<div>Dear Juergen, dear Chao, dear colleagues,</div><div> </div><div>let me comment upon one of the points from the Van Valin quotation that Juergen has provided:</div><div> </div><div><div><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">This contrast is based on the morphological coding of the arguments: direct core arguments are those that are morphologically unmarked or coded with a direct case, as in dependent-marking languages like English and German, or are cross-referenced on the verb, as in headmarking languages like Lakhota and Tzotzil. Oblique core arguments are those marked by an adposition or by an oblique case. </span></div></div><div> </div><div>There are languages, in particular, quite a few languages of Northern Australia, but also elsewhere, where nominals marked by oblique cases and expressing such "peripheral" roles as e.g. location, comitative, or the person or thing being avoided, are cross-referenced on the verb. Here are a couple of examples:</div><div> </div><div><div>Pintupi (Pama-Nyungan > Desert Nyungic; Hansen & Hansen 1978: 61)</div><div><div>maḻaku=latju-<em>tjanampalura</em> pitjangu maḻpu-<em>ngkamarra </em>patjal-<em>tjakumarra</em></div><div>return=1PL.EX.SBJ-3PL.AV went spirit-AV biting-AV</div><div>‘We turned back to avoid the spirits biting us.’</div><div>where AV = "avoidance" case / series of bound pronouns</div><div> </div><div><div>Wangkajunga (Pama-Nyungan > Desert Nyungic, Australia; Jones 2011: 141)</div><div><div>ya-nu=rna-<em>janampalura </em>Sydney-<em>janu</em></div><div>go-PST=1SG.SBJ-3PL.ABL name-ABL</div><div>‘I left those people from Sydney.’ </div><div> </div><div>As far as I know, examples like this have not figured with any prominence either in discussions of head-/dependent marking or of argument/adjunct status.</div><div> </div><div>Best regards,</div><div> </div><div>Peter</div><div> </div><div>References</div><div><div>Hansen K. C. & L.E. Hansen. 1975. The Core of Pintupi Grammar. Alice Springs: Institute of Aboriginal Development.</div><div><div>Jones B. 2011. A Grammar of Wangkajunga: A Language of the Great Sandy Desert of North Western Australia. Canberra: Australian National University.</div></div></div></div></div><div> </div></div></div><div> </div><div>09.07.2024, 07:17, "Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp" <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org>:</div><blockquote><div lang="EN-US" style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Hi Chao – I don’t know who introduced the term ‘oblique argument.’ It may well have been derived from or at least influenced by the model of ‘oblique case’. But oblique case does not play a definitional role in the notion of oblique arguments. </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Also, there is obviously a great deal of variation in how different scholars use the term ‘oblique (argument)’. E.g., Dryer & Gensler (2013) use ‘oblique phrase’ expressly synonymously with ‘adjunct’. My own use corresponds closely to that in Role & Reference Grammar. For instance, here is Van Valin (1993):</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">“All arguments which appear in the core of a simple clause must be linked to argument positions in the LS [‘logical structure’, a representation of lexical meaning in terms of predicate calculus without variable binding; JB] of the predicate in the nucleus, and in the default situation, all arguments in the LS of the predicate must appear in the core of the clause. However, it is not always the case that an argument in the LS occurs in the core; in a passive construction, for example, the agent or experiencer, if overt, will be realized as an oblique constituent in the periphery. Among core arguments a further distinction is made between direct and oblique core arguments. Thus English give has three core arguments; in <em>Harry gave Bill the key</em> there are three direct core arguments, while in <em> Harry gave the key to Bill</em> there are two direct core arguments and one oblique core argument.” (Van Valin 1993: 40-41)</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">In contrast, adjuncts are treated as modifiers, which in RRG means they are treated as expressing semantic predicates (Jolly 1993). This corresponds to conceptualizations in the Dependency Grammar tradition where modifiers are viewed as semantically and morphosyntactically relational, i.e., as opening argument positions for their heads, whereas arguments are dependents for which the head opens an argument position (Lehmann 1985). The Universal Dependencies database acknowledges this distinction, but does not follow it: </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">“The UD taxonomy is centered around the fairly clear distinction between core arguments (primarily subjects and objects) and other dependents. It does not make a distinction between adjuncts (general modifiers) and oblique arguments (arguments said to be selected by a head but not expressed as a core argument).” (<a href="https://universaldependencies.org/workgroups/core.html#:~:text=The%20UD%20taxonomy%20is%20centered,expressed%20as%20a%20core%20argument)." rel="noopener noreferrer">link</a>)</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">As to this point of yours: </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">“The question, however, is how to (semantically) rule out the tool used in a hitting action, for example, as a non-argument (maybe the tool in a cutting action has a different cognitive status than the one in a hitting action, but I’m not sure).”