<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>Some additional data: In my ongoing cross-linguistic Association
Experiment, I tested 4 sentences of N V N structure to see if they
permitted Pat V Ag interpretations, in (among others) three
Sinitic varieties. (Of these 4 sentences, 2 were semantically
symmetric while 2 were asymmetric.) For each variety I tested
approximately 30 subjects. The availability of such Pat V Ag
interpretations was as follows:</p>
<p>Mandarin (Beijing): 8%<br>
Cantonese (HK): 7%
<br>
Mandarin (overseas Chinese, Jakarta): 18%</p>
<p>What these results show is that while there is a strong
disfavouring of Pat V Ag interpretations in such constructions,
they are nevertheless available. <br>
</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>David</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/08/2023 18:24, Chao Li wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL3Jw8TgxfqkbCdt0-WZBE3oObkX+_FkZkt+H8qiCsYcaJnWEA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div
id="m_-197487478029998947m_-3494078813807167779gmail-:36m">
<div
id="m_-197487478029998947m_-3494078813807167779gmail-:65t"
aria-label="Message Body" role="textbox"
aria-multiline="true" aria-controls=":6xe">Dear Randy,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You have cited Y. R. Chao a few times and apparently
you adopt the position that Chinese can be sufficiently
explained with the notions of topic and comment. I do
not think that anyone working on Chinese would deny the
importance of the notions of topic and comment in
describing and explaining the functioning of Chinese.
Also, probably no one working on Chinese would deny the
fact that Chinese exhibits flexibility in word order, as
shown by the examples you cited in your messages.
However, IF your position is that Chinese (essentially)
has no argument structure or that word order has no
place in Chinese grammar, Jianming (as can be seen from
his earlier discussion with you), I, and very likely
many others would think that this position is too
extreme. Word order (and argument structure) actually
has an important place in Chinese grammar. Otherwise,
why (1) has to be interpreted as "the cat is/was chasing
the dog" (even though in the real world cats are timid
and it is more likely for a dog to chase a cat than for
a cat to chase a dog), why (2b) is odd or bad
(particularly when previous clauses in the same Chinese
sentence, as can be viewed by clicking on the link,
remain unchanged), or why 'that girl' in (3), not '(the)
flower' or 'flowers' in the same sentence, has to be
understood as the entity that was consumed? All the
three examples contain a transitive verb and in spirit
they are all of the "N-V-N’" format. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(1) Māo zài zhuī gǒu. </div>
<div> cat Progressive chase dog</div>
<div> 'The cat is/was chasing the dog.'</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(2) a. ... wǒ hē-le nà bēi
guǒzhī. </div>
<div> I drink-Perfective that cup
juice</div>
<div> '...I drank that cup of juice.' (<a
href="https://cn.nytimes.com/style/20170209/the-stir-fried-tomatoes-and-eggs-my-chinese-mother-made/zh-hant/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://cn.nytimes.com/style/20170209/the-stir-fried-tomatoes-and-eggs-my-chinese-mother-made/zh-hant/</a>)</div>
<div> b. ??... nà bēi guǒzhī hē-le
wǒ. </div>
<div> that cup juice
drink-Perfective I</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(3) Huā chī-le nà nǚhái.
(name of a movie)</div>
<div> flower eat-Perfective that girl</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>Chao</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at
11:52 PM Randy LaPolla <<a
href="mailto:randy.lapolla@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">randy.lapolla@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">Thanks Christian,
<div>Chao’s point in using the analogy of the function in
logic is just to explain how the position of reference
phrases in the clause is not related to semantic role,
as it is in English, so N-V-N’ (actually [Topic
N]-[Comment V-N’]) can be almost any set of semantic
roles, depending only on contextual factors for their
interpretation, as long as the addressee can create a
meaning from it. The examples I gave are only a few of
the possibilities. This is also why he argued there is
no passive/active distinction in Chinese. It is a matter
of inferring the direction of action from the overall
context/situation. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is common now for us to assign roles to positions
of arguments of functions, but Chao was assuming
(explicitly) that the order of the arguments of the
function does not influence the interpretation. <br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">All the best,</div>
<div dir="ltr">Randy </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 23 Aug 2023, at 9:44 AM,
Christian Lehmann <<a
href="mailto:christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Randy,
<p>thanks for this report. There would be no point
in criticizing Chao, doubtless an eminent
grammarian. However, it does not seem that his use
of the term 'argument' throws much light on
Mandarin grammar. Given your examples, nothing, of
course, prevents you from defining a function
die(x, y) such that x is a being touched by the
death and y is the dying being. You then get a
multiplicity of functions die(v,w), where v and w
play different roles. I am not sure that this use
of the word 'argument' helps in understanding how
the Chinese constructions work. - On the other
hand, the analysis in terms of topic and comment
seems to have gained foot in the literature. It
does not seem to necessarily involve the
function-argument analysis.<br>
</p>
<p>Best, Christian</p>
<p>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</p>
<div>Am 22.08.2023 um 18:52 schrieb Randy J.
