Light Verbs and θ-Marking
Author(s): Jane Grimshaw and Armin Mester
Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Spring, 1988), pp. 205-232
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178587 .
Accessed: 03/12/2013 11:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jane Grimshaw
Armin Mester
Light Verbs and 0-Marking
This is a study of 0-markingwith the Japanese Verb suru, which has the apparently
peculiar property of allowing the head of its direct object to 0-markargumentsat the
clause level. Ourgeneralgoal in this articleis to explore the predicate-argument
complex
associated with suru and to show that its propertiescan be derivedfrom the interaction
of complex predicate formationwith a particulartheory of argumentstructurerepresentation.
Suru is thematicallyincomplete or "light" in the sense of Jespersen (1954) and
Cattell (1984).1It subcategorizesand case-marksa direct object NP, without assigning
it a 0-role. 0-markingin the surucomplex is a functionof a process of complex predicate
formation, which we call ArgumentTransfer.The nominal 0-markertransferssome or
all of its argumentsto the argumentstructureof the light Verb suru. As a result, both
suru and the head of the object NP can act as 0-markers,each with its own 0-marking
domain. The Noun "lends" argumentsto suru, turningsuru into a 0-markerand remainingan impoverished0-markeritself. Thus, Transferdoes not simply mergethe two
predicates and their argumentstructures into a single unit, in the way that complex
predicate formationis usually conceived. Ideas using complex predicate formationof
various types have been developed for related English phenomena by Cattell (1984),
Higgins (1974), and Jackendoff(1974).
The behavior of Transferreflects certainpropertiesof argumentstructures,which
are notjust lists of arguments,but form structuredrepresentations,as proposedin Grimshaw (to appear).In additionto the now familiarinternal/externaldistinctionof Williams
(1981), developed in work by Zubizarreta(1985) and Levin and Rappaport(1986), we
will arguethat internalargumentsare not homogeneous,but also participatein the structural organizationof argumentstructure. Whereas Nouns and Verbs generally have
This researchwas supportedby the InformationScience Division of the National Science Foundation
throughgrantsIST-8120403and IST-8420073to BrandeisUniversity. Additionalsupportwas providedby a
BernsteinFacultyFellowshipfromBrandeisUniversityto Grimshaw.We wouldespeciallylike to acknowledge
the aid of Junko Ito, who helped throughoutwith the constructionof examples and participatedin many
productive discussions of Japanese grammar.Two LinguisticInquiryreviewers, Naoki Fukui, Jacqueline
Gueron, Alan Prince, Tomas Riad, and MitsuakiYoneyama gave comments that led to many substantial
improvements.We would also like to thankaudiencesat BrandeisUniversity,the Universityof Connecticut,
and the Universityof Texas at Austin, where variouspartsof the materialwere presented.
' Discussing"light" Verbs, Jespersen(1954,VI, 117-118)commentson "the generaltendencyof ModE
to place an insignificantverb, to whichthe marksof personandtense are attached,beforethe reallyimportant
idea ...".
Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 19, Number 2, Spring 1988
205-232
C 1988 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
205
206
JANE GRIMSHAW
AND ARMIN MESTER
similar argumentstructurerepresentations,Nouns do not have subject arguments.Instead, the relevantpositionin theirargumentstructureis lexically suppressedor satisfied
and cannot be responsiblefor 0-markingan argument,a hypothesis suggested in Zubizarreta (1985)and developed furtherin Grimshaw(1986;to appear).
We will show that the proposedrepresentationof argumentstructure,togetherwith
the theory of Transfer, predicts the rather intricate pattern of argumentdistribution
within the suru complex.
1. 0-Opaqueand 0-TransparentNPs
0-markingobeys strict locality conditionsand is basically restrictedto sisters (Chomsky
(1981)).An argumentNP fills a position in the argumentstructureof its governingVerb,
and no element inside the NP interactsthematicallywith any element outside it. In this
sense, argumentNPs are opaque to 0-marking.An NP can be an argumentof a Verb,
but it cannot containan argumentof a Verb. As a result, the 0-markingin (la) is possible,
but that in (lb) is not: a Verb cannot assign a 0-role into an NP. Moreover, the head of
an NP does not assign a 0-role outside its maximalprojection, with the result that the
0-markingin (ic) is not allowed. NP is generallyopaqueto 0-markingin both directions,
presumablybecause it is opaque to governmentin both directions.
(1) a.
[V NP]vP
b.
[V
... . NP ..
C.
[...
NP .. .[N]NP
t
I"
II
11
.]NP]VP
...
--.
NP ...
]VP
t
Japanese has a productiveconstructioninvolving what appearsto be a case of the
0-markingin (lc). It is illustratedin (2a), where aiseki 'table-sharing',the head of the
direct object NP, seems to be 0-markingJohn and Bill.2
(2) a.
John-wa Bill-to AISEKI-o
shita.
John-TopBill-withtable-sharing-Accsuru-Past
'John shareda table with Bill.'
b. John-wa Bill-to AISEKI
shita.
John-TopBill-withtable-sharingsuru-Past
The behavior of suru in Noun incorporation(as in (2b), where aiseki is not casemarked) has been extensively discussed in Japanese linguistics in Hasegawa (1979),
Inoue (1976), Kageyama(1976-77; 1982),Kuroda(1965), Poser (1980), and many other
works. Ourgoal is to determineand explain the propertiesof examples like (2a), where
suru occurs with a direct object NP.
2
Shita is composedof the stem shi and a past markerta. We gloss all forms of the Verb as 'suru'. The
entire direct object of suru will always be italicized, and the 0-markingNoun will be capitalized.
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT VERBS
AND 0-MARKING
207
The contributionof the object NP to 0-markingcan be easily seen in examples like
(3a-c), where a differentarrayof argumentsappearsin each case.
John-wa Mary-niHANASHI-o shita.
suru
John-TopMary-totalk-Acc
'John talked to Mary.'
b. John-wa Tookyoo-karaSHUPPATSU-o shita.
John-TopTokyo-from departure-Acc suru
'John departedfrom Tokyo.'
c. John-wa murabito-ni[ookami-gakuru-to]
KEIKOKU-oshita.
John-Topvillager-to wolf-Nom come-Compwarn-Acc suru
'John warnedthe villagersthat the wolf was coming.'
(3) a.
The argumentarrayof the sentences in (3) varies with the Noun headingthe direct
object (hanashi 'talk' vs. shuppatsu 'departure'vs. keikoku 'warning'). Suru has no
influence on the numberand type of arguments.Setting aside some complicatedquestions regardingthe natureof argumentstructurein derived nominalsdiscussed in Grimshaw (1986; to appear),the same set of argumentsis seen to occur in nominalizations,
where suru is not present and all the argumentsare NP-internal.(The postposition -ni
may not occur before -no. In these and later examples we replace it by -e inside NPs.)
John-no Mary-e-no HANASHI
John-GenMary-to-Gentalk
'John's talk to Mary'
b. John-no Tookyoo-kara-noSHUPPATSU
John-GenTokyo-from-Gendeparture
'John's departurefrom Tokyo'
c. John-no murabito-e-no [ookami-gakuru-to]-no
KEIKOKU
John-Genvillager-to-Gen wolf-Nom come-Comp-Genwarning
'John's warningto the villagersthat the wolf is coming'
(4) a.
The argumentstructureof the Noun licenses the argumentarray that occurs with
suru, even thoughthe argumentsoccur outside the NP. The Noun is apparentlyassigning
0-roles outside its own maximalprojection.We will refer to such NPs as 0-transparent
NPs. It is easy to show that in (3) all argumentsare outside the object NP. They have
the case markingof the verbal/sententialsystem and not the nominalcase marker-no,
contrastingwith the argumentsin (4). They can undergo scrambling:for example, the
NP markedwith -ni in (3a,c) can be placed after the NP markedwith -o, giving a word
order that is normalinside S but impossibleinside NP, where the head Noun is always
the last element.
We use the termlight Verbto referto Verbslike suruthat cooccur with 0-transparent
NPs. Other Japanese Verbs are heavy and take only 0-opaque objects. For example,
with wasureru 'forget' in (5), all argumentsof the Noun must appearinside the object
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
208
JANE
GRIMSHAW
AND
ARMIN
MESTER
NP. Example (5a), where the argumentMary occurs inside the NP, is grammatical,but
(5b), where Mary occurs outside and is markedwith -ni, is ungrammatical.
(5) a.
John-wa Mary-e-no HANASHI-o wasureta.
John-TopMary-to-Gentalk-Acc
forgot
'John forgot the talk to Mary.'
b. *John-wa Mary-niHANASHI-o wasureta.
John-TopMary-totalk-Acc
forgot
In sum, only suru takes a 0-transparentobject. Other verbs take only 0-opaque
objects, which allow only inside arguments.Othergrammaticalpropertiescorrelatewith
the difference between 0-opaque and 0-transparentNPs. Whereas 0-opaque NPs can
freely be topicalized, 0-transparentNPs resist topicalization. This is illustratedin (6)
and (7).
