{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04299548750190133, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011255894133752472, 'mean_word_length': 4.752114319043453, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 3, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Towards a proper treatment of adjuncts in Japanese

In this paper we will discuss interpretation of adverbs in Japanese. We will explore the division of labor between the syntactic requirements, semantic requirements, and discourse-contextual constraints involving adverbial interpretation. It will then be argued that this inter-modular approach utilizing LFG explains various elusive paradigms of the adverbs.


Scope Ambiguity and Lexical Semantics
We will start with lexical semantic considerations of adverb scope. Pustejovsky (1991Pustejovsky ( , 1995 argue that different types of adjuncts modify different types of subevents in the event structure of a verb. Under recent assumptions in LFG, lexical semantic information is encoded in f(unctional) structure (Butt 1995, Andrews and Manning 1999, Wilson 1999. There have been a number of proposals concerning the level of lexical semantic representation that can capture the various properties of a verb, including argument projection, aspectual class, transitivity alternation, and so on (Jackendoff 1990, Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995, Kageyama 1996, among many others). We conjecture that event structure representations factor out the part of the verb semantics that contribute to the aspectual property of the verb, while leaving the other components of the meaning to be specified by the LCS that accompanies each subevent as shown in (1), in which x and y represent external argument and internal argument, respectively. "*" indicates the head subevent, and "<" means 'precedes' and the structure in the parentheses shows that the corresponding LCS for the subevent.

The dual analysis of adverbs
In this section we will introduce to our alternative semantics the dual analysis of adjuncts/complements proposed in Dowty (2000), in which he argues that the meaning difference results from a complement vs. adjunct ambiguity, not an ambiguity in the adverb per se, and that the availability of both readings will depend on word order. 1 Take (6) as a simple illustration, which is ambiguous between a complement reading and an adjunct reading.
(6) a student of high moral principles i) a student who studies high moral principles [complement reading] ii) a student who has high moral principles [adjunct reading] The point here is that the ambiguity comes from the complement vs. adjunct reading, not from the multiple meanings (if any) of the preposition of, though the word order is irrelevant in this case. Keeping this in mind, we consider the contrast between (3b) and (4b). To account for their modification relation, we suggest that adverbs in Japanese are not always adjuncts. To be more specific, VP-adverbs such as manners, modifying a specified event and seen as process-related modifiers, can behave like either complements or adjuncts in marked word order (e.g. at the sentence-initial position). This idea seems quite promising in a language like Japanese, since there is no (strong) evidence in support of structural differences between complements and adjuncts in the language. Given this, manner adverbs such as yukkurito 'slowly' in (4) can be analyzed either as an adjunct modifying the matrix verb (4bi) or as a complement relating to its head, i.e. the embedded verb (4bii). By contrast, a depictive adverb like damatte 'silently' contained in (3) is preferably analyzed as an adjunct, since it will modify event rather than process component. The adverb oomatade 'with vigorous stride' in (5), in contrast, is preferably analyzed as a complement (see (5bii)). 2 It should be noted that we do not deny that surface word order will play some part in the interpretation of adverbs. So the scope (un)ambiguity observed in (3)-(5) have to do with a structural nature as well as a (lexical) semantic nature, which follows that c-structure as well as f-structure will participate in semantic interpretation (Yokota 2001). Another important assumption to be introduced here is that a complement generally forms a complex predicate with the head verb at the representation level of grammatical relations (e.g. f-structure for LFG), which permits the complement completing the meaning of its head in a compositional manner. Hence, it seems reasonable to assume that certain types of adverbs are subcategorized for by the head verb.
We will illustrate the dual analysis hypothesis in LFG. Sentences like (4b) can involve either adverb-as-complement structure (7a) or adverb-as-adjunct (7b). (7a) in effect allows the corresponding sentence to act like a single predicate. Depending on contextual factors, a complement analysis of adverbs (7a) might give way to an adjunct analysis of adverbs (7b), and vice versa. In addition, the preferred interpretation might vary among speakers. An advantage with f-structures in (7) based on the dual analysis hypothesis enables us to overcome (potentially) problematic situations involving f-structure representations in LFG, where adjuncts' relative scope to one another is not encoded at f-structure (cf. Andrews and Manning 1999).
