1749-818X/asset/olbannerleft.jpg?v=1&s=0edfbd2e17ed9e42724131a7af63c93c12a64411)
1749-818X/asset/olbannerright.jpg?v=1&s=0e9c148378d2cf06eb08813be816b8e26bc8cdf8)
Do We Need a Distinction between Arguments and Adjuncts? Evidence from Psycholinguistic Studies of Comprehension
Article first published online: 28 JUN 2008
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00071.x
© 2008 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Additional Information
How to Cite
Tutunjian, D. and Boland, J. E. (2008), Do We Need a Distinction between Arguments and Adjuncts? Evidence from Psycholinguistic Studies of Comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2: 631–646. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00071.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 14 JUL 2008
- Article first published online: 28 JUN 2008
- Language and Linguistics Compass 2/4 (2008): 631–646, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00071.x
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Abstract
Within both psycholinguistic theories of parsing and formal theories of syntax, a distinction between arguments and adjuncts is central to some theories, while minimized or denied by others. Even for theories that deem the argument/adjunct distinction important, the exact nature of the distinction has been difficult to characterize. In this article, we review the psycholinguistic evidence for an argument/adjunct distinction, discuss how argument status can best be defined in the light of such evidence, and consider the implications for how grammatical knowledge is represented and accessed in the human mind.