2003. Words by default: the Persian Complex Predicate Construction. Elaine Francis and
Laura Michaelis (eds.) Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of
Grammar. CSLI Publications. 83-112.
Words by Default: the Persian Complex Predicate Construction1
Adele E. Goldberg
University of Illinois
1. Introduction
Persian (Farsi) has a large and open-ended set of complex predicates that consist of a
non-verbal element, the host, followed by a light verb. Complex predicates (CPs) are of
interest in the context of the present volume because they display a mismatch of lexical
and phrasal properties: they act in some ways as a single word, and in other ways like
more than one word. They form a central part of the grammar of Persian and many other
languages, including Hindi, Japanese and Hungarian.2
This paper offers an account in which the Persian CP is treated as a construction
represented in the lexicon3. Constructions are pairings of form and meaning that are
learned and stored as pieces of linguistic knowledge. The existence of a construction can
be established by demonstrating that some aspect of a usage pattern is not strictly
predictable from its component parts or from other facts about the language. Productive
lexical or phrasal patterns, semi-productive lexical or phrasal patterns, fixed idioms and
morphemes are all potential constructions as long as some aspect of their form or
function is not strictly predictable.
I use the somewhat cumbersome “not strictly predictable” circumlocution instead of
saying that the forms are “unpredictable” or “arbitrary.” This is because most forms that
are not strictly predictable are neither arbitrary nor totally unpredictable. As Bolinger
(1965) reminds us, “what is 95% old is not 100% new.” That is, a given construction
often shares a great deal with other constructions that exist in the language; only certain
aspects of its form or function are unaccounted for by other constructions.
It is clear that not strictly predictable knowledge must be learned and stored as such
since it is not predictable from other facts of language. Thus evidence that a word or
1
I would like to thank Elham Sadegholvad, Michael Azarnoosh, Maryam Hafezi, Kathy Soltani and Ali,
Parivash and Faizallah Yazdani for their insightful consultant work. I am also grateful to Dick Hudson and
Orhan Orgun for reviewing this paper and offering extremely valuable feedback, and to Cedric Boeckx and
Farrell Ackerman for helpful comments on an earlier draft. I am sure I will regret any advice I failed to
heed; any remaining errors are solely my own.
2
In Persian, there are thousands of conventional complex predicates as compared with roughly a hundred
simple verbs (Karimi-Doostan 1997). New and borrowed verbs also appear as complex predicates, e.g., the
English borrowing try kardan, “to try.”
3
For reasons that will become clear below, Persian CPs are actually treated as a class of systematically
related constructions. The fact that many CPs are idiomatic requires that they be listed as stored instances
of the general pattern.
pattern is not strictly predictable provides sufficient evidence that the form must be listed
as a construction in this expanded version of the lexicon, or what is sometimes called the
‘constructicon.’ At the same time, unpredictability is not a necessary condition for
positing a stored construction. There is evidence from psycholinguistic processing that
patterns are also stored if they are sufficiently frequent, even when they are fully regular
instances of other constructions and thus predictable (e.g., Losiewicz 1992; Bybee 1995).
We assume patterns are stored as constructions even when they are fully compositional
under these circumstances. The inclusion of these more frequent items brings the present
approach in line with usage-based models of grammar (Langacker 1988; Barlow and
Kemmer 2000; Bybee 1995; Goldberg 1999). On this view, item-specific knowledge
exists alongside generalizations.
Thus, morphological stems and productive lexical and phrasal constructions are all
treated as the same basic type of entity. This idea is the cornerstone of theories such as
Construction Grammar, Cognitive Grammar and HPSG, in which grammar consists of
CONSTRUCTIONS which are not strictly predictable form-meaning patterns that are
morphological or phrasal (e.g., Fillmore, Kay, & O'Connor 1988; Pullum & Zwicky
1991; Fillmore & Kay 1993; Goldberg 1992, 1995; Jurafsky 1992, Lakoff 1987,
Michaelis and Lambrecht 1996; Langacker 1987, 1991; Croft 2002; Pollard & Sag 1987).
The fact that the repository of stored entities (the “lexicon”) does not coincide with a list
of words in a language is a point that has been made by many others as well (e.g.,
DiSciullo and Williams 1996; Williams 1994; Marantz 1997; Culicover 1999; Jackendoff
1996; 2002).
At the same time, traditional behavioral differences between zero level categories and
phrasal categories are recognized on the present account. For example, zero level
categories can appear in derivational constructions and cannot be separated syntactically. 4
This fact is important to keep in mind: both zero level words and phrasal patterns are
stored together, but the classic distinctions still retain their force.
Below it is argued that the categorial status of the CP is a simple verb (V0) by default. Its
expression as a verb or as a phrasal entity is determined by independently motivated
constructions. Default V0 status accounts for the CP’s zero level properties, including its
resistance to separation and its appearance in derivational constructions. V0 status is a
default in the sense that it can be overridden if and only if there is another construction in
the grammar that specifically overrides it. This proposal is implemented via a default
inheritance hierarchy.
Hudson (1984; 1990; this volume) motivates the role that default inheritance hierarchies
can serve in simultaneously capturing broad-generalizations, partial generalizations, and
exceptions (see also Flickinger 1987 and references therein). Broad generalizations exist
in the highest levels of the inheritance hierarchy; partial generalizations are captured by
lower level representations, and exceptions are specified with their own peculiar
properties below one or more of the generalizations. Default inheritance ensures that all
To phrase this more traditionally, zero level categories can serve as “input” to derivational processes and
are opaque to syntax.
4
2
non-conflicting information is shared between mother and daughter nodes. Conflicting
(exceptional) information in the daughter node overrides the inheritance; it is in this sense
that the inheritance is default.
As noted by Hudson and others, non-linguistic domain knowledge operates on the basis
of a default logic. To take an example, consider our understanding of plane-boarding
procedures. Almost all airlines have assigned seats and paper boarding passes with the
seat assignment on them. When boarding, passengers are boarded from the back of the
plane first. This is a broad generalization, and it determines what we know and how we
expect to board most familiar or new carriers. Southwest Airlines, on the other hand, does
not offer assigned seating, but instead distributes colored plastic boarding passes with
ascending numbers, handed out in the order in which passengers check in. Passengers are
boarded in groups of thirty and may take any available seat once inside the plane. The
more specific knowledge we have about Southwest airlines’ boarding practices overrides
the more general knowledge, and determines our expectations about boarding that
particular airline.