(6)
a.
b.
(7)
a.
b.
0-opaque object, topicalizationpossible
John-ga [[ookami-gakuru-to]-no
HOOKOKU]-owasureteita.
John-Nom wolf-Nom come-Comp-Genreport-Acc
had forgotten
'John had forgottenthe reportthat the wolf was coming.'
[[Ookami-gakuru-to]-no
HOOKOKU]-waJohn-ga wasureteita.
wolf-Nom come-Comp-Genreport-Top
John-Nomhad forgotten
0-transparentobject, topicalizationimpossible
John-ga [ookami-gakuru-to] HOOKOKU-oshita.
John-Nom wolf-Nom come-Compreport-Acc suru
'John reportedthat the wolf was coming.'
*HOOKOKU-waJohn-ga [ookami-gakuru-to]
shita.
report-Top
John-Nom wolf-Nom come-Compsuru
The 0-opaqueobject of 'forget' in (6a) can be topicalized, as in (6b). The object NP in
(7a) is 0-transparent,since an argumentof its head-the complementsentence ookamiga kuru-to 'that the wolf is coming'-is not markedwith -no and hence is not part of
the NP. The ungrammaticalityof (7b), the topicalized version of (7a), shows that topicalization of 0-transparentNPs is not possible.
There are other differences, which probablyreflect the nonreferential,predicatelike characterof transparentNPs. Only opaque NPs relativize, for example, and only
opaque NPs allow modificationby elements like numerals.
Nonetheless, the basic syntax of opaque and transparentNPs is identical. Both can
containa sequence of prenominaladjectivesandothermodifiers,andboth reorderwithin
S, following the standardJapanesepattern.Case markingis identical:both NPs receive
accusative case, realized by -o. Both opaque and transparentNPs allow argumentsof
the Noun to appearwithin the NP. In (8) one argument(murabito-ni)of keikoku'warn'
appears outside the NP. The second argument(the complement sentence ookami-ga
kuru-to)is inside the NP and is markedwith -no, just as it was in example (6a).
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT VERBS
AND 0-MARKING
209
(8) John-wa murabito-ni[[ookami-gakuru-to]-no
KEIKOKU]-oshita.
John-Topvillager-to wolf-Nom come-Comp-Genwarn-Acc
suru
'John warnedthe villagersthat the wolf was coming.'
A complicatingfactor in this study is the existence of anothercase of suru, in which
it takes opaqueobjects; in fact, it is a 0-markerof the usual kind. The ambiguitybetween
this "heavy" suru and light suru is very similarto that between the English auxiliary
do and the mainverb do. The object of heavy suru shows none of the characteristicsof
transparentNPs; for example, topicalizationis possible with heavy suru, as shown in
(9), where Tookyoo-e-noryokoo-wais a topicalized object.
(9) [Tookyoo-e-noRYOKOOI-waJohn-ga shita.
Tokyo-to-Gentrip-Top
John-Nomsuru
'John made the trip to Tokyo.'
The object of heavy suru does not allow outside arguments.This is why (7b) is not
grammatical,with heavy suru as the verb. Heavy suru also places thematicrestrictions
on the subject, which must be, roughly speaking, agentive. As a result, both topicalizability and resistance to outside argumentscorrelatewith agentivity. (lOa)is ungrammaticalbecause topicalizationrequiresheavy suru, but the subject (densha 'train')violates the agentivity requirement.(lOb) is grammaticalbecause it involves light suru
(Oosaka-niis an outside argument)and light suru places no requirementson its subject.
(10) a. *[Oosaka-e-no TOOCHAKU]-wadensha-ga shita.
Osaka-to-Genarrival-Top
train-Nomsuru
'The train arrivedin Osaka.'
b. Densha-waOosaka-niTOOCHAKU-oshita.
train-Top Osaka-to arrival-Acc
suru
Of course, both cases of suru are possible when the subject is agentive. Because of the
differences between light and heavy suru, disambiguationcan usually be achieved with
nonagentive subjects and/or outside arguments.Some contaminationof grammaticality
judgments from the ambiguityis unavoidable,however. Speakers of Japanese are uncertainabout the status of a numberof the examplesbelow markedwith ?, judgingthem
bad but finding it difficultto decide how ungrammaticalthey are. We interpretthe indecision as meaningthat the examples are ungrammatical,the judgmentsbeing blurred
by the grammaticalityof the very same NPs as opaque objects.
2. 0-Markingwith Light Verbs
In this section we will sketch our basic proposal for light suru. Our hypothesis is that
suru is a Verb with only a skeletal argumentstructureand that 0-markingwith light suru
is a result of suru combiningwith a 0-assigningNoun.
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
210
JANE
GRIMSHAW
AND
ARMIN
MESTER
2.1. 0-Marking Nouns
Since the transparentNP occurringwith suru is the source of 0-markingfor the clause,
the Noun that heads such an NP must itself be a 0-role assigner. The Nouns hanashi
'talk', shuppatsu'departure,'andkeikoku'warning'resembletheirEnglishcounterparts,
which can be argument-taking.Concrete Nouns like 'dog' and 'chair' do not have this
capacity and thereforecannot head transparentNPs. This accords with the position of
Anderson (1983-4, 5) that concrete and abstract Nouns differ in their 0-assigningcapacities, with only abstractNouns actingas 0-assigners.This idea is developed in Grimshaw (1986;to appear)and Safir(1987), where it is arguedthat "process" nominalsare
0-markersand "result" nominalsare not. Only process (that is, 0-marking)Nouns will
cooccur with light suru.
The differencebetween the two types is detectable in opaque nominals as well as
transparentones. Fundamentally,the predictionis that Nouns that cannot head transparent NPs will not take argumentsin opaque nominals. They will occur only with
possessives and other modifiers.The predictionappearsto be borne out; citing pairs of
examples like those given in (3) and (4), Inoue (1976, 242-243) makes the important
observation that the correspondenceis regular:every Noun that combines with light
suru can also head a derivednominal.This generalizationcan be rephrasedin our terms:
all Nouns that can head 0-transparentNPs can also head opaque process nominals,
assigning the same 0-roles in each case. So the argumentstructureassigned to Nouns
that head transparentNPs can be independentlymotivatedby opaqueprocess nominals.
2.2. Light Verbs
Whatpropertyof suru makes it a light Verb? Ourhypothesis is that suru is thematically
incomplete. In fact, it assigns no 0-roles; any 0-markingmust be done by anotheritem.
A "light Verb," then, is one whose argumentstructureis skeletalor incomplete.In fact,
it appears that suru assigns no 0-roles at all. Althoughit is a main Verb, its argument
structureis more like that of an auxiliary:English do, for example. It is importantto
stress here that light suru is not intrinsicallyagentive (see, for example, (lOb)), and it
imposes no restrictions on the 0-role of its subject. No other selectional effects are
detectable either: subjects of suru can be humanor nonhuman,animate or inanimate,
and so forth, as illustratedin (11).
John-ga Bill-to HANASHI-o shiteiru.
suru
John-NomBill-withtalk-Acc
'John is talkingto Bill.'
mato-ni MEICHUU-o shita.
b. Ya-ga
suru
arrow-Nomtarget-tohit-Acc
'The arrowhit the target.'
(11) a.
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT VERBS
c.
AND 0-MARKING
211
America-ga 200-nen-mae-niIgirisu-kara DOKURITSU-o shita.
America-Nom200-year-ago-atEngland-fromindependence-Accsuru
'Americabecame independentof England200 years ago.'
The Nouns with which suru occurs can themselves have any numberof arguments
and any type of argumentstructure.The only positive propertyof suru is that it assigns
accusative case; it is transitive. Of course, its direct object is not an argument-suru
assigns case to a transparentNP, which bears the accusative case marker -o. Suru
functions as a bearerof verbal inflectionfor the clause and as a case assigner, allowing
the Noun in its direct object to assign 0-roles in a verbalcontext. Combiningan NP with
suru turns the head Noun into the functionalequivalent of a Verb.
The lexical entryof suruis given in (12). We use parenthesesto indicatethe argument
list of the Verb: empty in the case of light suru. The notation (acc) indicates that suru
assigns accusative case, but not to an argumentposition. (This is drawnfrom the Lexical
FunctionalGrammartreatmentof raisingto object/exceptionalcase marking,where the
verb is analyzedas takinga directobject thatdoes not correspondto any of its arguments
(Bresnan (1982)).)
(12) suru, V; (
) (acc)
As we have alreadysuggested, light suru resemblesin many ways the do of English
Do Support, which carries inflection but assigns no 0-roles and imposes no selectional
restrictions.The key differencebetween do and suru is that suru is transitive, so it can
combine with NPs for 0-role assignment,whereas do must combine with anotherVerb.
