[Lingtyp] argument structure

[Vladimir Panov]

Dear colleagues,

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.

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.

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.

Best,
Vladimir Panov

*I condemn the Russian agression in Ukraine*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230819/49e73ce8/attachment.htm>