1639:, 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.
877:
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.
598:. 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. 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.
633:. 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. For instance:
980:
1527:
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,
876:
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.)
1337:
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
1328:
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
863:
theories 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
867:
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
1258:
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
1456:
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, some
772:. 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 be
1259:
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.
1452:
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.
1606:
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.
1461:
employ an arrow convention. Arguments receive a "normal" dependency edge, whereas adjuncts receive an arrow edge. In the following tree, an arrow points away from an adjunct toward the governor of that adjunct:
1540:
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.
1033:
A large body of literature has been devoted to distinguishing arguments from adjuncts. Numerous syntactic tests have been devised for this purpose. One such test is the relative clause diagnostic. If the test
913:
vary. 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,
1432:, 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 the
1840: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.
617:. 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 of
1627:
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,
945:'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 say
864:
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.
1594:. Lexical Semantics delves into word meanings in relation to their context and computational semantics uses algorithms and architectures to investigate linguistic meanings.
922:
is 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 the
555:
1470:
1444:
672:
Each of these sentences contains two arguments (in bold), the first noun (phrase) being the subject argument, and the second the object argument.
1853:
Osborne, T. and T. Groß 2012. Constructions are catenae: Construction
Grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23, 1, 163–214.
1796:
1739:
768:
The added phrases (in bold) are adjuncts; they provide additional information that is not necessary to complete the meaning of the predicate
949:("He put the book"). The equivalent sentence in English is ungrammatical without the required locative argument, as the examples involving
548:
1711:
in this manner, i.e. it is an expression that helps complete the meaning of a predicate (a verb). See for instance Tesnière (1969: 128).
1616:
1883:
1329:
between arguments and adjuncts, and on the other hand, one allows for a further division between obligatory and optional arguments.
1020:
1428:
The distinction between arguments and adjuncts is often indicated in the tree structures used to represent syntactic structure. In
618:
541:
1222:
The utility of the relative clause test is, however, limited. It incorrectly suggests, for instance, that modal adverbs (e.g.
953:
above demonstrate. For this reason, a slight paraphrase is required to render the nearest grammatical equivalent in
English:
1579:
1533:
1102:
The same diagnostic results in unacceptable relative clauses (and sentences) when the test constituent is an argument, e.g.
590:. The discussion of predicates and arguments is associated most with (content) verbs and noun phrases (NPs), although other
1878:
1632:
1591:
1002:
845:
586:
is a closely related concept. Most predicates take one, two, or three arguments. A predicate and its arguments form a
517:
1819:
998:
806:
We know that these PPs are (or contain) arguments because when we attempt to omit them, the result is unacceptable:
252:
1628:
1820:"Do we need a distinction between arguments and adjuncts? Evidence from psycholinguistic studies of comprehension"
629:
The basic analysis of the syntax and semantics of clauses relies heavily on the distinction between arguments and
1035:
302:
189:
169:
1663:
1494:. The normal dependency edges (= non-arrows) identify the other constituents as arguments of their heads. Thus
1429:
582:
385:
328:
323:
141:
89:
1658:
1673:
1587:
495:
380:
333:
222:
1720:
Concerning the completion of a predicates meaning via its arguments, see for instance
Kroeger (2004:9ff.).
500:
472:
433:
413:
368:
232:
990:
1774:
1688:
1599:
773:
731:
When additional information is added to our three example sentences, one is dealing with adjuncts, e.g.
614:
373:
136:
1246:) are arguments. If a constituent passes the relative clause test, however, one can be sure that it is
1520:
902:
307:
297:
33:
937:). These syntactic arguments correspond to the three semantic arguments agent, theme, and goal. The
613:
The area of grammar that explores the nature of predicates, their arguments, and adjuncts is called
1668:
577:
465:
393:
57:
1653:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1469:
1458:
1443:
926:
of the arguments of the given predicate remain consistent as the form of that predicate changes.