We have argued that adverbs classified as process-related (e.g. manner adverbs) restrict the range of events referred to; so that when such adverbs are selected by a verb, they contribute a necessary part of the information that the VP supplies in defining a given situation, just as an object selected by a transitive verb. If these adverbs function as complements, it is then predicted that such adverbs can modify V1 (or the embedded verb) alone from outside the VP. This is ascertained by the examples (4b) and (5b).

Non-transfer of adjuncts
In this section, given the dual analysis approach discussed in the previous section, we will consider the syntactic and semantic behavior of Japanese adverbs, and then conclude that arguments (or complements) can transfer while adjuncts cannot, contrary to the assumption postulated by Matsumoto (1996) where he claims that both can transfer freely. We start with an example involving a clearly adjunct. Example (8) contains a circumstantial clausal adjunct -mama 'with'. 3 (In the translations below, the angle brackets indicate which portion of the sentence is being modified by the adjunct, represented in square brackets.) (8) a. [Hudangi no mama] Taroo wa supai to [ NP mikkai]o shita / tsuzuketa / ketteishita / [casual wear Gen-with] Taro Top spy with secret meeting Acc did / continued / decided / kokoromita / nozonda. tried /hoped 'Taro, [wearing his everyday clothes], <did / continued to / decided to / tried to / hoped to meet secretly with a spy>.' (Note that Taro wore his everyday clothe when he did / continued / decided tried / hoped to meet a spy secretly.) b. Taroo wa supai-to [ NP [hudangi-no-mama-no] mikkai]o shita / tsuzuketa / Taro-Top spy-with casual wear-Gen-with-Gen secret meeting Acc did / continued / ketteishita / kokoromita / nozonda. decided / tried / hoped 'Taro did / continued to / decided to / tried to / hoped to <meet secretly with a spy> [wearing his everyday-clothes].' (Note that Taro did / continued / decided / tried / hoped to meet a spy secretly, where (= at the meeting) he could wear his everyday clothes.) The differences of sentence meaning show that in (8a) the adjunct clause, which is outside the projection of the VN, unambiguously modifies the main verb, whereas in (8b) the adjunct, which remains within the projection of the VN, modifies only the VN. (8a) reads, for example, 'When Taro tried to meet a spy secretly, Taro wore his everyday clothes'. In this case, the adjunct modifies the main verb kokoromita 'tried'. In (8b), on the other hand, 'Taro tried to meet a spy secretly, where (= at the meeting) he would wear his everyday clothes'. The adjunct clause therefore modifies the VN mikkai 'secret meeting' unambiguously. Matsumoto (1996), with the assumption that adjuncts as well as arguments can be transferred freely, provides the following sentences in (9) as cases of adjunct transfer; the adverbs are supposedly transferred out of the VN phrase, square-bracketed in (9).
(9) a. Sono taihuu wa fukuzatsuni [ VN idoo] o hajimeta. the typhoon Top complicatedly movement Acc began 'The typhoon began to move in a complicated way.' b. Karera wa oohabani kouri-kakaku no [ VN nesage] o kokoromita. they Top broadly retail.price Gen lowering Acc attempted 'They attempted to make a broad reduction in retail prices.' We note that it will often be difficult to determine whether a particular occurrence of an adverb instantiates an adjunct or complement, mainly because in Japanese almost all dependents are optional in context unlike languages like English. Hence, there are few reliable syntactic criteria to be used in determining the identity of a phrase in the language. Under such a difficult situation, though, we will make use of two diagnostic tests that seem especially significant to the present study; one is the nani 'what' replacement test, the other is the causative construction test. We reexamine Matsumoto's (1996:72) two examples supposedly involving such VN adjuncts (square-bracketed below); one is a ni-marked purpose clause, which can be used with a verb of motion (Miyagawa 1986, Saiki 1987  John Top finely the paper Gen cutting Acc did 'John cut the paper to very small pieces.' Matsumoto's account of (10) is, however, wrong. We instead argue that seeming adjuncts such as nimarked purpose clauses and result adverbs are actually transferred complements rather than adjuncts. A descriptive generalization to be drawn is as follows: a