Arguments vs. adjuncts A large body of literature has been devoted to distinguishing arguments from adjuncts. Numerous syntactic tests have been devised for this purpose. One such test is the relative clause diagnostic. If the test
constituent can appear after the combination
which occurred/happened in a relative clause, it is an adjunct, not an argument, e.g. ::Bill left
on Tuesday. → Bill left, which happened
on Tuesday. –
on Tuesday is an adjunct. ::Susan stopped
due to the weather. → Susan stopped, which occurred
due to the weather. –
due to the weather is an adjunct. ::Fred tried to say something
twice. → Fred tried to say something, which occurred
twice. –
twice is an adjunct. The same diagnostic results in unacceptable relative clauses (and sentences) when the test constituent is an argument, e.g. ::Bill left
home. → *Bill left, which happened
home. –
home is an argument. ::Susan stopped
her objections. → *Susan stopped, which occurred
her objections. –
her objections is an argument. ::Fred tried to say
something. → *Fred tried to say, which happened
something. –
something is an argument. This test succeeds in identifying prepositional arguments as well: ::We are waiting
for Susan. → *We are waiting, which is happening
for Susan. –
for Susan is an argument. ::Tom put the knife
in the drawer. → *Tom put the knife, which occurred
in the drawer. –
in the drawer is an argument. ::We laughed
at you. → *We laughed, which occurred
at you. –
at you is an argument. The utility of the relative clause test is, however, limited. It incorrectly suggests, for instance, that modal adverbs (e.g.
probably,
certainly,
maybe) and manner expressions (e.g.
quickly,
carefully,
totally) are arguments. If a constituent passes the relative clause test, however, one can be sure that it is
not an argument.
Obligatory vs. optional arguments A further division blurs the line between arguments and adjuncts. Many arguments behave like adjuncts with respect to another diagnostic, the omission diagnostic. Adjuncts can always be omitted from the phrase, clause, or sentence in which they appear without rendering the resulting expression unacceptable. Some arguments (obligatory ones), in contrast, cannot be omitted. There are many other arguments, however, that are identified as arguments by the relative clause diagnostic but that can nevertheless be omitted, e.g. ::a. She cleaned
the kitchen. ::b. She cleaned. –
the kitchen is an optional argument. ::a. We are waiting
for Larry. ::b. We are waiting. –
for Larry is an optional argument. ::a. Susan was working
on the model. ::b. Susan was working. –
on the model is an optional argument. The relative clause diagnostic would identify the constituents in bold as arguments. The omission diagnostic here, however, demonstrates that they are not obligatory arguments. They are, rather, optional. The insight, then, is that a three-way division is needed. On the one hand, one distinguishes between arguments and adjuncts, and on the other hand, one allows for a further division between obligatory and optional arguments.
Arguments and adjuncts in noun phrases Most work on the distinction between arguments and adjuncts has been conducted at the clause level and has focused on arguments and adjuncts to verbal predicates. The distinction is crucial for the analysis of noun phrases as well, however. If it is altered somewhat, the relative clause diagnostic can also be used to distinguish arguments from adjuncts in noun phrases, e.g. ::Bill's bold reading of the poem after lunch ::: *bold reading of the poem after lunch that was '''Bill's'
– Bill's'' is an argument. ::: Bill's reading of the poem after lunch that was
bold –
bold is an adjunct ::: *Bill's bold reading after lunch that was
of the poem –
of the poem is an argument ::: Bill's bold reading of the poem that was
after lunch –
after lunch is an adjunct The diagnostic identifies ''Bill's
and of the poem
as arguments, and bold
and after lunch'' as adjuncts. ==Representing arguments and adjuncts==