marking NPs by Exclusive Only in EEBO Corpus: Syntactic and Information Structural Considerations==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2870/paper34.pdf
On Marking NPs by Exclusive only in EEBO Corpus: Syntactic and
Information Structural Considerations
Olena Andrushenko,
Kyiv National Linguistic University, 73 Velyka Vasylkivska str., Kyiv, 03150, Ukraine
Abstract
The study deals with an exclusive adverb only functioning as a part of the NP in Early Modern
English based on the Corpus of Early English Books Online. The research takes into account
the peculiar features of the XV-XVI-century English word-order and the NPs structure that
have been more rigidly defined in terms of syntax compared to the previous centuries. The
patterns under analysis fall into such types: [only [NOUN]], [only [PREP] [NOUN]], [[NOUN]
only]. The tokens retrieved from the Corpus are tagged following the theory of Discourse
Representation Structure. Thus, two major layers have been distinguished, viz. discourse
given-new information, as well as, Focus and Topic of the sentence. The investigation found
that positional variations of adverb only are used as a mechanism of marking a peculiar type
of Focus (informational, identificational, emphatic, contrastive, exhaustive and verum) and are
governed by the position of adverb with regard to the word it modifies.
Keywords
Adverb, word-order, Discourse Representation Structure, given-new information, Focus,
Topic.
1. Introduction
Adverb only is classified as a focusing exclusive, which main function in the discourse is to restrict
the applicability of what has been mentioned about the focused sentence constituent [1]. The diachronic
studies of the English language indicate that it might have originated from two sources. The first
hypothesis is based on the findings from Old English (OE) records, where the form ænlic is registered
and could be interpreted as Modern English only (1)-(2).
1. Ðú ðe ǽnlic eart Godes bearn (only, single) (ex. from Andrushenko 2017).
2. Ǽnlic (unicus) and ðearfa ic eom (alone, solitary) (ex. from Andrushenko 2017).
According to traditional grammars this OE adverb provided the basis for further formation of
Middle English (ME) exclusive only. This approach later turned problematic considering that
adverb ænlic eliminated in English records of XII and XIII (1st half) cen. From this perspective, its
origin from a different source, i.e., OE numeral one, is widely discussed in literature [2; 3; 4].
Studies centered on ME ane [5; 6] propose the scheme for only emergence and grammaticalization
in ME which is given in (3).
3. num. one>polysemous Adj/Adv one > exclusive focusing onli [5].
The instances from Rissanen [3] illustrate the assumption above (4).
4. Ane þurh þet þu luuest þe God … þu makes wiþ uten oþer swink hire god tin ahne (Ancrene Riwle
151 ex. from Rissanen 1985).
Our previous research on ME exclusives shows that the positional variations of ME adverb only,
taking into consideration the word it modifies, correlate with sentence information structure and Foci
types [7; 8]. Hence, the data show that a post-modifying position of the adverb dominates, which is
particularly evident with NPs. In contrast to this, the collocates search in British National Corpus [9]
COLINS-2021: 5th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Systems, April 22–23, 2021, Kharkiv, Ukraine
EMAIL: and.olenka@gmail.com (O. Andrushenko)
ORCID: 0000-0002-7699-9733 (O. Andrushenko)
© 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Wor
Pr
ks
hop
oceedi
ngs
ht
I
tp:
//
ceur
-
SSN1613-
ws
.or
0073
g
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
reveals that only in the position before the NP occurs more frequently (total 21,096) than when the
adverb is placed in a post-modifying position (total 10,034). The same seems true for Corpus of
Contemporary American English [10] (cf. [only [NOUN]] total token of 43,560 vs. [[NOUN] only]
total instances of 10,307). These figures trigger the question in what period this transition in the adverb
placement occurs and how it is connected with information structure of the sentence in further periods
of English evolution, viz. Early Modern English (EModE).
The current study attempts to investigate the adverb when marking NPs in the corpus of Early
English Books Online (EEBO) [11], which comprises EModE texts of late XV – mid. XVII centuries.
Since the occurrence of only in NPs throughout the corpus reaches 50,143 instances in total, it is
proposed to confine in this paper to the time frame of 1470s–1590s to analyze the regular patterns and
their information structural characteristics. The patterns under investigation fall into such types: [only
(oneli, onli) [NOUN]], [only (oneli, onli) [PREP] [NOUN]], [[NOUN] only (oneli, onli)]. The research
also takes into account a sentence word order as one of the factors that strongly correlate with
information-structure of the sentence, as well as, peculiarities of NPs in order to differentiate only
functioning as an adverb and as an adjective particularly in [only [NOUN]] pattern. Cf. (5)-(6).
