Open main menu

Talk:Argument (linguistics)

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)




WikiProject Linguistics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

"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)

expanding on the articleEdit

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)

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)

  • 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)

Relevant Theories (Draft)

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, 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.

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

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.

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Return to "Argument (linguistics)" page.