</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">This question is addressed head-on in Bohnemeyer (2007). In a nutshell, I argue that cut-type verbs require instruments that function like bladed instruments, whereas break-type verbs do not require any instrument and certainly don’t specify a particular type of instrument. </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Best – Juergen</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Bohnemeyer, J. (2007). Morpholexical Transparency and the argument structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. <em>Cognitive Linguistics</em> 18(2): 153-177.</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span lang="DE" style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Dryer, M. S., & O. D. Gensler. </span><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">(2013). Order of object, oblique, and verb. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo.<br /><a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533</a> (Available online at <a href="http://wals.info/chapter/84" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://wals.info/chapter/84</a>, Accessed on 2024-07-09.)</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Jolly, J. A. (1993). Preposition assignment in English. In R. D. Van Valin Jr. (ed), <em>Advances in Role and Reference Grammar</em>. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 275-310.</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Lehmann, C. (1985). On grammatical relationality. <em>Folia Linguistica</em> 19: 67-109.</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span lang="ES-US" style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Van Valin, R. D. Jr. </span><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">(1993). A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In R. D. Van Valin Jr. (ed), <em>Advances in Role and Reference Grammar</em>. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1-166.</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><div><div><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="color:black;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt">Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)<br />Professor, Department of Linguistics<br />University at Buffalo <br /><br />Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus<br />Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 <br />Phone: (716) 645 0127 <br />Fax: (716) 645 3825<br />Email: </span><span style="font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" rel="noopener noreferrer" title="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu"><span style="color:#0078d4;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt">jb77@buffalo.edu</span></a></span><br /><span style="color:black;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt">Web: </span><span style="font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/" rel="noopener noreferrer" title="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/"><span style="color:#0563c1;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/</span></a></span><span style="color:black;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt"> </span><br /><br /><span style="color:black;font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh) </span><br /><br /><span style="color:black;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt">There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In <br />(Leonard Cohen) </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span style="font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif;font-size:11pt">-- </span></p></div></div><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span lang="DE" style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in"><span lang="DE" style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p><div><div><div style="border-style:solid none none none;border-top-color:#b5c4df;border-width:1pt medium medium medium;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in"><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 12pt 0.5in"><strong><span style="color:black">From: </span></strong><span style="color:black">Chao Li <<a href="mailto:chao.li@aya.yale.edu" rel="noopener noreferrer">chao.li@aya.yale.edu</a>><br /><strong>Date: </strong>Monday, July 8, 2024 at 13:10<br /><strong>To: </strong>Juergen Bohnemeyer <<a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" rel="noopener noreferrer">jb77@buffalo.edu</a>><br /><strong>Cc: </strong><<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br /><strong>Subject: </strong>Re: [Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic adjuncts</span></p></div><div><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif">Hi Juergen,</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif">Thank you for your detailed response. It’s clear that you use “oblique” in a restrictive sense to mean oblique arguments. In my mind, “oblique”, like the traditional use, refers to marked case marking (or marked flagging in an extended sense). I believe that’s why we find each other’s phrasing a bit confusing or problematic. By the way, it also shows how messy and murky linguistic terms are!