Note that the intransitivityof do supportsthe idea that the transitivityof suru is a lexical
property, since there is lexical variationamong light Verbs.
In sum, the head of the direct object NP is a 0-assignerbut does not carryinflection
or assign accusative case. The Verb suruis not a 0-assigner,but it does assign accusative
case and it does carry inflection.
3. The Distributionof Arguments
3.1. Transfer and 0-Marking
The next issue, then, is how 0-markingworks in the NP-suru construction. As noted,
when an NP is 0-transparent,the Noun's argumentstructureappears to be availablefor
0-markingargumentsoutside the NP. We will arguethatappearanceshere are misleading
and that 0-markingin the surucomplexis local,just like 0-markingelsewhere. Arguments
inside the NP are 0-markedby the Noun, and argumentsunderS are 0-markedby suru,
which absorbs argumentstructurefrom the Noun.
The basis of this is a process of Argument Transfer,throughwhich suru acquires
a 0-markingcapacity. Thereare two logicallypossible cases: one where the Noun retains
some of its own argument-taking
capacity,andone whereit completelyloses this capacity
and suru is responsiblefor all 0-marking.
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
212
JANE
GRIMSHAW
AND
ARMIN
MESTER
(13) illustratesthe first possibility of ArgumentTransferas it applies to suru and
the Noun keikoku'warning',which takes an Agent, a Theme, and a Goal. Althoughwe
will have reason to modify this later, for now we represent the argumentstructureof
keikokuas a simple argumentlist. Transferremoves argumentpositions from the list
associated with keikoku,insertingthem into the argumentstructureof suru and leaving
only the Theme in the argumentstructureof keikoku.
(13) a. keikoku(Agent, Goal, Theme)
b. suru (
) (acc)
c. keikoku(Theme) + suru (Agent, Goal) (acc)
(13a,b) are the inputs to ArgumentTransfer, and (13c) is the result, a pair of lexical
items (which must appear together). The Noun keikokuretains just the Theme role,
which will be assignedNP-internally,andthe transitiveVerb suruassigns the transferred
roles Agent and Goal outside NP.
These argumentstructuressupport the 0-markingschematicallyindicated in (14),
where the 0-role of each phrase is indicatedin squarebrackets. (To simplifythe representation, we do not include a VP node in our diagrams.)This is how 0-markingworks
for (15) (= (8)).
(14)
[Agent]
[Goal]
S'
[Theme]
keikoku
(theme)
shita
(Agent, Goal) (acc)
(15) John-wa murabito-ni[[ookami-gakuru-to]-no
KEIKOKU]-oshita.
John-Topvillager-to wolf-Nom come-Comp-Genwarn-Acc
suru
'John warnedthe villagersthat the wolf was coming.'
The second possibility is for suru to absorb all argumentsof the Noun, leaving the
Noun with no 0-markingcapacities. In this case all argumentsare 0-markedby the Verb
and are thereforerealized outside the object NP. This is illustratedin (16)-(18).
(16) a. keikoku(Agent, Goal, Theme)
b. suru (
) (acc)
c. keikoku(
) + suru (Agent, Goal, Theme) (acc)
The derived argumentstructureof suru 0-marksall the arguments, which occur
outside the transparentNP as in (18).
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT
VERBS
AND
213
0-MARKING
S
(17)
NP-wa
[Agent]
NP-ni
S'
[Goal] [Theme]
NP-o
I
keikoku
V
shita
(Agent, Goal, Theme) (acc)
KEIKOKU-oshita.
(18) John-wa murabito-ni[ookami-gakuru-to]
John-Topvillager-to wolf-Nom come-Compwarn-Acc suru
'John warnedthe villagersthat the wolf was coming.'
The result of Transferis a pairof linkedlexical items that must be insertedtogether.
Obviously, no well-formedstructurewould result if an argumentstructurefrom (13c)
was combinedwith an argumentstructurefrom (16c). Insertingsuru with the argument
structurein (13c) togetherwith keikokuwith the argumentstructurein (16c) would result
in no Theme being realized;insertingsuru with the argumentstructurein (16c) together
with keikokuwith the argumentstructurein (13c) would result in two Themes being
realized. The lexical insertionof the Noun-Verbcomplex can presumablybe assimilated
to a more general theory of phrasal constructions, which will govern the behavior of
idioms (like kick the bucket) and other lexical expressions that do not constitute single
words. In support of the hypothesis that the Noun and suru are listed together in a
derived lexical entry we can cite the fact that there is lexical variationamong Nouns
with respect to the suru construction. For example, shooshin 'promotion'occurs with
suru in the incorporationconstruction, as in (19a), and can head an opaque NP, as in
(19b). However, shooshin in a phrasalsuru complex (illustratedin (19c)) is accepted by
some speakers and rejected by others.
(19) a.
John-wa buchoo-ni
SHOOSHIN shita.
John-Topsection chief-to promotion suru
'John obtainedpromotionto section chief.'
b. Buchoo-e-no
shooshin-ga
hayakatta.
section chief-to-Genpromotion-Nomfast-Past
'(He) won speedy promotionto section chief.'
c. ??John-wa buchoo-ni
SHOOSHIN-o shita.
John-Topsection chief-to promotion-Accsuru
'John obtainedpromotionto section chief.'
There appears to be no principledreason why shooshin should be ill-formedin (19c),
so perhapsthis representsa lexical gap for some speakers.
An immediatequestionis why Transfercannot occur withjust any Verb-Nounpair,
instead being limited to light Verbs like suru. Our suggestion is that Transferrequires
an incomplete argumentstructure-one with "space" for the addition of arguments.
Verbs with completely specified argumentstructures cannot be targets for Transfer.
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
214
JANE GRIMSHAW
AND ARMIN MESTER
Transferdoes not requirea completelyempty argumentstructure-suru has a causative
form, saseru, which is illustratedin (20).
saseta.
(20) Mary-ga John-ni Bill-to AISEKI-o
Bill-with
Mary-NomJohn-to
table-sharing-Accsuru-cause
'Marymade John share a table with Bill.'
Ouranalysisof (20)is this: causativizationadds an argumentto suru, givingit the partially
specified representationin (21).
(21) saseru (Agent,
) (acc)
Transferthen adds argumentsin the usual way. This is possible because the argument
structureof saseru is incomplete, so it remainsa legitimatetargetfor Transfer.
A crucial feature of the theory proposed here is that there are two 0-markersin a
suru complex, and two separatedomainsof 0-marking.Transferdoes not form a single
predicate; it forms two predicates, each with altered 0-markingproperties. We could
instead try to analyze these constructions as involving only a single 0-marker,either
suru or the Noun actually being responsible for all 0-marking.If, for example, suru
always inheritedall argumentsfrom the Noun, it could 0-markboth inside and outside
arguments,and the Noun would not be a 0-markerat all. Alternatively,suru could be
viewed as somehow allowingthe Noun to 0-markthroughthe NP node, so that the Noun
could 0-markat the S level as well as within NP. The Noun would then be behaving
essentially as though the NP node were absent. In both of these analyses there would
be only one 0-markerand one 0-markingdomain.
The argument-transfer
theory, with its two 0-markers,has two importantadvantages
over a theory that posits a single 0-marker.We summarizethe relevantpoints here and
provide a more detailed discussion in section 4.
(i) This solution maintainsstrict locality of 0-marking,since 0-markingin the two
domains, NP and S, is performedby two differentargumentstructures.Single-predicate
theories would necessarily involve nonlocal 0-marking(a case of (lb) or (lc), in fact).
(ii) In sections 3.2-3.4 we will explore the behavior of argumentswithin the suru
complex. Part of the explanationfor their distributiondepends crucially upon the idea
that an argumentinside NP is 0-markedby the Noun alone, whereas an outside argument
is 0-markedby the suru predicate.
To sum up, in this theory NP and S still constitute distinct domainsfor 0-marking
even for transparentNPs. Argumentsof the Noun can go inside or outside the direct
object NP because they can receive their 0-markingequally well in either position,
satisfying the argumentstructureof either the Noun or the suru predicate.
3.2. Transfer and Outside Arguments
As articulatedso far, the theory of light Verbs predicts that argumentsof the Noun can
freely occur distributedinside or outside the direct object NP. In fact, the distribution
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT VERBS
215
AND 0-MARKING
of argumentsis not completely free. There are three importantgeneralizations:
(i) At least one argumentapartfrom the subject must be outside the NP.
(ii) The subject argumentmust always be outside the NP.
(iii) For Nouns that take a Theme and a Goal, if the Theme argumentis realized
outside NP, the Goal must also be realized outside NP.
We will argue that these restrictionsfollow from the hierarchicalorganizationof argument structureplus the assumptionthatTransfermusttransmitat least one unsuppressed
argumentposition to the suru predicate.
