[Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic adjuncts

[Mark Donohue]

Hi Chao,

Given English pairs such as (1) and (2), and the group in (3) – (5), which
have the same semantic roles for both NPs in both cases, but different
argument/adjunct status,

(1) They ate khachapuri.
(2) They dined (on khachapuri).

(3) He died (before her).
(4) He predeceased her.
(5) She survived him.

we have to, as has long been acknowledged, admit that semantic roles on
their own do not inform argument/adjunct status even in the one language,
let alone cross-linguistically. That's why we deal with these things
syntactically, not on the basis of semantics.

-Mark



On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 at 11:12, Chao Li via Lingtyp <
lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> The distinction between argument and adjunct is crucial for many
> linguistic analyses and much linguistic theorizing. However, how to define
> the argument and the adjunct and how to clearly distinguish between the two
> are controversial. Further complicating the issue is the existence of two
> related levels, semantic and (morpho)syntactic (e.g. what is semantically
> considered an argument may be (morpho)syntactically realized as an adjunct,
> as evidenced by passive formation in English). To be clear, this query is
> about the distinction between semantic arguments and semantic adjuncts (or
> semantic non-arguments). Specifically, in the case of verbs like *buy*
> and *sell* and in the context of a business transaction that generally
> involves a buyer, a seller, a transfer of goods, and a transfer of money,
> how many semantic arguments does each verb have, what are they, and what is
> the rationale behind the analysis? Similarly, in the case of *cut*, how
> many semantic arguments does it have and will that include the tool used in
> the cutting too? After all, isn’t the tool a necessary participant of the
> cutting action and how often do we cut something without using any tool?
> Likewise, how many semantic arguments in the case of *bring*?
>
>
>
> Particularly, without looking at the different syntactic frames and
> constructions where these verbs occur or without paying any attention to
> how they are really used, on what (semantic) grounds can we say that
> Participant X is an argument of *buy*, *sell, cut, *or* bring* or that
> Participant Y is an adjunct of the same verb? For colleagues who’d like to
> make a further distinction between core arguments and peripheral arguments
> in addition to the distinction between arguments and adjuncts, then the
> following questions arise. Namely, if without looking at the different
> syntactic frames and constructions where these verbs occur, on what
> (semantic) grounds can we say that Participant X is a core argument, a
> peripheral argument, or an adjunct (of *buy*, *sell*, *cut*, or *bring*)
> and what is the difference between a peripheral argument and an adjunct?
>
>
>
> Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much in advance for
> your time and help!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chao
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240708/86b775f0/attachment.htm>