As is the case with linguistic knowledge, exceptions are, to varying degrees, regular as
well. The Southwest Airlines boarding procedures share with other airlines many things:
all involve some type of boarding pass, all allow pre-boarding of families with young
children, and all board passengers in groups. By allowing whatever information is nonconflicting to be inherited, regular aspects of exceptional elements are captured.
On the usage-based approach adopted here, more specific knowledge always preempts
general knowledge in production, as long as either would satisfy the functional demands
of the context equally well. In particular we assume that items lower in the inheritance
hierarchy (i.e., the more specific) are preferentially produced over items above them in
the hierarchy, when the items share the same semantic and pragmatic constraints. Note
that this idea does not predict that speakers must always opt for a word that is maximally
specific, universally selecting beagle over dog, for example. This is because beagle and
dog are not semantically equivalent: there are contexts where the more general term is
more felicitous either because it is more accurate or because the specific information is
not relevant (see Murphy and Brownell 1985 on a relevant Gricean explanation for why
basic level terms are often preferred over subordinate or superordinate terms). That more
specific information should override more general information when the two are
functionally equivalent is not a necessary consequence of adopting an inheritance
hierarchy, but is one with much precedent (cf. the Elsewhere Condition of Kiparsky
1968, who attributes the generalization to Panini).
A hierarchical network of constructions clearly enables the theory to be in principle fully
descriptively adequate. Generalizations are captured by higher level constructions in the
hierarchy. Moreover, any sort of language-particular idiosyncratic factoid about a
language can be captured by a specific enough construction.
3
What imbues a constructional approach with explanatory adequacy is a further
desideratum that each construction must be motivated.5 Motivation aims to explain why it
is at least possible and at best natural that this particular form-meaning correspondence
should exist in a given language.6 Motivation can be provided by factors outside of the
language-particular grammar, for example, by appeal to constraints on acquisition,
principles of grammaticalization, discourse demands, iconic principles or general
principles of processing or categorization. Alternatively, motivation may come from
within the grammar. For example, the motivation for one construction having the form it
does may come from the inheritance hierarchy itself, insofar as the form is inherited by a
construction higher in the hierarchy. Motivation is distinct from prediction: recognizing
the motivation for a construction does not entail that the construction must exist in that
language or in any language. It simply explains why the construction “makes sense” or is
natural (cf. Haiman 1985; Lakoff 1987; Goldberg 1995).
To return to the airline example, the general boarding procedures are motivated by the
need to get passengers on board in an orderly fashion while respecting passengers’ desire
to sit in particular seats. The boarding practices of Southwest airlines are also motivated;
Southwest is a low-budget airline specializing in short flights. Priority is given to
boarding passengers as quickly as possible. Less priority goes to ensuring that each
passenger receives his preferred seat. At the same time that both boarding practices are
motivated, neither boarding practise had to be exactly the way it is. The facts are not
strictly predictable. Many other regional airlines operate like national carriers and not like
Southwest. And it is conceivable that the national carriers could have all operated like
Southwest instead of issuing seat assignments. Still, the existing facts are clearly
motivated by their function; understanding the function “makes sense” of the procedures,
or explains why they are natural.
The constructions posited to account for the Persian data are each motivated
independently, and are claimed to be typologically natural; however, identical
constructions clearly do not exist in every language: it is not claimed that they are
universal or that they are innate. Instead it is assumed that they are learned from the
positive input learners receive.7
In the present paper, an account of Persian complex predicates involving a default
inheritance hierarchy is proposed, and compared with alternative accounts, including
Goldberg (1996), which had proposed a ranked constraint analysis of a subset of the data
discussed here, using the formalism of OT; it is argued that the DI analysis is preferable
on empirical and theoretical grounds.
5
One systematic exception is that the particular phonological forms that a language chooses to convey
particular concepts need not be motivated but generally are truly arbitrary (Saussure 1916).
6
An account that fully motivates a given construction is ultimately responsible for demonstrating how the
construction came to exist and how it can be learned by new generations of speakers. We do not aim to
tackle this more stringent goal in the present paper.
7
See Goldberg (1998) and Goldberg, Sethuraman and Casenhiser (to appear) for an analysis of how
semantic aspects of constructions may emerge from the input via a general process of categorization.
4
2. Identifying CPs in Persian
Complex predicate is used here to refer to host+light verb combinations in which the host
appears in bare form, without plural or definite marking. In finite sentences with simple
verbs, primary stress is placed on the main verb. But in finite sentences with CPs,
primary stress falls on the host instead.
(1)
Ali mard-râ ZAD(simple verb)
Ali man-acc hit.1.sg
Ali hit the man.
(2)
Ali bâ Babak HARF zad (complex predicate)
Ali with Babak word hit
Ali talked with Babak.
Thus the stress facts treat the CP as a single zero level verb (see Lambrecht & Michaelis
1998 for discussion of principles of sentence accent placement). Additional evidence
argues that the CPs act as simple lexical items: they may differ from their simple verb
counterparts in argument structure properties, they undergo derivational processes that
are typically restricted to applying to zero level categories, and they resist separation, for
example, by adverbs and by arguments.
The present discussion focuses on combinations that have been classified as “inseparable
complex predicates” in that the host cannot appear with a determiner (Karimi-Doostan
1997).8 These so-called inseparable complex predicates are in fact separable under
certain conditions. The ability to separate the pieces, although limited, would seem to
argue against an analysis that treats the CP simply as a zero level verb. The present
account offers an explicit account of the range of lexical and phrasal properties of these
CPs, simultaneously capturing both its lexical and phrasal properties.
3. Additional Zero Level Properties
3.1 Changes in Argument structure
The complex predicate often differs in its argument taking properties from the
corresponding simple verb. For example, in simple sentences, gereftan, “to take,” may
occur with an explicit source argument:
(3)
ketâb râ
az
man gereft
book ACC from me
took
S/He took the book from me.
When used as a light verb in the CP arusi gereftan, “to throw a wedding,” the
benefactive barâye phrase appears:
8
In other instances, what might otherwise be considered a host can appear with a determiner; the full NP
(or DP) can be modified, relativized, gapped, and coordinated (Karimi-Doostan 1997).
5
(4)
a. barâye u arusi gereftam
for
her/him wedding took
I threw a wedding for her/him.