599:
591:
257:
237:
182:
158:
131:
1615:
The notion of argument structure was first conceived in the 1980s by researchers working in the
607:
580:, the latter referring in this context to a main verb and its auxiliaries. In this regard, the
1792:
1735:
1648:
1583:
938:
929:
The syntactic arguments of a given verb can also vary across languages. For example, the verb
923:
860:
837:
829:
717:
697:
630:
595:
460:
453:
443:
408:
398:
338:
272:
212:
194:
82:
1873:
1782:
841:
776:(PPs) (or even other categories). The PPs in bold in the following sentences are arguments:
403:
267:
52:
594:
can also be construed as predicates and as arguments. Arguments must be distinguished from
1678:
1478:
The arrow edges in the tree identify four constituents (= complete subtrees) as adjuncts:
713:
448:
317:
279:
119:
101:
77:
72:
512:
343:
262:
146:
67:
901:
The predicate 'like' appears in various forms in these examples, which means that the
1867:
1787:
833:
227:
1859:
Tesnière, L. 1969. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. 2nd edition. Paris: Klincksieck.
684:
is its object argument. Verbal predicates that demand just a subject argument (e.g.
1433:
477:
312:
126:
94:
62:
1847:
828:; core arguments can be suppressed, added, or exchanged in different ways, using
933:
in
English requires three syntactic arguments: subject, object, locative (e. g.
569:
1683:
1338:
can also be used to distinguish arguments from adjuncts in noun phrases, e.g.
527:
522:
507:
438:
247:
153:
109:
868:
effect, questions about learned mental representations of the lexical heads.
17:
1571:
217:
114:
1636:
1554:
A variety of theories exist regarding the structure of syntax, including
242:
1856:
Tesnière, L. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
1754:
For instance, see the essays on valency theory in Ágel et al. (2003/6).
47:
1546:
174:
1843:
Eroms, H.-W. 2000. Syntax der deutschen
Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter.
1162:
This test succeeds in identifying prepositional arguments as well:
700:, verbal predicates that demand an object argument as well (e.g.
1042:
in a relative clause, it is an adjunct, not an argument, e.g.
973:
716:, and verbal predicates that demand two object arguments are
1763:
See Eroms (2000) and
Osborne and Groß (2012) in this regard.
676:, for example, is the subject argument of the predicate
852:, however, do not tend to undergo the same processes.
848:, etc. Prepositional arguments, which are also called
576:
is an expression that helps complete the meaning of a
1506:
are identified as arguments of the verbal predicate
918:
is the experiencer (= the one doing the liking) and
1360:Bill's reading of the poem after lunch that was
1086:. → Fred tried to say something, which occurred
1848:Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach
1619:to help address controversies about arguments.
1347:*bold reading of the poem after lunch that was
965:Distinguishing between arguments and adjuncts
549:
8:
1850:. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
1732:The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics
1344:Bill's bold reading of the poem after lunch
1001:. There might be a discussion about this on
1730:Geeraerts, Dirk; Cuyckens, Hubert (2007).
1373:*Bill's bold reading after lunch that was
824:Subject and object arguments are known as
556:
542:
29:
1786:
1386:Bill's bold reading of the poem that was
1021:Learn how and when to remove this message
1172:. → *We are waiting, which is happening
1700:
1189:. → *Tom put the knife, which occurred
1146:. → *Fred tried to say, which happened
856:Psycholinguistic (argument vs adjuncts)
32:
1333:Arguments and adjuncts in noun phrases
1578:Modern theories of semantics include
7:
1424:Representing arguments and adjuncts
1129:. → *Susan stopped, which occurred
1818:Damon Tutunjian; Julie E. Boland.
1069:. → Susan stopped, which occurred
25:
1504:to his representative in congress
1254:Obligatory vs. optional arguments
1038:can appear after the combination
905:of the arguments associated with
1468:
1442:
1206:. → *We laughed, which occurred
978:
872:Syntactic vs. semantic arguments
183:Singulative-Collective-Plurative
1611:History of argument linguistics
1234:) and manner expressions (e.g.
