Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) argument (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: argument


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines201 - : El volumen completo está dedicado a Ken Hale, cuya muerte en octubre de 2001 conmovió a un conjunto amplio de estudiosos alrededor del mundo. El texto se divide en tres partes. La primera, denominada From lexical roots to syntax contiene tres artículos. El primero de ellos es un artículo clásico de los profesores del MIT (Massachussets Institute of Technology), Ken Hale y Samuel Jay Keyser, quienes expandieron las bases de la gramática generativa a una teoría donde el papel del léxico y la estructura argumental cobran mayor relevancia. El capítulo, denominado Aspect and the syntax of argument structure es una síntesis del único libro publicado por ambos autores en el 2002, Prolegomenon to a theory of lexical argument structure (Hale & Keyser, 2002 ). El capítulo sienta las bases de la teoría de la estructura argumental e incluye las definiciones e implicaciones de los conceptos clave desarrollados en el marco de esta teoría, tales como la incorporación (merge), la selección argumental

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines311 - : "After then I had entire confidence in Lenin, in the Third International... My only argument was: 'If you do not condemn colonialism, if you do not side with the colonial people, what kind of revolution are you waging ?'... At first patriotism, not yet communism, led me to have confidence in Lenin, in the Third International. Step by step, along the struggle, by studying Marxism-Leninism parallel with participation in practical activities, I gradually came upon the fact that only Socialism and Communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout the world from slavery." [Ho Chi Minh (1967) On Revolution. London: Pall Mall Press. 5-6.]

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : In order to account for these facts and for the interpretation of other indefinites, Diesing (1992) and Kratzer (1995) propose that the semantic IL/SL distinction follows from differences in argument structure. Specifically, Kratzer (1995) argues that Diesing´s (1992) proposal that subjects of ILPs and SLPs may be in different syntactic positions is a consequence of a difference in argument structure: SLPs have an extra argument position for events or spatio-temporal locations while ILPs do not . They both assume Heim´s (1982) proposal that i) indefinites are open formulas that contain a free variable that undergoes an operation of existential closure and ii) that sentences are mapped to a tripartite Logical Form that consists of a quantifier, a restrictive clause and a nuclear scope. For Diesing (1992) material from the VP is mapped into the nuclear scope where the variable undergoes existential closure while the material from the IP is mapped into a restrictive clause and, if there is not

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : an overt operator present, a generic null operator can be inserted giving rise to the only possible reading: generic. Since the subject of an SLP is generated inside the VP, it can either raise to Spec IP or stay in the VP, and therefore can receive both interpretations. In ILPs the subject is generated in IP and cannot reconstruct to VP. Therefore it only receives a generic reading. For Kratzer (1995) SLPs have a Davidsonian argument that locates in space and time the property or event that is predicated. This argument has the form of a variable that can be bound by an adverbial or by existential closure. The presence of this extra argument in SLPs but not in ILPs would explain why SLPs but not ILPs can appear with certain kinds of adverbials:

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : Remember that Kratzer´s (1995) temporal interpretation depends on argument structure. While SL predicates have an external argument that allows them to be located in space and time, IL predicates lack this spatiotemporal variable . For Arche (2007), both IL and SL predicates have a spatiotemporal variable. This variable is bound by an over-occasions-quantifier that can be present with any kind of predicate if an appropriate context is built up. Thus, temporal interpretation depends on the content of the Topic Time (TT) with respect to the Reference Time (RT). For example:

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : What exactly is the source of the difference between ser and estar is far from settled. According to Kratzer´s (1995) and Diesing´s (1992) proposals, in which ser and estar are assumed to be the lexical exponents of IL/SL predicates, the source of the difference is the presence/absence of a spatiotemporal argument. For Arche (2007), whose analysis also views ser and estar as the lexical exponents of the IL/SL distinction, ser and estar do not differ with respect to the spatiotemporal arguments they project (since both project spatiotemporal arguments) but rather on their lexical semantics: the linking nature of estar to a specific context is lexically encoded . For Maienborn (2003, 2005) the difference between ser and estar is only pragmatic while ser and estar have identical semantics. For Schmitt (1992, 1996, 2005) and Luján (1981), the difference lies in the aspectual properties of the predicates involving ser and estar. For Clements (2005) it is essential to consider not only the

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines336 - : “The term function is used in the mathematical sense: f(X) = Y. …Formally, a Lexical Function f is a function that associates with a given lexical expression L, which is the argument, or keyword, of f, a set {Li} of lexical expressions – the value of f – that express, contingent on L, a specific meaning associated with f:

