Moreover, Besides, What is More: More than just Conjunctions
or
A Goal-Oriented Look at English Additives

Alex Eulenberg
Department of Linguistics
Memorial Hall
Bloomington, IN 47405

aeulenbe@indiana.edu
http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~aeulenbe

Introduction

The set of discourse function words called additives (Quirk 1985), such as moreover, besides, and what is more, has received little specific attention among researchers in natural language processing. Compared with other function words expressing causational and temporal meanings, the additives seem like ``throwaway'' words -- more decorative than meaningful. One might say that they do not specify any truth conditions beyond that of the lowly conjunction. However, I have found that there are conditions that these words specify, having to do with the speaker's goal and the informativeness of the expressions that these additives ``add.'' In this presentation I will define, describe, and differentiate between the additives in terms of these functions. I will start by describing the theory of discourse and linguistic terminology I am using, and then I will go over the meanings of three additives in detail.

A Goal-Oriented Theory of Discourse

The Function of Discourse

The framework I am working in takes the concept of ``speaker's goal'' as a primary element of discourse -- that which the speaker is trying to accomplish in a given utterance. This goal may indeed be persuasive, with a deductive proof at its essence (as rhetorical analyses of discourse tend to assume), but it may just as well be objective and descriptive (as in a lab report), or subjective and expressive (as in a theater review). In this framework, any stretch of discourse which serves a communicative goal, e.g., to persuade someone to do something, to describe a result, to express an evaluation is called a point. Ideally, a point is a sentence, but it may be a part of a sentence or a group of sentences as well. There may be points within points: a proof is a point, as are each of its steps.

Thus discourse is defined as a goal-oriented activity where the goals are reached by providing information in units called points. Points are related to each other by conjunctions (truth-functional words, such as and and or).

Conjunctive Adverbials

Conjunctive adverbials are words that express information about the kind of communicative goal that the surrounding points serve, as well as the relation between the information provided by each point relative to that goal.

Conjunctive adverbials may express, for example, an inferential relationship (therefore), temporal ordering (afterwards), contrast (on the other hand), and paradox (yet ). The conjunctive adverbial is placed before one point, called the POSTJUNCT. The point or points that precede it are called the PREJUNCT. The prejunct and the postjunct are known collectively as CONJUNCTS.

Additives

The meaning I propose for additives, given our definition of point, prejunct and postjunct:

  1. The prejunct and the postjunct are parts of the same general point.
  2. Neither the postjunct nor its negation follows logically from, or is otherwise implied in, the prejunct.
The word ``additive'' as a name for this category of conjunctive relation is appropriate from the point of view of information because, since the postjunct does not follow from the prejunct, it expresses truly additional information (contrast therefore, in other words); and, since the postjunct does not contradict anything the prejunct may imply, it doesn't `subtract' anything from the prejunct (contrast nevertheless, yet). Additives differ according to the following five dimensions:

  1. Size of conjunction: binary, or unlimited?
  2. Informational independence: may the postjunct be properly understood without the information given in the prejunct?
  3. Implicational independence: may the implications of the postjunct be properly understood without the information given in the prejunct?
  4. Restrictions on goal of conjuncts: must each conjunct provide a reason or criterion?
  5. Type of possible coordination: can the coordinate structure be one defined by a disjunction?
The properties of the additives along these five dimensions, as I have determined them, are summarized in Table 1. The meanings of each of the dimensions are made explicit in the following definitions of each additive. In the examples of use, in order to make clear what the general point is, a paraphrase of this point, or a question that takes the point as its answer, will be put in brackets before each example. Also, numbers in brackets will identify the points being conjoined.

Table 1. Summary of Additive Meanings

                            Info.      Relev.    Only      Only        Works
Connective       binary?    Indep.?     Indep?   reasons?  criteria?   with or?
_____________________________________________________________________________
also               o          o          o          o          o          o
furthermore        o          +          o          o          o          o
besides            +          +          +          +          o          o
moreover           +          o          o          o          o          o
in addition        o          +          +          o          o          o
what is more       o          o          o          +          +          +
to top it off      o          o          o          o          +          o
on top of that     o          o          o          o          +          o
I will now discuss three of the additives, moreover, besides, and what's more.

The Additives

Moreover

Moreover implies that the postjunct heaps more details over the prejunct, for the purpose of better achieving the prejunct' s goal. The postjunct may do one or both of the following: (1) fill in some relevant information on an element introduced in the prejunct, or (2) provide the second half of an answer begun by the prejunct (it does not deny the importance of the prejunct's information compare besides). It always joins a pair of points, never adding to an indefinitely long list as do in addition and furthermore. Thus moreover brings with itself a sense of completion: there are only two points worthy of note and we have mentioned them.

Example of type (1):

Mary's friends all know her as a person of great creativity. [What's so creative about her?] [1] For one thing, she is a very talented painter. Moreover, [2] some of her paintings have won national awards.

