Talk:Argument (linguistics)

Untitled

Psycholinguistic (argument vs adjuncts) Psycholinguistic theories must explain how syntactic representations are built incrementally during sentence comprehension. One view that has sprung from psycholinguistics is, 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 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. Psycholinguistic research on sentence comprehension holds promise. It can reveal subtle distinctions that we are unaware of and may not be easily examined in institutions. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~damont/TutunjianBoland2008LangLingCompassPrePub.pdf

Truecamus1225 (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just revised the article significantly. I invite feedback. How can/should the article be improved here? --Tjo3ya (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"so it is correct to say Kare ga hon o oita ("He put the book")"

Can someone explain what this means? Is it trying to say that the sentence is correct but meaningless, or does the sentence actually mean something - in which case "he put the book" is not a correct translation? 78.148.151.157 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sknk4172.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lsanterian. Peer reviewers: Ram5156psuedu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

expanding on the article

This page explains the mechanics of Argument linguistics so well I think the best use of expanding the page would be adding a section about theories/ideas/approaches about Argument Linguistics. This could be a history section that could help bring language and thought together. While researching the topic I came across different frameworks and approaches that we could use to add a section to the article. To me it seems like it will fit and give different information than already given in the article. It could be a middle part between the origins (the first 2 paragraphs) and the start of the mechanics of argument linguistics. Feedback and critique would be most appreciated, thank you!

Truecamus1225 (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page mentions theories of syntax and grammar various times throughout. Therefore, I feel as though it would be beneficial to the audience if definitions and examples of these theories were provided. The section would be placed either in the origins paragraph or as its own standing paragraph.

Lsanterian (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good plan --- could yous tart a list here, or in your group sandbox, of the theories that are relevant, and a 1 to 2 sentence description of each? yEvb0 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Theories (Draft)

Argumentation Theory

Argumentation theory focuses on how logical reasoning leads to end results through an internal structure build 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.

Syntax Theories

A variety of theories exist regarding the structure of syntax, including but not limited to Generative Grammar, Categorial grammar, and Dependency grammar.

Theories in Semantics

Modern theories of semantics include formal semantics, lexical semantics, and computational semantics. Formal semantics focuses on truth 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

As mentioned above, valence is related to predicates, their arguments, and their adjuncts.

Lsanterian (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A definition of argument structure that helps individuals understand the meaning behind it is the way that words are combined in order to bring meaning and have a point come across to another individual or group of people. There is a grammatical and semantical relationship between the words which give structure to the argument. There was a popular conception that argument structure is a mix of semantics and syntax. Argument Structure.

There is a distinction between arguments and adjuncts which isn’t 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 Tutrnjian Boland.

Akapoor1 (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Psycholinguistic part of argument vs adjunct from Tutunhian , Ill post on talk for Argument as well!

Psycholinguistic (argument vs adjuncts) Psycholinguistic theories must explain how syntactic representations are built incrementally during sentence comprehension. One view that has sprung from psycholinguistics is, 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 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. Psycholinguistic research on sentence comprehension holds promise. It can reveal subtle distinctions that we are unaware of and may not be easily examined in institutions.  Truecamus1225 (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

great job! I think you can go ahead and move your contributions to the main page now! yEvb0 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeming contradiction

The article says:

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 grammars sometimes call arguments actants, following Tesnière (1959)."

Later it says (History of argument linguistics):

The notion of argument structure was first conceived in the 1980s by researchers working in the government–binding framework to help address controversies about arguments.

While these are not necessarily in conflict, on the surface they would appear to disagree. If Tesnière was talking about actants (arguments) in the 1950s, how can the history of "argument linguistics" be pinned to government and binding?

Would an explanatory sentence help clarify this?

Bathrobe (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentation theory

"Argumentation theory" is listed in the "Relevant theories" section.

I don't see how argumentation theory is related to the linguistic concept of arguments (except for the fact that argumentation theory includes "argument" in its name). Obviously anyone can assert that any two concepts are related somehow, however tenuously. But in this case I think it's a very strained assertion. In my view they're not related.

I'd vote for removing argumentation theory from the relevant theories section. Omc (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]