argument structure k'u etc.

[Pamela Munro]

Hm, maybe I have another argument against defining "argument" narrowly
as "what can be marked on the verb". My Lakhota isn't ready enough to
supply an example, but I would certainly guess that there are some
intransitive verbs out there that can take only a singular nominal
(third person) subject. (I want one that can take a nominal subject,
not, say, a phenomenological verb that takes no subject, but I want one
where said subject is incompatible with plurality, so we can't get -pi
-- maybe I'm reaching, but I would guess there are such verbs.) In this
case (if such a verb exists), we have a verb that I think everyone would
want to say has one argument (the subject), but where nothing is marked
as subject on the verb. In other words, it seems to me that ability to
show marking on the verb need not be directly related to the number of
arguments a verb takes. (I think that's a matter of what used to be
called subcategorization.)

Pam

Koontz John E wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote:
>
>
>>Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which
>>is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in
>>fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't
>>freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is
>>semantically and syntactically completed with three associated
>>"participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when
>>talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of
>>the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject
>>of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not
>>just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew
>>any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.)
>>
>>
>
>I agree with this.  I'm not really sure how the term argument should be
>used, and I don't want to do violence to accepted usage for it.  However,
>by restricting themselves historically to seeing only the arguments (or
>participants) defined by the canonical property of indexing in the verb
>Siouanists have been missing several important categories of verbs. If
>non-indexed arguments are considered, then we don't have just actives,
>statives, and transitives, we also have ditransitives like k?u and the
>"experiencer subject" pattern(s).  (I just slipped a letter or so up and
>said "dative subject" where I meant "experiencer subject").
>
>
>
>

--
Pamela Munro,
Professor, Linguistics, UCLA
UCLA Box 951543
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543
http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20050401/bdfa0751/attachment.htm>