Arguments in Linguistic Theory: Predicate Structure and Roles

Introduction to Arguments in Linguistic Theory

Language operates through intricate systems of meaning-making, where individual words and phrases work together to convey complete thoughts. At the foundation of sentence construction lies a concept that linguists call the argument—a fundamental building block of communication that enables speakers to express complex ideas with precision and clarity. In the field of linguistics, an argument is formally defined as an expression that helps complete the meaning of a predicate, where a predicate typically refers to a main verb and its accompanying auxiliary verbs. Understanding arguments is essential for anyone seeking to comprehend how languages organize information and structure meaning at both syntactic and semantic levels.

The Relationship Between Predicates and Arguments

To fully grasp the concept of arguments, one must first understand predicates. A predicate serves as the semantic core around which other elements of a sentence organize themselves. The predicate establishes what action is being performed, what state is being described, or what relationship is being expressed. Arguments, in turn, are the expressions that satisfy the requirements imposed by these predicates.

The connection between predicates and their arguments is not arbitrary; rather, it follows systematic principles determined by the lexical properties of individual verbs. Each predicate carries inherent requirements about what types of constituents must accompany it to create a grammatically and semantically complete utterance. This relationship creates what linguists refer to as the predicate-argument structure, a formal representation of how semantic relations organize within a sentence despite being distinct from purely syntactic relations.

Predicate Valence and Argument Count

Not all predicates require the same number of arguments. The term valence or valency refers to the number of arguments a particular verb requires or permits. Most predicates in natural languages take one, two, or three arguments, though some specialized contexts may involve more complex structures.

The argument count fundamentally affects how a verb can be used in sentences. This principle creates distinct verb categories:

• Intransitive verbs take a single argument, typically the subject of the sentence. Example: “She strolled” requires only one participant—the entity performing the action.
• Transitive verbs require two arguments: a subject and a direct object. Example: “She ate the apple” involves both an agent performing the action and a patient receiving the action’s effect.
• Ditransitive verbs take three arguments, introducing an indirect object in addition to subject and direct object. Example: “She gave her friend a book” involves a giver, a recipient, and a thing transferred.

Distinguishing Arguments from Adjuncts

One of the most important distinctions in linguistic analysis involves differentiating arguments from adjuncts, as these serve markedly different functions within sentence structures. While both arguments and adjuncts appear within sentences alongside predicates, their necessity and roles differ fundamentally.

Arguments are obligatory—they are required to complete the meaning of a predicate and make the sentence grammatically acceptable. Without them, sentences become incomplete or ungrammatical. Consider the sentence “I strolled,” which is grammatically complete with one argument. However, attempting to add a second argument—”I strolled you”—creates an ungrammatical construction because the verb “stroll” simply does not take two arguments.

Adjuncts are optional—they provide additional information about circumstances, manner, time, or location, but their presence or absence does not affect the grammatical well-formedness of the sentence. A sentence such as “She worked” is complete; adding an adjunct like “in the morning” or “very diligently” enriches the meaning without becoming necessary for grammaticality.

Testing for Arguments Versus Adjuncts

Linguists employ practical methods to determine whether a constituent functions as an argument or an adjunct. The most reliable test involves removing the element and observing whether the resulting sentence remains grammatically acceptable and semantically coherent. If removing an element renders the sentence ungrammatical or leaves the predicate’s meaning incomplete, that element functions as an argument. If its removal leaves a fully grammatical and meaningful sentence, the element likely functions as an adjunct.

Semantic Roles and Thematic Relations

Beyond their structural necessity, arguments carry semantic significance through their assignment to specific thematic roles or semantic roles. These roles describe the real-world relationships and functions that arguments play relative to the predicate. Common thematic roles include agent (the entity performing an action), patient (the entity affected by an action), theme (the entity moved or changed), recipient (the entity receiving something), and experiencer (the entity undergoing an experience or emotion).

The function features of lexical items—particularly verbs—determine which thematic roles are assigned within a given sentence. However, an important caveat exists: function features and thematic roles do not always perfectly coincide. Linguistic analysis must account for cases where structural roles (such as grammatical subject) may not align precisely with semantic roles (such as agent), creating complexity in the relationship between form and meaning.

