4

Why is emphasizing in the following sentence an adverb?

Americans draw smileys emphasizing the mouth.

Laurel
  • 66,382
Rafael Silva
  • 41

2 Answers2

2

In a comment, BillJ wrote:

It's not an adverb; it's a gerund-participle verb. The salient interpretation of your example is that "emphasizing the mouth" is a gerund-participial clause modifying "smileys". Semantically the clause is similar to the relative clause "Americans draw smileys which emphasise the mouth".

tchrist
  • 134,759
0

"Emphasizing" is not an adverb, per se, but rather is the start of an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb "draw." The entire phrase "emphasizing the mouth" is what is the adverb, and it is because it modifies the verb "draw."

Here is an excerpt from the Learning English Grammar website that might help you better understand:

We can use an adverbial phrase beginning with "ing" words (i.e., present participles) when describing an action done by or an event caused by the same subject in the main clause.

https://learningenglishgrammar.wordpress.com/adverbial-phrases-with-present-participles/

In your sentence, "emphasizing the mouth" is describing how the subject, "Americans," performs the verb, "draw."

Billy
  • 1,768
  • 2
    This is incorrect. Emphasizing is a transitive verb whose direct object is the mouth. Adverbs cannot have direct objects: only verbs can. You’re confusing higher-level syntactic analysis by constituent with trivial part-of-speech assignment. – tchrist Jul 10 '18 at 01:25
  • This is NOT incorrect. The source I provided clearly shows that, unlike your unsourced, incorrect criticism. You simply fail to understand the grammar. Had you bothered to even go to the link, you'd have seen the second paragraph above was lifted directly from it. Those aren't my words, hence the source link that ensues. – Billy Jul 10 '18 at 02:05
  • You know, if you had bothered to do any research at all, you'd have only found sources showing what I have said and would have found zero sources supporting what you're saying. And to be clear, I didn't say the adverb has a direct object, but a verb can have a direct object, including its participial form, and that participle and direct object can form an adverbial modifying phrase. That's not advanced grammar. That's high school grammar. – Billy Jul 10 '18 at 02:06
  • 1
    So do you agree that it's a verb not an adverb? – tchrist Jul 10 '18 at 02:08
  • There's a difference between "adverbial phrases" and "adverbs." In I went to the mall**, the prepositional phrase functions adverbially but contains no adverb. – RaceYouAnytime Jul 10 '18 at 02:26
  • @RaceYouAnytime That's why Billy says: "We can use adverbial phrases beginning with -ing words." – aesking Jul 10 '18 at 02:34
  • 1
    @aesking Yes, I was just saying what I think tchrist was saying obliquely, which is that a solid answer should, as the most up-voted currently does, point out that "emphasizing" is not an adverb in that sentence. I would upvote this answer if it was edited and started by pointing out the difference between an adverb and and adverbial phrase. – RaceYouAnytime Jul 10 '18 at 02:38
  • 1
    @RaceYouAnytime -- Why would I point out "emphasizing" is not an adverb in the sentence when I never said it was? Why would I point out the difference between an adverb and an adverb phrase when I never muddle the water by referring to it as an adverb? – Billy Jul 10 '18 at 02:56
  • 1
    Also, the "most up-voted" answer is wrong. It calls "emphasizing" a "reduced relative clause," but it is not a reduced relative clause. It is not even a clause. A clause has a subject and a verb, and a reduced relative clause is when the relative pronoun introducing a relative clause is omitted, like "The man (that) I saw smiled at me." "That I saw smiled at me" is a relative clause, having a subject and a verb and being introduced by the relative pronoun "that." Omitting "that" and thus reducing it to "I saw smiled at me" turns it into a reduced relative clause. – Billy Jul 10 '18 at 02:58
  • 1
    @Billy Why would you point it out? I was thinking because the question presupposes that it is an adverb. Whoever asked the question, and more importantly, whoever might hypothetically visit the question hoping to learn, would benefit from knowing that distinction. – RaceYouAnytime Jul 10 '18 at 03:02
  • @RaceYouAnytime -- Point taken. I'd originally said it that way because I find that directly contradicting someone is usually counterproductive, especially when it could be seen as splitting hairs, like in this case where she's in the right ballpark calling it an adverb. But then I forgot that over the back and forth and lost sight of the original question. Anyway, you're absolutely right. I'll modify my answer accordingly. – Billy Jul 10 '18 at 03:24
  • 1
    I totally understand, answer upvoted as promised and as deserved. If it were me I would write "The entire phrase 'emphasizing the mouth' is what functions as the adverb" but I won't keep nit-picking. – RaceYouAnytime Jul 10 '18 at 03:25
  • I agree that emphasizing is not a reduced relative clause and I was wrong about this so took back my answer. – Duong Nguyen Jul 10 '18 at 12:31
  • And then down-voted my answer? Kill the bearer of bad news much? – Billy Jul 11 '18 at 02:54
  • @Billy A reduced relative clause it not just when a relativiser is omitted. Your example of “[that] I saw” (which, incidentally, is the entire the relative clause; “smiled at me” is the matrix verb and its complement, not part of the relative clause) is a finite reduced relative clause; “emphasising the mouth” in the question is a non-finite reduced relative clause, and it absolutely is a classic instance of a reduced relative clause. (It can also be interpreted adverbially as you do in your answer, but it is in no way wrong to interpret it as a reduced relative clause either.) – Janus Bahs Jacquet Aug 09 '18 at 14:39