</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif">Back to semantic arguments, if <em> go</em> is analyzed as a three-argument verb, as suggested by your example, it creates some tension or at least some uneasiness when it is typically analyzed as a monovalent verb. Similarly, back to <em>buy</em> and <em>sell</em>, a four-argument analysis of them, whether standard or not, also creates some tension when they are often analyzed as or assumed to be bivalent verbs. This also brings us to prototypical two-argument verbs. In the literature on linguistic typology, <em>hit</em>, <em>kill</em>, and the like are generally presented as prime examples of such verbs. The question, however, is how to (semantically) rule out the tool used in a hitting action, for example, as a non-argument (maybe the tool in a cutting action has a different cognitive status than the one in a hitting action, but I’m not sure). An ideal solution to me is coming up with a definition of semantic argument that can successfully accomplish this and also match (more) with our intuition (e.g. intuitively the four participants involved in <em>buy/sell</em> are not equal in status). </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif">(As a side clarificatory note not truly related to the content of your message, semantic arguments are not necessarily tied with verbs, as event-denoting nouns, for example, may also require one or more semantic arguments.)</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif"> </span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif">Best regards,</span></p><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif">Chao</span></p></div><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in"> </p><div><div><p style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 9:56<span style="font-family:'arial' , sans-serif"> </span>AM Juergen Bohnemeyer <<a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" rel="noopener noreferrer">jb77@buffalo.edu</a>> wrote:</p></div><blockquote style="border-left-color:#cccccc;border-style:none none none solid;border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Hi Chao – Yes, _<i>buy</i>_ and _<i>sell</i>_ have four semantic arguments (standard analysis since Fillmore (1982?) and Jackendoff (1990?) (citing from memory without having checked these specific works) and _<i>cut</i>_
has three. </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">But the phrase ‘formally realized as an oblique’ seems problematic to me. In my view, there is no clear morphosyntactic difference between obliques and adjuncts except that a proper subset of obliques are more or less obligatory
and to that extent could be argued to be subcategorized for by the verb (or governed by the verb, in the traditional (pre-GB) sense of ‘government’).
</span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">But this obligatoriness should in my view not be taken to be a definitional property, because that would cut out the vast majority of obliques, which are not obligatory, yet are semantically clearly not modifiers. And that
is, afaik, the whole point of distinguishing between obliques and adjuncts: to capture the fact that the latter, but not the former, are modifiers.</span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">The primary difference between obliques and adjuncts is not morphosyntactic, but semantic. To be sure, it is never a happy outcome when semantic properties are needed to underpin morphosyntactic categories or vice versa.
But the closer one gets to talking about form-meaning mapping, the harder it becomes to avoid such hybrid definitions.</span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Time location specifications are usually treated as adjuncts = modifiers. One exception (among a few) is _<i>last</i>_ as in (1). Locatives are usually treated as adjuncts = modifiers. One exception (among a few) is _<i>live</i>_
as in (2). Motion verbs commonly take path obliques, as illustrated in (3):</span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<p class="d4a61e9da22c3fdea6be2ae26a9105b5m-2337982226650437901msolistparagraph" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-left:1.25in;margin-right:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">(1)</span><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:7pt">
</span><i><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">The meeting lasted from 9am until 10:20.</span></i></p>
<p class="d4a61e9da22c3fdea6be2ae26a9105b5m-2337982226650437901msolistparagraph" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-left:1.25in;margin-right:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">(2)</span><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:7pt">
</span><i><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Sally lived in Buffalo in those days.</span></i></p>
<p class="d4a61e9da22c3fdea6be2ae26a9105b5m-2337982226650437901msolistparagraph" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-left:1.25in;margin-right:0in"><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">(3)</span><span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:7pt">
</span><i><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Floyd went from the Dean’s office to the library.</span></i></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Finally, a puzzle: every event necessarily occupies a spacetime region. So (2) and (3) describe eventualities that we know must have occurred during particular moments in time, regardless of whether these are specified.
So how then can we say that <i>in those days</i> in (2) is a modifier, whereas <i>
in Buffalo</i> is an oblique? This is not at all a trivial problem. I could imagine treatments in which all time-positional and locative expressions are regarded as obliques. However, I would argue that is precisely the fact that all eventuality designators
are by necessity compatible with spacetime specifications that limits the predictive power of the former for the occurrence of the latter.
