<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear Vladimir,</p>
<p>allow me to use the terminology that I prefer. In particular, the
term 'argument' is used by many without it being clear whether it
is a semantic or a structural entity. So let us speak of semantic
relationality and the roles comprised by it, on the one hand, and
of valency and its actants (or complements, as P. Matthews has
it), on the other.</p>
<p>Then there are semantically relational concepts in all languages.
Some languages convert (some of) them into grammatical relations
and develop verbal (or nominal etc.) valency to some extent;
others don't. This idea is old in European linguistics. Meillet
says (I think, in his history of the Latin language) that
Proto-Indo-European had no valency; it was developed in the
historical languages. Coseriu 1979 says that Japanese verbs have
no valency. I propose a theory to the same effect in Lehmann 2015.<br>
</p>
<p>Coseriu, Eugenio 1979, „Verbinhalt, Aktanten, Diathese. Zur
japanischen Ukemi-Bildung.“ Ezawa, Kennosuke & Rensch, Karl
Heinz M. (eds.), <i>Sprache und Sprechen. Festschrift für
Eberhard Zwirner zum 80. Geburtstag. Herausgegeben von K. Ezawa
und K.H. Rensch.</i> Tübingen: M. Niemeyer; 35-55.</p>
<p>Lehmann, Christian 2015, "Situation types, valency frames and
operations”. Malchukov, Andrej & Comrie, Bernard (eds.), <i>Valency
classes in the world’s languages. Volume 1: Introducing the
framework, and case studies from Africa and Eurasia. Volume 2:
Case studies from Austronesia, the Pacific, the Americas, and
theoretical outlook.</i> Berlin & Boston, Mass.: de Gruyter
Mouton (Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics, 1); 1547-1596.
(downloadable from my website)<br>
</p>
<p>Meillet, Antoine 1952, <i>Esquisse d'une histoire de la langue
latine</i>. Paris: Hachette. 6. éd.<br>
</p>
<p>---------------------------------------------------------<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 19.08.2023 um 04:11 schrieb Vladimir
Panov:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALeR4d4W0hp7hPO30CicQSuBd4eVP2jkjC=qUE+RXcQYvChX8w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Dear colleagues,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have a very general question to you. We all use the term
"argument structure" and we are used to semantic labels like
A, S or P or syntactic labels like subject, direct and
indirect object. Many linguistis, especially those adhering to
"formal" approaches, would argue that there are also adjuncts
which are not arguments.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is anybody aware of any attempts to seriously challenge the
adequacy of the very notion of "arguments" in general? After
all, ir seems that there are languages which do not encode or
encode little the "roles" of named entities (noun phrases,
pronouns etc.) anywhere in utterance, especially in colloquial
language, or encode entities like the addressee rather than
the agent or the patient. My intuition tells me that there
might be such critical works in the traditions of usage-based
linguistics, interactional linguistics, conversation analysis
or linguistic anthropology but I have found very little.
Actually, I've only discovered the very recent Heine's book in
which he argues for a broader understanding of argument
structure which includes speech situation participants - a
very interestinng view. So am looking for more research in
this spirit.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm sorry if it sounds a bit confusing but if anything like
that comes to you mind I'll be happy if you can share it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Vladimir Panov</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><i>I condemn the Russian agression in Ukraine</i></div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>