Bolinger (1952): konparatuz inglesezko "Why did you abruptly back away?" eta "Why did you back away abruptly?"

Itzul gaitezen ki Bolinger-en artikulua [2539], irakurriz ondoko pasartetxoa non autorea mintzo den burúz diferentzia pragmatikoa (diferentzia an intentzioa, ez an esanahi semantikoa) artén bi esaldi hauek:

• Why did you abruptly back away?  

versus

• Why did you back away abruptly?

Hauxe dio Bolinger-ek:

It is obvious that there is a clear-cut difference between Why did you abruptly back away? and Why did you back away abruptly?, though not one so radical as to put them in different semantic ranges. The first asks essentially "Why did you back away at all?" while the second asks "Why, having decided to back away, did you do it abruptly?" The first can be contrastive, but only as a whole; we might say Why did you abruptly back away? Why didn't you courteously accept as 1 wanted you to? The second is contrastive on either part, depending on the stress: Why did you back away abruptly when I told you to dart forward abruptly? and Why did you back away abruptly when I said to do it gradually? When abruptly precedes the verb, it is difficult for contrastive stress to set if off against back away. We should seldom if ever say Why did you abruptly back away when I told you to slowly back away? [Bolinger, 1952:1120]

Esan nahi baita ze, nahiz adverbioak oso laburrak izaten diren, inglesean adverbioen kontrasteak egiten dirá an amaierako posizio koherentea (non enfasiak dirén efektiboagoak), eta aurreko posizioa gelditzen da zat intentzio orokorragoak, non azentu kontrastiborik ez den jartzen an adverbioa. Horrela, aditz-aurreko adverbioa izanen dú interpretazio sintetikoa kin aditza (as a whole):

• The first can be contrastive, but only as a whole;...

bitárten aditz osteko adverbioak emanen dú aukera analitikoa (on either part):

• The second is contrastive on either part, depending on the stress:...

Hor, koherentziak errazten dú kontraste finagoa eta efektiboagoa. [2544] [>>>]