Phrase structure 2: Arguments and Adjuncts

Introduction to General Linguistics WS12/13 page 1
Syntax 3
Phrase structure 2
Course teacher: Sam Featherston
Important things you will learn in this section:
• What distinguishes arguments from adjuncts.
• Why sentence structure involves a mental lexicon, in which each word has a lexical entry.
• The structure scheme by which adjuncts are attached
1. Arguments and adjuncts
We must now distinguish between arguments and adjuncts. In the example sentence John
quickly cooked the fish for his cat, the subject John and the object fish are arguments. The
verb cook requires that there is someone cooking and something being cooked, so these two
arguments are part of the sense of the verb cook. They are more or less essential to its
meaning. Arguments are usually, but not always, DPs.
But there is another class of constituents, called adjuncts, which contrasts with arguments.
Adjuncts add information, but they are not an essential part of the meaning. In our example,
neither quickly nor for his cat is an argument of cook. They simply give us more detail about
the background or circumstances. Adjuncts are often APs or PPs.
(1) Typical adjuncts in connection with verbs
locative: in Tübingen, from Berlin (where?)
temporal: yesterday, in two days (when?)
manner: in a nice way, quickly, angrily (how?)
reason: because of John, due to some problems (why?)
Here the constituents that are arguments are underlined, and adjuncts are italicized.
(2) a. [My best friend] ate [a bowl of vegetable soup] [in Brighton] [at four o'clock]
b. [My brother] sold [his neighbour] [his old radio]
c. [John] met [our neighbour] [in the park] [on Tuesday]
d. [Mary] dined [in Salerno] [at four o’clock]
e. [Unser Nachbar] isst [am Morgen] [oft] [ein weiches Ei]
Our neighbour eats in-the morning often a soft egg
‘Our neighbour often eats a soft-boiled egg in the morning.’
NOT DEFINITIONS, BUT...
argument [G. Argument] an argument of a verb (or adjective, noun, ..) is a constituent that
is typically a participant in the core meaning of that verb (or adjective, noun..).
adjunct [G. Adjunkt] a constituent adding additional information or detail, typically
circumstances, to another element. The presence of an adjunct is not required.
1.1 Arguments of nouns
Nouns can take arguments too, but these are usually optional.
(3) a. the construction [ PP of a house]
b. the destruction [ PP of the city]

Introduction to General Linguistics WS12/13 page 2
Such PPs with nouns are classified as arguments because when they are left out, there is a
sense in which they are understood to be present, in the same way as they are with a verb.
Nouns relating to verbs can often have a reading as a process or a reading as a result. So the
process construction (= the constructing) is always the construction of something.
Construction with a process meaning thus works the same way as the verb construct, with
arguments. The result construction (= a building) has no arguments, because this is a result,
not a process.)
Nouns which are related to transitive verbs will often take arguments. Nouns which mean
things which are a part of a relationship often take arguments too.
(4) a. the student (of literature) (cf to study literature)
b. the painter (of this picture) (cf paint a picture)
c. the daughter (of Dorothea Brooke) (being a daughter is a relationship)
d. the side (of the house) (a side is a part relative to a whole)
Notice that there are also adjuncts that go with nouns. These also often have the form of a PP.
(5) a. the daughter of Mary Anne Evans [ PP from her first marriage]
b. the student of literature [ PP in Tübingen]
1.2 Typical features of arguments
Obligatoriness: Arguments are often obligatory: eg devour needs a direct object.
(6) a. The werewolf devoured the rabbit. Der Werwolf verschlang das Kaninchen.
b.*The werewolf devoured. *Der Werwolf verschlang.
However this test must be applied with some care: arguments are not always obligatory. For
example, eat may stand with or without an object. The absence of a constituent does not
mean it is an adjunct; it may just be understood. If we say Bella was eating, it is clear that
Bella was eating something, even if we don’t say what. We can’t eat nothing. So:
(7) Bella was eating nothing
means "Bella wasn't eating". On the other hand, (8) is meaningless.
(8) *Bella was sleeping something
Uniqueness: an argument can be realized by one constituent, but not by two, or by none.
(9) a. [My sister] is sleeping.
b.* [my sister] [my brother] is/are sleeping.
c.* Is sleeping.
On the other hand, there can be many adjuncts with a given verb or noun:
(10)a. Edward slept [in the park] [at noon] [on Tuesday].
b. The destruction of the city [in the 13th century] [after a long battle]
c. an [uninhabited] [big] [white] house [near the beach]