For Nouns that take three arguments(a subject and two others) both nonsubject
argumentscan be realized outside the NP, as in (22a). Alternatively,one can be inside
and one outside, as in (22b), a phenomenonwe will refer to as splitting. However, it is
not possible for both to appearinside the NP, even when the comparableopaque NP is
fully well-formed.This is schematizedin (22c).
S
(22) a.
b.
NP NP NP NP-o
V
suru
c. *
S
NP NP NP-o
NP
N
V
suru
S
NP
NP-o
NP
NP N
V
suru
For example, Nouns like shoomei 'proof combine with suru and take both a sentential complementand an indirectobject. (23a) shows that both argumentscan occur
outside, leavingjust shoomei-o as the direct object NP.
(23) a.
Sono deeta-ga wareware-ni[kare-noriron-ga
machigatteiru-to]
that data-Nomus-to
he-Gen theory-Nom mistaken be-Comp
SHOOMEI-oshiteiru.
proof-Acc suru
'That data proves to us that his theory is mistaken.'
b. Sono deeta-ga wareware-ni[[kare-noriron-ga
machigatte
that data-Nomus-to
he-Gen theory-Nom mistaken
SHOOMEI]-oshiteiru.
iru-to]-no
suru
be-Comp-Genproof-Acc
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
216
JANE GRIMSHAW
AND ARMIN MESTER
machigatte
c. ?Sono deeta-ga [wareware-e-no[kare-noriron-ga
he-Gen theory-Nom mistaken
that data-Nom us-to-Gen
SHOOMEI]-oshiteiru.
iru-to]-no
suru
be-Comp-Genproof-Acc
In (23b) the sententialcomplementoccurs inside the object NP, as indicatedby the -no
marker.The indirect object wareware-ni'to us' is outside, however, so here the arguments of the Noun are split between the NP and the clause. (23c) is ungrammatical,with
both the indirectobject and the sententialcomplementinside NP. It mightbe suggested
that the decline in grammaticalityof (23c) should be attributedto the substitutionof -e
for -ni mentionedearlier.However, Naoki Fukuihas pointed out to us that the contrast
between (23a,b) and (23c) is preserved even if ni is replaced by nitaishite, which can
occur inside NPs as well as in clauses.
The prohibitionagainst having both argumentsinside NP cannot be reduced to a
general condition governing NPs. The reason is that (24), the opaque counterpartto
(23c), is well-formed,if complex.
machigatte
(24) [Sono deeta-no wareware-e-no[kare-noriron-ga
he-Gen theory-Nom mistaken
that data-Genus-to-Gen
iru-to]-no
SHOOMEI]-otsukatta.
used
be-Comp-Genproof-Acc
'(I) used that data's proof to us that his theory is mistaken.'
Other examples support the general conclusion. Shisa-o suru 'to suggest' takes a
direct object and an indirectobject. For reasons irrelevantin the present context, both
argumentscannot be outside with normalcase marking:(25) is ungrammaticalbecause
it violates the Double -o Constraint(Harada(1973), Shibatani(1973), Kuroda (1978),
Saito (1985)).
(25) *Sono hookokusho-waMary-ni[kaiketsu-no hookoo]-o
that report-Top
Mary-to solution-Gendirection-Acc
SHISA-o
shiteiru.
suggestion-Accsuru
'That report suggests to Mary the directionof the solution.'
Topicalizingkaiketsu-nohookoo 'directionof the solution' circumventsthe Double -o
Constraint,and (26a) shows that it is indeed possible to have both argumentsoutside.
As before, it is perfectlyacceptableto have one argumentinside andone outside, splitting
the two argumentsbetween the NP and the clause, as in (26b). To have both arguments
inside is not possible, however, so (26c) is ungrammatical.
(26) a.
[Kaiketsu-no hookoo]-wa sono hookokusho-gaMary-ni
solution-Gendirection-Topthat report-Nom Mary-to
shiteiru.
SHISA-o
suggestion-Accsuru
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT
VERBS
AND
0-MARKING
217
b.
Sono hookokusho-waMary-ni[[kaiketsu-no hookoo]-no
that report-Top
Mary-to solution-Gendirection-Gen
SHISA]-o
shiteiru.
suggestion-Accsuru
c. ?Sono hookokusho-waMary-e-no [kaiketsu-no hookoo]-no
that report-Top
Mary-to-Gen solution-Gendirection-Gen
SHISA]-o
shiteiru.
suggestion-Accsuru
The opaque NP correspondingto (26c) is grammatical.
(27) Bill-wa [sono hookokusho-noMary-e-no [kaiketsu-no hookoo]-no
Bill-Top that report-Gen
Mary-to-Gen solution-Gendirection-Gen
SHISA]-o
mushishita.
suggestion-Accignored
'Bill ignoredthat report's suggestionto Maryof the directionof the solution.'
In general, then, light Verb complexes with two nonsubjectargumentsallow both
argumentsto be outside the object NP, and they allow splittingbetween the inside and
outside positions, but they do not allow both argumentsto be inside. This restriction
appears to be specific to transparentNPs, given that opaque NPs allow multipleinside
arguments.
One way of stating the descriptive generalizationis to say that one nonsubject
argument must be outside the NP. This connects the behavior of Nouns with three
argumentsto an apparentlydifferentrestrictionfound in complexes with two arguments.
In such cases no argumentat all can appearinside the NP, and therefore only outside
argumentsare found. This is exemplifiedby the locative argumentof toochaku 'arrival'
in (28), which can appearoutside the NP, but not inside.
(28) a.
Densha-waUenoeki-ni
TOOCHAKU-oshita.
train-Top Ueno station-toarrival-Acc
suru
'The train arrivedat Ueno station.'
b. ?Densha-wa[Uenoeki-e-no TOOCHAKU]-o shita.
-to-Gen
-Acc
Similarly,the complementsof shuppatsu 'departure'and aiseki 'table-sharing'must be
outside. All three take inside argumentswhen they head opaque NPs, as illustratedfor
aiseki 'table-sharing'in (31).
(29) a.
Densha-wa Uenoeki-kara
SHUPPATSU-o shita.
train-Top Ueno station-fromdeparture-Acc suru
'The train departedfrom Ueno station.'
b. ?Densha-wa[Uenoeki-kara-noSHUPPATSU]-o shita.
(30) a. John-wa Bill-to AISEKI-o
shita.
John-TopBill-withtable-sharing-Accsuru
'John shareda table with Bill.'
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
218
JANE
GRIMSHAW
AND
ARMIN
MESTER
b. ?John-wa [Bill-to-no
AISEKI]-o
shita.
John-Top Bill-with-Gentable-sharing-Accsuru
(31)
John-wa [Bill-to-no
AISEKI]-o
kotowatta.
John-Top Bill-with-Gentable-sharing-Accrefused
'John refused to share a table with Bill.'
Ourconclusionis thatat least one argument(otherthan the subject)must be outside
the NP. As a result, three-argumentcomplexes allow at most one inside argument,
whereas two-argumentcomplexes allow no inside arguments.Setting aside for the moment the case of the subject, this means that at least one position in the argument
structureof the Noun must be transferredto suru.
This generalizationhas a numberof furtherconsequences. First, a Noun with three
nonsubjectargumentsshouldallow two of themto occur inside, leavingonly one outside.
(32) is a candidateexample, and the judgments supportthe predictions. (32a) contains
only one inside argument,(32b)contains two inside arguments,and (32c) contains three
inside arguments.
(32) a.
America-wa kin-de Mexico-to [shinamono-noTORIHIKI]-o
America-Topgold-forMexico-with goods-Gen business-Acc
shiteiru.
suru
'Americadoes business in goods with Mexico in exchange for gold.'
b. America-wakin-de [Mexico-to-noshinamono-noTORIHIKI]-oshiteiru.
c. ?America-wa[kin-de-noMexico-to-noshinamono-noTORIHIKI]-o
shiteiru.
As expected, it is ungrammaticalto include all three nonsubjectsin the NP, as in (33a),
although the opaque nominalin (33b), which correspondsto the ungrammaticaltransparent NP, is well-formed.
(33) a. ?America-wa[kin-de-noMexico-to-noshinamono-noTORIHIKI]-o
shiteiru.
b. Kin-de-no Mexico-to-no
shinamono-noTORIHIKI-waabunai.
gold-for-GenMexico-with-Gengoods-Gen business-Top dangerous
'Doing business with Mexico in exchange for gold is dangerous.'
A second prediction is that only arguments should be relevant for determining
whether an argumenthas been transferredto suru. Adjuncts, since they are not listed
in the argumentstructure,cannot be transferred.An adjunctappearingoutside the NP
should thereforehave no effect on grammaticality.This predictionseems correct: (34a)
and (34b)correspondto the ungrammatical(23c) and (26c). Both are ungrammaticaleven
though an adjuncthas been added in the outside position (althoughspeakers do report
a slight improvement,inexplicablein our terms).
