Argument (linguistics)

Inlinguistics,anargumentis an expression that helps complete the meaning of apredicate,^[1]the latter referring in this context to a main verb and its auxiliaries. In this regard, thecomplementis a closely related concept. Most predicates take one, two, or three arguments. A predicate and its arguments form apredicate-argument structure.The discussion of predicates and arguments is associated most with (content) verbs and noun phrases (NPs), although othersyntactic categoriescan also be construed as predicates and as arguments. Arguments must be distinguished fromadjuncts.While a predicate needs its arguments to complete its meaning, the adjuncts that appear with a predicate are optional; they are not necessary to complete the meaning of the predicate.^[2]Most theories of syntax and semantics acknowledge arguments and adjuncts, although the terminology varies, and the distinction is generally believed to exist in all languages.Dependency grammarssometimes call argumentsactants,followingLucien Tesnière(1959).

The area of grammar that explores the nature of predicates, their arguments, and adjuncts is calledvalency theory.Predicates have a valence; they determine the number and type of arguments that can or must appear in their environment. The valence of predicates is also investigated in terms ofsubcategorization.

Arguments and adjuncts

The basic analysis of the syntax and semantics of clauses relies heavily on the distinction between arguments andadjuncts.The clause predicate, which is often a content verb, demands certain arguments. That is, the arguments are necessary in order to complete the meaning of the verb. The adjuncts that appear, in contrast, are not necessary in this sense. The subject phrase and object phrase are the two most frequently occurring arguments of verbal predicates.^[3]For instance:

JilllikesJack.

Samfriedthe meat.

The old manhelpedthe young man.

Each of these sentences contains two arguments (in bold), the first noun (phrase) being the subject argument, and the second the object argument.Jill,for example, is the subject argument of the predicatelikes,andJackis its object argument. Verbal predicates that demand just a subject argument (e.g.sleep,work,relax) areintransitive,verbal predicates that demand an object argument as well (e.g.like,fry,help) aretransitive,and verbal predicates that demand two object arguments areditransitive(e.g.give,lend).

When additional information is added to our three example sentences, one is dealing with adjuncts, e.g.

Jillreallylikes Jack.

Jill likes Jackmost of the time.

Jill likes Jackwhen the sun shines.

Jill likes Jackbecause he's friendly.

The added phrases (in bold) are adjuncts; they provide additional information that is not necessary to complete the meaning of the predicatelikes.One key difference between arguments and adjuncts is that the appearance of a given argument is often obligatory, whereas adjuncts appear optionally. While typical verb arguments are subject or object nouns or noun phrases as in the examples above, they can also beprepositional phrases(PPs) (or even other categories). The PPs in bold in the following sentences are arguments:

Sam put the penon the chair.

Larry does not put upwith that.

Bill is gettingon my case.

We know that these PPs are (or contain) arguments because when we attempt to omit them, the result is unacceptable:

*Sam put the pen.

*Larry does not put up.

*Bill is getting.

Subject and object arguments are known ascore arguments;core arguments can be suppressed, added, or exchanged in different ways, usingvoiceoperations likepassivization,antipassivization,applicativization,incorporation,etc. Prepositional arguments, which are also calledoblique arguments,however, do not tend to undergo the same processes.

Psycholinguistic (argument vs adjuncts)

Psycholinguistictheories must explain how syntactic representations are built incrementally during sentence comprehension. One view that has sprung from psycholinguistics is the argument structure hypothesis (ASH), which explains the distinct cognitive operations for argument and adjunct attachment: arguments are attached via the lexical mechanism, but adjuncts are attached using general (non-lexical) grammatical knowledge that is represented as phrase structure rules or the equivalent.

Argument status determines the cognitive mechanism in which a phrase will be attached to the developing syntactic representations of a sentence. Psycholinguistic evidence supports a formal distinction between arguments and adjuncts, for any questions about the argument status of a phrase are, in effect, questions about learned mental representations of the lexical heads.^{[citation needed]}

Syntactic vs. semantic arguments

An important distinction acknowledges both syntactic and semantic arguments. Content verbs determine the number and type of syntactic arguments that can or must appear in their environment; they impose specific syntactic functions (e.g. subject, object, oblique, specific preposition, possessor, etc.) onto their arguments. These syntactic functions will vary as the form of the predicate varies (e.g. active verb, passive participle, gerund, nominal, etc.). In languages that have morphological case, the arguments of a predicate must appear with the correct case markings (e.g. nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, etc.) imposed on them by their predicate. The semantic arguments of the predicate, in contrast, remain consistent, e.g.

Jack is liked by Jill.

Jill's liking Jack

Jack's being liked by Jill

the liking of Jack by Jill

Jill's like for Jack

The predicate 'like' appears in various forms in these examples, which means that thesyntactic functionsof the arguments associated withJackandJillvary. The object of the active sentence, for instance, becomes the subject of the passive sentence. Despite this variation in syntactic functions, the arguments remain semantically consistent. In each case,Jillis the experiencer (= the one doing the liking) andJackis the one being experienced (= the one being liked). In other words, the syntactic arguments are subject to syntactic variation in terms of syntactic functions, whereas thethematic rolesof the arguments of the given predicate remain consistent as the form of that predicate changes.