In this case, the CP as a whole does not allow a source argument:
(5)
b. * az u
arusi gereftam
from her/him wedding took
3.2. The existence of transitive CPs
On a phrasal account of Persian CPs, nominal hosts would presumably be treated a direct
object argument of the verb, since it often has the semantics of a direct object and it does
not occur with a preposition. However, several of the Persian CPs are transitive, taking
a(nother) direct object as the examples in (6) and (7) illustrate:
(6)
Ali-râ setâyeS
Ali-acc adoration
I adored Ali.
kardam
did.1.sg
(7)
Ali Babak-râ nejât dâd
Ali Babak-acc rescue gave.3sg
Therefore, the light verbs involved would have to be analyzed as double object verbs.
But there are no verbs in Persian other than CPs that take two objects. Therefore the
double object analysis would be an ad hoc way of accounting for transitive CPs.
3.3 Nominalizations
Another piece of evidence for lexical status is the ability to form nominalizations, since
nominalization is a process that applies to zero level items. Persian CPs can form
nominalizations by attaching the present stem of the light verb to the host:
(8)
V: bâzi kardan Lit., “game + do” (“play”)
N: bâzikon “player” (as in soccer player)
(9)
V: negah dâStan: Lit. “HOST + have” (to keep)
N: negahdâri: maintanance
(10)
V: ruznâme neveStan “newspaper + write” (“to write newspapers”)
N: ruznâmenevis “journalist”
Complex predicates can also serve as input to gerundive nominalizations and adjectival
past participles, both of which apply to simple verbs in an identical manner (KarimiDoostan 1997: 61). One might wonder whether these constructions really form
compounds since compounds are known to take as input two independent words, not a
single zero level category. Compound formation is readily identifiable in Persian
6
because compounds are formed by inserting an ezafe morpheme (/e/) between the two
zero level items; the ezafe is not found between the two elements of the CP in these
lexicalization patterns, however, demonstrating that the CP is indeed treated as a single
zero level item.
A final piece of evidence arguing that the complex predicate must be considered a zero
level entity comes from the fact that the host and the light verb resist certain types of
separation.
3.4 Host and Light Verb Resist Separation
Separation by Adverbs
In sentences without CPs, adverbs can freely appear directly before the verb:
(11)
maSq-am-râ
tond neveStam
homework-1.sg-def.ACC quickly wrote.1.sg
I did my homework quickly.
However in the case of CPs, the adverb does not separate host from light verb (12).
Instead, the adverb precedes the entire CP (13):
(12)
??rânandegi tond kardam
driving-N quickly did.1sg
Intended, “I drove quickly.”
(13)
tond rânandegi
kardam
quickly driving-N did.1.sg
I drove quickly.
Separation by DO
Further undermining a phrasal account of the CP is the fact that the host and light verb
resist separation by the DO in the case of transitive CPs, even though DOs normally
appear before the verb:
(14)
?? setâyeS Ali-râ kardam
adoration Ali-acc did.1.sg
Intended, “I adored Ali.”
Instead, the DO appears before the entire CP as in (15) above, repeated below:
(15)
Ali-râ setâyeS
Ali-acc adoration
I adored Ali.
kardam
did.1.sg
5. The complex predicate construction
7
The evidence presented so far indicates that Persian CPs have many properties that
standardly identify zero level items. On the basis of these properties, we posit a
construction that treats the CP as a V0, labeling it the CPvo construction:
Cat: V0
Χ0
<
V0
Figure 1. The CPvo construction
The box notation is used to simultaneously represent the internal constituents and
external status of the construction. The external syntax of the complex predicate is that of
a V0 category; the internal syntax includes two zero level categories, a host (represented
by the variable X0) and a V0. The host may be a noun, an adjective or a preposition. The
host immediately precedes the V0 (indicated by the ‘<’)9. The “/” over X0 is intended to
indicate that the host receives the primary stress.
We will see below that certain more specific constructions serve to override the
construction’s external V0 status, and it is in this way that the V0 status of the CP is a
default. But before turning to these overrides, it is worth addressing the motivation for
the CPvo construction.
Ackerman and LeSourd (1997) observe that once independent syntactic forms begin to be
associated with properties of complex predicates such as joint meaning or composite
argument structure, they take on the status of stored phrasal forms. This, however, can be
viewed as a marked option since over time, such complex predicates tend to coalesce into
syntactically and phonologically atomic lexical items through a process of
grammaticalization (see also Mithun 1984, Gerdts and Hinkson 1996 for discussion of
this diachronic tendency in the phenomenon of noun incorporation). The construction
captures the stage in the synchronic grammar in which the unmarked expression of a
complex predicate is as a V0.
The diachronic facts themselves are motivated. The preference for treating the CP as a
single syntactically integrated predicate is motivated by its status as a semantically
integrated predicate. This can be seen to be a special case of a general iconic principle:
namely, a tight semantic bond between items tends to be represented by a
correspondingly tight syntactic bond (Givón 1980; 1991; Haiman 1983; Bybee 1985).
Notice that on this view, the most “natural” situation is one in which semantic scope and
syntactic structure are aligned (cf. the “mirror principle” of Baker 198810).
9
This notation appears also in Hudson (this volume).
Baker’s Mirror Principle is stated as a relation between morphology and syntax, not morphology and
semantics. However, since syntax on Baker’s view is assumed to be isomorphic to semantics, the principle
can be construed as capturing a relation between morphology and semantics.
10
8
At the same time, it is recognized that semantic scope and syntactic scope do not
necessarily align (see also Ackerman, this volume). Constructions, given that they
specify form and meaning and the relation between the two, readily allow for such
mismatches. Below we will see that the complex predicate does not always appear as a
V0, but may appear as a phrasal entity when it co-occurs with certain other elements. One
implication of this proposal is that words and phrasal constructions are treated as the
same basic type of entity. Not only can both types of patterns be stored, but moreover,
one and the same stored construction can appear either as a single morphological word or
as a phrasal entity. This possibility can be accomodated within theories such as
Construction Grammar, Cognitive Grammar or HPSG, in which grammar consists of
constructions which are not-strictly predictable form – meaning patterns that are
morphological or phrasal (e.g., Fillmore, Kay, & O'Connor 1988; Pullum & Zwicky
1991; Fillmore & Kay 1993; Goldberg 1992, 1995; Jurafsky 1992, Lakoff 1987,
Langacker 1987, 1991; Pollard & Sag 1987).
The idea that there are generalizations in languages that are sometimes violated due to
competing motivations has been a long held tenet of various functional approaches (cf.
Haiman 1985, Bates & MacWhinney 1987, Langacker 1990, and Lakoff 1987), and has
recently gained in currency via Optimality Theoretic approaches to grammar (Prince &
Smolensky 1993; Legendre et al. 1993; Grimshaw 1995; Bresnan 2001). We will see that
the default inheritance hierarchy allows us to capture these violable generalizations in a
natural way.
