[Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic adjuncts

[Chao Li]

Hi Mark,



There are problems with a syntactic distinction between argument and
adjunct too. If an argument requires obligatoriness, a criterion often used
for argumenthood, then an example like (1) would lead to the conclusion
that *eat* has only an argument. For languages enjoying much freedom in
using zeros or ellipsis, EAT in an utterance can elide both the eater (and
the food), leaving the impression that it has no arguments. However,
semantically and intuitively, EAT has two necessary participants and so
probably two semantic arguments.



(1) They already ate.



Moreover, I’m not sure how argument and adjunct determined purely on
syntactic grounds in particular or on formal grounds in general can be used
as comparative concepts because such an approach, as I see it, would be
subject to “methodological opportunism” and to “lumping” and “splitting”
issues (to use Bill Croft’s words).



I believe that a semantic approach is still possible if we use argument and
adjunct as comparative concepts and for the purpose of conducting
crosslinguistic comparisons. The problem is how to semantically define
them. I thought about necessary participants for the eventuality expressed
by a specific verb to take place (subtle meaning differences, I believe,
can largely account for the different behaviors of the different verbs in
the same set of your examples). Then what counts as a necessary
participant? If the tool is a necessary participant in a cutting event, it
appears that the tool is a semantic argument too in the case of *cut*,
regardless of whether or not it is overtly expressed in a specific use and,
if so, how it is expressed. I vaguely recall reading about German *kaufen*
‘to buy’ and *bringen* ‘to bring’, both of which were claimed to be
quadrivalent verbs. I’ve just googled “valency” and found the claim that
“[t]here are quadrivalent verbs that take four arguments” in a Wikipedia
entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valency_(linguistics)). It appears
that “arguments” here refers to semantic arguments because I have serious
doubts that all the four participants of a quadrivalent verb can be
analyzed as syntactic arguments on formal grounds (most likely, at least
one of the participants will be realized as an oblique, not as a syntactic
argument).



To define “semantic argument”, I also thought about cognitively profiled
participants related to the specific meaning of a specific verb. This might
allow us to claim that *buy* cognitively profiles the buyer and the goods
while *sell* cognitively profiles the seller and the goods. The problem is
how to independently determine whether a participant is cognitively
profiled without resorting to syntactic frames and constructions where a
specific verb with a specific meaning is used. I’m not sure whether the
specific meaning of a verb in a specific use would be sufficient.



Many thanks,

Chao

On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 9:24 PM Mark Donohue <mhdonohue at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20240708/68f76a18/attachment.htm>