The syntactic arguments of a given verb can also vary across languages. For example, the verbputin English requires three syntactic arguments: subject, object, locative (e. g.He put the book into the box). These syntactic arguments correspond to the three semantic arguments agent, theme, and goal. TheJapaneseverboku'put', in contrast, has the same three semantic arguments, but the syntactic arguments differ, since Japanese does not require three syntactic arguments, so it is correct to sayKare ga hon o oita( "He put the book" ). The equivalent sentence in English is ungrammatical without the required locative argument, as the examples involvingputabove demonstrate. For this reason, a slight paraphrase is required to render the nearest grammatical equivalent in English:He positioned the bookorHe deposited the book.

Distinguishing between arguments and adjuncts

Arguments vs. adjuncts

A large body of literature has been devoted to distinguishing arguments from adjuncts.^[4]Numerous syntactic tests have been devised for this purpose. One such test is the relative clause diagnostic. If the testconstituentcan appear after the combinationwhich occurred/happenedin a relative clause, it is an adjunct, not an argument, e.g.

Bill lefton Tuesday.→ Bill left, which happenedon Tuesday.–on Tuesdayis an adjunct.

Susan stoppeddue to the weather.→ Susan stopped, which occurreddue to the weather.–due to the weatheris an adjunct.

Fred tried to say somethingtwice.→ Fred tried to say something, which occurredtwice.–twiceis an adjunct.

The same diagnostic results in unacceptable relative clauses (and sentences) when the test constituent is an argument, e.g.

Bill lefthome.→ *Bill left, which happenedhome.–homeis an argument.

Susan stoppedher objections.→ *Susan stopped, which occurredher objections.–her objectionsis an argument.

Fred tried to saysomething.→ *Fred tried to say, which happenedsomething.–somethingis an argument.

This test succeeds in identifying prepositional arguments as well:

We are waitingfor Susan.→ *We are waiting, which is happeningfor Susan.–for Susanis an argument.

Tom put the knifein the drawer.→ *Tom put the knife, which occurredin the drawer.–in the draweris an argument.

We laughedat you.→ *We laughed, which occurredat you.–at youis an argument.

The utility of the relative clause test is, however, limited. It incorrectly suggests, for instance, that modal adverbs (e.g.probably,certainly,maybe) and manner expressions (e.g.quickly,carefully,totally) are arguments. If a constituent passes the relative clause test, however, one can be sure that it isnotan argument.

Obligatory vs. optional arguments

A further division blurs the line between arguments and adjuncts. Many arguments behave like adjuncts with respect to another diagnostic, the omission diagnostic. Adjuncts can always be omitted from the phrase, clause, or sentence in which they appear without rendering the resulting expression unacceptable. Some arguments (obligatory ones), in contrast, cannot be omitted. There are many other arguments, however, that are identified as arguments by the relative clause diagnostic but that can nevertheless be omitted, e.g.

a. She cleanedthe kitchen.

b. She cleaned. –the kitchenis an optional argument.

a. We are waitingfor Larry.

b. We are waiting. –for Larryis an optional argument.

a. Susan was workingon the model.

b. Susan was working. –on the modelis an optional argument.

The relative clause diagnostic would identify the constituents in bold as arguments. The omission diagnostic here, however, demonstrates that they are not obligatory arguments. They are, rather, optional. The insight, then, is that a three-way division is needed. On the one hand, one distinguishes between arguments and adjuncts, and on the other hand, one allows for a further division between obligatory and optional arguments.

Arguments and adjuncts in noun phrases

Most work on the distinction between arguments and adjuncts has been conducted at the clause level and has focused on arguments and adjuncts to verbal predicates. The distinction is crucial for the analysis of noun phrases as well, however. If it is altered somewhat, the relative clause diagnostic can also be used to distinguish arguments from adjuncts in noun phrases, e.g.

Bill's bold reading of the poem after lunch

*bold reading of the poem after lunch that wasBill's–Bill'sis an argument.

Bill's reading of the poem after lunch that wasbold–boldis an adjunct

*Bill's bold reading after lunch that wasof the poem–of the poemis an argument

Bill's bold reading of the poem that wasafter lunch–after lunchis an adjunct

The diagnostic identifiesBill'sandof the poemas arguments, andboldandafter lunchas adjuncts.

Representing arguments and adjuncts

The distinction between arguments and adjuncts is often indicated in the tree structures used to represent syntactic structure. Inphrase structure grammars,an adjunct is "adjoined" to a projection of its head predicate in such a manner that distinguishes it from the arguments of that predicate. The distinction is quite visible in theories that employ theX-bar schema,e.g.

The complement argument appears as a sister of the head X, and the specifier argument appears as a daughter of XP. The optional adjuncts appear in one of a number of positions adjoined to a bar-projection of X or to XP.