Let us turn now to certain situations in which the host and light verb do not appear as a
V0, but rather as two pieces of a phrasal structure. The complex predicate can be
separated by a number of elements, including the future auxiliary, imperfective and
negative prefixes, and direct object clitics.
6. Syntactic Properties
6.1. CPs are separated by the future auxiliary
The standard word order in Persian is SOV, with different auxiliaries appearing in
different fixed positions before or after the main verb. When the future auxiliary, xâstan,
is used with simple verbs, it appears immediately before the main verb, which appears in
its simple past form as in (16):
(16)
Ali mard-râ
xâhad
Ali man-acc future-3.sg
Ali will hit the man.
ZAD
hit
(simple verb)
This is captured by Figure 2:
future
xâstan-agr < V0past
9
Figure 2: the Future Auxiliary Construction
The future marker is semantically a verbal operator in that it predicates tense of the event
described by the verb. Thus, the word order generalization that the future auxiliary and
V0 appear immediately adjacent in the string is motivated by the same iconic
consideration mentioned earlier: elements that are closely related semantically tend to
appear close together in the syntactic string.
When a CP is involved, xâstan must appear between the host and light verb as in the
following example:
(17)
(man) telefon
I
telephone
“I will telephone.”
xâham
FUT-1.sg
kard
did
(CP)
Positioning the future auxiliary before the entire CP is not permitted:
(18)
* (man) xâham
I
FUT-1.sg
telefon
telephone
kard
did
(CP)
Given the hypothesis that the CP is a V0 (by default), it is not predictable that the future
auxiliary must intervene between the host and light verb. Notice that the auxiliary cannot
naturally be treated as an infix within a lexical unit because of its person and number
inflection. Inflectional morphology occurs outside derivational morphology in the vast
majority of cases. Thus the requirement that xâstam must intervene within the CP is a
not-strictly-predictable morphologically-specific fact. It is therefore necessary to posit a
future-CP construction that specifies a particular word order. The future-CP construction
is located lower on the hierarchy than the general future construction, and the general CP
construction insuring that the specifications of the future-CP construction override the
specifications of the more general constructions. Figure 3 represents the proposal:
CPV0
Future
Cat V’
xâstan-agr
Cat V0
<
V0 past
Χ0
< V0
V0
Future-CP
X0 < xâstan <V0 past
10
Figure 3: the Future-CP construction + CPv0 Construction
The links in Figure 3 (and in the diagrams below) are simple instance or “ISA” links (see
discussion in Hudson, this volume). Constructions at the base of the arrow are the
dominating or mother constructions, constructions at the tip of the arrow are the
dominated or daughter constructions that inherit from their mother nodes.
Motivation for the marked word order of the future-CP construction can be found in the
diachronic history of the CP. Notice that the future auxiliary is a closed class or
grammatical element. It is generally recognized that the ordering of grammatical
elements is often motivated by a diachronically earlier stage of the language (Givón1971;
Bybee 1985). In particular, this type of complex predicate is generally recognized to arise
diachronically from complement + verb expressions cross linguistically (Mithun 1984).11
At the time when the elements that today are complex predicates were analyzed as
complement and verb, it was completely natural that the verbal tense operator should
appear between the complement and the verb. This reflects the general ordering of
complements in Persian: S O Fut V.12 The construction, used only in written Persian and
more formal spoken contexts, simply retains the word order from this earlier stage of the
language.
6. 2 Imperfective prefix and negation
The imperfective and negative prefixes, mi- and na- respectively, are attached directly to
the light verb, thus intervening between host and light verb. They may not appear as
prefixes on the host element. Since the host and light verb form a V0 category by
hypothesis, these facts are on the face of it, unexpected. However it is possible to explain
the data by recognizing an important implication of a usage-based default inheritance
hierarchy. Each of the light verbs involved in Persian CPs appears as a highly frequent
main verb as well. Unremarkably, in their main verb uses, mi- and na- appear as
prefixes. As noted earlier, we know from psycholinguistic research that highly frequency
forms are stored even when they are fully regular (Losiewicz 1992; Bybee 1995). It is
therefore natural to expect that the full forms, e.g., mi-kardan, na-kardan, etc. are stored
in the lexicon, due to their high frequency. A representation of what is stored regarding
the imperfective mi- prefix for a few verbs is provided in figure 4. 13
11
A similar verbal auxiliary intervenes between host and verb in the preverb + verb construction in
Hungarian (Farrell Ackerman, personal communication), and also in Walpiri (Nash 1980).
12
While the placement of the auxiliary between complement and verb is somewhat unusual crosslinguistically, Hans Henrich Hock (personal communication) observes that it is also attested in Vedic
Sanskrit. Hock speculates that it may have arisen from a tendency to extrapose verbal complements when
the auxilaries involved were main verbs. For present purposes, what is important is that the position of the
auxiliary between the main verb and DO complement can be used to motivate the position of the auxiliary
between the light verb and host in the CP construction.
13
Figure 4 assumes that the stored forms abstract over particulars of agreement morphology. This
assumption is not critical to the present account; it may be that more specific forms such as mikardam(imp-DO-1st), mi-kardi(imp-DO-2nd), mi-kard (imp-DO-3rd), etc. are stored.
11
12
Imperfective-V0
mi-V0
mi-neviStan
mi-zadan
mi-kardan
mi-xâxan
mi-daStan
Figure 4: A subset of stored usage-based knowledge regarding the
imperfective mi- prefix
13
Since in a usage-based hierarchy, more specific stored forms preempt or block the
creation of forms based on a more general pattern, the existence of forms mi-kardan, and
na-kardan block the possibility of adding the prefixes directly to the zero level CP as a
whole, given the simple assumption that the light verb involved in a CP is recognized as
the same verb as its corresponding main verb (represented by the double arrow: each verb
instance stands in an ISA relation with the other instance of the same verb). For
experimental evidence that speakers do identify the two uses of the morphological verb
form see Karimi-Doostan (1997: 91).
CP “turn on”
roSan
kardan
“light”
“to do”
kardan “to do”
Imperfective V0
mi-V0
mi-neviStan
mi-zadan
mi-kardan
mi-xâxan
mi-dâStan
Figure 5
14
At the same time, any newly coined simple verbs would be expected to readily accept the
mi and/or na prefixes since nothing would block their being generated by the higher level
generalization. New verbs that are not CPs are exceedingly rare, but this prediction
corresponds to native speaker intuition about novel forms. The usage-based model thus
accounts for the facts in a very straightforward way. If there were a CP that involved a
verb stem that did not have an independent use as a main verb, we would expect that the
prefixes would attach to the host of the uninterrupted CP, which by hypothesis is a V0.
