[Lingtyp] argument structure

Tue Aug 22 15:19:52 UTC 2023

I am sure that what I am about to do here is completely inappropriate on 
this list. In the interest of improving communication among us, allow me 
nevertheless to use the message by Hans Götzsche as support: If you 
think you need to use the (mathematical and logical) term 'argument' in 
a context dealing with grammar, then please at least make it  clear 
whether an argument occupies a role in semantic relationality or a 
syntactic function in valency. Just one example: English /dine/ has two 
semantic roles, the eater and the thing eaten (which may be called, 
i.a., agent and patient). It has one dependent controlled by its 
valency, taking the form of a subject and representing the eater. How 
many arguments does it have?

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

Am 21.08.2023 um 08:03 schrieb 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
>> 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/ 
>> <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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230822/27cd9c08/attachment.htm>