</span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">HTH! – Juergen</span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.),
<i>Linguistics in the Morning Calm</i>. Soeul: Hanshin. 111-137.</span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Jackendoff, R. (1990). <i>Semantic structures</i>. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.</span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="color:black;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt">Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)<br />
Professor, Department of Linguistics<br />
University at Buffalo <br />
<br />
Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus<br />
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 <br />
Phone: <span class="1f1ea193f6735cf0wmi-callto">(716) 645 0127</span> <br />
Fax: <span class="1f1ea193f6735cf0wmi-callto">(716) 645 3825</span><br />
Email: </span><span style="font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" target="_blank" title="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu"><span style="color:#0078d4;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt">jb77@buffalo.edu</span></a></span><span style="color:black;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt"><br />
Web: </span><span style="font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/" target="_blank" title="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/"><span style="color:#0563c1;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/</span></a></span><span style="color:black;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt"> <br />
<br />
</span><span style="color:black;font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID <span class="1f1ea193f6735cf0wmi-callto">585 520 2411</span>; Passcode Hoorheh) </span><span style="color:black;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt"><br />
<br />
There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In <br />
(Leonard Cohen) </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span style="font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif;font-size:11pt">-- </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<div id="632250ec2789a9db8df35338d56efb39m_-2337982226650437901mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div style="border-style:solid none none none;border-top-color:#b5c4df;border-width:1pt medium medium medium;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 12pt 1in">
<b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black">Chao Li <<a href="mailto:chao.li@aya.yale.edu" target="_blank">chao.li@aya.yale.edu</a>><br />
<b>Date: </b>Monday, July 8, 2024 at 07:39<br />
<b>To: </b>Juergen Bohnemeyer <<a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">jb77@buffalo.edu</a>><br />
<b>Cc: </b><<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br />
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic adjuncts</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="60e49927277945281992c1e0b00378aem-2337982226650437901gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif">Hi Juergen,</span></p>
<p class="60e49927277945281992c1e0b00378aem-2337982226650437901gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif"> </span></p>
<p class="60e49927277945281992c1e0b00378aem-2337982226650437901gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif">Thank you for all your information. If semantic arguments are participants predictable from the verb’s meaning (regardless of how they are overtly realized in real use), will
<i>buy</i> and <i>sell</i> have four semantic arguments to you? Will <i>cut</i> have three?
</span></p>
<p class="60e49927277945281992c1e0b00378aem-2337982226650437901gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif"> </span></p>
<p class="60e49927277945281992c1e0b00378aem-2337982226650437901gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif">(Also, were you defining obliques as semantic arguments (morpho)syntactically realized as an oblique? Or were you intending such semantic arguments as a subset of obliques as far as formal realization is concerned?
If the former, what would you call those expressions that denote, for example, time or location but are also formally realized as an oblique?)
</span></p>
<p class="60e49927277945281992c1e0b00378aem-2337982226650437901gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif"> </span></p>
<p class="60e49927277945281992c1e0b00378aem-2337982226650437901gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif">Thanks again,</span></p>
<p class="60e49927277945281992c1e0b00378aem-2337982226650437901gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif">Chao</span></p>
</div>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 1in">
</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 1in">
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 10:31<span style="font-family:'arial' , sans-serif"> </span>PM Juergen Bohnemeyer <<a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">jb77@buffalo.edu</a>> wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left-color:#cccccc;border-style:none none none solid;border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 1in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Dear Chao – In theory, true adjuncts are modifiers, meaning they are not predictable based on the semantics of the verb. In contrast, obliques – semantic arguments that are expressed like adjuncts – must be predictable
from the verb’s meaning. In practice, though, predictability is a matter of degree. For example, Koenig et al. (2008) show that English verbs form a continuum in terms of predicting an instrument. Regarding specifically verbs of cutting, Bohnemeyer (2007)
compares the argument structure properties of such verbs across languages. – Best – Juergen</span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 1in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 1in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Bohnemeyer, J. (2007). Morpholexical Transparency and the argument structure of verbs of cutting and breaking.
