Semantic function

Adjuncts can be categorized in terms of the functional meaning that they

contribute to the phrase, clause, or sentence in which they appear. The
following list of the semantic functions is by no means exhaustive, but it
does include most of the semantic functions of adjuncts identified in the
literature on adjuncts:[4]

Causal Causal adjuncts establish the reason for, or purpose of, an action
or state.
The ladder collapsed because it was old. (reason)
Concessive Concessive adjuncts establish contrary circumstances.
Lorna went out although it was raining.
Conditional Conditional adjuncts establish the condition in which an
action occurs or state holds.
I would go to Paris, if I had the money.
Consecutive Consecutive adjuncts establish an effect or result.
It rained so hard that the streets flooded.
Final Final adjuncts establish the goal of an action (what one wants to
accomplish).
He works a lot to earn money for school.
Instrumental Instrumental adjuncts establish the instrument used to
accomplish an action.
Mr. Bibby wrote the letter with a pencil.
Locative Locative adjuncts establish where, to where, or from where a
state or action happened or existed.
She sat on the table. (locative)
Measure Measure adjuncts establish the measure of the action, state, or
quality that they modify
I am completely finished.
That is mostly true.
We want to stay in part.
Modal Modal adjuncts establish the extent to which the speaker views
the action or state as (im)probable.
They probably left.
In any case, we didn't do it.
That is perhaps possible.
I'm definitely going to the party.
Modificative Modificative adjuncts establish how the action happened or
the state existed.
He ran with difficulty. (manner)
He stood in silence. (state)
He helped me with my homework. (limiting)
Temporal Temporal adjuncts establish when, how long, or how frequent
the action or state happened or existed.
He arrived yesterday. (time point)
He stayed for two weeks. (duration)
She drinks in that bar every day. (frequency)
Distinguishing between predicative
expressions, arguments, and adjuncts
Omission diagnostic

The distinction between arguments and adjuncts and predicates is central

to most theories of syntax and grammar. Predicates take arguments and
they permit (certain) adjuncts.[5] The arguments of a predicate are
necessary to complete the meaning of the predicate.[6] The adjuncts of a
predicate, in contrast, provide auxiliary information about the core
predicate-argument meaning, which means they are not necessary to
complete the meaning of the predicate. Adjuncts and arguments can be
identified using various diagnostics. The omission diagnostic, for instance,
helps identify many arguments and thus indirectly many adjuncts as well.
If a given constituent cannot be omitted from a sentence, clause, or
phrase without resulting in an unacceptable expression, that constituent is
NOT an adjunct, e.g.

a. Fred certainly knows.

b. Fred knows. certainly may be an adjunct (and it is).
a. He stayed after class.
b. He stayed. after class may be an adjunct (and it is).
a. She trimmed the bushes.
b. *She trimmed. the bushes is NOT an adjunct.
a. Jim stopped.
b. *Stopped. Jim is NOT an adjunct.
Other diagnostics

Further diagnostics used to distinguish between arguments and adjuncts

include multiplicity, distance from head, and the ability to coordinate. A
head can have multiple adjuncts but only one object argument
(=complement):

a. Bob ate the pizza. the pizza is an object argument (=complement).

b. Bob ate the pizza and the hamburger. the pizza and the hamburger
is a noun phrase that functions as object argument.
c. Bob ate the pizza with a fork. with a fork is an adjunct.
d. Bob ate the pizza with a fork on Tuesday. with a fork and on
Tuesday are both adjuncts.
Object arguments are typically closer to their head than adjuncts:

a. the collection of figurines (complement) in the dining room

(adjunct)
b. *the collection in the dining room (adjunct) of figurines
(complement)
Adjuncts can be coordinated with other adjuncts, but not with arguments:

a. *Bob ate the pizza and with a fork.

b. Bob ate with a fork and with a spoon.
Optional arguments vs. adjuncts
The distinction between arguments and adjuncts is much less clear than
the simple omission diagnostic (and the other diagnostics) suggests. Most
accounts of the argument vs. adjunct distinction acknowledge a further
division. One distinguishes between obligatory and optional arguments.
Optional arguments pattern like adjuncts when just the omission
diagnostic is employed, e.g.

a. Fred ate a hamburger.

b. Fred ate. a hamburger is NOT an obligatory argument, but it could be
(and it is) an optional argument.
a. Sam helped us.
b. Sam helped us is NOT an obligatory argument, but it could be (and it
is) an optional argument.
The existence of optional arguments blurs the line between arguments
and adjuncts considerably. Further diagnostics (beyond the omission
diagnostic and the others mentioned above) must be employed to
distinguish between adjuncts and optional arguments. One such
diagnostic is the relative clause test. The test constituent is moved from
the matrix clause to a subordinate relative clause containing which
occurred/happened. If the result is unacceptable, the test constituent is
probably NOT an adjunct:

a. Fred ate a hamburger.

b. Fred ate. a hamburger is not an obligatory argument.
c. *Fred ate, which occurred a hamburger. a hamburger is not an
adjunct, which means it must be an optional argument.
a. Sam helped us.
b. Sam helped. us is not an obligatory argument.
c. *Sam helped, which occurred us. us is not an adjunct, which means it
must be an optional argument.
The particular merit of the relative clause test is its ability to distinguish
between many argument and adjunct PPs, e.g.

a. We are working on the problem.

b. We are working.
c. *We are working, which is occurring on the problem. on the problem
is an optional argument.
a. They spoke to the class.
b. They spoke.
c. *They spoke, which occurred to the class. to the class is an optional
argument.
The reliability of the relative clause diagnostic is actually limited. For
instance, it incorrectly suggests that many modal and manner adjuncts
are arguments. This fact bears witness to the difficulty of providing an
absolute diagnostic for the distinctions currently being examined. Despite
the difficulties, most theories of syntax and grammar distinguish on the
one hand between arguments and adjuncts and on the other hand
between optional arguments and adjuncts, and they grant a central
position to these divisions in the overarching theory.
Predicates vs. adjuncts
Many phrases have the outward appearance of an adjunct but are in fact
(part of) a predicate instead. The confusion occurs often with copular
verbs, in particular with a form of be, e.g.

It is under the bush.

The party is at seven o'clock.
The PPs in these sentences are NOT adjuncts, nor are they arguments. The
preposition in each case is, rather, part of the main predicate. The matrix
predicate in the first sentence is is under; this predicate takes the two
arguments It and the bush. Similarly, the matrix predicate in the second
sentence is is at; this predicate takes the two arguments The party and
seven o'clock. Distinguishing between predicates, arguments, and
adjuncts becomes particularly difficult when secondary predicates are
involved, for instance with resultative predicates, e.g.

That made him tired.

The resultative adjective tired can be viewed as an argument of the
matrix predicate made. But it is also definitely a predicate over him. Such
examples illustrate that distinguishing predicates, arguments, and
adjuncts can become difficult and there are many cases where a given
expression functions in more ways than one.