LaPolla:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> Hi Christian,
<div><span lang="EN-US">Y. R. Chao argued that the
arguments in Chinese are like the arguments of
a mathematical function. He argued
(1968:69-70) that Chinese clause structure is
simply topic and comment, and “A corollary to
the topic-comment nature of predication is
that the direction of action in an action verb
in the predicate need not go outward from
subject to object. Even in an N-V-N´
sequence, such as [</span><span lang="EN-US">gǒu
yǎo rén</span><span lang="EN-US"> (dog bite
man)], it is not always certain that the
action goes outward from N to N´.” (1968:
70). </span></div>
<div>
<p><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Chao (1955, 1959) also
argued that word order is not determined by,
and does not affect the interpretation of
actor vs. non-actor; he said the clause is
analogous to a function in logic: the
argument is an argument of the function, and
the truth value is unaffected by its
position in the clause (1959:254). </span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">He used the terms
“subject” for the topic and “object” for a
reference phrase (regardless of the semantic
role of the referent in the event), as in
Chinese many sorts of semantic roles can
appear after the verb (e.g. 'I eat rice’, ‘I
eat restaurant’, 'I eat big bowl’,' I eat
chopsticks’, 'this pot of rice eats ten
people (can feed ten people), ‘He died
father’ = 'he suffered the event of his
father dying’,' fall rain CHANGE OF STATE’ =
It is raining’. In all of these cases he
would call the postverbal reference phrase
the “object”.</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Chao
Yuen Ren. 1955[1976]. Notes on Chinese
grammar and logic. In <i>Aspects of Chinese
sociolinguistics: Essays by Yuen Ren Chao,</i> Anwar
S. Dil (ed.), 237-249. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><span>Chao
Yuen Ren. 1959[1976]. How Chinese logic
operates. In</span><span> </span><i>Aspects
of Chinese sociolinguistics: Essays by
Yuen Ren Chao,</i><span> </span><span>Anwar
S. Dil (ed.), 250 259. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.</span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Chao
Yuen Ren. 1968. <i>A grammar of spoken
Chinese</i>. Berkeley/Los Angeles:
University of California Press.</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">All the best,</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Randy</span></p>
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">
<div><span>——</span></div>
<div><span>Professor Randy J.
LaPolla</span><span>（罗仁地)</span><span>,
PhD FAHA </span></div>
<div><span>Center for Language
Sciences</span></div>
<div><span>Institute for
Advanced Studies in
Humanities and Social
Sciences</span></div>
<div><span>Beijing Normal
University at Zhuhai</span></div>
<div><span>A302, Muduo
Building, #18 Jinfeng
Road, Zhuhai City</span><span>,
Guangdong</span><span>,
China</span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span><a
href="https://randylapolla.info/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://randylapolla.info</a></span></div>
<div><span>ORCID ID: <span><a
href="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6100-6196" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6100-6196</a> </span></span>
</div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span>邮编：519087</span><br>
<span>广东省珠海市唐家湾镇金凤路18号木铎楼A302</span><br>
<span>北京师范大学珠海校区</span><br>
<span>人文和社会科学高等研究院</span><br>
<span>语言科学研究中心 </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 22 Aug 2023, at 11:19 PM, Christian
Lehmann <a
href="mailto:christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de></a>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<p>I am sure that what I am about to do
here is completely inappropriate on this
list. In the interest of improving
communication among us, allow me
nevertheless to use the message by Hans
Götzsche as support: If you think you
need to use the (mathematical and
logical) term 'argument' in a context
dealing with grammar, then please at
least make it clear whether an argument
occupies a role in semantic
relationality or a syntactic function in
valency. Just one example: English <i>dine</i>
has two semantic roles, the eater and
the thing eaten (which may be called,
i.a., agent and patient). It has one
dependent controlled by its valency,
taking the form of a subject and
representing the eater. How many
arguments does it have?</p>
<p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
</p>
<div>Am 21.08.2023 um 08:03 schrieb Hans
Götzsche:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> Begin forwarded
message:<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div> <span><b>From: </b></span><span>Hans
Götzsche <a
href="mailto:goetzsche@ikp.aau.dk"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><goetzsche@ikp.aau.dk></a><br>
</span></div>
<div> <span><b>Subject: </b></span><span><b>Re:
[Lingtyp] argument structure</b><br>
</span></div>
<div> <span><b>Date: </b></span><span>21
August 2023 at 15.44.46 CEST<br>
</span></div>
<div> <span><b>To: </b></span><span>Vladimir
Panov <a
href="mailto:panovmeister@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><panovmeister@gmail.com></a><br>
</span></div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<div> Dear Vladimir,</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> allow me a late comment. I
have no remarks on Christian
Lehman’s comment, so I shall
only mention that the notion
of ‘argument’ in theoretical
linguistics has, to my
knowledge, ‘slipped through
the back door’, via formal
approaches, from mathematics,
presumably 1865 (see *), and
later computation theory;
meaning</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> <span>An independent
variable of a function</span><span>.</span></div>
<div> <span></span><br>
</div>
<div> <span>I first encountered
the technical use of the
word <i>argument</i> at my
‘first course in formal
logic’ (many years ago), and
the use of the term in
linguistics is one of the
reasons why I decided to
develop ‘my own’
nomenclature in formal
syntax. As is well known the
way we, as linguists, use
the myriad of technical
terms depends on what club
(guild, brotherhood, you
choose) we are members of,
and taken as a set of words
covering all bits and pieces
of (by some called) “the
language sciences” the set
is full of inconsistences,
and sometimes
contradictions. Thus, it is
not quite true that “we all
use the term “argument
structure””, and I only use
the word <i>argument</i> in
the context of formal logic.
