On the argument-adjunct distinction in the Polish “Semantic Syntax” tradition

Abstract

On the argument-adjunct distinction in the Polish Semantic Syntax traditionThe aim of this paper is to examine the understanding of the Argument-Adjunct Distinction within the Polish Semantic Syntax (SS) tradition, associated with the name of Stanisław Karolak and presented in the nominally syntactic volume of the Grammar of contemporary Polish (Pol. Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego; Topolińska, 1984), especially in Karolak (1984) and Grochowski (1984), as well as in later work. Section 1 reviews the three approaches to determining the number and kind of arguments of a given predicate, as discussed in Karolak (1984), concentrating on the one that is endorsed there. Then, Sections 2–3 show that the key notions used in this approach have not been – and probably cannot be – made operational. Moreover, Section 4 briefly reviews some more recent Semantic Syntax work and shows that this lack of operational AAD in Karolak (1984) extends to the SS programme at large. Finally, Section 5 concludes that this deficiency, while common in linguistic theories, is particularly troublesome in the case of SS, which is founded on the notion of predicate-argument structure. O rozróżnieniu argumentów od modyfikatorów w polskiej tradycji „składni semantycznej”Artykuł poświęcony jest kwestii fundamentalnej dla szkoły „składni semantycznej” (kojarzonej przede wszystkim z nazwiskiem Stanisława Karolaka), a mianowicie kwestii odróżniania argumentów od modyfikatorów. Celem artykułu jest wykazanie, że w tradycji „składni semantycznej” nie została zaproponowana operacyjna procedura odróżnienia argumentów od modyfikatorów, choć istnienie takiej procedury wydaje się warunkiem koniecznym dla wyodrębnienia struktury predykatowo-argumentowej, głównego celu wielu prac zakorzenionych w tej tradycji.

Separability of dependents from VP in English: Beyond the argument/adjunct distinction

“…This section demonstrates that the A/AD does not play an explanatory role in accounting for the separability of PPs from the verb in do so-anaphora. Przepiórkowski (1999; see also 2016) has previously argued for this same conclusion by compiling prior arguments that do so-anaphora resolution is a discourse-pragmatic phenomenon rather than a properly syntactic one. For example, Kehler & Ward (1999) find that do so can refer to material split across antecedents and that do so-anaphora allows certain active-passive voice mismatches.…”

“…Further examples can be found in COCA and other corpora, as well as in the literature (see, e.g. Miller 1990, Przepiórkowski 1999, Culicover & Jackendoff 2005, Mikkelsen et al 2012.…”

Cognitive Discourse Parameters of Directive Speech Acts in Modern Ukrainian

“…The dominance of the communicative-pragmatic and the cognitive-discursive paradigms of research of language units and categories in modern linguistics has determined the need for their thorough study not only in terms of formal expression, but also in close connection with extraverbal reality, operations of thought and consciousness, communicative activity of speakers and situations, and different types of discourse, etc. The works of A. Przepiórkowski (Przepiórkowski, 2017), A. Dziob, & M. Piasecki (Dziob & Piasecki, 2018) are devoted to topical issues of modern cognitive grammar. The objects of many scientific studies have been different types of speech acts, among which an important role is given to the so-called directives -communicative-intentional content which, according to A. P. Zahnitko, is "… direct motivation of the recipient to action" (Zahnitko, 2001, p. 460).…”

Built-in Argument Positions in Bulgarian and Polish

“…Predicate-argument based linguistic studies are relatively well-established in Poland (cf. Banasiak, 2018Banasiak, , 2020Bogusławski, 1974;Grochowski et al, 1984;Karolak, 2002aKarolak, , 2002bKiklewicz et al, 2019;Korytkowska, 1992;Mazurkiewicz-Sułkowska, 2008;Mokrzycka, 2008;Przepiórkowski, 2017;Zatorska, 2013). The theory itself has a wide range of linguistic and non-linguistic applications, including such seemingly non-linguistic issues as the analysis of navigation in bees and other animals (Gallistel, 2011).…”