1112:. → *Bill left, which happened
1788:10.1093/obo/9780199772810-0099
1734:. Oxford University Press US.
1590:. Formal semantics focuses on
1052:. → Bill left, which happened
147:Suffixaufnahme (case stacking)
1:
1617:government–binding framework
1082:Fred tried to say something
935:He put the book into the box
588:predicate-argument structure
263:Lexical aspect (Aktionsart)
1900:
1773:Levin, Beth (2013-05-28).
1404:The diagnostic identifies
892:the liking of Jack by Jill
889:Jack's being liked by Jill
1825:. University of Michigan.
1707:Most grammars define the
1430:phrase structure grammars
602:sometimes call arguments
1884:Transitivity and valency
1664:Phrase structure grammar
1321:is an optional argument.
1316:b. Susan was working. –
1299:is an optional argument.
1277:is an optional argument.
386:Serial verb construction
1674:Subcategorization frame
1588:computational semantics
1528:legal, and political.
1040:which occurred/happened
815:*Larry does not put up.
324:Honorifics (politeness)
970:Arguments vs. adjuncts
955:He positioned the book
883:Jack is liked by Jill.
789:Larry does not put up
625:Arguments and adjuncts
501:Polypersonal agreement
27:Linguistic terminology
1572:Theories in semantics
1309:a. Susan was working
1294:b. We are waiting. –
959:He deposited the book
774:prepositional phrases
760:because he's friendly
137:Genitive construction
1775:"Argument Structure"
1521:Argumentation theory
991:confusing or unclear
895:Jill's like for Jack
592:syntactic categories
390:Traditional grammar
358:Syntax relationships
34:Grammatical features
1669:Predicate (grammar)
1659:Meaning–text theory
1459:dependency grammars
999:clarify the article
903:syntactic functions
753:when the sun shines
600:Dependency grammars
308:Comparison (degree)
58:Dative construction
1879:Syntactic entities
1846:Kroeger, P. 2004.
1654:Dependency grammar
1592:truth conditioning
1564:dependency grammar
1560:categorial grammar
1556:generative grammar
1412:as arguments, and
1287:a. We are waiting
1272:b. She cleaned. –
1185:Tom put the knife
1142:Fred tried to say
1076:due to the weather
1071:due to the weather
1067:due to the weather
947:Kare ga hon o oita
886:Jill's liking Jack
258:Grammatical aspect
1798:978-0-19-977281-0
1741:978-0-19-514378-2
1584:lexical semantics
1514:Relevant theories
1396:
1383:
1370:
1357:
1322:
1300:
1278:
1216:
1199:
1182:
1156:
1139:
1122:
1096:
1079:
1062:
1031:
1030:
1023:
850:oblique arguments
842:applicativization
838:antipassivization
818:*Bill is getting.
812:*Sam put the pen.
619:subcategorization
566:
565:
461:Topic and Comment
444:Thematic relation
339:Reflexive pronoun
253:Tense–aspect–mood
213:Associated motion
195:Universal grinder
16:(Redirected from
1891:
1827:
1826:
1824:
1815:
1809:
1808:
1806:
1805:
1790:
1770:
1764:
1761:
1755:
1752:
1746:
1745:
1727:
1721:
1718:
1712:
1705:
1580:formal semantics
1472:
1446:
1391:
1378:
1365:
1352:
1317:
1295:
1273:
1211:
1194:
1177:
1151:
1134:
1117:
1091:
1074:
1057:
1026:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1006:
982:
981:
974:
861:Psycholinguistic
832:operations like
796:Bill is getting
782:Sam put the pen
758:Jill likes Jack
751:Jill likes Jack
746:most of the time
744:Jill likes Jack
558:
551:
544:
292:General features
207:Related to verbs
42:Related to nouns
30:
21:
1899:
1898:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1836:
1831:
1830:
1822:
1817:
1816:
1812:
1803:
1801:
1799:
1772:
1771:
1767:
1762:
1758:
1753:
1749:
1742:
1729:
1728:
1724:
1719:
1715:
1706:
1702:
1697:
1679:Theta criterion
1645:
1633:discontinuities
1625:
1613:
1516:
1426:
1356:is an argument.