Selection and Head Requirements

Predicates do not passively accept any constituents as arguments; instead, they actively select for specific types of arguments based on both categorical and semantic criteria. Category selection (c-selection) refers to the requirement that arguments belong to particular grammatical categories—for instance, a verb might require its object to be a noun phrase rather than an adverbial phrase. Semantic selection (s-selection) refers to requirements about the semantic features of arguments—for example, a verb might require its subject to be an animate entity rather than an inanimate one.

This selective mechanism ensures that sentences remain not only grammatical but also semantically plausible. The head of a phrase—typically a verb in verbal phrases—exercises control over the type, number, and semantic properties of constituents it combines with, creating systematic regularities across the language.

Arguments Across Linguistic Categories

While the discussion of arguments most frequently associates with verbs and their noun phrase arguments, the concept extends beyond verbal predicates. Adjectives, nouns, and other syntactic categories can also function as predicates and consequently require arguments of their own. For example, the adjective “red” in the noun phrase “the red herring” requires an argument—specifically, the noun “herring” that it modifies. Removing this argument produces an incomplete expression, demonstrating that adjectives, like verbs, can impose argument requirements.

Universal Principles Across Languages

The distinction between arguments and adjuncts appears to be a universal feature of human language, despite variations in terminology and implementation across different linguistic theories. Most major theories of syntax and semantics acknowledge and incorporate arguments and adjuncts as central concepts, even when employing different frameworks or terminology. This widespread recognition across diverse languages and theoretical approaches suggests that the argument-adjunct distinction reflects fundamental principles of how human languages organize information.

Practical Applications in Linguistic Analysis

Understanding arguments provides crucial tools for linguistic analysis at multiple levels. In syntax, recognizing argument structure helps explain grammatical acceptability and predict which sentence structures are possible in a language. In semantics, arguments clarify how meaning distributes across a sentence and how different propositions can be expressed through varied syntactic arrangements. In language acquisition, children must internalize the argument requirements of each predicate they encounter, a process central to learning any language.

Challenges and Borderline Cases

Despite the general clarity of the argument-adjunct distinction, linguists encounter numerous borderline cases that complicate analysis. Some constituents display properties of both arguments and adjuncts, creating difficulty in classification. Additionally, different linguistic frameworks may categorize identical constituents differently based on their theoretical assumptions. These challenges underscore that while the argument-adjunct distinction represents a powerful organizing principle in linguistics, real language use sometimes tests the boundaries of neat categorical divisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly is the difference between a complement and an argument?

Complements and arguments are closely related concepts, with some overlap in usage. Generally, arguments refer to expressions required by a predicate to complete its meaning, while complements specifically refer to constituents that complete the predicate phrase. The terms are often used interchangeably in modern linguistics, though some frameworks maintain subtle distinctions between them.

Can a sentence have zero arguments?

While rare, weather verbs in some languages can function without overt arguments. For example, “It rained” contains an expletive subject (“it”) that does not function as a true argument. Most predicates, however, require at least one argument—typically the subject—to create grammatically complete sentences.

How do passive voice constructions affect argument structure?

In passive voice, the underlying argument structure remains constant, but the grammatical realization changes. The agent typically appears in an optional “by”-phrase or is omitted entirely, while the patient is promoted to subject position. The semantic arguments remain the same; only their syntactic expression differs.

Do all languages organize arguments in the same way?

While the fundamental argument-adjunct distinction appears universal, languages differ in how arguments are expressed grammatically—through word order, case marking, agreement patterns, or other mechanisms. The underlying principles remain consistent across human languages even as surface manifestations vary.

How do arguments relate to grammatical roles like subject and object?

Arguments occupy grammatical roles such as subject, direct object, and indirect object within sentences. A subject is typically a noun phrase that appears before the verb in English and often triggers agreement on the verb. Grammatical roles identify where arguments appear structurally, while thematic roles describe what semantic function those arguments serve.

Written by

Medha Deb

Medha Deb is an editor with a master's degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of Hyderabad. She believes that her qualification has helped her develop a deep understanding of language and its application in various contexts. Medha specializes in the areas of beauty, health, sports, and wellness and is committed to ensuring that the content on the website is…