Example of type (2):

[Is geometry still useful?] [1] Geometry still possesses all those virtues that the educators ascribed to it a generation ago. There is still geometry in nature, waiting to be recognized and appreciated. Geometry (especially projective ge ometry) is still an excellent means of introducing the student to axiomatics. It still possesses the esthetic appeal it always had, and the beauty of its results has not diminished. [2] Moreover, it is even more useful and necessary to the scientist and practical mathematician than it has ever been. Consider, for instance, the shapes of the orbits of artificial satellites, and the four-dimensional geometry of the space-time continuum. (Coxeter & Greitzer, Geometry Revisited)

Besides and informational and relevance independence

The connective besides is best described in terms of two functions. It qualifies the points it connects as:

  1. reasons in support of a modal statement, and
  2. informationally and relevance independent.
The first function is important to keep in mind when constructing examples. It is best illustrated by the correctness of the following text as opposed to the incorrectness of the text afterward:

(support of evaluation: incorrect)

*What a frightful storm! [What's so frightful about it?] There are gale force winds, and besides, there's vicious thunder and lightning.

(support of modal statement: correct)

You mustn't you go outside! There are gale force winds, and besides, there's vicious thunder and lightning.

The following examples illustrate the independence of information requirement of besides. First, read the following example, understanding a context where the listener knows nothing about Mary.

You're bound to like Mary. [1] She is a very talented musician. Besides, [2] she's got a great personality.

First we note that [1] and [2] are reasons in support of the modal statement which they are supporting (``you're bound to like Mary''). Next, we note that points [1] and [2] are informationally independent. Information about a person's talent at music tells us nothing about that person's personality. Furthermore, they are relevance independent, since you can like someone solely for their musicianship without regard to personality, and you can like someone solely for their personality without regard to their musicianship.

Now notice how when we change the second sentence but slightly and make it informationally dependent on the first, we no longer have Good English:

*You're bound to like Mary. [1] She is a very talented musician. Besides, [2] she plays songs that she's written herself.
Point [2] contains information given in [1], namely that Mary is a musician. If we take `musician' to mean `someone who can play songs' then [2] carries part of the information of [1], namely, that Mary is a musician. Using besides here is tantamount to claiming that one can play songs without being a musician. Notice that if we change to a context where the fact that Mary is a musician is known, and all that is being informed about her by [1] is that she is talented, then the sequence [1] [2] can be linked by besides much more felicitously:
Mary is certain to win the Guitar-Vocalist of the Year award. [1] She is a very talented musician. Besides, [2] she plays songs that she's written herself.

This passage has resolved the essential contradiction of its predecessor, but by virtue of besides, it still makes some at least debatable assertions. One thing we must infer from the passage is that the ability to play one's own songs should not be understood as constituting talent, if [2] is to be informationally independent of [1]. The information that Mary is talented must therefore be information about something other than composing ability. Furthermore, there is relevance independence to take into consideration. The above passage asserts that being a very talented musician will assure you top prize as even if you can't play your own songs, and, conversely, you can win top prize by playing your own songs even if you aren't very talented.

Like moreover, besides connects pairs; it does not cap off a list. This fact may be obscured by the possibility of adding an alternate reason to a reason which happens to be a list of reasons. Compare (with apologies to Al Franken):

I deserve the best. I'm good enough, I'm smart enough and besides, people like me.

I deserve the best. I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and furthermore, people like me.

What is more

What is more, also, in past-tense contexts, what was more; often abbreviated to what's more or even to more; sometimes extended to what is (was) more than that/those/etc..., this additive is used to adjoin another criterion in support of an evaluation, just as besides adjoins another reason in support of a position. An evaluation is an opinion that something posesses a quality: being good, dangerous, mysterious, easy, hard, beautiful, ugly, and so on. The prejunct shows that something has a quality, and the postjunct shows that it has more of that quality.

[Evaluation: Darwin is anti-theistic]
The literature of Darwinism is full of anti-theistic conclusions, such as that the universe was not designed and has no purpose, and that we humans are the product of blind natural processes that care nothing about us. What is more, these statements are not presented as personal opinions but as the logical implications of evolutionary science. (Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial)

[Evaluation: Southern leaders have made something great]

There is no doubt that Jefferson Davis and other leaders of the South have made an army; they are making, it appears, a navy; and they have made, what is more than either, they have made a nation.... (Henry Adams, Education of Henry Adams )

[Evaluation: The opinion of the English at large was similar to Chamberlain's]

In spite of the campaigns of a few thousand left-wingers, it is fairly certain that the bulk of the English people were behind Chamberlain's foreign policy. More, it is fairly certain that the same struggle was going on in Chamberlain's mind as in the minds of ordinary people. (George Orwell)

Importantly, like besides, what is more does not join points in substantiation of a generalization.

(criteria in support of evaluation: correct)

What a frightful storm! [What's so frightful about it?] There are gale force winds, and what's more, there's vicious thunder and lightning.

Carrots are so versatile! They can be steamed as well as fried. And what's more they can be grated and put into a salad.

(facts supporting a generalization: incorrect)

*Carrots can be prepared in a number of ways. They can be steamed as well as fried. What's more, they can be grated and put into a salad.

Since a position often hinges on the validity of an evaluation, what's more often appears in contexts where a position is supported:

Don't go outside! [G:Why shouldn't you? = What's so dangerous about it out there?] There are gale force winds, and what's more, there's vicious thunder and lightning.

Discussion

In this short presentation we have reviewed three of the many additives of English. I hope I have shown that these words represent definite semantic structures that restrict the possible meanings of the sentences that they come between, structures that take into account the informationality, relevance, and the communicative goal of those sentences. The author welcomes correspondence.

REFERENCE