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT
VERBS
AND
219
0-MARKING
(34) a. ?Sono deeta-ga koko-de/kyoo [wareware-e-no[kare-no
that data-Nomhere/today
us-to-Gen
he-Gen
riron-ga
machigatte iru-to]-no
SHOOMEI]-o shiteiru.
theory-Nommistaken be-Comp-Genproof-Acc
suru
b. ?Sono hookokusho-wasaigoni/koko-de[Mary-e-no
that report-Top
finally/here
Mary-to-Gen
[kaiketsu-no hookoo]-no
SHISA]-o
shiteiru.
solution-Gendirection-Gensuggestion-Accsuru
So at least one argumentof the Noun must transferto suru. Why? We suggest that
when no Transferoccurs, the 0-Criterionis violated. DuringTransfer,which is after all
a kind of complex predicateformation,the NP becomes exempt from the 0-Criterion.
It is certainlynot an argumentof suru, so it cannotbe 0-marked.Presumablyit is licensed
in a differentfashion-by participationin 0-assignment.If no Transferoccurs, however,
the NP has the usual status and must be construedas the argumentof some predicate.
Suru is light and cannot meet this requirement;hence, a violation ensues. In this way,
we can derive the result that one argumentmust be realized outside the object NP, as
a side effect of Transfer.
3.3. Subjects
There are two issues to be addressedconcerningthe behaviorof subjects in suru complexes. The first is why the subjectof the complex must always be outside the NP. The
second concerns the properties of Transfer:since the subject appears outside NP, it
must be 0-markedby suru. In orderto be 0-markedby suru, the subjectmust have been
transferredto the suru predicate. Yet we have just shown that an additionalargument
must also be transferred.The problemis, then, why transferringjust the subject does
not exempt the NP from the 0-Criterion.
There are many well-knowndifferencesbetween subjects of Nouns and subjects of
Verbs; it has often been assumedthat Nouns and Verbs have the same kind of argument
structurebut are subject to differentprinciplesgoverningthe realizationof their arguments. In this category are the proposals of Anderson (1983-4), Kayne (1981), and
Rappaport(1983).However, recent work on nominalizationsuggests that the "external"
argumentstructurepositioncorrespondingto the subjectof a Verbis lexically suppressed
for Nouns (see Zubizarreta(1985),Grimshaw(1986;to appear)),ratherthan internalized
as suggested in Williams(1981). As a result, the argumentposition can never be syntactically satisfied: its status is very differentfrom that of other argumentsof Nouns
and Verbs. Possessive NPs, then, are adjuncts,ratherthanarguments,a view developed
more fully in Grimshaw(1986;to appear).A related hypothesis, based on the work of
Esther Torrego on the ECP and extractionfrom NP, can be found in Chomsky (1986,
45-46).
For the sake of concreteness, we can view 0-markingas assignment of an index
from a position in an argumentstructureto the correspondingphrase, roughly as in
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
220
JANE GRIMSHAW
AND ARMIN MESTER
Stowell (1981).We can define an open positionas one whose index has not been assigned
to any phrase. A suppressedargumentis an argumentposition with no index to assign.
For example, shoomei 'proof takes three arguments:Agent/Source, Theme, and Goal.
Since it is a Noun, the Agent/Source(subject)position is suppressedas in (35) and has
no associated index.
(35) shoomei (Agent/Source,Themej, Goalk)
We have established that Transferstrips positions from the argumentstructureof
the Noun and assigns them to that of suru. If the subject of the Noun were an open
position,just like any otherargumentposition,then it shouldcertainlycountfor Transfer,
and no other argumentshould have to be transferred.However, if the real requirement
is that an open position must be transferred,the suppressedargumentwill not count for
the computation,andthe desiredresultwill follow. It seems, then, thatthe basic principle
governing0-transparentNPs is that the Noun must transferto suruat least one argument
with an unassigned index.3 One possible interpretationof this is that more generally,
suppressed arguments may not be visible for argument structure operations, which
shouldperhapsbe viewed as applyingto a representationin which suppressedarguments
are omitted entirely.
We returnnow to the first restrictionto be explained:the fact that the subject must
always appear in the clause and not within the NP, that is, as an outside and not an
inside argument.For example, (36b) is ungrammatical,even though the Goal (Mary-ni)
is 0-markedby the suru predicate, so that Transferhas apparentlyoccurred. Moreover,
the NP itself in (36b)is not structurallyill-formed:the opaquenominalin (36c)is identical,
and grammatical.
(36) a.
John-ga Mary-niHANASHI-o shita.
John-NomMary-totalk-Acc
suru
'John talked to Mary.'
b. *Mary-niJohn-no HANASHI-o shita.
3 If the Noun must always transferan open position to the Verb, and if the "subject" never counts as
open for this purpose, no single-argumentNouns should ever participatein the suru construction.A oneargumentNoun will have only a "subject" argumentposition, and we know that this is not sufficientfor
transfer.The predictionis difflcultto evaluate,becauseas we showedin section 2, suruis ambiguousbetween
the lightVerb of interesthere, and a heavy Verb, ratherlike mainVerb do in English.The situationis further
complicatedby the fact thatin the case of monadicNouns the techniquefor disambiguationthatwe have used
throughout(outsidearguments)is unavailable.However, since heavy suru has agentive(or at least "actor")
subjects, Nouns like those in (i) can presumablybe analyzedas complementsto heavy suru.
(i) suiei-o suru'swim', sampo-osuru'walk', seppuku-osuru'commitsuicide', undoo-osuru'exercise',
seikatsu-osuru 'makea living', shigoto-osuru 'work',jisatsu-o suru 'commitsuicide'
Once agentiveNouns like these are factoredout, a few cases remain,includingthose in (ii).
(ii) wakajini-osuru 'die young', byooki-o suru 'be sick', fuhai-o suru 'become rotten', daraku-osuru
'be morallyruined',kushami-osuru 'sneeze', seki-o suru 'cough', bimboo-osuru 'become poor'
The analysis of these remainsuncertain.They may representa smallclass of fixed expressions,or they may
be unaccusativeNouns, like the Verbs with similarmeanings(Perlmutter(1978),Burzio (1981)).In this case
their single argumentwouldbe internalratherthanexternaland mightbe unsuppressedand thus transferable.
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT
c.
VERBS
AND
0-MARKING
221
John-no hanashi-o hometa.
John-Gentalk-Acc praised
'(I) praised John's talking.'
Since an outside argumentis 0-markedby suruand an inside argumentby the Noun,
the issue of why the subjectmust be outside reduces to the question of why the subject
argumentmust be transferredto suru and cannot remainas an argumentof the Noun.
If it could remainas an argumentof the nominal, it would remainlexically suppressed.
Linkinga genitive phraseto it wouldpose no problem,and (36b) shouldbe grammatical.
If, on the other hand, the argumentis transferredto suru, it will be the argumentof a
Verb, not a Noun. We assume that it will therefore be activated and will receive an
index. Since it is 0-markedby the suru predicate,it must be under S, not inside the NP.
(The fact that the argumentthat is suppressedfor the Noun is reactivatedfor the Verb
provides crucial evidence that the suppressed argumentmust be represented in the
Noun's argumentstructurein some form. Otherwise, Transferbased on the argument
structureof the Noun could not possibly have the right effect.)
Why should the subject argumentalways transfer?So far we have establishedthat
one open argumentmust be transferredto suru. Of necessity, this will always be an
internal argument,in the sense of Williams (1981), since only internal argumentsare
unsuppressed for Nouns. The desired result will follow if transferringthe internal
argumenthas transfer of the external argumentas a consequence. Since the internal
argumentmust always be transferredto avoid a violation of the 0-Criterion,it will then
follow that the external argumentmust be too.
We propose that this dependencybetween the external and internalargumentsfollows from the organizationof argumentstructure,in accordancewith the usual division
into external and internal arguments,based on Williams (1981). Like Hale (1983), we
take the external/internaldistinction to be reflected in the organizationof argument
structure, with the external argument-the Agent/Source of shoomei, for example
being external, and representedas more prominentthan the other arguments.The argument structureof shoomei is given in (37).
(37) shoomei (Agent/Source(Goalj, Themek))
Transferacts in a top-downfashion,preservingthe structuralorganizationor prominence
relationsof the argumentstructure:it cannotremove a lower argumentwithoutremoving
all the higher argumentsas well. This will disallow an outcome in which the Goal has
been transferredand the Agent has not, as in (38a), but will allow one in which both
have been transferred,as in (38b).