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines336 - : About 70 lexical functions have been identified in (Mel’čuk, 1996); each is associated with a particular meaning according to which it receives its name. The name of a lexical function is an abbreviated Latin word whose semantic content is closest to the meanings of this lexical function. Using the above notation, the collocation dar un paseo, lit. give a walk, is represented as Oper1(paseo) = dar where ‘Oper’ is from Latin operari (do, carry out); the argument, or the keyword of this lexical function is paseo; its value is dar; the subscript 1 stores information concerning the syntactical structure of utterances where the keyword of Oper1 (paseo) is used together with its value (dar) and where the first argument of paseo (Agent) is lexicalized in speech as the grammatical subject: Mi abuela (Agent ) da un paseo por este parque cada sábado, My grandma takes a walk in this park every Saturday. Other collocations that are isomorphic to dar un paseo can be represented likewise, and, in fact,

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines416 - : As we have mentioned earlier, the first (the left) argument is expected to be the agent or experiencer of the relation, while the second (the right) argument is expected to be the object of the relation. Therefore, the correct order of the arguments is:

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines416 - : where the first argument un mismo espacio is underspecified: it is a dependent part of the complete argument la agrupación de seres humanos en un mismo espacio .

11
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines416 - : This example shows how an error in relation detection leads to an error in argument detection: overspecification of the relation led to underspecification of the argument .

12
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines416 - : where the coordinate structure el 8000 y el 5000 a.C. is governed by the preposition entre and should not be broken into two arguments. Yet according to our current treatment of conjunctions described in Section 3.1, the system splits the right argument into two:

13
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines416 - : 7) Incorrectly resolved coordinate structures. As described in Section 3.1, ExtrHech breaks coordinate structures into separate extractions. It usually does it correctly when the conjunction occurs either between relation phrases or between the arguments of a relation. However, when a conjunction occurs within an argument, it may be resolved incorrectly:

14
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines416 - : the word soldada, which in this sentence is an adjective (‘soldered’), was tagged as a noun (‘soldier’). Consequently, the left argument could not be matched by the expression (2) and the extracted tuple was affected by underspecification of the argument:

15
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines424 - : [A] Plurality of the nominal argument:

16
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines469 - : Grammatical PSM have not been as thoroughly examined as the lexical CSs. In fact, devices such as grammatical substitution have not been included in most of the taxonomies proposed so far with the exception of ^[120]Dӧrnyei and Kormos’ (1998). This subcategory is related to “the insufficient knowledge of the grammatical form and the argument structure of the lemma, as well as the word-ordering rules of the L2” and thus entails “changing certain grammatical specifications of the lemma through transfer or overgeneralisation” (^[121]Dӧrnyei & Kormos’, 1998: 357-361 ). This CS, within C1, was more often employed by the learners in the open task where they tended to transfer some structures from their L1 or overgeneralise an L2 grammatical construction.

17
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : together with information related to their Thematic Roles (Theme, Location, etc.); the assignment of macrorole functions (Actor/Undergoer); the type of phrase that each variable represents (adjective phrase, adverb phrase, noun phrase, etc.); syntactic information (whether the phrase is an argument, argument adjunct or a nucleus which contains the predicate); specification of the prepositions that are introduced by a particular predicate (‘on’ in the case of the predicate ‘spread’) and any other selectional preferences that should be made explicit by using basic concepts from the Ontology, such as +SURFACE_00 for the location argument, as illustrated in [59]Figure 2, which shows the interface provided by the Grammaticon:

18
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : The analysis of the alternating behaviour of the location argument has led us to propose the following inventory of L1-constructions in FunGramKB (as shown in [83]Table 2) that involve a change in the location argument taking into account the justifying criteria suggested so far:

19
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : The location subject construction also involves a change of Aktionsart class, since ‘fit’ verbs in the kernel construct are causative states (where we have an activity predicate causing a state: x does something that causes y be in z), whereas the L-1 construction codifies states with two arguments: the first argument position (‘a large cafeteria’ in (16 )) is a location argument whose capacity is specified by the second argument (‘300 people’ in (16)). In terms of macrorole assignment, and following the default Actor selection principle, the highest ranking argument in the logical structure must be assigned Actor (the participant responsible for the state of affairs, i.e. the logical subject), and the lowest ranking argument must be assigned Undergoer (the logical object in the state of affairs) following the Undergoer selection principle for default linking (^[95]Van Valin, 2005).

20
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines510 - : La representación léxico-conceptual de (16) recoge, como parte del quale constitutivo del sustantivo relacional brother, la dependencia referencial por medio de la instrucción brother_of ʻhermano deʼ, que remite al argumento que satura la posición asignada (identificada con y) y que constituye un argumento por defecto (ingl. default argument), denominado argumento ‘interno’ por ^[135]Eschenbach (1993). ^[136]Pustejovsky (1998: 63) define esta clase de argumentos ‘por defecto’ como: “Parameters which participate in the logical expressions in the qualia, but which are not necessarily expressed syntactically” .

