Phrase Structure Grammar
3.2 Arguments and adjuncts
3.2.1 Argument-Adjunct distinction
The term “argument” is closely related to the term “function”, as used in mathe-matics or in logic. In this sense, an argument is something that a function needs in order to provide a result. In linguistics, the same reasoning applies as shown in example (10) (cf. Heim and Kratzer 1998: 34–39; Chung and Ladusaw 2004: 2–4;
a.o.).
(10) a. F′∶=f ∶ N→N
λx∶x∈N . x2 b. ⟦sleeps⟧∶=f ∶ De→{0,1}
λx∶x∈De . xsleeps
The function F′ in example (10a) is defined as a function from natural numbers to natural numbers, mapping every x, which is an element of the set of natural num-bers, to the result of x2, which is also an element of the set of natural numbers. In the same line of reasoning, example (10b) shows that the denotation of a predicate can be defined in terms of functions. Therefore, the predicate sleeps is defined as a function from the set of entities (De) to the set of truth-values ({0,1}), mapping every x, which is an element of the set of entities, to 0 iff ‘x does not sleep’, or to 1 iff ‘x sleeps’. In example (11) the function in (10b) is applied to the argument Mary via Functional Application leading to the truth conditions of the predicate.
(11) [λx∶x∈De . x sleeps](Mary)=1 if Mary sleeps
=0 if Mary does not sleep.
That means, a predicate – i.e. a noun, a verb, an adjective, etc. – is defined as having some open positions which must be satisfied such that the function can provide a result (a truth-value in example (11)), or can be considered as complete – or at least as less incomplete (cf. Chung and Ladusaw 2004: 3 and Hole 2015: 1284–
1286). This implies that the open positions for arguments must be encoded in the function or head. That is to say, a head Y is looking for some object Z in order to build the complete (or less incomplete) complex object X. The head will thus impose some constraints on the argument(s), some of them being semantic others syntactic in nature. Thus, a distinction between semantic and syntactic arguments is sometimes made (and needed) (cf. Lyons 1977a: Sec. 6.3; Lyons 1977b: Sec. 12.4;
Jacobs 1994a: 287–288; Chung and Ladusaw 2004: 6–10; and Ackema 2015: 246–
251). From a logical point of view, we can reduce the distinction between head,
argument, adjunct, and specifier, to a two-fold distinction between function16 and argument. But, since we are looking at semantic and syntactic aspects of the relation of two linguistic objects, we need a more fine-grained distinction here.
The following list gives some properties often mentioned in the literature17which help to distinguish between arguments and adjuncts:
1. the number of arguments is determined by the head, the number of adjuncts is not;
2. the form of arguments (e.g. phrasal type, case inflection) is normally deter-mined by the head, the form of adjuncts is not;
3. the interpretation of arguments is determined by the head, the interpretation of adjuncts is not;
4. arguments can not be iterated, adjuncts can.
In the following Sections 3.2.1.1–3.2.1.4, the distinction between arguments and adjuncts will be discussed and exemplified focusing on the notion of argument. I will focus on the notion of adjunct in Section 3.2.3. In the examples demonstrating the difference, sentences will be used instead of NPs, since the distinction between arguments and adjuncts is clearer with respect to verbal heads.
3.2.1.1 Cardinality (ad 1)
The first distinguishing property is exemplified in (12)–(14). In (12), there are different predicates which need a different number of arguments: sleep in (12a) with one argument,beat in (12b) with two arguments, andgivein (12c) with three arguments.
(12) a. [Mary] sleeps.
b. [Mary] beats [Peter].
c. [Mary] gives [Peter] [the car].
The cardinality of arguments of a predicate is commonly named the valence of a predicate. In fact, the term valence implies more than only the cardinality.
16Instead of “function”, we can use as well the terms “predicate” or “head”.
17See for instance Pollard and Sag (1987: 134–139); Haegeman (1994: 40ff); Jacobs (1994b: 14–
32); Przepiórkowski (1999); Ackema (2015); Hole (2015)
As defined by Jacobs (2009: 504), valence is a relational morphosyntactic feature of word forms that encodes how the semantic arguments of a predicate must be realised. This implies the cardinality, but also further morphosyntactic aspects as, for example their case assignment.18 Trying to alter the cardinality of the predicates leads to ungrammatical sentences. For instance, sleep can not have two arguments (cf. 13a), beat can not have three arguments (cf. 13b), and givecan not have one argument19 (cf. 13c).
(13) a. * [Mary] sleeps [Peter].
b. * [Mary] beats [Peter] [the car].
c. * [Mary] gives.
But this seems not to be the case with adjuncts, which can be freely added to the sentence without yielding ungrammaticality. For instance in (14) four adjuncts were added to each sentence in (12).
(14) a. [Mary] sleeps [in the evening] [after the party] [on the street] [behind the university].
b. [Mary] beats [Peter] [in the evening] [after the party] [on the street]
[behind the university].
c. [Mary] gives [Peter] [the car] [in the evening] [after the party] [on the street] [behind the university].
The fact, that arguments are required by the predicate does not mean, that they are always obligatory. Actually arguments can be often dropped, as well as adjuncts can be absent. In example (15a) both arguments are syntactically realised, the subject Mary and the complement a landscape, but in (15c) the complement has been dropped, though not leading to ungrammaticality. In (15b), we have the same sentence as in (15a), but with an adjunct for Peter. Now, what is the difference between dropping an argument (i.e. from (15a) to (15c)) and dropping an adjunct (i.e. from (15b) to (15a))?