VN's argument can transfer, while a VN's adjunct cannot. This generalization is confirmed by the following arguments. Notice that in (11a) the VN cannot be replaced by nani 'what', indicating that the ni-marked purpose clause cannot be a dependent of suru. Likewise, in (11b) the adverb komakaku 'finely' loses its result reading if the NP is replaced by nani, which shows that the adverb cannot be a dependent of suru. Incidentally, if a result adverb is placed just in front of the main verb suru, then its result reading is available as shown in (12), in which suru may function as the heavy verb suru. Hence, (11b) and (12)  In (13a) hooseki o 'jewelry Acc' is interpreted with respect to the caused event, i.e. nusumu 'steal', and it is thus considered an argument of the base verb nusumu 'steal'. On the other hand, in (13b) the square bracketed clause is interpreted with respect to the causing event, i.e. causative suffix -sase 'make/let do', which suggests that the clause is an adjunct. Now let us check whether the ni-marked purpose clause and the result adverb are really adjuncts as Matsumoto claims. As indicated in the English translations, both in (14a) and (14b) the adverbials in the square brackets are interpreted with respect to the caused event, namely, the base verb tobee o s-'visit the USA' and setsudan o s-'cut', respectively. It seems, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the ni-marked purpose clause and the adverb of result are complements rather than adjuncts. 4 The same arguments hold for additional cases provided by Matsumoto (1996:78), in which the main verb is not suru, but a control/raising verb supposedly exhibiting the same behavior as light suru. Concerning LFG formalism, we assume that a complement forms a complex predicate with the matrix predicate (e.g. V, VN, VP) at f-structure, and the c-structure (or surface structure) is either mono-clausal or multi-clausal, though it cannot be discussed here in detail for lack of space. the typhoon Top complicatedly movement Acc began 'The typhoon began to move in a complicated way.' b. Karera wa [oohaba ni] kourikakaku no nesage o kokoromita. they Top substantially retail.price Gen lowering Acc attempted 'They attempted to make a substantial reduction in retail prices.' The nani replacement test given in (16) shows that the adverbs in question are simply not be of the matrix verbs (hajime-'begin' and kokoromi-'attempt'). The causative test in (17) shows that the adverbs in question are interpreted with respect to their base verb (i.e. hajime-'begin' and kokoromi-'attempt'), which leads us to analyze such adverbs as complements, not adjuncts. We can now recognize from the observations above that VN-complements can transfer while VN-adjuncts cannot. It may be worth pointing out, in passing, that the proposal treating all adjuncts as complements subcategorized for by the head in some version of HPSG (e.g. Van Noord and Bouma 1994, Bouma, Malouf andSag 2001) is not sufficient to give a full account of examples discussed in this section.
Lastly, we provide the PS rules for Japanese covering the facts we have been discussing. We adopt an XCOMP analysis in LFG, originally due to Kaplan and Zaenen (1989), where they propose an analysis of long-distance dependencies in terms of functional uncertainty. The rule (18a) states that either the XP is XCOMP*GF (except ADJUNCT) or it is an element of the this, the bracketed elements in (15) might be ambiguous between two readings; manner (focusing on the process of some action/ motion) and result (focusing on the resulting state of some action/motion), both of which appear to be available without much difficulty in cases like (15). The exploration of such possibilities must be left for future research.
ADJUNCT set. More specifically, (18a) generates a constituent structure in which arguments (except adjuncts) occur immediately dominated by an S. For instance, in VN constructions only arguments of an XCOMP can be allowed two alternative positions, namely, inside/outside a VN phrase. (18b) allows the alternative possibility of the arguments (except adjuncts) appearing inside an NP. In this manner, VP-adjuncts are handled by the rule (18a), while VN-adjuncts by (18b). (Note again that the postulation of adjunct transfer cannot be maintained any more as discussed in the present section.) We will extend the dual analysis of adverbs to the issue of scrambling adjuncts in the next section.

