| Here is some more from net.nlang on "hopefully." It's a bit long
and filled with pedantic jargon, but I found it amusing.
Jon
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Path: decwrl!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!utai!gh
Subject: Re: Probably this will not end the \"hopefully\" debate
Posted: 19 May 86 20:29:37 GMT
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Posted: Mon May 19 16:29:37 1986
The story so far:
Keith Kleiner (kkleiner%[email protected]) posted an article in
which
(1) an opponent of certain controversial uses of `hopefully' makes the
absurd claim that an adverb cannot modify a sentence;
(2) Tom Parmenter, a smartass supporter of `hopefully' (who has so little
feel for language that he describes grammar books as `dry'), believes
that by exhibiting counterexamples, he or she has refuted all
opposition to `hopefully' as a sentence modifier.
What hasn't happened yet:
(1) An analysis of the different types of sentence modification by adverbs
that are and are not permitted in English, including the lexical
idiosyncrasies.
(2) An analysis of why some people are so distressed by `hopefully' when
they don't even notice other sentence-modifying adverbs.
Now read on!
What kinds of adverbial sentence modification are there?
--------------------------------------------------------
In his article, Keith Kleiner exhibited the following sentence-modifying
adverbs, which I have organized into three groups for the discussion below.
Class 1. Properties of the propositional content of the sentence.
Apparently some Desperados think that . . .
Probably most people in their everyday speech and writing use . . .
Obviously sentences are not damaged . . .
Evidently the case against "hopefully" is . . .
Clearly I number myself among those . . .
Presumably there will by then be some new controversy alarming the planet.
Class 2. Comments on the effects of the truth of the proposition.
Happily our good English adverbs are . . .
Mercifully the newness of "hopefully" will not . . .
Class 3. Others.
Hopefully this completes the discusion.
In class 1, the job of the adverb is to comment on meta-properties of the
propositional content of the sentence, e.g.:
The proposition that most Desperados think X is apparent.
The proposition that most I number myself among those is clear.
The proposition that there will by then be some new controversy is
presumable. [Not a common word, but quite acceptable; Webster's dates
it to 1692.]
Such sentences may often (always?) be restated as `it'-clefts:
It is apparent that most Desperados think . . .
It is clear that I number myself . . .
It is presumable that there will by then . . .
The converse operation, from `it'-cleft to sentence adverb, is usually
possible, but not always. In particular, it can't be done when meta-properties
are being negated:
It is true that he is a great pianist.
Truly, he is a great pianist.
It is false that he is a great pianist.
*Falsely, he is a great pianist.
It is unclear that I number myself . . .
*Unclearly, I number myself . . .
This alone is sufficient evidence that English does not always permit
sentence-modifying adverbs, even in cases where, as the `it' forms demonstrate,
it could make perfect sense.
Obviously, `hopefully' is not a modifier of the propositional content:
*The proposition that this will end the discussion is hopeful.
*It is hopeful that this will end the discussion.
We must therefore consider other classes into which it might fall. Let's
look at class 2 above. The common thread in these is that the adverb is
describing the situation the truth of which is asserted in the sentence:
It is a happy situation that our good English adverbs are . . .
That our good English adverbs are . . . is a happy situation.
It is a merciful situation that the newness of "hopefully" will . . .
That the newness of "hopefully" will . . . is a merciful situation.
Note that these can (sometimes, at least) be negated:
Unhappily our good English adverbs are . . .
Again, `hopefully' is precluded:
*It is a hopeful situation that this will end the discussion.
*That this will end the discussion is a hopeful situation.
At this stage, we see that the evidence presented by Kevin Kleiner and Tom
Parmenter is inadequate. None of the adverbial sentence modifications that
they adduce are in any way like `hopefully'. Moreover, we have seen that some
modifications are definitely disallowed (`falsely', `unclearly', etc).
We can now also see why some people object to `hopefully'. They are well
attuned to the allowable types of adverbial sentence modification, and find
that `hopefully' just doesn't fit in.
The task of the `hopefully' defenders is now to find another sentence modifier
that behaves the way `hopefully' does. So now, let's turn to class 3,
represented so far only by `hopefully', and see if we can do what Kleiner and
Parmenter couldn't do -- find an adverb with accepted parallel behavior.
In class 3, I take it, the adverb modifies the speaker's attitude to the
proposition:
Hopefully, this will end the discussion.
I am hopeful that this will end the discussion.
One possibility that has been mentioned before in this discussion is `frankly'.
This seems a good candidate, because it also refers to the speaker's attitude.
Unfortunately, it doesn't quite do the trick.
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
is more like
I am frank in saying that I don't give a damn
than
*I am frank that I don't a damn.