(38) a.
b.
suru (Goalj) + shoomei (Agent, Themek)
suru ((Agenti, Goalj)) + shoomei (Themek)
Crucially, then, the process of ArgumentTransfermust apply in an outside-infashion,
thus preservingthe basic organizationof the input argumentstructure.Given this, plus
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222
JANE
GRIMSHAW
AND
ARMIN
MESTER
the hypothesis that the Agent/Source is the "highest" argument,the situation can be
fully explained.
There are, inevitably, some alternativeaccounts for the positioningof the subject
in the suru complex. Let us examinethe situationthat would arise if suru appearedwith
a direct object NP and no transferhad occurred. Schematically,we would have a configurationlike (39), instantiatedin (40).
(39)
5
NP-o
NP
...
NP
(40) *John-no Bill-to-no
V
N
suru
AISEKI-o
shita.
John-GenBill-with-Gentable-sharing-Accsuru
One line of reasoningmight appeal to the argumentstatus of the subject. Perhaps the
subject is really an argumentof suru and not of the Noun, and this is why it cannot
appearinside the NP. There are two problemsfor such an account. First, suru imposes
absolutely no requirementson this NP, so it is not an argumentin the usual sense. To
call it one is tantamountto subcategorizingfor a subject. Second, this proposal would
allow for other light verbs differingfrom suru in precisely this respect: they would not
have such an argumentslot and would thereforeallow the subjectof the Noun to appear
withinNP. Presumably,though,it is not an accidentallexical propertyof suruthat makes
inside subjects impossible.
Another possibility is that it is the absence of a subject for the clause that makes
the configurationin (39) impossible, if (39) violates some condition (like the Extended
Projection Principle of Chomsky (1982)) that requires clauses to have subjects. The
natureof the explanationhere is not clear-presumably the clause could contain a null
expletive subject, satisfying the structuralcondition and leaving the real argumentof
the Noun free to occur inside. Moreover, there is another problemfor an explanation
based on the absence of a subject. Recall that saseru, the causative of suru discussed
in section 3. 1, has one argumentthat acts as the subjectof the entirecausativepredicate.
We have alreadygiven an example with saseru in (20) (repeatedhere as (41)).
(41) Mary-ga John-niBill-to AISEKI-o
saseta.
Mary-NomJohn-toBill-withtable-sharing-Accsuru-cause
'Marymade John share a table with Bill.'
In (41) all argumentsof aiseki have been transferredto saseru and are realized outside
the NP. Since saseru has a subject argument(Mary-ga)that is realized as the subject
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT VERBS
AND 0-MARKING
223
of the clause, no Extended Projection Principle violation would result if the subject
argumentof aiseki (John) was not transferredto saseru but instead was realized inside
the NP. Nevertheless, failure to transfer the subject argumentof aiseki leads to ungrammaticality,regardlessof whether anotherargument(Bill-to) is also transferred,to
comply with the obligatorinessof Transfer. Thus, both (42a) and (42b) are ungrammatical.4
(42) a. *Mary-ga [John-no Bill-to-no
AISEKI]-o
saseta.
Mary-Nom John-GenBill-with-Gentable-sharing-Accsuru-cause
b. *Mary-gaBill-to [John-noAISEKI]-o saseta.
As usual, the corresponding0-opaqueNP is grammatical,showing that there is nothing
intrinsicallywrong with the object NP in (42).
(43) [John-no Bill-to-no
AISEKI-wa]
machigaidatta.
John-GenBill-with-Gentable-sharing-Topmistake was
'John's sharinga table with Bill was a mistake.'
In (42) saseru has a subject, but John must still be 0-markedby saseru and thus must
be transferredfrom aiseki. Hence, it must appearoutside the NP, even though it is not
acting as the subject of the suru complex. We conclude that the obligatory outside
positioning of this argumentcannot be reduced to a condition requiringsubjects for
clauses.
We have arguedthat the behaviorof subjects in the suru complex follows from the
representationof argumentstructure. We will show in the following section that this
explanationgeneralizes to the behaviorof internalarguments.
3.4. The Distributionof InternalArguments
The argumentsof a Noun can be split between the inside and outside positions. This
was shown earlierby (23b) and (26b), repeated in (47a) and (48a). However, switching
the positions of the argumentsmakes these examples ungrammatical.The data are presented schematicallyin (45) and (46). The Goal can be outside the NP with the Theme
inside, but the Theme cannot be outside with the Goal inside. The relevant examples
follow in (47) and (48).
4One complicationis that (42a) improvesconsiderablyif the subjectof aiseki is transferredwhile Billto stays behind.
(i) ?Mary-ga John-ni[Bill-to-no AISEKI]-o
saseta.
Mary-NomJohn-to Bill-with-Gentable-sharing-Accsuru-cause
No open position has been transferredin this example, which should thereforebe ungrammaticalas a suru
complex. However, note that none of the criticalpropertiesof light suru are involved here, so this example
may actually involve heavy suru. On the other hand, the marginalityof (30b) suggests that aiseki may not
combine with heavy suru.
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
224
AND ARMIN MESTER
JANE GRIMSHAW
S
(45)
NP
[Source]
NP-o
NP
[Goal]
V
I
shita
N
S'
[Theme]
shoomei
(46) *
s
NP
[Source]
S'
[Theme]
NP-o
NP
[Goal]
(47) a.
N
V
shita
shoomei
Sono deeta-ga wareware-ni[[kare-noriron-ga
he-Gen theory-Nom
that data-Nomus-to
SHOOMEI]-o shiteiru.
machigatte iru-to]-no
suru
mistakenbe-Comp-Genproof-Acc
'That data proves to us that his theory is mistaken.'
b. *Sono deeta-ga [kare-noriron-ga
machigatteiru-to]
that data-Nom he-Gen theory-Nom mistaken be-Comp
[wareware-e-no SHOOMEI]-o shiteiru.
us-to-Gen
(48) a.
proof-Acc
suru
Sono hookokusho-wa Mary-ni [[kaiketsu-no hookoo]-no
that report-Top
SHISA]-o
Mary-to solution-Gendirection-Gen
shiteiru.
suggestion-Accsuru
'That report suggests to Mary the directionof the solution.'
b. *[Kaiketsu-no hookoo-wa] sono hookokusho-ga
solution-Gendirection-Topthat report-Nom
Mary-e-no
SHISA-o
shiteiru.
Mary-to-Gensuggestion-Accsuru
Note that both phrases at issue would normallybe taken to be argumentsof the Noun,
and not merely adjuncts.As evidence for their argumentstatus we can cite the fact that
the transferof the ni phraseis evidentlysufficientto makethe surucomplexwell-formed.
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT VERBS AND 0-MARKING
225
Theme argumentsare not absolutely barredfrom the outside position: they occur
outside in grammaticalsentences providedthat the other argumentis also outside ((23a)
and (26a)). It seems highlyunlikelythat indirectobject argumentsare absolutelybarred
from occurringinside the NP. After all, they certainly can occur inside opaque NPs.
Moreover, in (32b), one of the four-argumentNoun examples, a rather similartype of
argument-Mexico-to-no 'with Me-xico'-does occur inside, suggesting that Goals
should be able to as well, under the right circumstances. It does not seem to be the
absolute positions of the individualargumentsthat are responsiblefor the ungrammaticality of (47b) and (48b). Instead, the relative position is the importantmatter: the
combinationof an outside Theme and an inside Goal is ill-formed.
Why shouldthis combinationbe ill-formed?It appearsthat "closeness" to the Noun
in some sense is the key factor here. When splitting occurs, the more closely linked
Theme argumentsmust be inside, the less closely linked argumentsmust be outside.
Our proposal is that the internalargumentsin an argumentstructureare hierarchically structured.Just as the external argumentis more prominentthan the internalarguments, so some internal argumentsare more prominentthan others. In particular,
Goals are more prominentthan Themes, so the argumentstructureof shoomei 'proof
is (49), where the parenthesesindicate the structureassigned to the argumentlist. The
most prominentargumentis the Agent/Source argument,then the Goal, and then the
Theme.
(49) shoomei (Agent/Source(Goalj(Themek)))
Withthis hypothesisaboutargumentstructurerepresentationthe theory of Transfer
already given will explain the generalization.The restrictionon splittingfollows from
the fact that the transferof argumentsrespects the structureof the inputrepresentation:
the process can peel off outside layers but can never remove an inside layer without
also removingthe layers outside it. This is exactly the principlethat was motivatedby
consideringthe distributionof subjects in suru complexes.
As our example, we will use an argumentstructurecontainingan Agent/Source, a
Goal, and a Theme. The basic form is given in (50).
(50) (Agent/Source(Goalj(Themek)))
Transferyields a numberof possible outcomes when this argumentstructurecombines
with suru. Recall that suru cannotjust receive the Agent/Sourceargument,because it
is not an open position. Suru can receive the Agent/Source and the Goal, however,
giving the result in (51), where suru 0-marksan Agent/Sourceand a Goal, and the Noun
0-marksa Theme. As discussed above, after Transferthe Agent/Sourceposition in the
argumentstructurecarries an index since it is now part of a verbal argumentstructure
and therefore is not suppressed.