The study of the NP (the only faith) in sentence (5) shows that the placement of article before only
evidentiates that it functions as an adjective, taking into account the fact that a focusing adverbs cannot
be modified by other adverbs or be pronominalized, thus no article can be placed before them [12, p.
168]. It is clearly seen from sentence (6) that only functions as an adverb.
To avoid the ambiguity in reading presented in examples (5)-(6) a contextual analysis of EEBO
Corpus should be done manually giving consideration to the major characteristics of sentence word
order and peculiarities of the NP structure.
2. EModE Word Order: Theoretical Assumptions
This part focuses on the major word orders prevailing in EModE, which syntax seems more rigid
compared to the previous centuries on account of the gradual loss of inflectional system typical of the
earlier phases of English development [13]. Furthermore, it also highlights some aspects of the NP
structure at that time which differentiate it from NPs in the Present-day English.
Modern English word order forms a clear pattern already in the fourteenth century, which gets fully
established by mid XV cen. Thus, according to traditional grammars the position before the verb in
EModE has become “the territory of the subject in declarative actor-action-goal sentences” [14, p. 11].
Certain very important syntactic features in this period, relevant to the current investigation, are outlined
below.
1. Parts of speech classification is already syntax based rather than morphological, i.e., it is
governed by the position and function of the word in the sentence [15, p. 98].
2. A moderately frequent substitution of the verb with the structure verb + NP (to have a walk
instead of to walk) [15, p. 99].
3. The greater rigidity of word order in comparison with the previous centuries. Hence, SVO pattern
emerges as the normal word order in affirmative sentences already in 1500 [14; 16, p. 113; 17,
p. 149].
4. The gradual decline of V2 in sentences in the fifteenth-century English [18, p. 241].
5. By mid. XVI cen. the language exhibits SV order in all existential sentences [19].
6. Fronting of objects (OSV occasionally OVS), common in ME, is typical in mid. XVII cen.,
though it is frequently used to make the text coherent [15].
7. Alternative means of topicalization, such as passives transformations or cleft constructions are
possible, however uncommon they may appear [15].
8. The inversion proportion, in comparison with the previous periods, has decreased albeit not
dramatically [18; 20, p. 105].
9. In the XVI cen. inversion is often encountered after initial adverbial elements, viz. now, here,
then, etc. [16, p. 113].
10. The VS order is quite productive even as late as Early Modern English [14, p. 19].
11. Marking the negative polarity by placing the negator in non-contact position to the auxiliary [16,
p.111]. Furthermore, multiple negation starts its gradual decline [21 p. 5].
Constituents of the NP structure in Early Modern English are more or less the same as in PDE. More
specifically, a use of articles differentiates nouns and adjectives [17, p. 82]. A noun is used obligatory
as a head, with adjectives or participles becoming prototypical modifiers of nominal elements [22, p.
47; 23]. Besides, adjectives regularly need a dummy head or a pronominal one. [24]. If the NP contains
more than one adjective, the second adjective can frequently follow the noun: a rare younge man and
wise [15, p. 102-103]. In this case dummy one can either be present or omitted in the sentence surface
structure. The NP can also consist of two (or more) NPs that agree by means of the conjunction and; it
is addressed as a single NP because it functions as one syntactic unit. A definite number of complex
NPs may also contain embedded NPs. [16, p. 117].
3. Methods
The patterns with adverb only are retrieved from diachronic Corpus of EEBO [11] that consists of
755 million words in 25,368 text from the late XV cen. to late XVII cen. It has lemmatization and part
of speech tagging, thus simplifying the search process. To search the required patterns, viz. [only (oneli,
onli) [NOUN]], [only (oneli, onli) [PREP] [NOUN]], [[NOUN] only (oneli, onli)], we have used search
for collocates presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Collocates search for adverb only with NPs
The frequency chart for pattern [only [NOUN]] is given in Figure 2, Figure 3 demonstrates the
frequency of using [[NOUN] only] pattern and Figure 4 illustrates [only [PREP] [NOUN]] pattern
occurrences in EEBO.