Theories of syntax that acknowledge n-ary branching structures and hence construe syntactic structure as being flatter than the layered structures associated with the X-bar schema must employ some other means to distinguish between arguments and adjuncts. In this regard, somedependency grammarsemploy an arrow convention. Arguments receive a "normal" dependency edge, whereas adjuncts receive an arrow edge.^[5]In the following tree, an arrow points away from an adjunct toward the governor of that adjunct:

The arrow edges in the tree identify four constituents (= complete subtrees) as adjuncts:At one time,actually,in congress,andfor fun.The normal dependency edges (= non-arrows) identify the other constituents as arguments of their heads. ThusSam,a duck,andto his representative in congressare identified as arguments of the verbal predicatewanted to send.

Relevant theories

Argumentation theory

Argumentation theory focuses on how logical reasoning leads to end results through an internal structure built of premises, a method of reasoning and a conclusion. There are many versions of argumentation that relate to this theory that include: conversational, mathematical, scientific, interpretive, legal, and political.

Grammar theory

Grammar theory, specifically functional theories of grammar, relate to the functions of language as the link to fully understanding linguistics by referencing grammar elements to their functions and purposes.

Syntaxtheories

A variety of theories exist regarding the structure of syntax, includinggenerative grammar,categorial grammar,anddependency grammar.

Theories in semantics

Modern theories of semantics includeformal semantics,lexical semantics,andcomputational semantics.Formal semantics focuses ontruth conditioning.Lexical Semantics delves into word meanings in relation to their context and computational semantics uses algorithms and architectures to investigate linguistic meanings.

Valence theory

The concept of valence is the number and type of arguments that are linked to a predicate, in particular to a verb. In valence theory verbs' arguments include also the argument expressed by the subject of the verb.

History of argument linguistics

The notion of argument structure was first conceived in the 1980s by researchers working in thegovernment–binding frameworkto help address controversies about arguments.^[6]

Importance

The distinction between arguments and adjuncts is crucial to most theories of syntax and grammar. Arguments behave differently from adjuncts in numerous ways. Theories of binding,coordination,discontinuities,ellipsis,etc. must acknowledge and build on the distinction. When one examines these areas of syntax, what one finds is that arguments consistently behave differently from adjuncts and that without the distinction, our ability to investigate and understand these phenomena would be seriously hindered. There is a distinction between arguments and adjuncts which is not really noticed by many in everyday language. The difference is between obligatory phrases versus phrases which embellish a sentence. For instance, if someone says "Tim punched the stuffed animal", the phrase stuffed animal would be an argument because it is the main part of the sentence. If someone says, "Tim punched the stuffed animal with glee", the phrase with glee would be an adjunct because it just enhances the sentence and the sentence can stand alone without it.^[7]

Notes

^Most grammars define theargumentin this manner, i.e. it is an expression that helps complete the meaning of a predicate (a verb). See for instance Tesnière (1969: 128).
^Concerning the completion of a predicates meaning via its arguments, see for instance Kroeger (2004:9ff.).
^Geeraerts, Dirk; Cuyckens, Hubert (2007).The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics.Oxford University Press US.ISBN 978-0-19-514378-2.
^For instance, see the essays on valency theory in Ágel et al. (2003/6).
^See Eroms (2000) and Osborne and Groß (2012) in this regard.
^Levin, Beth (2013-05-28)."Argument Structure".Linguistics.doi:10.1093/obo/9780199772810-0099.ISBN 978-0-19-977281-0.Retrieved2019-03-05.
^Damon Tutunjian; Julie E. Boland."Do we need a distinction between arguments and adjuncts? Evidence from psycholinguistic studies of comprehension"(PDF).University of Michigan.

References

Ágel, V., L. Eichinger, H.-W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H. Heringer, and H. Lobin (eds.) 2003/6. Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Eroms, H.-W. 2000. Syntax der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kroeger, P. 2004.Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Osborne, T. and T. Groß 2012. Constructions are catenae: Construction Grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23, 1, 163–214.
Tesnière, L. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
Tesnière, L. 1969. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. 2nd edition. Paris: Klincksieck.

[1] Most grammars define theargumentin this manner, i.e. it is an expression that helps complete the meaning of a predicate (a verb). See for instance Tesnière (1969: 128).

[2] Concerning the completion of a predicates meaning via its arguments, see for instance Kroeger (2004:9ff.).

[3] Geeraerts, Dirk; Cuyckens, Hubert (2007).The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics.Oxford University Press US.ISBN 978-0-19-514378-2.

[4] For instance, see the essays on valency theory in Ágel et al. (2003/6).

[5] See Eroms (2000) and Osborne and Groß (2012) in this regard.

[6] Levin, Beth (2013-05-28)."Argument Structure".Linguistics.doi:10.1093/obo/9780199772810-0099.ISBN 978-0-19-977281-0.Retrieved2019-03-05.

[7] Damon Tutunjian; Julie E. Boland."Do we need a distinction between arguments and adjuncts? Evidence from psycholinguistic studies of comprehension"(PDF).University of Michigan.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]