In linguistics, an argument is an expression that helps complete the meaning of a predicate, the latter referring in this context to a main verb and its auxiliaries. In this regard, the complement is a related concept. Most predicates take two, or three arguments. A predicate and its arguments form a predicate-argument structure; the discussion of predicates and arguments is associated most with verbs and noun phrases, although other syntactic categories can be construed as predicates and as arguments. Arguments must be distinguished from adjuncts. While a predicate needs its arguments to complete its meaning, the adjuncts that appear with a predicate are optional. Most theories of syntax and semantics acknowledge arguments and adjuncts, although the terminology varies, the distinction is believed to exist in all languages. Dependency grammars sometimes call arguments actants, following Tesnière; the area of grammar that explores the nature of predicates, their arguments, adjuncts is called valency theory.
Predicates have a valence. The valence of predicates is investigated in terms of subcategorization; the basic analysis of the syntax and semantics of clauses relies on the distinction between arguments and adjuncts. The clause predicate, 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 occurring arguments of verbal predicates. For instance: Jill likes Jack. Sam fried the meat; the old man helped the young man. Each of these sentences contains two arguments, the first noun being the subject argument, the second the object argument. Jill, for example, is the subject argument of the predicate likes, Jack is its object argument. Verbal predicates that demand just a subject argument are intransitive, verbal predicates that demand an object argument as well are transitive, verbal predicates that demand two object arguments are ditransitive.
When additional information is added to our three example sentences, one is dealing with adjuncts, e.g. Jill likes Jack. Jill likes Jack most of the time. Jill likes Jack. Jill likes Jack; the added phrases are adjuncts. One key difference between arguments and adjuncts is that the appearance of a given argument is obligatory, whereas adjuncts appear optionally. While typical verb arguments are subject or object nouns or noun phrases as in the examples above, they can be prepositional phrases; the PPs in bold in the following sentences are arguments: Sam put the pen on the chair. Larry does not put up with that. Bill is getting on my case. We know that these PPs are arguments because when we attempt to omit them, the result is unacceptable: *Sam put the pen. *Larry does not put up. *Bill is getting. Subject and object arguments are known as core arguments. Prepositional arguments, which are called oblique arguments, however, do not tend to undergo the same processes. Psycholinguistic theories must explain how syntactic representations are built incrementally during sentence comprehension.
One view that has sprung from psycholinguistics is the argument structure hypothesis, which explains the distinct cognitive operations for argument and adjunct attachment: arguments are attached via the lexical mechanism, but adjuncts are attached using general grammatical knowledge, represented as phrase structure rules or the equivalent. 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 effect, questions about learned mental representations of the lexical heads. An important distinction acknowledges both semantic arguments. Content verbs determine the number and type of syntactic arguments that can or must appear in their environment; these syntactic functions will vary. In languages that have morphological case, the arguments of a predicate must appear with the correct case markings imposed on them by their predicate.
The semantic arguments of the predicate, in contrast, remain consistent, e.g. Jack is liked by Jill. Jill's liking Jack Jack's being liked by Jill the liking of Jack by Jill Jill's like for JackThe predicate'like' appears in various forms in these examples, which means that the syntactic functions of the arguments associated with Jack and Jill 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, Jill is the experiencer and Jack is the one being experienced
Case is a special grammatical category of a noun, adjective, participle or numeral whose value reflects the grammatical function performed by that word in a phrase, clause or sentence. In some languages, pronouns, determiners, prepositions, numerals and their modifiers take different inflected forms, depending on their case; as a language evolves, cases can merge, a phenomenon formally called syncretism. English has lost its inflected case system although personal pronouns still have three cases, which are simplified forms of the nominative and genitive cases, they are used with personal pronouns: objective case and possessive case. Forms such as I, he and we are used for the subject, forms such as me, him and us are used for the object. Languages such as Ancient Greek, Assamese, Belarusian, Czech, Finnish, Icelandic, Korean, Lithuanian, Romanian, Sanskrit, Slovak, Tibetan, Turkish and most Caucasian languages have extensive case systems, with nouns, pronouns and determiners all inflecting to indicate their case.
The number of cases differs between languages: Esperanto has two. Encountered cases include nominative, accusative and genitive. A role that one of those languages marks by case is marked in English with a preposition. For example, the English prepositional phrase with foot might be rendered in Russian using a single noun in the instrumental case or in Ancient Greek as τῷ ποδί with both words changing to dative form. More formally, case has been defined as "a system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads". Cases should be distinguished from thematic roles such as patient, they are closely related, in languages such as Latin, several thematic roles have an associated case, but cases are a morphological notion, thematic roles a semantic one. Languages having cases exhibit free word order, as thematic roles are not required to be marked by position in the sentence, it is accepted that the Ancient Greeks had a certain idea of the forms of a name in their own language.