This prediction cannot be readily tested, however, since each light verb appearing in a CP
also appears as a main verb.
6.4 CPs can be separated by DO clitics
In the case of simple verbs, direct object clitics appear directly after the verb,
as in (19):
(19)
didam
-aS
see.past.1.sg 3.sg.CL
I saw it.
In the case of CPs, the DO clitic normally appears directly after the host,
thus separating host from the light verb as in (20):
(20)
roSan -aS
kard
light -3.sg.CL did
S/He turned it on.
Pronominal elements may not appear in the middle of single zero level categories.
That is, the clitic cannot occur between syllables in a multisyllabic single word, even
after a stressed morpheme boundary. Therefore, the possibility of inserting the
pronominal clitic within the CP provides a strong piece of evidence that the host and light
verb should be analyzed as two separate words in (20). This implies that there is another
construction in conflict with the CPvo construction. What is required is a construction
that positions the clitic in second position within the predicate, after a stressed zero level
category. This construction can be posited directly under the general simple verb + clitic
construction as in Figure 6.
Simple verb + clitic
V’ predicate
/
V0-CL
CP+clitic
V’ predicate
/
X0-CL < V0
15
Figure 6: Clitic position constructions
Figure 6 predicts that the CP + clitic construction, which specifies that the clitic should
intervene between host and light verb, will preempt the more general simple verb + clitic
construction. That is, Figure 6 predicts that while (21) is possible, (22) is unacceptable.
(21)
masxareh -aS kardand
joke -3.sg.CL did.3.pl
They made fun of him.
(22)
masxareh kardand -aS
joke
did.3.pl -3.sg.CL
They made fun of him.
For many speakers, this is accurate, and the representation in Figure 6 is confirmed. At
the same time, other speakers allow the clitic to follow the light verb in the case of CPs as
another option in addition to allowing the clitic to intervene between host and light verb.
For these speakers, a slightly different hierarchy, represented in Figure 7, is warranted.
CL2: Generalization over clitic constructions
V’ predicate
Y0-CL
Simple verb + clitic
CP+clitic
V’ predicate
V’ predicate
V0-CL
X0-CL < V0
Figure 7: Different version of Clitic constructions reflecting dialect variation
Since neither the simple verb + clitic construction nor the CP + clitic construction is more
specific than the other (dominated by the other) in Figure 7, neither construction
preempts the other. That is, Figure 7 treats the CP + clitic and the simple verb + clitic
construction as sisters, both dominated by a more general, neutral construction. Thus the
representation in Figure 7 predicts that the clitic may appear either after the host or after
the entire CP. In the latter case, the fact that the CP is a V0 by default comes into play.
As a V0, it meets the requirements for the simple verb + clitic construction, allowing the
clitic to appear after the CP. It may seem to be a vice and not a virtue that either the
16
representation in Figure 6 or that in Figure 7 is possible; however, the empirical data are
ambiguous so any theory that only predicted one possibility or only the other would be
bound to fail.
What enables both analyses in this particular instance is the fact that, considered theoryneutrally, it is not clear whether or not the CP + clitic construction should actually be
considered more specific than the simple verb + clitic construction. The two
constructions simply differ in their input specifications. CPs are arguably more specific
than simple verbs, but they far outnumber simple verbs and appear more frequently than
simple verbs. The empirical ambiguity may have actually led to an underdetermination
of the hierarchy, leading some speakers to form the representation in Figure 6 and others
to form the representation in Figure 7.
The simple verb + clitic construction, the CP + clitic construction and the more general
CL2 construction are all motivated the same way: from the stress facts outlined in section
1. Clitics, as dependent elements, only attach to stressed elements in the clause. Thus the
specification in all instances that the Persian clitic must attach to a zero level category
that receives stress is natural: in the case of simple verbs, stress falls on the V0; in the
case of CPs, stress falls on the host.14
Both the representations in Figure 6 and Figure 7 make a prediction that the clitic must
appear directly after the host element when the future tense is involved. This is because
when the future tense intervenes between host and light verb, the CP is not a V0 but a V’,
and therefore cannot serve as input to the simple verb + clitic construction. Since the
host remains stressed in the future tense, the clitic must attach to the host. This prediction
is borne out by the facts: speakers only accept the clitic on the host as in (23) and reject
outright examples like (24) in which the clitic appears after the light verb, when future
tense separates host and light verb:
(23)
masxareh -aS
xaxand
joke
-clitic future-pl
They will make fun of him.
kard
do
(24)
*masxareh xaxand
kard-aS
joke
future-pl
do-clitic
Intended, They will make fun of him.
To summarize, I have claimed that although the CP is necessarily listed in the lexicon, it
is not necessarily a zero level item. The general CP construction has the external syntax
14
The clitic constructions are also all motivated to some extent by Wackernagel's Law, that specifies that
clitics should appear in second position in the sentence. Wackernagel’s law holds of Walpiri, SerboCroation, Luiseño, Greek, and Sanskrit (Anderson 1994; Bubenik 1994; Halpern 1995). The motivation
lent by Wackernagel’s Law is less strong because in the case of Persian, the clitic appears in second
position within the smaller domain of the predicate, not the sentence. Also, Wackernagel’s Law itself cries
out for some kind of motivation.
17
of a V0; but the grammar also has more specific constructions that serve to override the
specifications of the general construction.
The CPvo construction serves to account for a wide range of properties strongly
associated with zero level status, including the formation of nominalizations, the
resistance to separation, the stress facts and possible non-compositional argument
structure. The fact that the future auxiliary intervenes between host and light verb
required a constructional analysis, since it is not strictly predictable; it was independently
motivated however by general word order facts of Persian and the diachronic history of
the CP as a verb + complement. The possibility of the clitic intervening between host
and light verb required another construction; this construction was strongly motivated by
stress facts. It was demonstrated that the appearance of the imperfective and negative
prefixes required no special constructions that made any reference to CPs. A diagram of
all the relevant constructions, whether CP-specific or not, and their interactions is given
in Figure 8.