Figure 2: Frequency of [only [NOUN]] collocates in EEBO
Figure 3: Frequency of [[NOUN] only] collocates in EEBO
Figure 4: Frequency of [only [PREP] [NOUN]] collocates in EEBO
After automated search all the examples with NPs containing the adverb are analyzed manually
based on the semantic criteria to see whether only functions as an adjective or an exclusive adverb. As
has been highlighted in the Introduction the time frame for the current study is limited to years of 1470s-
1590s.
Instances with only functioning as an adverb are further analyzed with relation to the sentence IS. It
presupposes the investigation of those areas of the language that facilitate speaker’s considerations
concerning the reader’s immediate information state and to foster the communication flow [25]. The
examples are tested on the basis of two oppositions: given vs. new information with further analysis of
sentence Topic and Focus [see among others 26; 27; 28].
Given is something that is specified or reencountered (7), while new information has not been
highlighted in the current linguistic surrounding (8). Cf.:
7. with the most honorable and honestest persones … men… should not be begotten of euery man,
but of the most honestest men only (The lives…, ex. from EEBO).
The NP the most honestest men only in sentence (7) represents discourse given information, and
simple search reveals that noun men was encountered in the previous sentences, NP the most honestest
men also refers to NP the most honorable and honestest persones mentioned above.
8. that their priuate Parlament religion is the publike faith of christ… so in scotland
not only reason persuadeth the like (A treatise…, ex. from EEBO).
The NP only reason in (8) renders discourse new information inferable from the previous discourse.
A theory of givenness distinguishes several conditions: a discourse referent being completely new
is non-identifiable for the reader on account that it has not been activated in one’s memory. However,
it can also be interpreted as unrepresented in the memory since there is no allusion to discourse referent
for an extended space of time [29].
The investigation of givenness presupposes building a file that contains entries of all the subjects,
objects or events previously highlighted in the text termed discourse referents (DRs). To annotate
discourse given elements it is critically important to keep track of all DRs [30]. So, the core idea is to
check whether the NP initiates the presence of a new DR or not. Under the present study, information
can be tagged as given if the antecedents lie within a 13-sentence window [31, p. 36].
To illustrate how givenness is annotated Haugh, Eckhoff & Welo [31] turn to Discourse
Representation Theory (DRT), which shows how the reader constructs a certain mental model of the
ongoing discourse. Thus, a certain mental representation (termed a discourse representation structure
(DRS)) is built up by the reader as the discourse progresses. It involves two aspects: a universe of DRs
and a range of DRS criteria that facilitate the information encoding [32]. In DRT the box visualization
of the sentence ‘A horse neighed’ is assigned the manifestation as in (9).
9.
Figure 5: Box notation of DRS for sentence “A horse neighed”.
The upper area in the box known as the ‘universe’ is able to keep track of all DRs initiated in the
discourse. The lower part is composed of the ‘conditions’ representing the true statements made in the
discourse. If the sentence ‘A horse neighed’ is a starting point in the discourse, the DRS in (9) is
constructed forming the background against which the next sentence finds its interpretation. Let’s
assume that sentence (10) follows sentence (9).
10. It was scared.
We get a representation as in Figure 6 (11).
11.
Figure 6: Discourse context for sentence “it was scared”.
Pronoun it outlined as a DR y correlates with a discourse referent, which is alluded to in the prior
context. Thus, during the next stage the merging of DRS in (9) and the ones in (11) takes place. Hence,
Figure 7 (12) illustrates the outcomes of such merging operation.
12.
Figure 7: Enriched context in DRS
The new DRS comprises a universe as the combination of the universes of two DRSs that have been
merged.
The methodology above was applied to annotate givenness in PROIEL corpus, known as a corpus
of old Indo-European New Testament translations [30; 34]. Similar annotation methodology was also
used when tagging IS categories in Tatian Corpus of Deviating Examples (T-CODEX) [35]. Tags as a
result of annotation are given in Table 1.
Table 1
Tags Assignment in the Extended Annotation Scheme for Information Structure
The informational status of various linguistic expressions can also be identified in the context of
topicality and focality. In the current study Topic is defined in pragmatic terms, i.e., it is “the subject of
predication, what the sentence is about” [36]. The remaining part of the sentence represents a comment,
i.e., something that is predicated about the Topic. Topics in their turn are subdivided into aboutness
(13) and contrastive (14) ones [37]. The latter represent a combination of a Topic and Focus consisting
of an aboutness Topic that has an embedded Focus.