A fragment of Anacreon seems to prove this. It cannot be inferred that the Ancient Greeks knew what grammatical cases were. Grammatical cases were first recognized by the Stoics and from some philosophers of the Peripatetic school; the advancements of those philosophers were employed by the philologists of the Alexandrian school. The English word case used in this sense comes from the Latin casus, derived from the verb cadere, "to fall", from the Proto-Indo-European root *ḱad-; the Latin word is a calque of the Greek πτῶσις, ptôsis, lit. "falling, fall". The sense is; this picture is reflected in the word declension, from Latin declinere, "to lean", from the PIE root *ḱley-. The equivalent to "case" in several other European languages derives from casus, including cas in French, caso in Spanish and Kasus in German; the Russian word паде́ж is a calque from Greek and contains a root meaning "fall", the German Fall and Czech pád mean "fall", are used for both the concept of grammatical case and to refer to physical falls.
The Finnish equivalent is sija, whose main meaning is "position" or "place". Although not prominent in modern English, cases featured much more saliently in Old English and other ancient Indo-European languages, such as Latin, Old Persian, Ancient Greek, Sanskrit; the Indo-European languages had eight morphological cases, though modern languages have fewer, using prepositions and word order to convey information, conveyed using distinct noun forms. Among modern languages, cases still feature prominently in most of the Balto-Slavic languages, with most having six to eight cases, as well as Icelandic and Modern Greek, which have four. In German, cases are marked on articles and adjectives, less so on nouns. In Icelandic, adjectives, personal names and nouns are all marked for case, making it, among other things, the living Germanic language that could be said to most resemble Proto-Germanic; the eight historical Indo-European cases are as follows, with examples either of the English case or of the English syntactic alternative to case: All of the above are just rough descriptions.
Case is based fundamentally on changes to the noun to indicate the noun's role in the sentence – one of the defining features of so-called fusional languages. Old English was a fusional language. Modern English has abandoned the inflectional case system of Proto-Indo-European in favor of analytic constructions. The
Reciprocal pronouns are a type of pronoun which can be used to refer to a noun phrase mentioned earlier in a sentence. The reciprocal pronouns found in English are one another and each other, they form the category of anaphors along with reflexive pronouns. Within the theory of generative grammar, within phrase-structure grammar, binding theory explains how anaphors share a relationship with their referents. Binding Principle A of this theory states: X binds Y if and only if X c-commands Y, X and Y are coindexed, Anaphors must be locally bound within the binding domain of the clause containing the DP determiner phrase. In binding theory, the category of anaphor includes both reflexives and reciprocals, a problem, since they are distributed differently; the differences in the distribution of reflexives and reciprocals are illustrated below using X-bar theory tree diagrams. Reflexive pronouns are used to reciprocal pronouns in the sense that they refer back to the subject of the sentence. John and Mary like themselves.
John and Mary like each other. The main difference between reflexives, as in example, reciprocal pronouns, as in example, is that reflexives are used when the subject acts upon itself. Reciprocals are used. Reciprocal pronouns exist in many languages, they are associated with plural noun phrases and indicate a reciprocal relationship between the members of the plural noun phrase. This means that some member of the plural subject is acting on another member of the subject, that member is acting on, that both x and y are members of the group denoted by the antecedent subject. Below are examples of reciprocal pronouns and how their relationship to their antecedents contrasts to cases of reflexive pronoun relationships, regular transitive relationships, how they behave in relation to direct object pronouns in the same situation. Let R denote a Relation, let the variables stand for the arguments introduced by R. Therefore, we can look at a reciprocal relationship using this notation, using the verb see as the relation: see and see.
Although both reciprocal and reflexive pronouns are both classified as anaphors, there are some distributional differences between them. For example, reciprocal pronouns can appear in the subject position of noun phrases, whereas reflexives cannot. A. John and Mary like each other's parents. B. *John likes himself's parents. A. All of the students would know. B. *The student would know if himself had the answer. In example with the reflexive anaphor, the embedded clause's complementizer phrase beginning with the word "if", cannot introduce a subject noun phrase. Although in many cases, either a reflexive or a reciprocal pronoun could appear in the same structural position, in some cases, the asymmetry occurs when a reciprocal may be bound to its antecedent, but a reflexive may not; the following examples from Lebeaux show that in some sentences, either type of anaphor could be used: a. John and Mary like themselves. B. John and Mary like each other. Both the reflexive pronoun in and the reciprocal pronoun in can be locally bound, which would follow binding theory's binding principle A: that an anaphor must be bound in its binding domain).
A case in which we can see the differences in the distribution of reflexive and reciprocal pronouns is in the subject position of embedded clauses: reflexives cannot occur in this position, but reciprocals can. A. * John thinks. B. John and Mary think; as we can see in the X-bar theory tree diagram of, the reciprocal pronoun is in the subject position of the embedded clause, introduced by complementizer "that". It is not possible for a reflexive pronoun to occur in this position as shown by the ungrammaticality of. In this case, the reciprocal pronoun is not the ideal construction, but the reflexive is not a possible grammatical sentence; this suggests that while reflexives require a proper binder, reciprocals may appear in positions that are not governed this way, can be in a different clause than the antecedent. The differences can be summarized as follows: Reciprocals are subject to binding theory. Examining the semantic relations of reciprocity, we see further differences within reciprocal relationships, such as those between each-the-other and each other relations.
