always never "all the time"
They aren't 'expletives', but they express a non-expiry. What word would describe this type of word?
Context : he never brings me flowers; he's always late; you criticise me 'all the time'.
Linguistics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional linguists and others with an interest in linguistic research and theory. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
I would say those are temporal adverbs.
To be precise, all the time can not be an adverb since "adverb" is a word class but this phrase is not a single word. And you asked about the "kinds of words" (i.e. word classes), but you can not assign a word class to a phrase.
Syntactically, this phrase, just like always or never (which are syntactically single-word phrases), functions as an adverbial, a phrase which modifies a verb or clause - but here we are at a different level, because this is a grammatical function, not a word class.
As you said, they are not expletives, because they are an inherent part of the sentence's meaning.
Edit: You mentioned non-expiry - I don't know of any specific term for that.
The classification among temporal adverbs is rather between time point/span - duration - frequency, possibly others, but apparently not whether the adverb expresses expiry, non-expiry, having expired (i.e. past events) or whatever.
I assume the reason is that such a classification wouldn't be very meaningful, as there are types of temporal adverbs such as those expressing frequency that could not at all be classified w.r.t expiry - take the word sometimes; this is neither something that expires, nor something that doesn't expire nor something that has already expired. So I don't think there is an actual terminological classification w.r.t. expiry because this would only be applicable to a rather small set of adverbs.
Always and never are adverbs of frequency. The phrase all the time is a noun phrase.
We use all three of these items as (temporal) adjuncts, a term which refers to their syntactic function, in other words what job they are doing in the sentence rather than what word or phrase category they are.
In terms of semantics and their being 'non-expiry' terms, I think one term that is sometimes used to denote this is that they represent unbounded periods of time.
I think your question is not really about linguistics, but about rhetoric, especially after this comment:
I added more context, which will make it more apparent that, 'exaggerations', was the classification I was looking for.
Syntactically, exaggerations can be almost any part of speech, any class of word or phrase, any syntactic position. Your examples include two adverbs and one noun phrase. They're all used as adjuncts modifying the verb or verb phrase—but an idiot can come up with an example where the subject of the sentence is an exaggeration, as I just did.
Semantically, exaggerations can likewise come from almost any category. Your examples are all temporal/frequentive quantifiers, but again, that isn't true for "an idiot" above.
But rhetorically, there is a good answer: All of your examples are cases of hyperbole: the use of exaggeration as an intensifier.
What you literally mean is that the friend you're discussing is often late. But you also want to get across the fact that you have strong feelings about him being often late. Saying that he's "always" late when that isn't literally true is one good way to do that; your listener will understand that you're complaining about your friend's habitual tardiness rather than just stating it as a fact.
To see how hyperbole works as an intensifier, compare "He's late so damn OFTEN". Adding "damn", stressing "often", and focus postposing are all intensifiers, and the rhetorical effect is similar to "He's always late."
And when I say "an idiot can come up with an example", I don't literally mean that; only a normally-intelligent native speaker with at least a bit of relevant education could do so. But using hyperbole intensifies the point: it's not even close to true that only temporal-adverb-like adjuncts can be exaggerations.1
1. But, as with all rhetorical devices, there's a risk of being misconstrued. The exact same exaggeration could be used to imply that you should have figured this out for yourself and not asked this question. I obviously didn't intend at all—if I didn't think you had a good question that deserved an answer, I wouldn't have written one—but without that context, you might not have had any way of guessing that.