A. Future-general
V’
C. Clitic-general
B.CPv0
V’
V0
xâxam <
Χ0
V0
V0
Y0-CL
E. CP + clitic
D. Future-CP
V’
V’
Χ0 <
<
xâxam
< V0
X0-CL < V0
Figure 8: A summary of the constructions critical for accounting for Persian CPs and
their zero-level and phrasal properties
It is important to keep in mind that each of the three mother constructions (A, B and C in
Figure 8) has been independently motivated. The two daughter constructions (D and E in
Figure 8) are motivated by the constructions they inherit from; exceptional aspects of the
daughter nodes’ specifications were also independently motivated. That this full range of
facts can be accounted for by the 5 interrelated, interconnected, motivated constructions,
situated in a default inheritance hierarchy, which is itself needed on non-linguistic
grounds, presents an advance over other current approaches to the phenomenon.
7. Alternative Accounts
7.1 Ranked Constraints
18
Goldberg (1996) suggests analyzing the Persian data as involving a set of typologically
natural ranked constraints and adopts the formalism of Optimality Theory for her
exposition (Smolensky and Prince 1993). In many ways the present and earlier accounts
are consistent. Both share the idea that the Persian CP is a V0 by default and that V0
status is overridden only if there is an independently motivated constraint or construction.
The present account is preferable however on theoretical and empirical grounds. The
default hierarchy is independently useful for capturing much general, learned knowledge
in a simple and intuitive way. As argued elsewhere, it is likewise useful for capturing
many other sorts of linguistic generalizations (Hudson, 1990 this volume; Lakoff 1987;
Goldberg 1995).
Moreover, a careful look at the data reveals that the generalizations, although motivated,
are in fact construction-specific. For example, only the future auxiliary and not any other
auxiliary in Persian must intervene between the host and light verb. It is possible to
motivate this fact, but it remains a morphologically-specific fact. Standard OT, on the
other hand, claims that each constraint is universal, existing in each language. Given the
construction-specific nature of the data, positing a constraint with any implication of
universality is unwarranted.
A further theoretical advantage to using a default inheritance hierarchy is that it is
partially ordered: not every construction is ordered with respect to every other
construction. Only constructions that are plausibly related or interact appear as
immediate sisters, daughters or mothers of other constructions. By contrast, the
constraints in OT are assumed to be fully ordered15. Thus the future-CP facts would have
to be ordered either higher or lower than, for example, the constraints required to insure
appropriate relative clause formation, even though the constraints involved are unrelated
and never come in conflict with each other.
The OT representation in Goldberg (1996) required 3 constraints and additionally
required the 3 constraints to be rank ordered; the rank ordering was posited to capture
what happens when conflicts between the 3 constraints arise. Figure 8 likewise involves
3 mother constructions; also parallel is the fact that the two daughter constructions exist
in order to specify how conflicts between the 3 mother constructions are resolved in the
grammar. Thus positing daughter nodes with conflicts resolved is equivalent to
stipulating a rank ordering of constraints. The only additional empirical prediction that
was made in Goldberg (1996) involved where clitics may appear when the predicate
appeared with the future tense morpheme. The same correct prediction is made by the DI
hierarchy, as discussed in section 6.4. To this extent, the two accounts capture the
empirical facts isomorphically.
15
In actual practice, many OT accounts rely on two constraints that share the same spot in the linear
hierarchy to account for free variation (as in, e.g., Goldberg 1996). But while inheritance hierarchies
generally assume a network of constructions not a linear ordering of constructions, OT analyses assume a
strict linear ordering, modulo possible cases of two constraints ranked at the same spot.
19
The present account goes beyond Goldberg (1996) in empirical coverage. Goldberg
(1996) failed to account for the imperfective and negative facts. It was recognized that
additional morphologically specific constraints would be needed and would need to be
rank ordered with respect to the other constraints. Intuitively, it was clear that the
empirical facts seemed too obvious to warrant such stipulation. In fact, the present
account allows us to explain those facts without any grammatical stipulation. A usage
based model of inheritance serves to capture the fact, for example, that the specific stored
element mi-kard preempts the spontaneous creation of, for example, *mi-roSan kard.
Complex predicates have been the focus of a great deal of attention lately. Theories
which draw a strict division between zero level categories and phrasal entities do not
allow for the possibility that one and the same stored entity could appear as either a word
or a phrase depending on what other constructions it interacts with. Instead, researchers
have attempted to retain the strict division between words and phrases in various ways.
Below are several additional alternative proposals.
7. 2 A Scrambling Analysis
Massam & Ghomeshi (1994) note the fact that direct object clitics and auxiliaries can
intervene between host and light verb in Persian CPs as we have already seen, and they
therefore conclude that the CPs cannot be zero level items. However, their analysis
seems to actually propose a morphological and not a phrasal account of Persian CPs.
Specifically, they propose that CPs are formed by adjoining an X0 to V0 under a V0
node (as a base generated structure). That is:
(25) V' --> V0 --> X0 V0
Since positing the mother V0 node implies that CPs are words, 16 the various zero-level
properties of Persian CPs can in fact be accounted for straightforwardly on their analysis.
In fact, we argue here that the idea that the CP can be treated as a V0 is essentially right.
It is the phrasal properties that are not sufficiently accounted for. Ghomeshi and Massam
invoke scrambling to explain how certain entities are allowed to intervene between host
and light verb. However, various word order possibilities in Persian involve maximal
categories, not X0 categories as would be required to separate host from light verb. In
addition, no constraints on the scrambling operation are discussed; for example, no
account is offered as to why the direct object clitics and certain auxiliaries in particular
can intervene between host and light verb. The scrambling account is therefore not fully
explanatory, since it is not independently motivated and is not adequately constrained.
7.3 Generating the CP Phrasally
Other accounts propose generating the complex predicate phrasally. Such accounts have
focused much attention on how to account for the often non-compositional meaning of
16
Although see Sells (1994) for an account in which X0 phrases are generated syntactically. Taking this
option would mean that Ghomeshi and Massam would not account for the various lexical-like properties of
the CP.
20
the complex predicate. That is, the semantics of many complex predicates is fairly
compositional, as in the following examples:
(26)
?anjâm dâdan
performing give
“to perform”
(27)
? âqâz kardan
beginning + do
“to begin”
However, other CPs are noncompositional or non-transparent in that the meaning is not
predictable from the complex predicate's component parts. For example, consider (28)
and (29):
(28)
guS kardan
ear do
“to listen”
(29)
dust dâStan
friend have
“to like/love”
To listen is not literally “to do ear;” to like is not literally “to have a friend.” It is argued
in the following sections that the semantics is not naturally attributed either to the host or
light verb in isolation, but rather to their combination. These facts are actually neutral
between a zero level and phrasal account of Persian CPs on the present assumptions,
since we assume that zero level items, non-compositional phrases and idioms are all
stored in the constructicon. Nonetheless, the following sections critique proposals that
have suggested that the apparently non-compositional semantics is actually specified
solely in either the host or the light verb.