<i>Cognitive Linguistics</i> 18(2): 153-177.</span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 1in">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family:'cmu serif'">Koenig, J.-P., G. Mauner, B. Bienvenue, & K. Conklin.
</span><span style="font-family:'cmu serif'">(2008). What with? The anatomy of a role.
<i>Journal of Semantics</i> 25(2): 175-220.</span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 1in">
<span style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 1in">
<span style="color:black;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt">Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)<br />
Professor, Department of Linguistics<br />
University at Buffalo <br />
<br />
Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus<br />
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 <br />
Phone: <span class="1f1ea193f6735cf0wmi-callto">(716) 645 0127</span> <br />
Fax: <span class="1f1ea193f6735cf0wmi-callto">(716) 645 3825</span><br />
Email: </span><span style="font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" target="_blank" title="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu"><span style="color:#0078d4;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt">jb77@buffalo.edu</span></a></span><span style="color:black;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt"><br />
Web: </span><span style="font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/" target="_blank" title="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/"><span style="color:#0563c1;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/</span></a></span><span style="color:black;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt"> <br />
<br />
</span><span style="color:black;font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID <span class="1f1ea193f6735cf0wmi-callto">585 520 2411</span>; Passcode Hoorheh) </span><span style="color:black;font-family:'helvetica';font-size:9pt"><br />
<br />
There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In <br />
(Leonard Cohen) </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 1in">
<span style="font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif;font-size:11pt">-- </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 1in">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0in 1in">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family:'cmu serif'"> </span></p>
<div id="23019e42c037e81c95c053a18a2517c9m_-2337982226650437901m_5141292198331641886mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div style="border-style:solid none none none;border-top-color:#b5c4df;border-width:1pt medium medium medium;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="bd6ff683d8d0a42f228bf8a64b8551e1MsoNormal" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 12pt 1.5in">
<b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black">Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>> on behalf of Chao Li via Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br />
<b>Date: </b>Sunday, July 7, 2024 at 21:12<br />
<b>To: </b><<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br />
<b>Subject: </b>[Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic adjuncts</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="61c43759fa99da1a9068c6324139c4bbm-2337982226650437901m5141292198331641886gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:13.5pt">Dear Colleagues,
</span></p>
<p class="61c43759fa99da1a9068c6324139c4bbm-2337982226650437901m5141292198331641886gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:13.5pt"> </span></p>
<p class="61c43759fa99da1a9068c6324139c4bbm-2337982226650437901m5141292198331641886gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:13.5pt">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>?
</span></p>
<p class="61c43759fa99da1a9068c6324139c4bbm-2337982226650437901m5141292198331641886gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:13.5pt"> </span></p>
<p class="61c43759fa99da1a9068c6324139c4bbm-2337982226650437901m5141292198331641886gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:13.5pt">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?
</span></p>
<p class="61c43759fa99da1a9068c6324139c4bbm-2337982226650437901m5141292198331641886gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:13.5pt"> </span></p>
<p class="61c43759fa99da1a9068c6324139c4bbm-2337982226650437901m5141292198331641886gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:13.5pt">Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much in advance for your time and help!</span></p>
<p class="61c43759fa99da1a9068c6324139c4bbm-2337982226650437901m5141292198331641886gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:13.5pt"> </span></p>
<p class="61c43759fa99da1a9068c6324139c4bbm-2337982226650437901m5141292198331641886gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:13.5pt">Best regards,</span></p>
<p class="61c43759fa99da1a9068c6324139c4bbm-2337982226650437901m5141292198331641886gmail-msonospacing" style="font-family:'aptos' , sans-serif;font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.5in;margin-right:0in;text-align:justify">
<span style="font-family:'times new roman' , serif;font-size:13.5pt">Chao</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div></div>,<p>_______________________________________________<br />Lingtyp mailing list<br /><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br /><a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></p></blockquote><div> </div><div> </div><div>-- </div><div>Peter Arkadiev, PhD Habil.</div><div>https://peterarkadiev.github.io/</div><div> </div>