[Lingtyp] Fwd: argument structure

[Hans Götzsche]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Hans Götzsche <goetzsche at ikp.aau.dk>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] argument structure
Date: 21 August 2023 at 15.44.46 CEST
To: Vladimir Panov <panovmeister at gmail.com>

Dear Vladimir,

allow me a late comment. I have no remarks on Christian Lehman’s comment, so I shall only mention that the notion of ‘argument’ in theoretical linguistics has, to my knowledge, ‘slipped through the back door’, via formal approaches, from mathematics, presumably 1865 (see *), and later computation theory; meaning

An independent variable of a function.

I first encountered the technical use of the word argument at my ‘first course in formal logic’ (many years ago), and the use of the term in linguistics is one of the reasons why I decided to develop ‘my own’ nomenclature in formal syntax. As is well known the way we, as linguists, use the myriad of technical terms depends on what club (guild, brotherhood, you choose) we are members of, and taken as a set of words covering all bits and pieces of (by some called) “the language sciences” the set is full of inconsistences, and sometimes contradictions. Thus, it is not quite true that “we all use the term “argument structure””, and I only use the word argument in the context of formal logic. The aim of my development mentioned above, which was published in

Deviational Syntactic Structures†

was to establish a nomenclature that was both consistent and would be able to cover all language domains, from speech sounds to semantics (but, so far, not pragmatics; which I prefer to see as a matter of cultural codifications). This was in line with the well known and acknowledged Danish tradition in Theoretical Linguistics (some scholars remember Rasmus Rask and Karl Verner, to name a few) and it was based on ideas by Otto Jespersen and Louis Hjelmslev – as for the formal systems – and the empirical achievements of the grammarian Paul Diderichsen. My suggestions were not all cheered by Danish linguistists, but the formal system – comparable to, e.g., Montague grammar – was the first and only amalgamation of Hjelmslev’s Glossematics and the descriptive tradition of Danish syntax.

I once read a ‘Dear Sir’ letter to a Danish newspaper in which the writer offered the opinion (in translation): “why don’t everybody use words the way I do; it would make everything much easier”. But, of course, adopting such a view would be impertinent.

Best wishes,

Hans Götzsche (MA,PhD)
Former President, NAL
Nordic Association of Linguists
Emeritus Associate Professor
Director, Center for Linguistics
Aalborg University
Rendsburggade 14
9000 Aalborg
DENMARK
goetzsche at ikp.aau.dk<mailto:goetzsche at ikp.aau.dk>
www.cfl.hum.aau<http://www.cfl.hum.aau/>

Dr Hans Goetzsche
Emerito Professore Universitario
Via S. Apollinare 19,2
36063 Marostica (VI)
ITALIA

*https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/144141/what-is-the-sense-of-using-word-argument-for-inputs-of-a-function
terminology - What is the sense of using word "argument", for inputs of a function? - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange<https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/144141/what-is-the-sense-of-using-word-argument-for-inputs-of-a-function>
† https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/deviational-syntactic-structures-9781472587961/


On 19 Aug 2023, at 12.11, Vladimir Panov <panovmeister at gmail.com> wrote:

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230821/1bc53f0c/attachment.htm>