[Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic adjuncts

[Chao Li]

Hi Juergen,



Thank you for all your information. If semantic arguments are participants
predictable from the verb’s meaning (regardless of how they are overtly
realized in real use), will *buy* and *sell* have four semantic arguments
to you? Will *cut* have three?



(Also, were you defining obliques as semantic arguments
(morpho)syntactically realized as an oblique? Or were you intending such
semantic arguments as a subset of obliques as far as formal realization is
concerned? If the former, what would you call those expressions that
denote, for example, time or location but are also formally realized as an
oblique?)



Thanks again,

Chao

On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 10:31 PM Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu> wrote:

> Dear Chao – In theory, true adjuncts are modifiers, meaning they are not
> predictable based on the semantics of the verb. In contrast, obliques –
> semantic arguments that are expressed like adjuncts – must be predictable
> from the verb’s meaning. In practice, though, predictability is a matter of
> degree. For example, Koenig et al. (2008) show that English verbs form a
> continuum in terms of predicting an instrument. Regarding specifically
> verbs of cutting, Bohnemeyer (2007) compares the argument structure
> properties of such verbs across languages. – Best – Juergen
>
>
>
> Bohnemeyer, J. (2007). Morpholexical Transparency and the argument
> structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. *Cognitive Linguistics*
> 18(2): 153-177.
>
> Koenig, J.-P., G. Mauner, B. Bienvenue, & K. Conklin. (2008). What with?
> The anatomy of a role. *Journal of Semantics* 25(2): 175-220.
>
>
>
> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
> Professor, Department of Linguistics
> University at Buffalo
>
> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
> Phone: (716) 645 0127
> Fax: (716) 645 3825
> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>
> Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585
> 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)
>
> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
> (Leonard Cohen)
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Chao Li via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Date: *Sunday, July 7, 2024 at 21:12
> *To: *<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/20240708/31ba8376/attachment.htm>