7.3.1 An Argument Transfer Proposal
Mohammad and Karimi (1992) argue that the entire semantic content comes from the
nominal element, and that the verbal element is semantically empty. The evidence given
to support this claim is the existence of a few cases wherein varying the verb does not
result in a noticable change in meaning. For example,
(30)
ezhâ
kardan/dâStan
statement + to do/to have = “to state”
(31)
majbur kardan/ nemudan
forced + to do/to show = “to force”
21
Interestingly, ezhâr dâStan in (30) is archaic and is only used in literary contexts. In fact,
the actual number of such doublets in current use is vanishingly rare. It is clear that in the
majority of cases, a change in the V does result in a change in meaning. For example,
(32)
gul zadan / gul xordan
deceit + strike / deceit + eat
“to deceive” / “to fall for the deception”
(33)
dar âvardan / dar âmadan
door + bring / door + come
“to take off/out” / “ to come out”
(34)
entexâb kardan / entexâb shodan
choice + do / choice + become
”to choose”/ “to be chosen”
In addition, if the light verb were truly semantically vacuous, with the host supplying all
of the semantics, one might expect that there would be only one or two light verbs.
However, there are a large number of light verbs, which implies that the language
would have to tolerate many trivially synonymous forms. The following are sixteen light
verbs (provided in order of frequency, following Karimi-Doostan 1997): kardan “do”;
zadan “hit/beat”: dâdan “give”; gereftan “hold/take”; dâStan “have”; âmadan “come”;
âvardan “bring”; xordan “eat”; keSidan “pull/tolerate”; yâftan “find”; Sodan “become”;
bordan “take/carry”; raftan “go”; gozâStan “put”; didan “see”; baxSidan “forgive”.
Alternatively, one might expect that the existing light verbs would be in free variation
with each other: any host combining with any light verb. However, hosts are quite
particular about which light verbs they can occur with. For example:
(35)
*komak zadan / komak kardan
help strike / help do = “ to help”
(36)
*madrak kardan / madrak gereftan
degree do / degree take = “ to get a degree”
Therefore, the semantics of the Persian CP is not naturally assigned to the host in
isolation (see also Schultze-Berndt 1998 on CPs in Jaminjung).
7.3.2 Idiomatic Argument Analysis
An alternative would be to posit the full meaning in the light verb. The host could be
claimed to be a regular argument of the verb, semantically selected for by the special
meaning of the verb.17 For example, kâr kardan, Lit. “job + do,” meaning “to work,”
would be analyzed as a special sense of kardan. This verb would be claimed to mean “to
work” and would be understood to semantically select for the nominal argument kar.
A parallel analysis has been suggested by Nunberg, Wasow and Sag (1994) for “deformable” idioms in
English.
17
22
The non-compositional meaning and changes in argument structure would not be
mysterious on this account because those special properties would be captured
in the special sense of kardan. However, an account of the zero level properties of
Persian CPs discussed in section would be required.
While no explanation would be required to explain why the host can be separated from
the light verb: the host and light verb would be separable just as any argument + verb
combination is separable. However, the account predicts that Persian CPs should be
generally separable as are general DO + verb combinations in Persian. As we have seen,
however, CPs only separable in certain specific circumstances.
In addition, on this account, the light verb would have to select, not only for the semantic
type of its argument (which would be unremarkable), but also for its definiteness and
specificity characteristics: the hosts must be indefinite and nonspecific.These
characteristics usually mark the particular noun's role in discourse, and are not specified
by the verb. That is, we do not generally find unique stems in a language that are
differentiated only by the definite/specificity characteristics of their arguments: such
specifications are not typically part of a verb's meaning.
Finally, recall that certain CPs with nominal hosts are transitive, a fact that undermines a
phrasal account, since one would be hard pressed to analyze both the host and the direct
object as direct objects of the verb, given that Persian does not allow double object
constructions elsewhere.
In short, there are ways in which the host does not act like a regular argument of the
verb. Therefore simply treating the host as an argument does not account for the full
range of data.
One might suggest in response to these criticisms of phrasal accounts that Persian CPs
exist both as syntactic phrases and as zero level items. This brings us to another
possible proposal.
7.4 Creating the CPs either in the lexicon or in syntax
There has been a growing body of work that allows complex predicates to be formed
either in the lexicon, as traditionally construed, or in the syntax (Butt 1995; Butt, Isoda
and Sells 1990; Matsumoto 1992; Mohanan 1994; Williams 1997.) Alsina (1993) for
example, has argued that causatives in certain languages, e.g. Chichewâ, are formed in
the lexicon, while those in other languages, e.g. Catalan, are formed in the syntax. Only
CPs formed in the lexicon are understood to undergo nominalizations. Only CPs formed
in the syntax are claimed to be separable.
Nothing prevents such a theory, though, from claiming that a single language has both
types of complex predicates (see in fact Mohanan 1994 for such an analysis in Hindi).
And in fact, this option would be necessary to account for languages like Persian. We
23
have already seen that the Persian CP allows nominalizations, while at the same time it
allows its pieces to be separated in certain circumstances. Therefore the CPs have one
property of lexical entities and another property of phrasal items. Such predicates would
presumably have to be generated both lexically and phrasally.
There are several drawbacks to this approach. First, is not clear where the idiosyncratic
semantics of certain CPs “formed in the syntax” would be specified. As discussed in the
previous two sections, there are problems with positing the semantics exclusively either
in the host or in the light verb. Instead, the semantics only arises in their combination.
In addition, if lexical CPs were available along with phrasal CPs, we would expect that
speakers would never be required to separate host from light verb: the option of using
an inseparable lexical CP should exist. However as we saw above, the future auxiliary
necessarily intervenes between host and light verb. Therefore the lexical-and-phrasal
account would have to constrain the lexical CPs from ever appearing with the future
tense. Unless some independent motivation can be found, this stipulation is very difficult
to defend.
Finally, while the Persian CP is separable under certain conditions, claiming that the CP
is formed “in the syntax” does not explain the constraints on separability described
earlier. That is, the way in which the Persian CPs fail to show the full range syntactic
properties, particularly in being not freely separable, remains unaccounted for.
