<div dir="ltr"><p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Hi Mark,</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">There are problems
with a syntactic distinction between argument and adjunct too. If an argument requires
obligatoriness, a criterion often used for argumenthood, then an example like
(1) would lead to the conclusion that <i>eat</i> has only an argument. For
languages enjoying much freedom in using zeros or ellipsis, EAT in an utterance
can elide both the eater (and the food), leaving the impression that it has no
arguments. However, semantically and intuitively, EAT has two necessary
participants and so probably two semantic arguments. </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">(1) They already
ate. </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Moreover, I’m not
sure how argument and adjunct determined purely on syntactic grounds in
particular or on formal grounds in general can be used as comparative concepts
because such an approach, as I see it, would be subject to “methodological opportunism”
and to “lumping” and “splitting” issues (to use Bill Croft’s words). </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I believe that a
semantic approach is still possible if we use argument and adjunct as comparative
concepts and for the purpose of conducting crosslinguistic comparisons. The
problem is how to semantically define them. I thought about necessary participants
for the eventuality expressed by a specific verb to take place (subtle meaning
differences, I believe, can largely account for the different behaviors of the different
verbs in the same set of your examples). Then what counts as a necessary participant?
If the tool is a necessary participant in a cutting event, it appears that the
tool is a semantic argument too in the case of <i>cut</i>, regardless of
whether or not it is overtly expressed in a specific use and, if so, how it is
expressed. I vaguely recall reading about German <i>kaufen</i> ‘to buy’ and <i>bringen</i>
‘to bring’, both of which were claimed to be quadrivalent verbs. I’ve just googled
“valency” and found the claim that “[t]here are quadrivalent verbs that take
four arguments” in a Wikipedia entry (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valency_(linguistics)" style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valency_(linguistics)</a>).
It appears that “arguments” here refers to semantic arguments because I have
serious doubts that all the four participants of a quadrivalent verb can be
analyzed as syntactic arguments on formal grounds (most likely, at least one of
the participants will be realized as an oblique, not as a syntactic argument). </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">To define “semantic
argument”, I also thought about cognitively profiled participants related to the
specific meaning of a specific verb. This might allow us to claim that <i>buy</i>
cognitively profiles the buyer and the goods while <i>sell</i> cognitively profiles
the seller and the goods. The problem is how to independently determine whether
a participant is cognitively profiled without resorting to syntactic frames and
constructions where a specific verb with a specific meaning is used. I’m not
sure whether the specific meaning of a verb in a specific use would be
sufficient. </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Many thanks,</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Chao</span></p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 9:24 PM Mark Donohue <<a href="mailto:mhdonohue@gmail.com">mhdonohue@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Chao,<div><br></div><div>Given English pairs such as (1) and (2), and the group in (3) – (5), which have the same semantic roles for both NPs in both cases, but different argument/adjunct status,<div><br></div><div>(1) They ate khachapuri.</div><div>(2) They dined (on khachapuri).</div><div><br></div><div>(3) He died (before her).</div><div>(4) He predeceased her.</div><div>(5) She survived him.</div><div><br></div><div>we have to, as has long been acknowledged, admit that semantic roles on their own do not inform argument/adjunct status even in the one language, let alone cross-linguistically. That's why we deal with these things syntactically, not on the basis of semantics.</div><div><br></div><div>-Mark</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 at 11:12, Chao Li via Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><p style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><font size="4">Dear Colleagues, </font></span></p><p style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><font size="4"> </font></span></p><p style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><font size="4">The distinction
between argument and adjunct is crucial for many linguistic analyses and much
linguistic theorizing. However, how to define the argument and the adjunct and
how to clearly distinguish between the two are controversial. Further
complicating the issue is the existence of two related levels, semantic and
(morpho)syntactic (e.g. what is semantically considered an argument may be
(morpho)syntactically realized as an adjunct, as evidenced by passive formation
in English). To be clear, this query is about the distinction between semantic
arguments and semantic adjuncts (or semantic non-arguments). Specifically, in
the case of verbs like <i>buy</i> and <i>sell</i> and in the context of a
business transaction that generally involves a buyer, a seller, a transfer of
goods, and a transfer of money, how many semantic arguments does each verb have,
what are they, and what is the rationale behind the analysis? Similarly, in the
case of <i>cut</i>, how many semantic arguments does it have and will that
include the tool used in the cutting too? After all, isn’t the tool a necessary
participant of the cutting action and how often do we cut something without
using any tool? Likewise, how many semantic arguments in the case of <i>bring</i>?
</font></span></p><p style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><font size="4"> </font></span></p><p style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><font size="4">Particularly,
without looking at the different syntactic frames and constructions where these
verbs occur or without paying any attention to how they are really used, on
what (semantic) grounds can we say that Participant X is an argument of <i>buy</i>,
<i>sell, cut, </i>or<i> bring</i> or that Participant Y is an adjunct of the
same verb? For colleagues who’d like to make a further distinction between core
arguments and peripheral arguments in addition to the distinction between
arguments and adjuncts, then the following questions arise. Namely, if without
looking at the different syntactic frames and constructions where these verbs
occur, on what (semantic) grounds can we say that Participant X is a core
argument, a peripheral argument, or an adjunct (of <i>buy</i>, <i>sell</i>, <i>cut</i>,
or <i>bring</i>) and what is the difference between a peripheral argument and
an adjunct? </font></span></p><p style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><font size="4"> </font></span></p><p style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><font size="4">Any input would be
greatly appreciated. Thank you so much in advance for your time and help!</font></span></p><p style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><font size="4"> </font></span></p><p style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><font size="4">Best regards,</font></span></p><p style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
</p><p style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><font size="4">Chao</font></span></p></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>