Introduction to General Linguistics WS12/13 page 3
Category: Arguments are often DPs, but not always. We can tell that the PP in (10) is an
argument of the verb put. The verb put requires a place for the direct object to be put.
Arguments may be required to be of a particular category. This is not so of adjuncts.
(11)a. *Mary put the book requires [ PP on the table]
b. *Jacob lived requires [ PP in Bruchsal]
c. *George looked/felt requires [ AP happy, stupid, embarassed]
Word order: In English, an object normally stands next to its verb. If there is an adjunct, it
will follow the argument. We cannot usually put the adjunct between the verb and its object.
This tendency exists across languages, but other factors affect the order too, so it may not be
clear in every language.
(12)a. John read [a book] [in the garden]
V argument adjunct
b.*John read [in the garden] [a book]
V adjunct argument
(13)a. John saw [Mary] [in the cafeteria] [on Tuesday]
b.*John saw [in the cafeteria] [Mary] [on Tuesday]
c.* John saw [in the cafeteria] [on Tuesday] [Mary]
The same effect can be observed with nouns.
(14)a. a student [of linguistics] [in Tübingen]
b.*a student [in Tübingen] [of linguistics]
(15)a. the daughter [of Mary] [from her first marriage]
b.*the daughter [from her first marriage] [of Mary]
2 Arguments and the mental lexicon
Words and rules: Linguistic structures must obey general rules in a theory of grammar, but
they must also reflect the properties of individual words. For example, we saw earlier that
English nouns can take PP complements but not DP complements, unlike verbs which can
take DP arguments. This is a rule, it applies to all nouns.
However there are also important restrictions that come from individual lexical items (ie
words). The arguments that a lexical item requires are specific to itself.
Arguments in lexical entries: The verb see takes a DP direct object, while the verb look
takes a PP object. These are located in the mental lexicon. For example, the mental lexical
entry of put contains (at least) this information:
(16)Lexical entry of put:
a. grammatical category: V
b. pronunciation: [pʊt]
c. argument structure:
When you learn a word, what information do you memorize with it? Part of this information
will be its required or optional arguments.

Introduction to General Linguistics WS12/13 page 4
Arguments are the constituents that occur in the argument structure of the lexical entry.
Adjuncts do not occur in the lexical entry.
(17) I put my mobile phone into my pocket last night to keep it safe.
The constituents [I], [my mobile phone], and [into my pocket] are arguments, since they
represent in the argument structure of put. On the other hand, [last night]
and [to keep it safe] are adjuncts, and thus do not appear in the argument structure of put.
2.1 The notation of argument structure
Arguments appear in . Subjects get extra angled brackets: , or
(18)Lexical entry of put:
a. grammatical category: V
b. pronunciation: [pʊt]
c. argument structure:
Category type: For internal arguments the category is always specified: .
Technically speaking, we do not need to specify that the subject must be a DP. Subjects are
always DP. It would be more economical to let external rules specify this. Lexical entries
are for word-specific idiosyncratic information, that which is not included in the rules. This
should be as little as possible, since rules are, in terms of mental effort, cheap, and wordspecific
information is expensive, that is, requires more effort.
(19) Argument structure of put
< X1, < DP2, PP3 >>
|
external arg. internal arguments
| |
tells the grammar that tells the grammar that these will be
this will be the subject objects, with categories DP and PP
Here, however, we shall mark subjects as DP, since they are DP.
Round brackets: Optional arguments can be marked with round brackets:
devour: with an obligatory object,
eat: with an optional object.

Introduction to General Linguistics WS12/13 page 5
3 The syntactic representation of arguments
A verb or noun combines with its arguments, creating a phrase (VP, NP, ...). The details in
the lexical entry specify what arguments are necessary.
The argument structure in the lexical entry projects into the syntactic structure. The
requirements on all arguments must be satisfied as sisters to the head.
(22) a. verb with one object b. verb with two objects
VP VP
V DP2 V DP2 PP3 | |
read a book put a book on the table
lexical
entry: ategory: V category: V
arg.-struc.: arg.-struc.:
... ...
c. noun with one argument d. verb with no object e. noun with no argument
NP VP NP
N PP V N
| | |
neighbor of Mary sleep house
lexical
entry category: N category: V category: N
arg.-struc.: < > arg.-struc.: > …
... …
We therefore find the following structures:
(23)a. verb with one object b. verb with two objects
VP VP
V DP V DP PP
| |
read a book put a book on the table
c. noun with one argument d. verb with no object e. noun with no argument
NP VP NP
N PP V N
| | |
neighbour of Mary sleep house
Remember: Since arguments are requirements of the head, they must be attached as sisters
to the head X. They are thus daughters of the the phrasal projection of the head XP.

