[Lingtyp] argument structure

[Christian Lehmann]

Dear Vladimir,

allow me to use the terminology that I prefer. In particular, the term 
'argument' is used by many without it being clear whether it is a 
semantic or a structural entity. So let us speak of semantic 
relationality and the roles comprised by it, on the one hand, and of 
valency and its actants (or complements, as P. Matthews has it), on the 
other.

Then there are semantically relational concepts in all languages. Some 
languages convert (some of) them into grammatical relations and develop 
verbal (or nominal etc.) valency to some extent; others don't. This idea 
is old in European linguistics. Meillet says (I think, in his history of 
the Latin language) that Proto-Indo-European had no valency; it was 
developed in the historical languages. Coseriu 1979 says that Japanese 
verbs have no valency. I propose a theory to the same effect in Lehmann 
2015.

Coseriu, Eugenio 1979, „Verbinhalt, Aktanten, Diathese. Zur japanischen 
Ukemi-Bildung.“ Ezawa, Kennosuke & Rensch, Karl Heinz M. (eds.), 
/Sprache und Sprechen. Festschrift für Eberhard Zwirner zum 80. 
Geburtstag. Herausgegeben von K. Ezawa und K.H. Rensch./ Tübingen: M. 
Niemeyer; 35-55.

Lehmann, Christian 2015, "Situation types, valency frames and 
operations”. Malchukov, Andrej & Comrie, Bernard (eds.), /Valency 
classes in the world’s languages. Volume 1: Introducing the framework, 
and case studies from Africa and Eurasia. Volume 2: Case studies from 
Austronesia, the Pacific, the Americas, and theoretical outlook./ Berlin 
& Boston, Mass.: de Gruyter Mouton (Comparative Handbooks of 
Linguistics, 1); 1547-1596. (downloadable from my website)

Meillet, Antoine 1952, /Esquisse d'une histoire de la langue latine/. 
Paris: Hachette. 6. éd.

---------------------------------------------------------

Am 19.08.2023 um 04:11 schrieb 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
-- 

Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland

Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230819/8d25c6d9/attachment.htm>