Focus presents the most important or salient information in the sentence [38, p. 143]. It is further
subdivided into informational, identificational, emphatic, exhaustive, contrastive and verum Foci.
Informational focus (15) is characterized as a part of the sentence with a great level of novelty;
following Jackendoff’s definition, it is information that is not shared by a speaker and a reader [39].
15. … to be kepte in a pryson … hath ete nothing but brede &; water oneli … (Thystorye of the
right noble and worthy knyght…, ex. from EEBO)
Contrastive focus in the present investigation is represented by the Focus employed for purely
contrastive reasons [37], which means that the common ground comprises a proposition which the
sentence can be contrasted against (16).
16. … if then i bring… not only reason, but testimonie also for mine assertion … (The praise of
musicke …, ex. from EEBO)
Identificational focus (17) expresses identity statement referring to the presence of alternatives
highlighted in the previous discourse; thus, it should not necessarily have a contrastive reading [40].
17. … this life … whether men suffer these things in this life only, or whether such iudgements
follow … (Tvvo treatises written against the papistes…, ex. from EEBO).
The function of emphatic focus (18) is to establish a scale of values, as well as, target the extreme
value on the scale, signaling that the predication is either exceptional or surprising [41, p. 554].
18. that only man among all other liuing things, knoweth them not …? (A vvoorke concerning the
trewnesse of the Ch. religion…, ex. from EEBO).
Exhaustive focus (19) indicates that denotation of this very focus leads to a true proposition [42, p.
73; 43, p. 161].
19. … that t is only god that forgeueth synnes … (The letters whyche Iohan Ashwell…, ex. from
EEBO)
Verum focus (20) represents the sentence truth value and is characterized by placing an accent on
the auxiliary [36].
20. … wythout he be the mooste proudest: only god doth knowe, iudge and open the lowe degre or
lowlynesse .. (ex. from EEBO).
Table 2 summarizes the tags applied to the analysis the second type of dichotomy, viz. topic/focus.
Table 2
Tags Assignment in the Extended Annotation Scheme for Topic/Focus
The methodology above allows tagging sentence components in the Corpus in terms of information
givenness, as well as, identify a Topic and Focus of the sentence and their variations.
4. Results and Discussion
Each pattern retrieved from EEBO [11] was separately analyzed based on the methodology
highlighted above. Since the research presupposes both automated and manual analysis the timeframe
of the current study has been limited to years of 1470s-1590-s.
4.1. [only [NOUN]] pattern
Model [only [NOUN]] is represented by 2,438 tokens, the most frequent collocates for years 1470s
and 1590s are given in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Frequency of tokens for [only [NOUN]] model for years 1470s and 1590s in EEBO.
As Figure 8 indicates the ratio of tokens changes significantly for these time frames. Despite high
frequency of this model, the analysis reveals that only when pre-modifying NPs predominantly
functions as an adjective (21). It is normally preceded either by definite or indefinite articles or pronouns
and its functioning as an exclusive adverb is limited to 17.6 per cent of instances (22).
Sporadically, lack of articles or other modifiers before [only [NOUN]] makes the reading
ambivalent, especially with the noun faith, since it is not quite clear whether the speaker implies by NP
‘only faith’ a single conceptual meaning or emphasizes on the role of faith (23). Such instances are also
excluded from our investigation.
23. but if only faith doth iustifie vs … (A sermon had at Paulis, ex. from EEBO).
The overall analysis of patterns indicates that when adverb only is in a pre-modifying position, the
NP it marks represents more frequently emphatic (45.8%) or contrastive (34.7%) Focus. Less common
Foci types registered for this model are exhaustive (9.2%), identificational (8.4%) and informational
(1.9%) ones.
Investigation of word-orders where [only [NOUN]] is used shows that the most typical patterns are
as follows: SV (neg) only->O1 but (neg) O1, S1Vno(t) O but (and) only->S2, it is only->S, only->SV
(O), O only->S(v)V, SV only->O, (X) not only ->S1 VO but also S2, not only-> O1SV, but also O2,
only-> OSV. All the models fall into two general word-order types: SVO amounting to 92.8 per cent
and OSV with 7.2 per cent respectively.
4.1.1. SVO pattern with only pre-modifying an NP
This pattern is further subdivided into 3 groups: only->SVO, SV only->O and it is only->S. The analysis
of only->SVO model represented by two patterns, i.e., only->SV (O), (X) not only ->S1 VO but also S2,
reveals that when the adverb marks the NP that is the subject of the sentence, the subject in 78.7 per
cent is tagged as emphatic Focus and given activated information (24). Topic is tagged as aboutness.
