Arguments vs. Adjuncts

[John_Maxwell.PARC at xerox.com]

I am trying to understand the difference between argument and adjunct PPs.  One
of the purported differences between them is that you can only have one
instance of an argument PP whereas you can have multiple instances of adjunct
PPs.  However, I don't have any problems with sentences like the following:

	(1) John relied on Bill, on his ability to get things done.
	(2) On whom did John rely on his ability to get things done?

(I am assuming that the on-PP is an argument, since it is obligatory.)

You might think that (1) is a case of apposition like the following:

	(3) John likes Bill Cosby, the man with a story for any occasion.

However, you cannot extract from (3) in the manner that (2) extracts from (1):

	(4) *Who does John like the man with a story for any occasion?

There are some restrictions on the arguments of multiple PPs.  One restriction
is that they must be "unifiable":

	(5) #John relied on Bill, on Tom's ability to get things done.

(I can only get this if I postulate a relationship between Bill and Tom's work,
say, that Bill is Tom's boss and can tell him what to do.  Even then it is
awkward for me.)

What is interesting is that adjunct PPs have the same restriction:

	(6a) Bill panhandled in New York City in Central Park.
	(6b) #Bill panhandled in New York City in Golden Gate Park.  (Golden
Gate Park is in San Francisco.)
	(6c) In which park did Bill panhandle in New York City?

Notice that put, which does subcategorize for location, has exactly the same
behavior:

	(7a) Bill put the statue in New York City in Central Park.
	(7b) #Bill put the statue in New York City in Golden Gate Park.
	(7c) In which park did Bill put the statue in New York City?

So this would suggest that adjunct PPs may not be adjuncts at all but rather
multiple PPs that together fill a single slot in the semantic frame (in the
case of (6a), the location slot).

On the other hand, some semantic slots, like the beneficiary,  seem to exhibit
scoping behavior:

	(8a) John painted the house for Jenny twice.  (meaning: two different
house paintings, years apart)
	(8b) John painted the house twice for Jenny.  (meaning: two coats of
paint, days apart)
	(8c) John performed card tricks for little Timothy for his mother.
(meaning: John performed card tricks to entertain Timothy as a favor to his
mother.)

I don't know whether you can get more than two beneficiaries, however:

	(8d) ??John performed card tricks for little Timothy for his mother for
the sake of his conscience.

So anyway, I am confused about the adjunct/argument status of PPs, and was
hoping that you could shed some light on the subject.

Thanks for any help,

John.