21
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines577 - : Aligning with rhetorical studies of crowdfunding proposals (^[124]Mehlenbacher, 2017; ^[125]Paulus & Roberts, 2018), the present linguistic analysis suggests that the functionality of grammar features is a response to the rhetorical situation underpinning the genre as social action. As seen in the Precipita projects, both the online texts and their corresponding expanded texts fulfil several functional goals. They do not only inform about scientific research, but also claim centrality, create credibility and appeal to an emotional response on the part of the reader. A similar argument is found in ^[126]Paulus and Roberts’ (2018: 64 ) study online medical campaigns. As these authors contend, on the web linguistic resources construct strong identities -“real-life superheroes”- to construct an emotionally appealing discourse that prompts funding to cover their medical costs.

Evaluando al candidato argument:


1) lexical: 13 (*)
4) paseo: 7
7) grammatical: 6 (*)
8) phrase: 5 (*)
9) variable: 5 (*)
13) logical: 5
14) predicate: 5 (*)
15) spatiotemporal: 5 (*)
16) slps: 5
17) ilps: 5
20) predicates: 5 (*)

argument
Lengua: eng
Frec: 171
Docs: 61
Nombre propio: / 171 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 7
Frec. en corpus ref. en eng: 121
Puntaje: 7.839 = (7 + (1+6.06608919045777) / (1+7.4262647547021)));
Rechazado: muy común;

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
argument
: Ambridge, B. & Blything, R. P. (2016). A connectionist model of the retreat from verb argument structure overgeneralization. Journal of Child Language, 43(6), 1245-1276. [93]https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000915000586
: Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence From Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Boas, H. (2011). Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271-1303.
: Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547-619.
: ELBOW, P. (1990) "Closing my eyes as I speak: An argument for ignoring audience" en R. L. Graves (Ed.), Rhetoric and Composition, Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 247-266.
: En inglés, S. Toulmin, El uso de los argumentos [The uses of argument, [25]1958].
: Espinal, T. & Mateu, J. (2011). Bare nominals and argument structure in Catalan and Spanish. The Linguistic Review, 28, 1-39.
: Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language. En U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions. Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 11-33). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Freeman, J. (2006). Argument strength, the Toulmin Model, and ampliative probability. Informal Logic, 26(1) 25-40.
: GROSS, A. G. (1997). "On the Shoulders of Giants: Seventeenth-Century Optics as an Argument Field", en R. A. Harris (ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science. Case Studies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp 19-38.
: Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E. & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35,157-173.
: Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/Londres: The University of Chicago Press.
: Greenbaum, A. (1999). Stand-up comedy as rhetorical argument: An investigation of comic culture.Humor-International Journal of Humor Research,12(1), 33-46.
: Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
: Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (1993). On the argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. En K. Hale & S. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20^th (pp. 53-109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (2000). Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. En K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 53-109). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press .
: Hester, S. & Hester, S. (2010). Conversational actions and category relations: An analysis of a children’s argument. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 33-48.
: Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-39.
: Jezek, E. & Pustejovsky, J. (2017). Dynamic argument structure, LiLT, 15, 3.
: Johnson, R. (2000). Manifest rationality. A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: LUNSFORD, A y RUSZKIEWICZ, J. (1999) Everything's an argument, Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
: Luzondo, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2015). Argument structure constructions in a Natural Language Processing environment. Language Sciences, 48(2015), 70-89.
: Maienborn (2005) carried out the following tests in order to test the assumption predicted by the IL/SL implementation that estar but not ser projects a Davidsonian argument:
: Marantz, A. (2013). Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua, 130, 152-168.
: Mateu, J. (2002). Argument structure. Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Tesis doctoral, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, España.
: Mcdonald, E., Zembal-Saul, S. & Strauss, S.G. (2014). Inviting argument by analogy: Analogical‐mapping‐based comparison activities as a scaffold for small‐group argumentation. Science Education, 98(2), 243-268.
: Purdue Online Writing Lab (2013). Introductions, body paragraphs, and conclusions for an argument paper [on line]. Retrieved from: [88]https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/659/
: Pustejovsky, J. (2011). Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics, 49(6), 1401-1431.
: Rowley-Jolivet, E. & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 45-70.
: Sanz, M., Andreu, Ll., Badía, I. & Sidera, F. (2011). Argument omissions in preschool Catalan and Spanish-speaking children with SLI. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 34, 49-66. Doi: 10.1174/02103701179439008.
: This detracts from Davidse’s (1992: 109) argument that:
: Tindale, C. (1999). Acts of arguing. A rhetorical model of argument. Albany, Nueva York: State University of New York Press.
: Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Van Trijp, R. (2011). A design pattern for argument structure constructions. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 115-145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Walton, D. (1992). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
: Walton, D. (1992). The place of emotions in argument. Pensilvania: University Park.
: Walton, D. (1996). Argument structure. A pragmatic theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
: Walton, D. (2014). Argumentation schemes for argument from analogy. En H. Ribeiro (Ed.), Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy (pp. 23-40). Dordrecht: Springer.