Not quite the same, is it? So let's put `frank' in Class 4 (along with
`candid', `sincere', `honest', etc), and try some others. How about this:
Certainly, this will end the discussion.
I am certain that this will end the discussion.
Well, this looks good. But there is also another gloss, a class 1 usage.
It is certain that this will end the discussion.
The proposition that this will end the discussion is certain.
What to make of this? Are these glosses the same, or is there a subtle
difference in the two? Clearly the latter; one attributes certainty to the
speaker, the other to the proposition (though the one case *entails* the
other). Perhaps we have a second explanation for opposition to `hopefully'
here. Some parts of the population regard `certainly' as descriptive of the
proposition only, whereas others regard it as descriptive of the speaker (or as
ambiguous).
So unless anyone has another candidate, whether or not `hopefully' is
acceptable as a sentence modifier depends on a rather subtle property of
`certainly'. Comments are invited.
A final point: An adverb that fits nowhere into any of the above is
`admittedly'. Analyses (and examples of similar adverbs) are invited.
--
\\\\ Graeme Hirst University of Toronto Computer Science Department
//// utcsri!utai!gh / gh.toronto@csnet-relay / 416-978-8747
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Path: decwrl!glacier!SU-Russell!goldberg
Subject: Re: Probably this will not end the \"hopefully\" debate
Posted: 26 May 86 10:26:38 GMT
Organization: Stanford University, CSLI
I had really thought that I would ignore the 'hopefully' arguments, but I
was overjoyed to see that someone posted an interesting article with some
interesesting data on the matter. This was Greame Hirst whose writing will
be marked with '>'.
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Graeme Hirst) writes:
>What hasn't happened yet:
> (1) An analysis of the different types of sentence modification by adverbs
> that are and are not permitted in English, including the lexical
> idiosyncrasies.
> (2) An analysis of why some people are so distressed by `hopefully' when
> they don't even notice other sentence-modifying adverbs.
>
Hisrt supplies both of these and does so in (at least for the first) a very
insightful way. But Hirst makes a few errors in deciding what forms a good
argument.
I will not repeat or include the entire argument. Much of the analysis
under (1) above shows that 'hopefully' is not the same sort of thing as any
other class of advarbs in English for those individuals (including me) who
allow the prohibitted use of the word.
At first, two importent classes of sentantial adverbs are identified. They
are given a semantic characterization, and later their syntactic
distribution is discussed. (The implications of the possible interactions
of syntax ans semantics is, unfortunatly, left undiscussed.)
> Class 1. Properties of the propositional content of the sentence.
>
> Apparently some Desperados think that . . .
> Probably most people in their everyday speech and writing use . . .
> Obviously sentences are not damaged . . .
> Evidently the case against "hopefully" is . . .
> Clearly I number myself among those . . .
> Presumably there will by then be some new controversy alarming the planet.
>
> Class 2. Comments on the effects of the truth of the proposition.
>
> Happily our good English adverbs are . . .
> Mercifully the newness of "hopefully" will not . . .
>
By placing 'Hopefully' in a third category, Hirst fails to recognize that
'hopefully' belongs in both class 1 and class 2. All of the adverbs in
class 1 place the utterence on some scale of doubt and evidentiality.
'Hopefully' has this property. It is used in construction with
propositions about which the truth is uncertain. It falls into class 2
becuase it tells us how the speaker feels about the proposition.
>In class 1, the job of the adverb is to comment on meta-properties of the
>propositional content of the sentence, e.g.:
>
> The proposition that most Desperados think X is apparent.
Hirst argues that 'hopefully' is not in class one because it doesn't have
the distribution of the class 1 adverbs. However, if we recall that
'hopefully' is semantically both in class 1 and 2 then the semantic
anomouly (marked by '#') of the following will be explained by what ever is
needed to explain the oddness of class 2 adverbs in the same construction.
#The proposition that most Desperados think X is hopeful.
#The proposition that most Desperados think X is happy.
>Such sentences may often (always?) be restated as
'extraposition
constructions'.
> It is apparent that most Desperados think . . .
Again since the meanings of 'happy' and 'merciful' are incompatable with
extraposition, we shouldn't be surprised that 'hopeful' would fail here as
well.
>We must therefore consider other classes into which it might fall. Let's
>look at class 2 above. The common thread in these is that the adverb is
>describing the situation the truth of which is asserted in the sentence:
>
> It is a happy situation that our good English adverbs are . . .
While I find the above example preatty bad I will accept the judgement and
point out that a number of the class 1 adverbs (when used in the adjectival
form) are no worse in this construction than 'hopefully'.
#It is a clear situation that this will end the discussion.
