[Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic adjuncts

[Mira Ariel]

Hi,

You may find the following reference useful (see the attached abstract ). We  cite numerous definitions for the argument/adjunct distinction and we analyze the gradient argument/adjunct status of a number of dative roles in Hebrew, using a variety of syntactic, semantic and discourse parameters.

Ariel, Mira, Dattner, Elitzur, Du Bois John, Linzen, Tal 2015. Pronominal datives: The royal road to argument status. Studies in language 39: 2. 257-321.



________________________________
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Chao Li via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 4:11 AM
To: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: [Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic adjuncts


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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240708/f171bb0d/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Ariel et al Datives St in Lg.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 179334 bytes
Desc: Ariel et al Datives St in Lg.pdf
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240708/f171bb0d/attachment-0001.pdf>