1335:
1265:a. She cleaned
1256:
1215:is an argument.
1198:is an argument.
1181:is an argument.
1168:We are waiting
1155:is an argument.
1138:is an argument.
1121:is an argument.
1027:
1016:
1010:
1007:
996:
983:
979:
972:
967:
874:
858:
627:
608:Lucien Tesnière
562:
533:
532:
491:
483:
482:
429:
421:
420:
359:
351:
350:
320:(verbal number)
318:Pluractionality
293:
285:
284:
208:
200:
199:
179:
120:Collective noun
102:Construct state
43:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1897:
1895:
1887:
1886:
1881:
1876:
1866:
1865:
1861:
1860:
1857:
1854:
1851:
1844:
1841:
1837:
1835:
1832:
1829:
1828:
1810:
1797:
1765:
1756:
1747:
1740:
1722:
1713:
1699:
1698:
1696:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1686:
1681:
1676:
1671:
1666:
1661:
1656:
1651:
1644:
1641:
1624:
1621:
1612:
1609:
1604:
1603:
1600:Valence theory
1576:
1575:
1552:
1551:
1538:
1537:
1534:Grammar theory
1525:
1524:
1515:
1512:
1508:wanted to send
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1425:
1422:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1384:
1382:is an argument
1371:
1358:
1334:
1331:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1314:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1292:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1270:
1255:
1252:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1200:
1183:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1140:
1136:her objections
1131:her objections
1127:her objections
1125:Susan stopped
1123:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1095:is an adjunct.
1080:
1078:is an adjunct.
1065:Susan stopped
1063:
1061:is an adjunct.
1029:
1028:
986:
984:
977:
971:
968:
966:
963:
924:thematic roles
899:
898:
897:
896:
893:
890:
887:
884:
873:
870:
857:
854:
826:core arguments
822:
821:
820:
819:
816:
813:
804:
803:
802:
801:
794:
787:
766:
765:
764:
763:
756:
749:
742:
670:
669:
668:
667:
657:
647:
626:
623:
615:valency theory
564:
563:
561:
560:
553:
546:
538:
535:
534:
531:
530:
525:
520:
515:
513:Empty category
510:
505:
504:
503:
492:
489:
488:
485:
484:
481:
480:
475:
470:
469:
468:
458:
457:
456:
451:
441:
436:
430:
427:
426:
423:
422:
419:
418:
417:
416:
411:
406:
401:
396:
388:
383:
378:
377:
376:
371:
360:
357:
356:
353:
352:
349:
348:
347:
346:
344:Reflexive verb
341:
331:
326:
321:
315:
310:
305:
300:
294:
291:
290:
287:
286:
283:
282:
277:
276:
275:
270:
265:
260:
250:
245:
240:
235:
230:
225:
220:
215:
209:
206:
205:
202:
201:
198:
197:
192:
187:
186:
185:
180:
178:
177:
172:
167:
163:
156:
151:
150:
149:
144:
134:
129:
124:
123:
122:
117:
112:
104:
99:
98:
97:
87:
86:
85:
80:
75:
70:
68:Quirky subject
65:
60:
50:
44:
41:
40:
37:
36:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1896:
1885:
1882:
1880:
1877:
1875:
1872:
1871:
1869:
1858:
1855:
1852:
1849:
1845:
1842:
1839:
1838:
1833:
1821:
1814:
1811:
1800:
1794:
1789:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1769:
1766:
1760:
1757:
1751:
1748:
1743:
1737:
1733:
1726:
1723:
1717:
1714:
1710:
1704:
1701:
1694:
1690:
1687:
1685:
1682:
1680:
1677:
1675:
1672:
1670:
1667:
1665:
1662:
1660:
1657:
1655:
1652:
1650:
1647:
1646:
1642:
1640:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1622:
1620:
1618:
1610:
1608:
1602:
1601:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1574:
1573:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1550:
1548:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1536:
1535:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1523:
1522:
1518:
1517:
1513:
1511:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1460:
1454:
1445:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1435:
1431:
1423:
1421:
1420:as adjuncts.