Re-examination of adjunct scrambling
As regards scrambling, we follow an assumption that adjunction is in principle quite free, that is, every element is base-generated and there are no major syntactic restrictions (e.g. subjacency (Chomsky 1973)) on either the category or the level of a phrase to which something adjoins (Choi 1996). Scrambling is usually taken to be a phenomenon that does not affect semantics. Scrambling of adjuncts changes the semantic scopes of adjuncts, while scrambling of complements does not. Scrambling of adjuncts out of a complement is not possible, while scrambling of a complement out of a complement is. Hence, adjuncts in the usual case do not undergo scrambling (e.g. Saito 1985, Gunji 1999 The argument (or complement)-like behaviour of long fronted adjuncts can be interpretatively motivated; such adjuncts do not function as scene setters of the higher clause. In (20), the locative phrase in sentence-initial position is more closely related to asobu 'play' than omotta 'thought'. In other words, omou 'think' does not normally support a locative of any type, while asobu 'play' supports a -de phrase. Somewhat informally, the crucial factor in determining the dominant interpretation lies in how easy it is to imagine an appropriate context. In light of cases like (20b), the locative adverb kooen de 'in the park' is lexically selected (or subcategorized for) by the verb asobu 'play', though in real utterances such a phrase 6 The sentences (20a) and (20b) may be ambiguous. If so, it follows that the adverb can be interpreted to modify the matrix verb as well as the embedded verb. The point here is that an adverb is interpreted with respect to the embedded verb (see also (4b) and (5b) above). may not be always realized. 7 Taking it into account, we propose that only "subcategorized adverbs" newly recognized here can participate in scrambling. This is supported by an example like (21), which shows that non-subcategorized adverbs (arguably, genuine adjuncts) cannot be scrambled without altering sentence meaning. In (21a) a temporal adjunct chookikan 'for a long time' is marked with the genitive marker no, and stays within the projection of the VN, hence the adjunct is considered a VN-modifier.
[Chookikan] tobee o shita / tsuzuketa / ketteishita / kokoromita / nozonda. for.a.long.time visit.USA-Acc did / continued / decided / tried / hoped '(Lit.) (I) <visited / tried to visit / hoped to visit USA> [for a long time].' In (21b), the adjunct chookikan is not marked with the genitive case marker, and it is outside the NP, which means that it is no longer an adjunct of the VN. Note that in (21b) the adjunct chookikan modifies the main verb shita / kokoromita / nozonda etc, but does not modify only the VN tobee 'visit USA'. The difference in interpretation between (21a) and (21b) strongly indicates that an adjunct can no longer modify its head alone if it is outside the projection of the head.
In the remainder of this section, we argue that scrambling of adverbs is motivated by lexical semantic restrictions and perhaps in some cases discourse factors such as focus, which is similar to aboutness conditions (Kuno 1976), characterization conditions (Takami 1992) requiring the rest of the sentence to make a meaningful predication about the fronted element. Consider (22) A functional-syntax approach by Kuno and Takami would explain (22) as follows; if all of a scrambled sentence, including both main and embedded clauses, does give a reading that is "about" the preposed constituent, then the sentence will be acceptable even when scrambled out of a relative clause. There are pairs of acceptable and unacceptable sentences that are structurally identical. This situation would seem to rule out appealing to any structural condition. Instead, it seems necessary to look at the meaning of the sentence and see if the rest of the sentence makes a meaningful predication about the fronted element. The aboutness constraint can account for examples like (22). For instance, (23a) can be paraphrased using a such that relative clause; "The machine gun is such that the police are searching for the guy who stole it." However, it appears difficult for such a functional account employing the paraphrasability to explain the difference between (23a) and (23b), where an adverb is in the sentence-initial position. The special relationship between a predicate and its dependents could be represented in Pustejovsky's (1995) notion of the qualia structure. Such formalization must be left for future research.
'Mary suddenly said that John started crying.' b. Kyuuni shika Mary ga [John ga naki-dasa-nak-atta to] itta. suddenly only Nom Nom cry-begin-Neg-Past that said 'Mary said that John only suddenly started crying.'

Conclusion
The central claims we have argued for in this paper are the following. The variance of adverbial interpretation is more of lexical semantic nature than of structural nature. To account for elusive paradigms involving adverbs, we need to reexamine the traditional distinction between adjuncts and complements. To substantiate it, we have shown that a newly identified semantic perspective of the dual analysis of adjuncts/complements is highly valid in the study of syntax/semantics of adverbs. The present study will lead us to argue that placement and interpretation of adverbs cannot be easily explained by a single domain of grammar (e.g. surface phrase structure), but must rather be considered by simultaneous interactions of different components of grammar (e.g. (lexical) semantic structure, syntactic structure, and discourse (information) structure). This line of analysis will be incorporated into the LFG architecture without difficulty.