[Lingtyp] argument structure

Wed Aug 23 01:43:58 UTC 2023

Hi Randy,

thanks for this report. There would be no point in criticizing Chao, 
doubtless an eminent grammarian. However, it does not seem that his use 
of the term 'argument' throws much light on Mandarin grammar. Given your 
examples, nothing, of course, prevents you from defining a function 
die(x, y) such that x is a being touched by the death and y is the dying 
being. You then get a multiplicity of functions die(v,w), where v and w 
play different roles. I am not sure that this use of the word 'argument' 
helps in understanding how the Chinese constructions work. - On the 
other hand, the analysis in terms of topic and comment seems to have 
gained foot in the literature. It does not seem to necessarily involve 
the function-argument analysis.

Best, Christian

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

Am 22.08.2023 um 18:52 schrieb Randy J. LaPolla:
> 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
> 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>
>>>> *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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20230822/5bb2f929/attachment-0001.htm>