The aim of my development
mentioned above, which was
published in</span></div>
<div> <span></span><br>
</div>
<div> <span><b>Deviational
Syntactic Structures</b></span><span>†</span></div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> was to establish a
nomenclature that was both
consistent and would be able
to cover all language domains,
from speech sounds to
semantics (but, so far, not
pragmatics; which I prefer to
see as a matter of cultural
codifications). This was in
line with the well known and
acknowledged Danish tradition
in Theoretical Linguistics
(some scholars remember Rasmus
Rask and Karl Verner, to name
a few) and it was based on
ideas by Otto Jespersen and
Louis Hjelmslev – as for the
formal systems – and the
empirical achievements of the
grammarian Paul Diderichsen.
My suggestions were not all
cheered by Danish
linguistists, but the formal
system – comparable to, e.g.,
<span> Montague grammar – was
the first and only
amalgamation of Hjelmslev’s
<i>Glossematics</i> and the
descriptive tradition of
Danish syntax.</span></div>
<div> <span></span><br>
</div>
<div> <span>I once read a ‘Dear
Sir’ letter to a Danish
newspaper in which the
writer offered the opinion
(in translation): “why don’t
everybody use words the way
I do; it would make
everything much easier”.
But, of course, adopting
such a view would be
impertinent.</span></div>
<div> <span></span><br>
</div>
<div> <span>Best wishes,</span></div>
<div> <span></span><br>
</div>
<div> <span>Hans Götzsche
(MA,PhD)</span></div>
<div> <span><i>Former
President, NAL</i></span></div>
<div> <span><i>Nordic
Association of Linguists</i></span></div>
<div> <span>Emeritus Associate
Professor</span></div>
<div> <span>Director, Center
for Linguistics</span></div>
<div> <span>Aalborg University</span></div>
<div> <span>Rendsburggade 14</span></div>
<div> <span>9000 Aalborg</span></div>
<div> <span>DENMARK</span></div>
<div> <span><a
href="mailto:goetzsche@ikp.aau.dk"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">goetzsche@ikp.aau.dk</a></span></div>
<div> <span><a
href="http://www.cfl.hum.aau/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.cfl.hum.aau</a></span></div>
<div> <span></span><br>
</div>
<div> <span>Dr Hans Goetzsche</span></div>
<div> <span>Emerito Professore
Universitario</span></div>
<div> <span>Via S. Apollinare
19,2</span></div>
<div> <span>36063 Marostica
(VI)</span></div>
<div> <span>ITALIA</span></div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> <span>*</span><a
href="https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/144141/what-is-the-sense-of-using-word-argument-for-inputs-of-a-function"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/144141/what-is-the-sense-of-using-word-argument-for-inputs-of-a-function</a></div>
<div> <span><a
href="https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/144141/what-is-the-sense-of-using-word-argument-for-inputs-of-a-function"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">terminology
- What is the sense of
using word "argument", for
inputs of a function? -
English Language &
Usage Stack Exchange<span></span></a></span></div>
<div> <span>† <a
href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/deviational-syntactic-structures-9781472587961/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"> <span>https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/deviational-syntactic-structures-9781472587961/</span></a></span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 19 Aug 2023, at
12.11, Vladimir Panov <a
href="mailto:panovmeister@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><panovmeister@gmail.com></a>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<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>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div>-- <br>
<p>Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span>Deutschland</span></p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a
href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a
href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div>-- <br>
<p>Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span>Deutschland</span></p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a
href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a
href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote>
</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" 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>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
David Gil
Senior Scientist (Associate)
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-082113720302
</pre>
</body>
</html>