[Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic adjuncts

[Chao Li]

Hi Juergen,



Thank you for your further response. I’ll certainly check out your paper on
cutting and breaking. With respect to “oblique”, Robert Van Valin Jr., in
his *An Introduction to Syntax* (2001), uses “oblique argument” instead of
the former longer “oblique core argument”. (Also, originally via Martin
Haspelmath’s paper on “Arguments and Adjuncts as Language-Particular
Syntactic Categories and as Comparative Concepts” (2014), a paper focusing
on the use of argument and adjunct as “syntactic elements”, I learned that
in the same book Van Valin treats the English *by*-phrase containing the
A(gent) argument of a passive construction as an “optional adjunct”.)



Thanks again and best regards,

Chao



On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:15 AM Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu> wrote:

> Hi Chao – I don’t know who introduced the term ‘oblique argument.’ It may
> well have been derived from or at least influenced by the model of ‘oblique
> case’. But oblique case does not play a definitional role in the notion of
> oblique arguments.
>
>
>
> Also, there is obviously a great deal of variation in how different
> scholars use the term ‘oblique (argument)’. E.g., Dryer & Gensler (2013)
> use ‘oblique phrase’ expressly synonymously with ‘adjunct’. My own use
> corresponds closely to that in Role & Reference Grammar. For instance, here
> is Van Valin (1993):
>
>
>
> “All arguments which appear in the core of a simple clause must be linked
> to argument positions in the LS [‘logical structure’, a representation of
> lexical meaning in terms of predicate calculus without variable binding;
> JB] of the predicate in the nucleus, and in the default situation, all
> arguments in the LS of the predicate must appear in the core of the clause.
> However, it is not always the case that an argument in the LS occurs in the
> core; in a passive construction, for example, the agent or experiencer, if
> overt, will be realized as an oblique constituent in the periphery. Among
> core arguments a further distinction is made between direct and oblique
> core arguments. This contrast is based on the morphological coding of the
> arguments: direct core arguments are those that are morphologically
> unmarked or coded with a direct case, as in dependent-marking languages
> like English and German, or are cross-referenced on the verb, as in
> headmarking languages like Lakhota and Tzotzil. Oblique core arguments are
> those marked by an adposition or by an oblique case. Thus English give has
> three core arguments; in *Harry gave Bill the key* there are three direct
> core arguments, while in * Harry gave the key to Bill* there are two
> direct core arguments and one oblique core argument.” (Van Valin 1993:
> 40-41)
>
>
>
> In contrast, adjuncts are treated as modifiers, which in RRG means they
> are treated as expressing semantic predicates (Jolly 1993). This
> corresponds to conceptualizations in the Dependency Grammar tradition where
> modifiers are viewed as semantically and morphosyntactically relational,
> i.e., as opening argument positions for their heads, whereas arguments are
> dependents for which the head opens an argument position (Lehmann 1985).
> The Universal Dependencies database acknowledges this distinction, but does
> not follow it:
>
>
>
> “The UD taxonomy is centered around the fairly clear distinction between
> core arguments (primarily subjects and objects) and other dependents. It
> does not make a distinction between adjuncts (general modifiers) and
> oblique arguments (arguments said to be selected by a head but not
> expressed as a core argument).” (link
> <https://universaldependencies.org/workgroups/core.html#:~:text=The%20UD%20taxonomy%20is%20centered,expressed%20as%20a%20core%20argument).>
> )
>
>
>
> As to this point of yours:
>
>
>
> “The question, however, is how to (semantically) rule out the tool used in
> a hitting action, for example, as a non-argument (maybe the tool in a
> cutting action has a different cognitive status than the one in a hitting
> action, but I’m not sure).”
>
>
>
> This question is addressed head-on in Bohnemeyer (2007). In a nutshell, I
> argue that cut-type verbs require instruments that function like bladed
> instruments, whereas break-type verbs do not require any instrument and
> certainly don’t specify a particular type of instrument.
>
>
>
> Best – Juergen
>
>
>
> Bohnemeyer, J. (2007). Morpholexical Transparency and the argument
> structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. *Cognitive Linguistics*
> 18(2): 153-177.
>
>
>
> Dryer, M. S., & O. D. Gensler. (2013). Order of object, oblique, and
> verb. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data
> set]. Zenodo.
> https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533 (Available online at
> http://wals.info/chapter/84, Accessed on 2024-07-09.)
>
>
>
> Jolly, J. A. (1993). Preposition assignment in English. In R. D. Van Valin
> Jr. (ed), *Advances in Role and Reference Grammar*. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
> 275-310.
>
>
>
> Lehmann, C. (1985). On grammatical relationality. *Folia Linguistica* 19:
> 67-109.
>
>
>
> Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (1993). A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In
> R. D. Van Valin Jr. (ed), *Advances in Role and Reference Grammar*.
> Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1-166.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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: *Chao Li <chao.li at aya.yale.edu>
> *Date: *Monday, July 8, 2024 at 13:10
> *To: *Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
> *Cc: *<LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and
> semantic adjuncts
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your detailed response. It’s clear that you use “oblique” in
> a restrictive sense to mean oblique arguments. In my mind, “oblique”, like
> the traditional use, refers to marked case marking (or marked flagging in
> an extended sense). I believe that’s why we find each other’s phrasing a
> bit confusing or problematic. By the way, it also shows how messy and murky
> linguistic terms are!
>
>
>
> Back to semantic arguments, if * go* is analyzed as a three-argument
> verb, as suggested by your example, it creates some tension or at least
> some uneasiness when it is typically analyzed as a monovalent verb.
> Similarly, back to *buy* and *sell*, a four-argument analysis of them,
> whether standard or not, also creates some tension when they are often
> analyzed as or assumed to be bivalent verbs. This also brings us to
> prototypical two-argument verbs. In the literature on linguistic typology,
> *hit*, *kill*, and the like are generally presented as prime examples of
> such verbs. The question, however, is how to (semantically) rule out the
> tool used in a hitting action, for example, as a non-argument (maybe the
> tool in a cutting action has a different cognitive status than the one in a
> hitting action, but I’m not sure). An ideal solution to me is coming up
> with a definition of semantic argument that can successfully accomplish
> this and also match (more) with our intuition (e.g. intuitively the four
> participants involved in *buy/sell* are not equal in status).
>
>
>
> (As a side clarificatory note not truly related to the content of your
> message, semantic arguments are not necessarily tied with verbs, as
> event-denoting nouns, for example, may also require one or more semantic
> arguments.)
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chao
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 9:56 AM Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Chao – Yes, _*buy*_ and _*sell*_ have four semantic arguments
> (standard analysis since Fillmore (1982?) and Jackendoff (1990?) (citing
> from memory without having checked these specific works) and _*cut*_ has
> three.
>
>
>
> But the phrase ‘formally realized as an oblique’ seems problematic to me.
> In my view, there is no clear morphosyntactic difference between obliques
> and adjuncts except that a proper subset of obliques are more or less
> obligatory and to that extent could be argued to be subcategorized for by
> the verb (or governed by the verb, in the traditional (pre-GB) sense of
> ‘government’).
>
>
>
> But this obligatoriness should in my view not be taken to be a
> definitional property, because that would cut out the vast majority of
> obliques, which are not obligatory, yet are semantically clearly not
> modifiers. And that is, afaik, the whole point of distinguishing between
> obliques and adjuncts: to capture the fact that the latter, but not the
> former, are modifiers.
>
>
>
> The primary difference between obliques and adjuncts is not
> morphosyntactic, but semantic. To be sure, it is never a happy outcome when
> semantic properties are needed to underpin morphosyntactic categories or
> vice versa. But the closer one gets to talking about form-meaning mapping,
> the harder it becomes to avoid such hybrid definitions.
>
>
>
> Time location specifications are usually treated as adjuncts = modifiers.
> One exception (among a few) is _*last*_ as in (1). Locatives are usually
> treated as adjuncts = modifiers. One exception (among a few) is _*live*_
> as in (2). Motion verbs commonly take path obliques, as illustrated in (3):
>
>
>
> (1)          *The meeting lasted from 9am until 10:20.*
>
> (2)          *Sally lived in Buffalo in those days.*
>
> (3)          *Floyd went from the Dean’s office to the library.*
>
>
>
> Finally, a puzzle: every event necessarily occupies a spacetime region. So
> (2) and (3) describe eventualities that we know must have occurred during
> particular moments in time, regardless of whether these are specified. So
> how then can we say that *in those days* in (2) is a modifier, whereas *
> in Buffalo* is an oblique? This is not at all a trivial problem. I could
> imagine treatments in which all time-positional and locative expressions
> are regarded as obliques. However, I would argue that is precisely the fact
> that all eventuality designators are by necessity compatible with spacetime
> specifications that limits the predictive power of the former for the
> occurrence of the latter.
>
>
>
> HTH! – Juergen
>
>
>
> Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of
> Korea (ed.), *Linguistics in the Morning Calm*. Soeul: Hanshin. 111-137.
>
> Jackendoff, R. (1990). *Semantic structures*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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: *Chao Li <chao.li at aya.yale.edu>
> *Date: *Monday, July 8, 2024 at 07:39
> *To: *Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
> *Cc: *<LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and
> semantic adjuncts
>
> 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/20240709/b95cccb5/attachment.htm>