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1395:is an adjunct
1394:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1376:
1372:
1369:is an adjunct
1368:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1350:
1346:
1345:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1332:
1330:
1320:
1315:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1298:
1293:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1276:
1271:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1253:
1251:
1250:an argument.
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1214:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1196:in the drawer
1192:
1191:in the drawer
1188:
1187:in the drawer
1184:
1180:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1154:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1094:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1041:
1037:
1025:
1022:
1014:
1004:
1003:the talk page
1000:
994:
992:
987:This article
985:
976:
975:
969:
964:
962:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
927:
925:
921:
917:
912:
908:
904:
894:
891:
888:
885:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
871:
869:
865:
862:
855:
853:
851:
847:
846:incorporation
843:
839:
835:
834:passivization
831:
827:
817:
814:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
799:
795:
792:
788:
785:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
775:
771:
761:
757:
754:
750:
747:
743:
740:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
729:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
665:
664:the young man
661:
658:
655:
651:
648:
645:
641:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
632:
624:
622:
620:
616:
611:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
584:
579:
575:
571:
559:
554:
552:
547:
545:
540:
539:
537:
536:
529:
526:
524:
521:
519:
518:Incorporation
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
502:
499:
498:
497:
494:
493:
487:
486:
479:
476:
474:
471:
467:
464:
463:
462:
459:
455:
452:
450:
447:
446:
445:
442:
440:
437:
435:
432:
431:
425:
424:
415:
412:
410:
407:
405:
402:
400:
397:
395:
392:
391:
389:
387:
384:
382:
379:
375:
372:
370:
367:
366:
365:
362:
361:
355:
354:
345:
342:
340:
337:
336:
335:
332:
330:
327:
325:
322:
319:
316:
314:
311:
309:
306:
304:
301:
299:
296:
295:
289:
288:
281:
278:
274:
271:
269:
266:
264:
261:
259:
256:
255:
254:
251:
249:
246:
244:
241:
239:
236:
234:
231:
229:
228:Evidentiality
226:
224:
221:
219:
216:
214:
211:
210:
204:
203:
196:
193:
191:
188:
184:
181:
176:
173:
171:
168:
165:
164:
162:
161:
160:
157:
155:
152:
148:
145:
143:
140:
139:
138:
135:
133:
130:
128:
125:
121:
118:
116:
113:
111:
108:
107:
106:Countability
105:
103:
100:
96:
93:
92:
91:
88:
84:
81:
79:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
64:
61:
59:
56:
55:
54:
51:
49:
46:
45:
39:
38:
35:
31:
19:
18:Core argument
1813:
1802:. Retrieved
1778:
1768:
1759:
1750:
1731:
1725:
1716:
1708:
1703:
1629:coordination
1626:
1614:
1605:
1598:
1577:
1570:
1553:
1545:
1539:
1532:
1526:
1519:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1477:
1455:
1451:
1434:X-bar schema
1427:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1403:
1392:
1387:
1379:
1374:
1366:
1361:
1353:
1348:
1336:
1327:
1319:on the model
1318:
1311:on the model
1310:
1296:
1288:
1274:
1266:
1257:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1221:
1212:
1207:
1203:
1195:
1190:
1186:
1178:
1173:
1169:
1161:
1152:
1147:
1143:
1135:
1130:
1126:
1118:
1113:
1109:
1101:
1092:
1087:
1083:
1075:
1070:
1066:
1058:
1053:
1049:
1039:
1032:
1017:
1011:January 2013
1008:
997:Please help
988:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
934:
930:
928:
919:
915:
910:
906:
900:
875:
866:
859:
849:
825:
823:
805:
797:
790:
784:on the chair
783:
769:
767:
759:
752:
745:
738:
730:
725:
721:
718:ditransitive
709:
705:
701:
698:intransitive
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
671:
663:
659:
653:
649:
643:
639:
628:
612:
606:, following
603:
587:
581:
573:
567:
478:Veridicality
369:Transitivity
363:
313:Egophoricity
127:Definiteness
95:Measure word
83:Instrumental
63:Dative shift
1779:Linguistics
1488:in congress
1480:At one time
1418:after lunch
1410:of the poem
1393:after lunch
1388:after lunch
1380:of the poem
1375:of the poem
1275:the kitchen
1267:the kitchen
1202:We laughed
1036:constituent
741:likes Jack.