The rest of the tokens contain negation not before only, thus the NP represents the subject of the
sentence, which discourse function is to render contrastive Focus and discourse given or activated
information (25).
Sentence annotated IS structure: [[not only persons lyuing] [giv-inactive, cf]], [but [euen the very persons
already dead [acc-gen, emph]] [[could not neglect] [new] it [giv-active, ab]].
Another structure registered is CP [[DP [Pro]] [T’[vP [VP [NP [Adv [N]]]]]] represented in surface
structure as it is (was) only he/she (NOUN) who (that). Sentence (26) illustrates the abovementioned
structure.
26. but thanked be god … it is only god that kepeth vs fautlesse … (Here endith…, ex. from EEBO).
Sentence annotated IS structure: [[it [giv-active] [is only god [giv-active, exhf] [[that kepeth [new] vs [giv-active, ab]
[fautlesse [acc-inf]]].
The NP marked by adverb only represents in 100% percent given-active information and exhaustive
Focus, whilst Topic is primarily annotated as aboutness.
The NP with adverb only, which functions as the object of the sentence, is mostly tagged as
contrastive Focus representing given activated information (69%). Topic therewith is marked as
aboutness (27).
27. … wherof ther were so few left … which had brought vp and engendred not only men, but also
goddess (Thabridgment of the histories of Trogus Pompeius, ex. from EEBO).
Sentence annotated IS structure: [[which [ab]] [[had brought vp and engendred [new]] [not only men
[giv-active, cf]] [but also goddess [new]].
An insignificant number of instances represent the NPs that render informational Focus and
discourse new information. The rest of NPs with only in a pre-modifying position are split between
sentence objects that are tagged as identificational Focus conveying given active information (18.2%)
and the ones tagged as identification Focus rendering inferred information (4.8%). E.g.
28. … a creature … wherof if thos markst well, god, after he hadde created all things of the world,
he caried into paradise only man (The fearfull fansies of the Florentine, ex. from EEBO).
Sentence annotated IS structure: [[he [giv-active, ab] [[caried [new] [into paradise] [acc-sit] [only man] [giv-active,
idf]]
Figure 9 summarizes types of information structure marked by only in NPs, as well as, various Foci
types taking syntax into account.
Figure 9: SVO pattern with only pre-modifying the NP
The notable characteristic of [only [NOUN] model is that the adverb preceding a noun is
predominantly registered when the NP functions as the sentence subject (68.9%). The examples where
it functions as the object of the sentence are more rarely observed due to the fact that only in these
instances is frequently interpreted as an adjective in NPs.
4.1.2. OVS pattern with only pre-modifying NPs
The OVS word-order though being registered with 5.96 per cent of instances is rather controversial
in terms of the analysis. Thus, the inverted word order implies that the NP with only is emphasized,
therefore the noun can be tagged as emphatic Focus. However, the presence of NEG not … but relates
this structure to contrastive Focus (29).
29. …men: and not only men haue they thus hallowed, but their qualities and vertues, Iustice,
prudence, &; the like … (ex. from EBBO).
Sentence annotated IS structure: and [[not only men [giv-active, emp/cf] [haue]aux [they] [giv-active, ab] thus
hallowed [giv-active], [but [their qualities and vertues, Iustice, prudence, &; the like] [new]].
Comparing the information structure of the sentences with contrastive Focus that have different word
orders, viz. SVO and OVS, it was notices that with SVO order V renders discourse new information,
whilst in OVS pattern it presents discourse given and activated information, which can explain the
inverted word order from the information-structural perspective.
4.2. [only [PREP] [NOUN]] pattern
Model [only [PREP] [NOUN]] is represented by 409 tokens, the most frequent collocates are given
in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Frequency of tokens for [only [PREP] [NOUN]] model for years of 1470s and 1590s in EEBO.
The contextual analysis of tokens after the automated search shows that in 90.6 per cent of instances
[only [PREP]] is followed by the NP, while the rest of examples are eliminated due to the fact that the
[NOUN] position is occupied by a verb (30).
30. … but only to shew she how it doth appere (Here foloweth the interpretacoin…, ex. from
EEBO).
The investigation of syntactic functions typical for [only [PREP] [NOUN]] model indicates that it
represents either an indirect object (O) or an adverbial modifier (X). Thus, the patterns registered fall
into such subtypes (only being a part of NP is singled out for convenience): SV neg only->O(X), SV
only-> O, SVO1 (X1) but only-> O2 (X2), only-> O(X) SV.
