[Lingtyp] argument structure

Wed Aug 23 00:52:16 UTC 2023

Hi Christian,
Y. R. Chao argued that the arguments in Chinese are like the arguments of a mathematical function. He argued (1968:69-70) that Chinese clause structure is simply topic and comment, and “A corollary to the topic-comment nature of predication is that the direction of action in an action verb in the predicate need not go outward from subject to object.  Even in an N-V-N´ sequence, such as [gǒu yǎo rén (dog bite man)], it is not always certain that the action goes outward from N to N´.” (1968: 70). 

Chao (1955, 1959) also argued that word order is not determined by, and does not affect the interpretation of actor vs. non-actor; he said the clause is analogous to a function in logic: the argument is an argument of the function, and the truth value is unaffected by its position in the clause (1959:254).  

He used the terms “subject” for the topic and “object” for a reference phrase (regardless of the semantic role of the referent in the event), as in Chinese many sorts of semantic roles can appear after the verb (e.g. 'I eat rice’, ‘I eat restaurant’, 'I eat big bowl’,' I eat chopsticks’, 'this pot of rice eats ten people (can feed ten people), ‘He died father’ = 'he suffered the event of his father dying’,' fall rain CHANGE OF STATE’ = It is raining’. In all of these cases he would call the postverbal reference phrase the “object”.

Chao Yuen Ren. 1955[1976]. Notes on Chinese grammar and logic. In Aspects of Chinese sociolinguistics: Essays by Yuen Ren Chao, Anwar S. Dil (ed.), 237-249. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Chao Yuen Ren. 1959[1976]. How Chinese logic operates. In Aspects of Chinese sociolinguistics: Essays by Yuen Ren Chao, Anwar S. Dil (ed.), 250 259. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 
Chao Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

All the best,
Randy
——
Professor Randy J. LaPolla（罗仁地), PhD FAHA 
Center for Language Sciences
Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences
Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai
A302, Muduo Building, #18 Jinfeng Road, Zhuhai City, Guangdong, China

https://randylapolla.info <https://randylapolla.info/>
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6100-6196    

邮编：519087
广东省珠海市唐家湾镇金凤路18号木铎楼A302
北京师范大学珠海校区
人文和社会科学高等研究院
语言科学研究中心 

> On 22 Aug 2023, at 11:19 PM, Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> wrote:
> 
> 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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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 <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto: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 <mailto:christianw_lehmann at arcor.de>
> Web:	https://www.christianlehmann.eu <https://www.christianlehmann.eu/>_______________________________________________
> 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/20230823/87b40ed1/attachment.htm>