#That this will end the discussion is a clear situation.
#It is a hopeful situation that this will end the discussion.
#That this will end the discussion is a hopeful situation.
So, if we consider that the membership of a word to some semantic class
places restrictions on its distribution instead of making the assumption
Hirst makes, that membership in a class ALLOWS certain distributions, we
predict (given that 'hopefully' is in class 1 and 2) that its distribution
is limited to the intersection of the distributions of class 1 and 2.
>The task of the `hopefully' defenders is now to find another sentence modifier
>that behaves the way `hopefully' does. So now, let's turn to class 3,
>represented so far only by `hopefully', and see if we can do what Kleiner and
>Parmenter couldn't do -- find an adverb with accepted parallel behavior.
[about 30 lines showing that 'hopefully' doesn't behave like
'frankly' and possibly not like 'certainly'.]
>So unless anyone has another candidate, whether or not `hopefully' is
>acceptable as a sentence modifier depends on a rather subtle property of
>`certainly'. Comments are invited.
While it would be useful for the 'hopefully' defenders to show that it
belongs to a large class of items, it doesn't really hurt their case that
the word is unique. If you look very closely at any word you will find
that it is unique.
Finally, if you buy the idea that semantically 'hopefully' is both in
Hirst's class 1 and 2, and you buy my claim that membership in a semantic
class places restrictions on distribution then the data Hirst presents (and
is partailly replecated above) argues for an analysis of 'hopefully' which
predicts that
Hopefully thought will replace pedentic displays of 'grammar'.
is a perfectly fine English sentence.
>\\\\ Graeme Hirst University of Toronto Computer Science Department
>//// utcsri!utai!gh / gh.toronto@csnet-relay / 416-978-8747
--
/*
** Jeff Goldberg (best reached at [email protected])
*/
|
| I'll buy "hoffentlich", but I'd also credit "the genius of the language",
that is, the need was felt and supplied.
I think the "hopefully" controversy is over, but it was raging back in
the 70s and 80s. I remember that Phyllis McGinley or some other woman
poet of Connecticut had a sign on her door stating "People who misues
'hopefully' are barred from these premises."
Various escapes from "hopefully" were proposed, the best being "it is
to be hoped that" and the worst being a tie between "hopably" and
"hopingly". It was these kinds of tortured phrases that convinced me
there was nothing wrong with "hopefully". I recall someone else
huffing and puffing, "The Germans are fortunate that their language
includes the word 'hoffentlich' which permits this construction, but,
sadly, we in English have no such word as 'hopefully' and we must
therefore do without it."
When I wrote my little paragraph, I was responding to the ridiculous
proposition that adverbs could modify only single verbs, adjectives,
and other adverbs, and not whole sentences. I was aware as I wrote
that I wasn't coming up with any direct parallels to the use of
"hopefully". I believe the root of the objection to this use of
"hopefully", was that there was no previously prepared category and
thus many assumed the usage must be wrong.
I found the following in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate: "Only the
irrationally large amount of critical fire drawn by [this use] of
_hopefully_ requires its particular recognition in a dictionary.
Similar use of other adverbs (as _interestingly_, _presumably_,
_fortunately_) as sentence modifiers is so commonplace as to excite no
notice whatever. While it still arouses occasional objection,
_hopefully_ as a sentence modifier has been in use at least sence 1932
and is well established as standard."
The prohibition of "hopefully" is an imaginary rule, like those against
splitting infinitives and against ending sentences with preposition or
beginning them with conjunctions, a rule obeyed by the rule-happy
and ignored by everyone else.
Here's the whole offending statement from back in 1984:
Apparently some Desperados think an adverb cannot modify a whole
sentence. Happily our good English adverbs are tougher than some
Desperados think they are. Probably most people in their everyday
speech and writing use adverbs in this way, including some of the most
improbable. Obviously sentences are not damaged by being modified all
at once by one lone adverb. Evidently the case against "hopefully" is
that it is a a *new* adverb on the list of those adverbs that can
modify whole sentences and not just one measly verb, and great big
grownup sentences, quite complex, though still diagrammable,
sentences, not that being diagrammable is all that big a deal
sentencewise. Mercifully the newness of "hopefully" will not will not
last forever and the word can settle down to its apppointed task of
modifying whole sentences. Presumably there will by then be some new
controversy alarming the planet.
Among the synonyms and superior substitutes for "hopefully" that have
been offered by the pundits are the pompous and wordy "it is to be
hoped" and the laughable "hopably" and the forlorn "hopingly".
Clearly I number myself among those who see nothing wrong with using
"hopefully" as the genius of the language dictates, and not as some
dry grammmar book decrees. Hopefully this completes the discusion.
|