Pattern SV neg only->O(X) is the most frequent in our data amounting to 46.6%. In all the instances
only marks an NP is discourse given or situationally accessible and presents contrastive Focus (31).
31. … if we woll be true christians not only in name but also in dede let vs put of oure carnall and
olde man … (ex. from EBBO).
Sentence annotated IS structure: [[we[giv-active]] [woll be true christians [giv-active] not only in name [acc-
sit, cf] [but also in dede [new]]
Peculiar for the pattern SV only-> O is the prevalence of NPs highlighted by the adverb that render
new information and informational Focus. Such instances make 32.2% among all the tokens analyzed.
E.g.
32. … that though some words spokyn by the mouthe of christ e to be vnderstonden only by way of
a similitude or an allegorye … (A boke made by Iohn Frith prisoner…, ex. from EEBO).
Sentence annotated IS structure: [[some words spokyn by the mouthe of christ [giv-active, ab] [[e to be
vnderstonden [new] [only by way of a similitude or an allegorye [new, inf]].
Less frequent Focus types registered with this pattern are identificational (given or inferred
information with topic marked as aboutness) running to 3.9 per cent (33), identificational (given
information with topic marked as contrastive) amounting to 0.6% (34), and verum (given information)
found in 1.1 percent of examples analyzed (35).
Figure 11 shows the frequency of various Focus types and their informational status in the discourse.
Figure 11: SVO pattern with [only [PREP] [NOUN]]
As Figure 11 indicates model [only [PREP][NOUN]] is often employed when NPs render new
information and informational Focus which is its distinguishing feature compared with [only [NOUN]]
pattern.
4.3. [[NOUN] only] pattern
Instances of [[NOUN] only] in EEBO Corpus amount to 1860 tokens. Figure 12 illustrates the most
frequent collocates with the adverb for years 1470s and 1590s.
Figure 12: Frequency of tokens for [[NOUN] only] model for years of 1470s and 1590s in EEBO.
The contextual analysis of the pattern reveals that only in 90.1 per cent functions as an exclusive
adverb. Therefore, we may conclude that a post-modifying position for adverb only in an NP that
represents Focus is one of most characteristic ones along with [only [PREP] [NOUN]].
Investigation of patterns where [[NOUN] only] model is used reveals that the most typical word-
order is SVO(X) (92.4%). Other word order patterns registered are O(X)SV (5.7%), O(X)VS (1.1%)
and SOV (0.8%).
4.3.1. SVO (X) pattern with only post-modifying an NP
Marking the subject of the sentence
When marking a sentence subject adverb only highlights NPs that render given-active information
and emphatic Focus in 73.7 per cent of instances (37); examples of given-active information, contrastive
Focus are represented by 18.1 per cent (38). The most uncommon instances are the ones where NPs
highlight given-active information and verum Focus (39) accounting to 3.1 per cent.
Marking the object or adverbial modifier of the sentence
The most common NPs with the adverb in a post-modifying position represent given-active
information and either identificational Focus (41) or contrastive Focus (42), registered in 55.7% and
28.2% of instances respectively.
41. … ad be by special vocatio ministers … , which ministratio ad dispesatio is to be foud in
the church only… (A reioindre to M. Iewels…, ex. from EEBO).
To less frequent Foci types with NPs marked by the adverb belong situationally accessible
information, identificational Focus (43) or inferable, informational Focus (44), acc-sit, emphatic Focus
(45), as well as new information and contrastive Focus (46).
Figure 13 presents the overall distribution of patterns where the adverbial marks NPs functioning
either as the sentence subject or object.
Figure 13: SVO pattern with only postmodifying the NP
4.3.2. Minor word-order patterns
The study of less frequent word order patters where post-modifying only is registered as a part of
NPs, i.e., OSV, SOV and O(X)VS, indicates that the NPs regularly represent given inactive information
and mostly contrastive Focus (47) or emphatic one (48).
5. Concluding remarks
The investigation of tokens with exclusive only as a part of NPs shows that its placing after the noun
is more preferable, particularly in the instances where the NP functions as the sentence object. We may
assume that this deliberate positioning allows the addressee to avoid ambiguous reading of only as an
adverb or an adjective. Still 31.1 per cent of instances with only preceding the noun-object indicate that
it demonstrates the tendency to pre-modify the noun in EModE, which syntax is more rigid in terms of
word-order. It is also notable that with the NP functioning as the subject of the sentence, only is more
likely to be found when it pre-modifies the noun. We assume that this pattern might have triggered the
dominant placement of the adverb before the noun functioning as the object of the sentence in further
centuries.