Introduction to General Linguistics WS12/13 page 6
4 The syntactic representation of adjuncts
The difference between arguments and adjuncts in the structure is illustrated here:
(24)a. structure for arguments b. structure for adjuncts
XP XP
X YP XP ZP
argument adjunct
Arguments are sisters to X, a word, and daughters to XP, the mother of X. Since adjuncts
are optional, there is no fixed position for them. Adjuncts are sisters to XP and daughter to a
higher XP. We have to generate this additional phrasal projection above the existing
phrasal projection XP.
(26) a. adjunct to an NP with an argument b. adjunct to an NP with no argument
NP new! NP new!
NP PP NP PP
|
N PP from Gascony N with a camera
| (adjunct) | (adjunct)
king of France tourist
c. adjunct to a VP with one argument d. adjunct to a VP with no argument
VP new! VP new!
VP PP VP PP
|
V DP in the garden V during the show
| (adjunct) | (adjunct)
read a book sleep
This difference between arguments and adjuncts makes sense in terms of the lexical entry:
the specification from the lexical entry of a word X drives the addition of sisters to the word
level category X. Adjuncts are not projected by the argument structure, they are added on
the outside, so to speak, on a new outer layer.
(27) a. structure for arguments b. structure for adjuncts
XP XP
X YP XP YP
lexical argument adjunct
entry:
category: X
arg.struc.: …YP

Introduction to General Linguistics WS12/13 page 7
This explains why several adjuncts can be stacked. The addition of each adjunct causes the
addition of a new highest phrasal node. We can do this again and again (and again.....).
(28) a. b. c. VP
VP VP PP
VP VP PP VP PP at noon
| | |
V V in the park V in the park
| | |
slept slept slept
This structural difference between arguments and adjuncts explains the difference in wordorder
that we saw above. We can build a structure of a verb plus complement plus adjunct:
(29) VP
VP PP
V DP in the garden
| (adjunct)
read a book
The argument DP is sister to the V and daughter of VP. The adjunct PP is sister to VP and
daughter of VP . Fine.
If we add the adjunct first, it becomes sister of VP, daughter of a new VP. If we want to add
an argument after this, there is no attachment position which is both after the adjunct and still
sister to V. The argument can therefore not be attached outside the adjunct.
(30) a. you can add an adjunct … b. … but you can’t add an argument outside
VP
VP VP DP
VP PP VP PP a book
| |
V in the garden V in the garden
| (adjunct) | (adjunct)
read read

Introduction to General Linguistics WS12/13 page 8
Exercises syntax 3 – Arguments and adjuncts.
1a. How many arguments do the following verbs have?
yawn, write, send, lend, kill, grow, kick, hop, bet, marry (two possibilities), die, rain, show,
introduce (people)
1b. And these nouns?
boss, garden, growth, neighbour, loan, tree, uncle, front, phone, kick, cover
2. Identify the arguments and adjuncts in these examples. Draw trees.
a. cook some pasta run quickly listen to the music
arrive at my home sing in the choir fax a report to the ministry
b. the husband of my friend the politician from the capital
the government of the country a picture of an apple
c. ride a bicycle in the country drive a car carelessly
buy an ice cream for a child wander in the afternoon along the Neckar
see the detective with a telescope the author of this book
3. Distinguish adjuncts and arguments and draw trees for the following:
see the sea
the brother of the prince
(to) eat some chips with your fingers
sleep on the sofa
prepare the lunch in the kitchen
write carefully on the card
watch the television
the queen of the Netherlands on her throne
listen to the radio in the morning.
describe my theory with some examples
leave the town for a while
a letter from my brother
a statue of the bishop of this province
a photo of my cousin from the south
4. das Meer sehen klar sehen
the sea see clearly see
mit diesen Essstäbchen den Reis essen
with these chopsticks the rice eat
die abblätternde Bemalung der Mauer
the peeling.off painting of.the wall