18See also Lyons (1977b: Sec. 12.4). Following Jacobs’ definition if valence – characteristic also in Valence Theory – the so-called weather verbs are considered to be zero-valent (cf. Ágel, 2000: 228–230). This kind of examples clarifies the necessity for the distinction between seman-tic and syntacseman-tic arguments.
19Cf. Section 4.4.1 to see in which contexts the verbgeben can be used without complements.
(15) a. [Mary] is painting [a landscape].
b. [Mary] is painting [a landscape] [for Peter].
c. [Mary] is painting.
The answer lies in the interpretations of the sentences with the dropped elements.
While sentence (15c) entails the existence of some element which is being painted (i.e. the dropped complement), sentence (15a) does not entail the existence of some person for whom a landscape is being painted (i.e. the dropped adjunct) (cf. Jacobs 1994b: 20; Ackema 2015: 248–249; and Hole 2015: 1286–1287).
Summing up, arguments can (but do not have to) be obligatory, while adjuncts are always facultative, moreover not-realised arguments are nevertheless entailed by the meaning of the predicate. In Section 4.4 the analysis of optional arguments in NPs will be given.
3.2.1.2 Form (ad 2)
To illustrate point 2 on the list above, I am going to use the German examples (16) and (17), since German has a richer inflectional paradigm in the nominal system.
Example (16) shows that depending on the predicate, the complements have a different form by virtue of case assignment. The complement of unterstützen ‘to support’ in (16a) is in its accusative form; in (16b) the complement of helfen ‘to help’ in its dative form, and in (16c) the complement ofgedenken ‘to remember’ in its genitive form. Example (16d) shows that it is not possible to use another form as the one selected by the head.
(16) a. [ Der
the.nom Jäger ]
hunter.nom unterstützt supports
[ den
the.accBären ].
bear.acc
‘The hunter supports the bear.’
b. [ Der
the.nom Jäger ]
hunter.nom hilft helps
[ dem
the.dat Bären ].
bear.dat
‘The hunter helps the bear.’
c. [ Der
the.nom Jäger ]
hunter.nom gedenkt remembers
[ des
the.gen Bären].
bear.gen
‘The hunter remembers the bear.’
d. * [ Der
the.nom Jäger]
hunter.nom hilft helps
{ [ den
the.acc Bären ]
bear.acc / [ des the.gen Bären] }.
bear.gen
In contrast to the arguments in (16), whose case inflection is dependent on the head, the form of the adjunctsjeden Tag ‘every day’ andzur Mittagszeit ‘at noon’
in (17) is completely independent of the head.
(17) a. [Der the
Jäger]
hunter
unterstützt supports
[den the
Bären]
bear
[jeden
every.acc Tag]
dayacc[zu-r to-the.dat Mittagszeit].
lunchtime.dat
‘The hunter supports the bear every day at noon.’
b. [Der the
Jäger]
hunter hilft helps
[dem the
Bären]
bear
[jeden
every.acc Tag]
dayacc [zu-r to-the.dat Mittagszeit].
lunchtime.dat
‘The hunter helps the bear every day at noon.’
c. [Der the
Jäger]
hunter
gedenkt remembers
[des the
Bären]
bear
[jeden
every.acc Tag]
dayacc [zu-r to-the.dat Mittagszeit].
lunchtime.dat
‘The hunter remembers the bear every day at noon.’
3.2.1.3 Interpretation (ad 3)
The third property in 3 on the list can be exemplified with examples (12) and (14) repeated here as (18) and (19). The interpretation, in terms of theta-roles, of the arguments Mary, Peter, and the car depends on the head. Mary in (18a) is interpreted as the theme of sleep, but in (18b) as the agent of beat, just as Peter is interpreted as the theme of beat in (18b), but as the goal of give in (18c).
(18) a. [Mary]theme sleeps.
b. [Mary]agent beats [Peter]theme.
c. [Mary]agent gives [Peter]goal [the car]theme.
For adjuncts, this restriction does not hold. The interpretation of the adjuncts in the eveningandafter the party as temporal adjuncts, and ofon the street andbehind the university as local adjuncts is – as examples (19a)–(19c) show – completely independent of the predicate.
(19) a. [Mary] sleeps [in the evening]temp [after the party]temp [on the street]loc [behind the university]loc.
b. [Mary] beats [Peter] [in the evening]temp [after the party]temp [on the street]loc [behind the university]loc.
c. [Mary] gives [Peter] [the car] [in the evening]temp [after the party]temp [on the street]loc [behind the university]loc.
3.2.1.4 Iteration (ad 4)
The fourth property in 4 on the list is closely related to the properties 2 and 3. As (20b) in comparison to (20a) shows, arguments can not be iterated without leading to ungrammaticality. However, adjuncts can be iterated as can be observed in the sentences in (19).
(20) a. [Mary]agent beats [Peter]theme.
b. * [Mary]agent beats [Peter]theme, [John]theme.
The reason for the non-iterability of arguments lies in the fixed cardinality of argu-ments of a particular predicate. In HPSG, this is expressed in the valence list of the head and the constraints imposed on phrases of type head-non-adjunct-structure. Arguments are “selected” or listed as elements of thevallists of the head daughter.
By the combination of a head daughter with an argument, i.e. in a phrase of type head-non-adjunct-structure, the val list is reduced by the element represented by the non-head daughter, viz. the argument (cf. ValP in Section 2.5.5).20 Therefore, if Peter in example (20b) has been already combined with the head beats, there is no way to combine and to interpretJohn as argument too, sincePeter has already satisfied this argument position.21