Analyzing different word-orders registered with the adverb as a part of the NPs, it was observed that
different Foci types correlate with various sentence components as far as the most widespread SVO
pattern is concerned. Thus, it is more preferable to allocate NPs with only in the subject position while
marking emphatic and contrastive Foci. NPs, representing a sentence object, are more characteristic
when they highlight identificational Focus for models [[NOUN] only] and informational Focus for
models [only [PREP] [NOUN]]. The investigation of the minor word-orders, viz. SOV, OSV, OVS,
shows that the verb regularly represents given information, while NPs with only, though conveying
given-activated information, mark either contrastive or emphatic Focus and facilitate an inverted word-
order in the sentence for the purpose of emphasis.
6. References
[1] A. Meurman-Solin. The connectives And, For, But, and Only as clause and discourse type
indicators in 16th- and 17th-century epistolary prose, in: A. Meurman-Solin, M. J. Lopess-Couso &
Bettelou Los (Eds.) Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English, OUP,
Oxford, 2012, pp.164–196. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0008.
[2] T. Nevalainen. BUT, ONLY, JUST: Focusing Adverbial Change in Modern English 1500-1900,
Societe Neophilologique, Helsinki, 1991.
[3] M. Rissanen. Expression of exclusiveness in Old English and the development of the adverb only,
in: R. Eaton et al (Eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical
Linguistics, John Benjamins Publ., Amsterdam, Philadelphia, 1985, pp. 253–267. doi:
10.1075/cilt.41.19ris.
[4] E. Traugott. From subjectification to intersubjectification, in: R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for
Language Change, CUP, Cambridge, 2004, pp. 124–139. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009.
[5] L. Brinton. "The evolution of pragmatic markers in English." Journal of Linguistics 55.2 (2017):
449-453. doi: 10.1017/S0022226718000580.
[6] L. Brinton. Discourse markers, in: A. H. Jucker, I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Historical Pragmatics,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 2010, pp. 285–314. doi: 10.1515/9783110214284.5.285.
[7] O. Andrushenko. Exclusive adverbials in Middle English, in: Proceedings of the international
scientific conference Topical Issues of Science and Education, July 17, 2017, Volume 2, R.s.
Global S.z.O.O, Warsaw, 2017, pp. 5–13.
[8] O. Andrushenko. "Information-structural impact on adverbial only evolution in the Middle English
language." Science and Education in a New Dimension. Philology, 5.116 (2017): 10- 15.
[9] BNC-BYU, 2021. URL: https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/.
[10] COCA, 2021. URL: https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/.
[11] EEBO 2021. URL: https://www.english-corpora.org/eebo/.
[12] T.-B. van Ostade, G. Tottie, W. van der Wurff (Eds.) Negation in the History of English, Mouton
de Gruyter, Berlin, 1999. doi: 10.1515/9783110806052.
[13] E. van Gelderen. Analyzing Syntax Through Texts: Old, Middle, and Early Modern English,
Edinburgh University Press Limited, Edinburgh, 2018.
[14] D. Kastovsky. Studies in Early Modern English, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 2011.
doi:10.1515/9783110879599.
[15] M. Görlach. Introduction to Early Modern English, CUP, Cambridge, 1991.
[16] T. Nevalainen. An Introduction to Early Modern English, OUP, Oxford, 2006. doi:
10.3366/j.ctt1g09z3p.
[17] U. Dons. Descriptive Adequacy of Early Modern English Grammars, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin,
2012. doi: 10.1515/9783110906042.
[18] B. Los. A Historical Syntax of English, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2015. doi:
10.3366/j.ctt1g0b7dn.
[19] B. Bækken. Word Order Patterns in Early Modern English: With Special Reference to the Position
of the Subject and the Finite Verb, Novus Press, Oslo, 1998.
[20] O. Fisher, A. van Kemenade, W. Koopman, W. van der Wurff. The Syntax of Early English, CUP,
Cambridge, 2001. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511612312.
[21] D. Stehling. Semantic Change in the Early Modern English Period: Latin Influences on the English
Language, Anchor Academic Publishing, Hamburg, 2014.