8. Conclusion
To summarize, I have argued that the Persian complex predicate is represented in the
lexicon as a unit, despite the fact that it does not necessarily appear as a syntactically
atomic zero level category. This possibility is predicted by theories such as Construction
Grammar, Cognitive Grammar and HPSG, in which both words and phrasal entities are
stored in the mental lexicon or “constructicon.” The idea that items with some phrasal
properties can be listed in the lexicon alongside syntactically atomic lexical items is also
supported by Ackerman (this volume), Ackerman and Webelhuth 1998, Fillmore, Kay
and O’Connor 1988; Goldberg 1995; Jackendoff 1997, 2002; Nunberg et al. 1994;
Williams 1994; Culicover 1999.
Added to the recognition of the fact that status as a stored entity does not entail atomic
syntactic status, is the claim that status as a word can be assigned on a default basis. This
claim implies that there can be no strict division within the “constructicon” between
words and phrasal elements. One and the same stored item can be realized as either a
zero-level word or a phrasal entity, depending on what other constructions it co-occurs
with.
The notion of a default construction was made concrete by positing other more specific
constructions that serve to override specifications of the more general construction. The
network of constructions and the relevant properties of default inheritance were made
explicit. Motivation for each construction was suggested by noting its adherence to more
24
general tendencies, such as an iconic principle that allows a semantic bond to be
represented by a correspondingly close syntactic bond.
References
Ackerman, Farrell, this volume. Morphosyntactic mismatches and realization-based
lexicalism.
Ackerman, Farrell and Philip LeSourd. 1996. Toward a Lexical Representation of Phrasal
Predicates. In Complex Predicates. A. Alsina, J. Bresnan and P. Sells, eds. Stanford:
CSLI Publications.
Ackerman, Farrell and Gert Webelhuth. 1998. A theory of predicates. CSLI Publications.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Barlow, Michael and Suzanne Kemmer. 2000. Usage-based models of language.
Stanford: CSLI publishers.
Bates, Elizabeth and Brian MacWhinney. 1987. Competition, Variation and Language
Learning. In B. MacWhinney (ed) Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bresnan, Joan and Sam Mchombo. 1995. The Lexical Integrity Principle--Evidence from
Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
Butt, Miriam. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Bubenik, Vit. 1994. On Wackernagel's Law in the History of Persian. Indogermanische
Forschungen, 99. 105-122.
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. John Benjamins Press.
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. Language and Cognitive
Processes 10 (5): 425-455.
Croft, William. 2002. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.
Culicover, Peter. 1999. Syntactic Nuts. Oxford University Press.
25
DiSciullo, Anna Maria and Edwin Williams. 1997. On the definition of word.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fillmore, Charles, Paul Kay and Mary Catherine O'Connor. 1988. Regularity and
Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language 64: 501538.
Fillmore, Charles and Paul Kay. 1993. Construction Grammar. University of California,
Berkeley.
Flickinger, Daniel Paul. 1987. Lexical Rules in the Hierarchical Lexicon. PhD Thesis.
Stanford University.
Givón, Talmy. 1980. The Binding Hierarchy and the Typology of Complements. Studies
in Language 4 3: 333-377.
Givón, Talmy. 1991. Isomorphism in the Grammatical Code: Cognitive and Biological
Considerations. In Studies in Language 15-1. 85-114.
Gerdts, Donna and Mercedes Hinkson. 1996. Salish Lexical Suffixes: A case of
decategorialization. In A. Goldberg (ed) Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Ghomeshi, Jila and Diane Massam. 1992. Lexical/Syntactic Relations without
Projection. Linguistic Analysis.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to
Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1996. Words by Default: Optimizing Constraints and the
Persian Complex Predicate. Berkeley Linguistic Society 22.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1995. Ms. Projection, Heads and Optimality. Rutgers University.
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Hudson, Richard. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hudson, Richard. 1990. English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon.
Language 51 3:639-371.
26
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford University Press.
Karimi-Doostan, Gholamhossein. 1997. Light Verb Constructions in Persian.
PhD thesis, University of Essex.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In E. Bach and R.
Harms (eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
171-202.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: topic, focus and the
mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lambrecht, Knud & Laura A. Michaelis. 1998. Sentence Accent in Information
Questions: Default and Projection. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 477-544.
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar.
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Legendre, Geraldine, William Raymond and Paul Smolensky. 1993. An OptimalityTheoretic typology of case and grammatical voice systems. BLS 19 464-487.
Losiewicz, B.L. 1992. The effect of frequency on linguistic morphology. PhD thesis,
University of Texas, Austin.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don't try Morphological Analysis in the
Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. A. Dimitriadis L. Siegel (eds.). University of
Pennsylvania Working Papers 4.2.
Massam, Diane and Jila Ghomashi. 1994. Lexical/Syntactic Relations without Projection.
In Linguistic Analysis 36, 337-361.
Matsumoto, Yo. 1992. On the Wordhood of Complex Predicates in Japanese.
Stanford University dissertation.
Michaelis, Laura A. & Knud Lambrecht. 1996. Toward a Construction-Based Model of
Language Function: The Case of Nominal Extraposition. Language 72:215-247.
McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized Alignment. In Yearbook of
Morphology 1993, ed. G. Booij and J. van Marle. 97-153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
27
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The Evolution of Noun Incorporation. Language 60: 4. 847894.
Mohammad, Jan and Simin Karimi 1992. Light Verbs are Taking Over: Complex Verbs
in Persian. Proceedings of Western Conference on Linguistics. 175-186.
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Murphy, Gregory L. and Hiram H. Brownell. 1985. Category differentiation in object
recognition: typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition. 11 1: 70-84.
Nash, David George. 1980. Topics in Walpiri Grammar. MIT Dissertation.
Nunberg, Geoff, Tom Wasow and Ivan Sag. 1994. Idioms. Language.
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in
generative grammar. RuCCS Technical Report &#2. Rutgers University Center for
Cognitive Science. Piscataway, NJ.
Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1991. Condition Duplication,
Paradigm Homonymy and Transconstructional Constraints. BLS 17:252-266.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Course de linguistique generale. Paris: Payet, 1973.
Translated by W. Basikin. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976.
Schultze-Berndt, E. 1998. Making sense of complex verbs: generic verb meaning and the
argument structure of complex verbs in Jaminjung. Max Planck Institute for
Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Sells, Peter. 1994. Sub-Phrasal Syntax in Korean. Language Research.
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Remarks on Lexical Knowledge. Lingua 92. 7-34.
Williams, Edwin. 1997. Notes on Lexical and Syntactic Complex Predicates. In A.
Alsina, J. Bresnan, and P. Sells (eds) Complex Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Windfuhr, Gernot. 1979. Persian Grammar. New York: Mouton.
28
29