Home Linguistics & Semiotics Valency vs. Patterns: What do corpora tell us about argument structure?
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Valency vs. Patterns: What do corpora tell us about argument structure?

  • Marco Fasciolo
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Large corpora have highlighted two widespread facts: that there are some verbal complements whose argument status is difficult to decide, and that there appear to be valency variations. To explain these facts, researchers have taken a corpus-driven approach: they defined prototypical valency as the most frequent pattern of verbal complements and postulated a continuum between arguments and non-arguments. I propose instead that one must use a corpus-independent, eidetic notion of valency to account for the above facts, and that one must postulate a sharp boundary between arguments and non-arguments. In §1 I discuss some epistemological shortcomings of a corpus-driven approach. In §§2 and 3, I introduce some corpus-independent criteria for accessing eidetic valency, and apply them to familiar questions about valency. In §4, I argue for the need to recognise the mutual independence of a number of properties: namely, being an argument, being optionally/obligatorily expressed, and being conceptually required.

Abstract

Large corpora have highlighted two widespread facts: that there are some verbal complements whose argument status is difficult to decide, and that there appear to be valency variations. To explain these facts, researchers have taken a corpus-driven approach: they defined prototypical valency as the most frequent pattern of verbal complements and postulated a continuum between arguments and non-arguments. I propose instead that one must use a corpus-independent, eidetic notion of valency to account for the above facts, and that one must postulate a sharp boundary between arguments and non-arguments. In §1 I discuss some epistemological shortcomings of a corpus-driven approach. In §§2 and 3, I introduce some corpus-independent criteria for accessing eidetic valency, and apply them to familiar questions about valency. In §4, I argue for the need to recognise the mutual independence of a number of properties: namely, being an argument, being optionally/obligatorily expressed, and being conceptually required.

Downloaded on 23.1.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111545943-007/html
Scroll to top button