[22] A. Ho-Cheong Leung, W. van der Wurff. The Noun Phrase in English: Past and Present, John
Benjamins Publ., Amsterdam, Philadelphia, 2018. doi: 10.1075/la.246.
[23] H. Raumolin-Brunberg. The Noun Phrase in Early Sixteenth-Century English: A Study Based on
Sir Thomas More’s, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 1991.
[24] D. Biber, B. Gray. Grammatical change in the noun phrase: the Influence of written language use,
in: L. Brinton (Ed.), English Language and Linguistics, Volume 15, Issue 2, CUP, Cambridge,
2011, pp. 223–250. doi: 10.1017/S1360674311000025.
[25] M. Kirfka, R. Musan. The Expression of Information Structure, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New-
York, 2012.
[26] L. Brunetti. A Unification of Focus, Unipress, Padua, 2004. doi: 10.1515/9783110261608.
[27] G. Cinque. Restructuring and Functional Heads, OUP, Oxford, 2006.
[28] A. Speyer. Topicalization and Stress Clash Avoidance in the History of English, Walter de Gruyter,
Berlin, 2010. doi: 10.9793/elsj.30.1_439.
[29] T. Eitler, M. Westergaard. Word order variation in late Middle English: The effect of information
structure and audience design, in: K. Bech, K. Gunn Eide (Eds.), Information Structure and
Syntactic Change in Germanic and Romance Languages, John Benjamins Publ, Amsterdam;
Philadelphia, 2014, pp. 203–232. doi: 0.1075/la.213.08eit.
[30] A. Lüdeling, J. Ritz, M. Stede, A. Zeldes. Corpus linguistics and information structure research,
in: C. Fery, Sh. Ishihara (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, OUP, Oxford,
2016, pp. 599–620. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.013.
[31] D. Haug, H. Eckoff, E. Welo. The theoretical foundations of givenness annotation in: K. Bech, K.
Gunn Eide (Eds.), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in Germanic and Romance
Languages, John Benjamins Publ, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, 2014, pp. 17–52. doi:
0.1075/la.213.08eit.
[32] B. Geurts, D. I. Beaver, E. Maier. Discourse representation theory, in: E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University spring 2020
edn, 2020. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/discourse-representation-theory/.
[33] D. Haug, H. Eckhoff, M. Majer, E. Welo "Breaking Down and Putting Back Together: Analysis
and Synthesis of New Testament Greek." Journal of Greek Linguistics 9.1 (2009): 56-92. doi:
10.1163/156658409X12529372103308.
[34] N. Lavidas, H.D.T. Truslew. Postclassical Greek and treebanks for a diachronic analysis, in: D.
Rafiyenko, I, Seržant (Eds.), Postclassical Greek: Contemporary Approaches to Philology and
Linguistics, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2020, pp.163–202. doi: 10.1515/9783110677522-008.
[35] S. Petrova. Information structure and word order variation in the Old High German Tatian, in: R.
Hinterhölzl, S. Petrova (Eds.), Information Structure and Language Change, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin, 2009, pp. 251–279.
[36] M. Frascarelli, R. Hinterhölzl. Types of topics in German and Italian, in: K. Schwabe, S. Winkler
(Eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizations Across Languages, John
Benjamins Publ, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, 2007, pp. 87–116.
[37] A. Neeleman, R. Vermeulen. The syntactic expression of information structure, in: A. Neeleman,
R. Vermeulen (Eds.), The Syntax of Topic, Focus and Contrast: An Interface-Based Approach,
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2012, pp. 1–38. doi: 10.1515/9781614511458.1.
[38] M.A. Gómez-González. The Theme-Topic Interface: Evidence from English, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam, Philadelphia, 2001. doi: 10.1075/pbns.71.
[39] M. Viviane Déprez, T. Espinal (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Negation, OUP, Oxford, 2020.
doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198830528.001.0001.
[40] R. Jackendoff. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1972.
doi: 10.1017/S0022226700004394.
[41] K.E. Kiss. "Identificational focus versus information focus. Language." Journal of the Linguistic
Society of America 74 (1998): 245-273. https://doi.org/10.2307/417867.
[42] V. Hill, G. Alboiu. Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian, OUP, Oxford, 2016.
doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198736509.001.0001.
[43] K. Schwabe K., S. Winkler (Eds). 2007. On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, John
Benjamins Publ, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, 2007. doi.org/10.1075/la.100.