ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-NAV-G02-014 · ATLAS 259

Argument structure

Argument structure describes participant positions associated with a predicate and their relationship to linguistic realisation.

Part of the subject path Syntax and Grammar

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

G · Foundational concept R2 · Necessary foundation

Argument structure is needed to connect predicate participant positions with linguistic realisation. A verb's arguments must be distinguished from reasons offered in rhetorical argumentation.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

Argument structure describes participant positions associated with a predicate and their relationship to linguistic realization. Analysis asks which participants a particular predicate sense makes available and how they appear as subjects, objects or other expressions. Semantic role and syntactic function are not identical. Nor must every understood participant be explicitly named. The originating links from valency, semantic role and theta role connect different theoretical approaches; they do not justify treating all their categories as interchangeable. An analysis must identify the predicate sense, construction and framework.

Movement of thought

1. Identify the predicate sense. 2. Determine the participant positions it makes available. 3. Distinguish expressed from understood participants. 4. Describe their mapping to grammatical functions.

Scientific use case

A corpus study could annotate constructions, complements and unexpressed participants for a bounded group of verbs.

Example

Constructed: “Mira gives Leon a book” names a giver, recipient and gift. “Leon receives a book” presents the situation through a different predicate and clause perspective.

Counterexample

“On Tuesday” adds a time to the first example without thereby occupying the same kind of participant position as the gift.

Distinction

Distinguish argument structure from a word list, an individual surface clause and a universally fixed inventory of semantic roles.

Effect on thought and perception

The analysis can show which relationships a predicate opens and which an utterance explicitly realizes.

Resonance

A predicate lays out places between which an event takes linguistic shape.

Provenance

Parallel source review reconciled 2026-10-07; human specialist review not claimed.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Argument structure“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-NAV-G02-014. ATLAS 259, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-NAV-G02-014

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-NAV-G02-014

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.