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
226
JANE
GRIMSHAW
(51)
AND
ARMIN
MESTER
5
NP-ga
[Source]
NP-ni
V
NP-o
[Goal]
shita
,.
N
S'
(Source (Goal))
[Theme] shoomei
(Theme)
The Transferinvolved here is legitimate,because it preserves the structureof the input.
(52) shoomei (Agent/Source(Goal (Theme)))
shoomei (Theme) + suru (Agent/Source(Goal))
For the ungrammaticalexamples (47b) and (48b), on the other hand, Transfercannot
derive appropriateargumentstructuressince it would have to remove an argumentlower
in the structure,withoutalso removingthe higherarguments.For (47b)the Themewould
have to be transferred,illegitimatelyleaving the more prominentGoal behind, as shown
in (53).
(53)
*
NP-ga
[Source]
S
S'
[Theme]
NP-o
NP-e-no
[Goal]
V
shita
(Source (Theme))
N
shoomei(Goal)
4
shoomei (Agent/Source(Goal (Theme)))
shoomei (Goal) + suru (Agent/Source(Theme))
In fact, then, the ungrammaticalityof (47b)is due to a violation of the 0-Criterion:there
is no suru complex that can 0-markboth the outside Theme and the inside Goal. In the
grammaticalcases of splitting, the Theme is 0-markedby the Noun, and the Goal by
suru.
In this way, the behavior of internalargumentsin the suru complex follows from
the theory of argumentstructurerepresentation.Provided that Transferrespects the
structureof argumentstructure,the range of possible positions for Themes and Goals
can be derived.
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT VERBS
AND 0-MARKING
227
4. An Alternative
In the proposal made here, the suru complex involves two 0-markers,not just one. A
key feature of the process involved is that, except when all argumentsare transferred,
the result is not a single 0-marker.Neither suru nor the Noun is alone responsible for
all 0-marking.Each has its own domain,as usual, but carriesan argumentstructurethat
is modified by its role in the suru complex. It is illuminatingto compare this solution
to an alternative in which there is only one 0-marker,and suru is responsible for 0markingall arguments,whether they are inside the NP or outside it.
In this solution complex predicateformationwould transferall argumentsfrom the
Noun to suru, leaving the Noun with no argumentsat all. An obvious disadvantageto
this account is that it would requirenonlocal 0-markinginto the NP. Assumingthat this
is allowed, how would the propertiesof the suru complex be explained?There are three
problems of interest: the outside positioningof the subject, the relative positioning of
internalarguments,and the requirementthat one argumentapartfrom the subject must
occur outside.
The explanationfor the outside positioningof the subject within this theory would
depend on the idea that a possessive-markedNP is incapableof satisfyingan argument
position of the complex predicate. Since Nouns do not have subject arguments, the
-no-markedphrasesthat seem to satisfy those argumentpositions must reallybe adjuncts
and not arguments;see Grimshaw(1986;to appear). However, the complex predicate
that is formed by combiningsuru and a Noun is verbal in character,since suru itself is
a Verb. Verbs do not have satisfied subjects;hence, the argumentstructureformed by
complex predicateformationwill have an unsuppressedsubject argument,which must
be syntactically satisfied by a phrase in the clause.
Now we can see what would explain the ungrammaticalityof (54a), for example:
John-no can never satisfy the Agent argumentof benkyoo-suru;it is not even an argument. Hence, the ungrammaticalityof inside subjects reduces to a violation of the 0Criterion. In (54b) the grammaticalcounterpartJohn-ga is 0-markedby the complex
predicate. It is an argumentratherthan an adjunct;hence, no violation results.
(54) a. *Nihongo-wa
[John-no BENKYOO]-o shiteiru.
Japanese-Top John-Genstudy-Acc
suru
b. Nihongo-wa John-ga BENKYOO-oshiteiru.
Japanese-TopJohn-Nomstudy-Acc suru
'John is studyingJapanese.'
The relative positioningof internalargumentsmight be derivablefrom the theory
of 0-marking,given two assumptions.First, the argumentstructurerepresentationmust
be as we are suggesting, with the Theme argumentlower than the Goal. Second, 0marking(ratherthan Transferas in the proposed theory) must respect the structureof
the argumentstructurein the followingsense. Argumentslower in the argumentstructure
must be 0-markedbefore argumentshigherin the argumentstructure.Providedthat 0-
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
228
JANE GRIMSHAW
AND ARMIN MESTER
markingproceeds in a bottom-upfashion, 0-markinginside NP will precede 0-marking
outside NP. As a result, the argumentthat is lower in argumentstructure(the Theme)
cannot be outside the NP, if the Goal is inside. Again, then, the restrictionmightreduce
to a violation of the 0-Criterion.The exact characterof 0-markingin this proposal is a
little suspect: it assumes that the NP could define a domain of 0-marking,despite the
fact that it is transparentand the 0-markeritself is outside it. The proposalalso assumes
that the Verb can assign a 0-role within the NP domain, despite the fact that the Verb
itself is outside that domain.The notion of "domain"for 0-markingis thus disconnected
from the relationshipof an argumentto a 0-marker,since argumentsof a single predicate
appear in differentdomains. Whetherthese points renderthe solution untenableis unclear to us.
Setting this question aside, so far the single 0-markertheory seems to be able to
matchour proposal.A problemarises, however, with the requirementthat one argument
must go outside, in additionto the subject. It is hardto see how this mightbe expressed,
let alone explained,if the surucomplex containsa single 0-marker.Once we have stated
that one nonsubjectargumentmustbe outside the NP, it is presumablypossible to derive
the position of the subject: since it is higher in the argument.structurerepresentation,
it must be 0-markedafter every other argument.Therefore, if any argumentis outside
the NP, the subject must be also. However, why should an argumenthave to occur
outside NP to begin with? In terms of this theory it means that one argumentmust be
0-markedoutside NP, but this makes no sense if argumentsinside and outside NP have
the same status. Moreover,why shouldthe subjectnot count as meetingthe requirement,
whatever it is? All the argumentsare argumentsof the Verb, so the subject shouldcount
in the same way as any other argument.
In sum, althoughthe single 0-markeraccount can match the dual 0-markeraccount
quite closely in a numberof respects, it does not seem to have the same overall scope.
It is importantto emphasizealso that the single 0-markeralternativepreserves many of
the essential features that we have been arguingfor here. For example, the Noun and
suru would have to be lexically inserted as a pair in this theory too; otherwise, suru
could inheritan argumentstructurefrom one Noun and be insertedwith another.Moreover, the explanations sketched above for argumentdistributionin the suru complex
depend entirelyon the idea that argumentstructureis hierarchicallyorganized,with the
organizationconstraining0-markingin the single 0-markeraccount and Transferin the
dual 0-markeraccount.
5. Conclusion
The suru complex is formed by a process of complex predicate formation, in which a
predicate acquires argumentsthat it does not normallylicense. Complex predicateformation applies to the argumentstructureswith variableresults, sometimes leaving the
Noun with no argumentsand sometimes leaving it as an impoverished0-assigner.With
this assumption,the exact rangeof possible outcomesfollows fromthe theory of complex
predicates and the lexical entries for suru and Nouns. Part of the explanation relies
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT VERBS
AND 0-MARKING
229
crucially on the hypothesis that the light Verb complex contains two predicates. This
opens up the possibility that other cases of complex predicate formation might also
involve dual 0-markers,ratherthan a single predicate. In causatives and other cases of
"clause union," where both predicatesare verbal, or in the Englishlight Verb construction where case markingis not available, it is not always easy to determine where
responsibilityfor 0-markinglies. The case-markingsystem of Japanesemakes it easy to
monitorthe distributionof argumentsin the light Verb complex.
Although the focus of this investigationhas been the phrasal suru complex, there
is a widely studied incorporationconstruction, illustratedin (2b) and repeated as (55),
in which suru and a Noun form a single compoundword.
shita.
(55) John-wa Bill-to AISEKI
Bill-with
John-Top
table-sharingsuru-Past
A glance at the literatureon Japaneseincorporationcited earlierwill reveal that incorporation exhibits many apparentidiosyncrasies-for example, Nouns that occur in the
incorporatedversion, but not in the phrasallight Verb complex. Nevertheless, the productive cases of incorporationcan be straightforwardly
understoodin the present terms.