In general, if it is possible to divide a set into subsets such that within each subset an each-the-other relationship holds the whole set of events can be described by an each other sentence. Each other constructions characterize an entire set of individuals, but allow for some vagueness in their interpretation. In contrast, each...the other constructions characterize each member of a set. Therefore, we can see. If we separate each and other, we can get different interpretations. A; the men are hugging each other. B; each of the men is hugging the others. In every member of the set the men must be in some reciprocal relationship of hugging at some unspecified point during the time frame of the hugging event. In, we infer that each of the men hugged every other man in the group of men who participated in the hugging event. In examining the scope of reciprocal pronouns, we can see that in English, the antecedent must be plural and must receive at leas
Colognian or Kölsch is a small set of closely related dialects, or variants, of the Ripuarian Central German group of languages. These dialects are spoken in the area covered by the Archdiocese and former Electorate of Cologne reaching from Neuss in the north to just south of Bonn, west to Düren and east to Olpe in the North-West of Germany. Kölsch is one of the few city dialects in Germany, besides for example the dialect spoken in Berlin. In the Ripuarian dialects, "kölsch" is an adjective meaning "from Cologne" or "pertaining to Cologne", thus equivalent to "Colognian", its nominalized forms denote the inhabitants of Cologne. The word "Kölsch", without an article, refers to either the local Kölsch beer. Hence the humorous Colognian saying: "Ours is the only language you can drink!" In Cologne, it is spoken by about 250,000 people one quarter of the population. All speakers are fluent in standard or high German, it is understood in a region inhabited by some 10 million people. There is a community of people who speak a variety of Kölsch in Dane County, United States.
There are local variants of Kölsch in the Quarters, most notably those only incorporated into the city, the Hinterland. Sometimes the far more than 100 distinct Ripuarian languages of Belgium, the Netherlands, German Rhineland are incorrectly referred to as Kölsch, as well as the Rhinelandic regiolect. In fact, the regiolect is different from Kölsch, being the regional variety of Standard German influenced only to a certain degree by the dialect; as such, many native speakers of the regiolect are in fact unaware of the fact that a “regiolect” exists, believing they speak plain Standard German. In its modern form it is of comparatively recent origin, it developed from Historic Colognian, but has been under the influence of New High German since the 17th century. It was influenced by French during the occupation of Cologne under Napoleon Bonaparte from 1794 to 1815, therefore contains some more words from and expressions pertaining to French than does Standard German. There are phonological similarities with French, which however may be coincidental.
Kölsch is one of the variants of the Ripuarian dialects, which belong to the West Franconian family, itself a variant of West Middle German. It is related to the lower Rhineland and Moselle Franconian dialects and combines some features of them, as well employing a variety of words hardly in use elsewhere. Common with the Limburgish language group and other Ripuarian languages, it has a distinct intonation, referred to as the'singing' Rhinelandic tone; this list shows only the most important differences. Most of these are not Kölsch, but true for all Ripuarian dialects. Kölsch uses, or instead of standard, so when Colonians say "ich", it sounds more like "isch"; the Standard German /ɡ/ phoneme is pronounced in the beginning of a word, and, or in other positions, depending on the syllable structure. Kölsch has three diphthongs pronounced, which are equivalent to but less frequent than, in the standard. Voiceless stops are not aspirated, unlike in Standard English; the sound is "darker" than in Standard German, is replaced by throughout Words with an initial vowel are not separated from the preceding word by a glottal stop.
Kölsch has a larger vowel system than Standard German. In Standard German and are always short, always long. In Kölsch all of these occur long and short, the difference is phonemic. Vowel quality differs between standard words and Kölsch words. Sometimes the standard has the more original form, sometimes Kölsch does. Standard correspond to Kölsch, correspond to. Standard correspond to Kölsch and correspond to and. All of these patterns, have many exceptions and cannot be used to build Kölsch words blindly. Kölsch is more non-rhotic than the standard, it vocalizes "r" so that any hint of it is lost, e.g. std. "Karte", ksh. "Kaat". Being a Central German dialect, Kölsch has undergone some stages of the High German sound shift, but not all. Where the standard has "pf", Kölsch uses "p", as do Lower English. Compare: Standard German: "Apfel, Pfanne". Moreover, where the standard has "t", Kölsch keeps the older "d": Standard German: "Tag, tun". Kölsch has shifted stem-internal and to. Again, this sound change is shared by Lower English.
Compare: Standard German: "leben, Ofen". As a Ripuarian phenomenon, have changed into and in some cases, e.g. std. "schneiden, Wein", ksh. "schnigge, Wing". In Kölsch, the final "t" after is dropped at the end of words followed by another consonant; when a vowel is added, a lost "t" can reoccur. In Kölsch the word-final schwa is dropped and the standard ending "-en" is shortened to schwa. Therefore, Kölsch plurals resemble Standard German singulars, e.g. std. "Gasse" > "Gas