660:The old man
570:linguistics
414:Predicative
334:Reciprocity
303:Boundedness
223:Conjugation
190:Specificity
1868:Categories
1834:References
1804:2019-03-05
1684:Theta role
1623:Importance
1108:Bill left
1059:on Tuesday
1054:on Tuesday
1050:on Tuesday
1048:Bill left
993:to readers
798:on my case
714:transitive
583:complement
528:Markedness
523:Inflection
508:Declension
439:Mirativity
248:Mirativity
154:Noun class
142:Possession
110:Count noun
90:Classifier
78:Comitative
73:Nominative
1297:for Larry
1289:for Larry
1240:carefully
1228:certainly
1179:for Susan
1174:for Susan
1170:for Susan
1153:something
1148:something
1144:something
791:with that
578:predicate
496:Agreement
490:Phenomena
428:Semantics
394:Predicate
381:Branching
218:Clusivity
115:Mass noun
1709:argument
1643:See also
1637:ellipsis
1549:theories
1484:actually
1224:probably
939:Japanese
654:the meat
631:adjuncts
610:(1959).
596:adjuncts
574:argument
473:Volition
434:Contrast
364:Argument
329:Polarity
243:Telicity
233:Modality
166:Singular
1874:Grammar
1689:Valency
1649:Adjunct
1492:for fun
1436:, e.g.
1244:totally
1236:quickly
989:may be
662:helped
604:actants
454:Patient
409:Adjunct
399:Subject
374:Valency
48:Animacy
1795:
1738:
1586:, and
1562:, and
1547:Syntax
1502:, and
1500:a duck
1490:, and
1406:Bill's
1354:Bill's
1349:Bill's
1213:at you
1208:at you
1204:at you
739:really
720:(e.g.
712:) are
696:) are
680:, and
652:fried
642:likes
404:Object
298:Affect
238:Person
175:Plural
159:Number
132:Gender
1823:(PDF)
1695:Notes
1232:maybe
1093:twice
1088:twice
1084:twice
941:verb
830:voice
770:likes
737:Jill
694:relax
686:sleep
678:likes
572:, an
466:Focus
449:Agent
280:Voice
273:Tense
1793:ISBN
1736:ISBN
1416:and
1414:bold
1408:and
1367:bold
1362:bold
1210:. –
1193:. –
1176:. –
1150:. –
1133:. –
1119:home
1116:. –
1114:home
1110:home
1090:. –
1073:. –
1056:. –
920:Jack
916:Jill
911:Jill
909:and
907:Jack
726:lend
722:give
710:help
702:like
690:work
682:Jack
674:Jill
644:Jack
640:Jill
268:Mood
170:Dual
53:Case
1783:doi
1496:Sam
1248:not
957:or
951:put
943:oku
931:put
728:).
706:fry
650:Sam
568:In
1870::
1791:.
1781:.
1777:.
1635:,
1631:,
1582:,
1566:.
1558:,
1510:.
1498:,
1486:,
1482:,
1390:–
1377:–
1364:–
1351:–
1242:,
1238:,
1230:,
1226:,
961:.
844:,
840:,
836:,
724:,
708:,
704:,
692:,
688:,
621:.
1807:.
1785::
1744:.
1313:.
1291:.
1269:.
1024:)
1018:(
1013:)
1009:(
1005:.
995:.
800:.
793:.
786:.
762:.
755:.
748:.
666:.
656:.
646:.
557:e
550:t
543:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.