They are formed by morphologicalcompounding,appliedto the case of complex predicate formationwhere the Noun yields all its 0-assigningcapacitiesto suru. The argument
structure of the output then is a verbalized version of the argumentstructureof the
Noun, just as it is in the correspondingphrasalsurucomplex. Whatis being incorporated
is the Noun that is lexically listed with the derived argumentstructureof suru. Note
that incorporationin Japanese differs from that found in some other languagefamilies
(Baker (1985), Rosen (1987)) in that it is not an argument,but part of the complex
predicate, that is incorporating.(In fact, there is some evidence (see Grimshaw,Ito, and
Mester (in preparation))that what is involved is really incorporationof a Verb, not a
Noun.) Of course, the interactionof incorporationandcomplexpredicateformationbears
on the correct treatmentof each: if incorporationis lexical (see di Sciullo and Williams
(1987), Rosen (1987)), then complex predicateformationitself must have the status of
a lexical process, if it is to feed incorporation.
The Verb suru illustratesone kind of light Verb: its argumentstructureis so highly
underspecifiedthat it is incapableof 0-assignmentof any kind. Other light Verbs, like
saseru, have a more fully specified argumentstructure:incomplete, but with some arguments specified. A particularcase of this seems to occur with the Englishlight Verbs
in expressions like put the blame on, give someone a kick, take a walk (Higgins(1974),
Jackendoff(1974), Oehrle (1975), Wierzbicka(1982), Cattell (1984)). These expressions
are almost synonymouswith their verbal counterparts:blame someone, kick someone,
and walk, suggestingthat the argumentstructureof blame, kick, and walk carries most
of the burden.Nevertheless, the influenceof the Verb itself is detectablein subtle meaning changes. For example, althougha spidercan walk, a spider does not normallytake
a walk. This difference presumablyreflects the influence of the argumentstructureof
take on the interpretationof the complex. Moreover, there are systematic relations
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
230
JANE GRIMSHAW
AND ARMIN MESTER
(discussed in the references cited) between the propertiesof the Verbs themselves and
those of the Nouns they combine with: give combines with predicatesthat take Goals,
for example. The Englishlight Verbs, then, resemblesaseru in havingpartiallyspecified
argumentstructures, not the completely empty one of suru. The English facts are extremely complex, in partbecause of the high degree of lexicalizationand in partbecause
of the difficultyof determiningthe exact phrasalpositionof the arguments.Nevertheless,
it is clear in outline how the theory might apply to them. The Verb provides the subcategorization/casestructurefor the clause level and has an incompleteargumentstructure, whereas the Noun has a complete one. Argumentsof the Noun transfer to the
Verb, as for suru. Where the Verb already has a correspondingargument,there are a
number of possibilities, the most likely being that the two argumentpositions simply
merge into one. Whether the general principles governing suru light Verb complexes
can be detected in the English counterpartsremainsa question for investigation,but in
outline, at least, this resembles proposals made for English (see Cattell (1984)).
Comparisonof suru and the English light Verbs raises another question. Some of
the English light Verbs are ditransitiveand assign case to two object NPs. Examples
include give someone a kick, make someone an offer. In these cases it is the second NP
that is transparent,not the first. So objects of transitive Verbs and second objects of
ditransitiveVerbs can be transparent.Why do subjects and first objects of ditransitives
not participate?Presumablythis is related to the degree of semantic cohesion between
the Verb and its arguments:it has often been noted that idioms seem to treat the Verb
and second object as a unit, leaving the first NP position free: give NP the slip, for
example. Moreover, idioms involving Verbs and their external argumentsare certainly
rare if not impossible. Eventually, then, the generalizationabout which NPs can be
transparentshould reduce to the theory of possible complex lexical entries.
Two hypotheses about argumentstructurerepresentationare crucially invoked in
this study. The first is the idea that Nouns do not have subject arguments, which is
central to the account of why the outside occurrenceof the subject is not sufficientfor
a well-formed complex. The second is the hypothesis that the list of argumentsin an
argumentstructureis hierarchicallystructured.This lies behind the inside/outsidedistributionof internalarguments,as well as the fact that the subject of the complex must
be outside NP. Whatthen determinesthe hierarchicalstructure?The proposaldeveloped
in Grimshaw(to appear) is that a thematic hierarchy(like that of Jackendoff (1972))
determinesthe organizationof argumentstructure.The centralpropertiesof light Verb
complexes with suru then follow from the theory of argumentstructureand complex
predicate formation.
References
Anderson, M. (1983-4) "PrenominalGenitive NPs," The LinguisticReview 3, 1-24.
Aronoff, M. (1976) WordFormationin GenerativeGrammar,MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LIGHT VERBS
AND 0-MARKING
231
Baker, M. (1985)Incorporation:A Theoryof GrammaticalFunction Changing,Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Bresnan, J. (1982) "Controland Complementation,"LinguisticInquiry13, 343-434.
Burzio, L. (1981) Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Cattell, R. (1984)CompositePredicates in English, AcademicPress Australia,North Ryde, New
South Wales.
Chomsky, N. (1981)Lectures on Governmentand Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky,N. (1982)Some Conceptsand Consequencesof the Theoryof Governmentand Binding,
MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Chomsky, N. (1986)Barriers,MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.
di Sciullo, A. M. and E. Williams (1987) On the Definition of Word, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Grimshaw,J. (1986) "Nouns, Argumentsand Adjuncts," ms., Linguisticsand CognitiveScience
Program,BrandeisUniversity, Waltham,Massachusetts.
Grimshaw,J. (to appear)ArgumentStructure,MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Grimshaw,J., J. Ito, andA. Mester(inpreparation)"Nouns, Verbs, andJapaneseIncorporation."
Hale, K. (1983) "Warlpiriand the Grammarof Non-configurationalLanguages," Natural Language and Linguistic Theory1, 5-47.
Harada, S. (1973) "Counter Equi NP Deletion," Annual Bulletin 7, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics,University of Tokyo.
Hasegawa, N. (1979)"A Comparisonof Two Approachesto a Class of JapaneseConstructions,"
ms., University of Washington,Seattle.
Higgins, F. R. (1974)ThePseudo-cleftConstructionin English, Doctoraldissertation,MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Inoue, K. (1976)HenkeiBunpoo to Nihongo [Transformational
Grammarand the JapaneseLanguage], Vol. 1, Taishukan,Tokyo.
Jackendoff,R. (1972) Semantic Interpretationin GenerativeGrammar,MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Jackendoff,R. (1974) "A Deep StructureProjectionRule," LinguisticInquiry5, 481-505.
Jespersen,0. (1954)A ModernEnglishGrammaron HistoricalPrinciples,GeorgeAllen & Unwin,
London, and EjnarMunksgaard,Copenhagen.
Kageyama, T. (1976-77) "Incorporationand Sino-JapaneseVerbs," Papers in Japanese Linguistics 5, 117-156.
Kageyama,T. (1982) "WordFormationin Japanese," Lingua 57, 215-258.
Kayne, R. S. (1981) "ECP Extensions," LinguisticInquiry12, 93-133.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965)GenerativeStudies in the Japanese Language, Doctoral dissertation,MIT,
Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1978) "Case-Marking,CanonicalSentence Patterns, and Counter-Equiin Japanese," in J. Hinds and I. Howard, eds., Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics,
Kaitakusha,Tokyo.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport(1986) "The Formationof AdjectivalPassives," LinguisticInquiry
17, 623-661.
Oehrle, R. T. (1975) The GrammaticalStatus of the English Dative Alternation, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Perlmutter,D. (1978) "ImpersonalPassives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis," in Proceedings
of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the BerkeleyLinguistics Society, UCLA, Los Angeles,
California.
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
232
JANE GRIMSHAW
AND ARMIN MESTER
Poser, W. (1980) Untitled manuscript,Departmentof Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Rappaport,M. (1983) "On the Nature of Derived Nominals," in L. Levin, M. Rappaport,and
A. Zaenen, eds., Papers in Lexical Functional Grammar, Indiana University Linguistics
Club, Bloomington.
Rosen, S. (1987) "Two Types of Noun Incorporation:A Lexical Analysis," ms., BrandeisUniversity, Waltham,Massachusetts.
Safir, K. (1987) "The Syntactic Projectionof Lexical Thematic Structure,"Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 5, 561-601.
Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications, Doctoral
dissertation,MIT, Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Shibatani,M. (1973)"Semanticsof JapaneseCausativization,"Foundationsof Language 9, 327373.
Stowell, T. (1981) Originsof Phrase Structure,Doctoral dissertation,MIT, Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Wierzbicka, A. (1982) "Why Can You Have a Drink When You Can't Have an Eat?" Language
58, 753-799.
Williams, E. (1981) "ArgumentStructureand Morphology,"TheLinguisticReview 1, 81-114.
Zubizarreta,M. L. (1985)"The RelationbetweenMorphophonologyand Morphosyntax:The Case
of RomanceCausatives,"LinguisticInquiry16, 247-289.
(Grimshaw)
Linguistics and Cognitive Science Program
Department of Psychology
Brandeis University
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254
(Mester)
Department of Linguistics
Calhoun Hall 501
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712
This content downloaded from 141.164.71.238 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:00:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions