Italian event nominalisations in -ata
Raffaella Folli, University of Ulster and Heidi Harley, University of Arizona
Temporalité: typologie et acquisition (Temptypac) Workshop,
Paris CNRS Pouchet 11-12 March 2010
1. Introduction
In modern generative grammar, the analysis of argument structure has relied
heavily on the decomposition of the VP into (at least) an external-argument
selecting vP and a lower lexical VP.
Some of the key evidence for such an approach has come from complex
predicate constructions (Folli, Harley and Karimi 2005, Ramchand and Butt 2005,
among others), where the separate projections are independently realized by
separate syntactic constituents.
How do complex predicate constructions differ from simple verbs in their
composition and argument structure?
In this paper, we turn to a family of constructions in Italian where we can
compare and contrast simplex and complex predicate constructions side-by-side in
a well-understood grammatical system.
We show that a compositional, syntacticocentric approach to these
constructions can provide considerable insight into subtle properties of their
interpretation and grammatical behavior, previously unaddressed in extant
Lexicalist analyses.
Italian forms a class of feminine event nominals, usually derived from the past
participle of verbs by the suffixation of –a:
(1)
Participle
ha camminato
'has walked'

Nominalization
una camminat-a
‘a walking’
These nominals frequently enter into complex-predicate-like constructions in
combination with a light verb, either fare 'make, do' or dare, 'give':
(2)
a.
b.
Gianni ha fatto una risata
Gianni has made a laughing
“Gianni laughed”
Gianni ha dato una lavata alle camicie
Gianni has given a washing to.the shirts
"Gianni washed the shirts"
1
 We propose an analysis of these constructions within a compositional view of the
syntax/semantics relationship which makes no appeal to special operations of
complex predicate formation in the lexicon or elsewhere.
Rather, the properties of the light verb (heading vP) and the semantic and
argumental properties of the event nominal itself compose to derive the complex
characteristics observed in these constructions.
2. Background
Previous analyses have tended to focus:
 on the formation of the nominals themselves and their morphological and
semantic properties (Mayo et al. 1995, Samek-Ludovici 1997, Ippolito 1999,
Gaeta 2000, Acquaviva 2003),
 on the syntactic process by which they compose with the light verbs to form
the complex construction (Samek-Ludovici 1997, 2003).
All previous analyses concur that when an –ata nominal is formed from a verb,
the morphological structure is in fact complex, consisting of
 the verb root,
 the past participial morphology of the relevant conjugation class,
 and the feminine –a ending.
Below are examples of such nominals from all three conjugation classes. Notice
that the nominal form is based on the varying participial forms of each class.
(3)
Infinitive
Participle
Nominal
st
1 conjugation: -are verbs
mangiare
mangiato
mangiata
litigare
litigato
litigata
'eat'
'fight'
b.
2nd conjugation: -ere verbs
aggiungere aggiunto
aggiunta
difendere
difeso
difesa
'add'
'defend'
c.
3rd conjugation: -ire verbs
offrire
offerto
chiarire
chiarito
'offer'
'clarify'
a.
offerta
chiarita
Since the majority of verbs which undergo this process are from the first
conjugation, these are often termed –ata nominals (but this term includes all such
participial formations, no matter the conjugation class).
2
Interestingly, -ata nominals are also quite productively formed from nouns,
mapping an individual-denoting nominal to an event-denoting one:
(4)
notte
~
nott-ata
night
night (experience of length of time)
gomito
elbow
~
gomitata
an elbowing
asino
donkey
~
asinata
a donkeying
Such nominals are invariably formed with –ata.
Samek-Ludovici (1997) and Ippolito (1999) show that this is due to the
independent fact that nonce verbs in Italian, formed by default verb-forming
morphology, all fall into the first conjugation, that is, –are, which is the default
conjugation for the language (Dardano 1978, Scalise 1984, 1994).
These noun-based -ata nominals, then, are formed in a two-step process, first
verbalised by the first-conjugation thematic vowel, heading a v° projection, then
receiving the predicted participial suffix and -a nominalizer.1
This accounts for their event-denoting semantics, which has been remarked on by
all previous accounts.
(5)
nP
PrtP
vP
n
Prt
√
v
nuot-
a-
t-
a
Some such nominals also refer to quantity, rather than an event proper:
(6)
cucchiaio
spoon
~
cucchiaiata
spoonful
camera
~
camerata
Note that other nominalizers can be added to the participial projection besides –a.
For example, there are nominals in –ura based on the participle: fregatura 'a scam',
from fregare, 'to scam, to con', apertura 'opening', from aprire, 'to open', or lettura, 'a
public reading', from leggere, 'to read'.
1
3
room
big room
Within the deverbal analysis, however, these can be conceived of as denoting the
result of a containment event, consistent with the crosslinguistic observation that
event-denoting nominals often give rise to result-denoting ones, when an
appropriate result is implied (Grimshaw 1990).
The biggest puzzle is the existence of gaps: for many such nominals, the predicted
underlying verbal form does not tend to surface:


Hence we have giornata 'a day (long)' but not #giornare 'to spend a day',
spaghettata 'a spaghetti feast' but not *spaghettare 'to feast on spaghetti',
etc.
Modern proposals concerning the structure of the verb phrase allow us to
understand the existence of such gaps.
An inflected verb must contain not only a root and the verbalizing v°, but also a
Voice projection, which encodes the active/passive/impersonal distinction and
selects the external argument of the clause, if any (Kratzer 1996, Folli 2002, Borer
2005, Embick 2004, Alexiadou and Agnastopoulou 2008, Harley 2007, TubinoBlanco and Harley 2007, Ramchand 2008, among many others).
This Voice projection is necessarily selected for by the functional superstructure
of the clause—TP, etc.—so a verb inflected for tense cannot surface in an
architecture without a Voice projection.
Consequently, the existence of a participial form, which selects simply for a vP
complement, does not necessarily imply the existence of an inflected form, which
requires a VoiceP.2
Other factors, including conceptual knowledge, speaker convention, and
usefulness, will enter into a full account of the variation in acceptance and
productivity of the corresponding fully verbal form.
Conversely, the existence of a participial form does not predict the existence of
the corresponding feminine event noun in –a, and similar factors will govern
variation in acceptance of the event nominals as well.3
In several cases, note that a verbal form with the denominal base does exist,
though with an interesting twist—often the verbal form requires prefixation with a
particle, in the style of a location/locatum verb: gomitata, 'an elbowing' is based on
the same verb stem as sgomitare, 'elbow one's way into'. Similarly, camerata, 'large
room' is based on the same stem as incamerare, 'put X into a container'. See SamekLudovici 1997 and Scalise 1994 for additional discussion.
3 The syntacticization of morphology which is a central feature of the analysis here,
as for many modern approaches to morphosyntax, leaves a fundamental difference
beween derivational morphology and syntactic structure unaddressed, namely the
strong speaker intuition that a meaninful notion of 'gap' exists in the former but not
the latter, pace Marantz 1997, Borer 2005.
2
4
2.1
The packaging function of the event nominalizer
The –a nominalizer produces an event nominal in the sense of Grimshaw (1990)
These nominals can occur as subjects of temporal predicates and co-occur with
event-modifying adjectives:
(7)
a.
b.
Ogni lavata di camicie mi fa perdere ore e ore.
Every washing of shirts to.me makes lose hours and hours.
"Every washing of shirts costs me hours and hours."
Gianni comincia ogni seminario con un' interminabile
Gianni begins every seminar with an interminable
elencata dei suoi successi.
listing of his successes.
Semantically, these nominalizations are said to 'package' the eventuality denoted
by the verbal base.
Gaeta (2000) and Acquaviva (2003) emphasize that an –ata nominal derived from
an unbounded activity predicate does not itself denote an unbounded event, but
rather a very saliently bounded, single portion of the event.
They treat the –ata suffix (unanalyzed) as a semantic 'packager', in the sense of
Jackendoff (1991)'s "Universal Packager" which accomplishes coercion from mass
to count nominals.
Gaeta (2000) and Acquaviva (2003)'s treatment in fact entails that the packaging
function of –ata can apply productively only to unbounded events.
We will argue below that the proposed restriction to activity verbs is not borne
out by the data: many change-of-state verbs participate fully in the –ata paradigm.
2.2
Complex predicate formation: Samek-Ludovici (1997, 1999, 2003)
Samek-Ludovici (1997, 1999, 2003) argues that –ata nominals enter into a lexical
process of 'complex predicate' formation with the light verbs fare and dare, in the
spirit of Grimshaw and Mester (1988)'s 'argument transfer' hypothesis.
The complex predicates are formed by a process of index suppression and
transference.
Selection of arguments by the nominal is thus accomplished through the light
verb surrogate, which does not impose any selectional restrictions of its own.
The choice of light verb is determined solely by the transitivity of the nominalized
verb:
 Deverbal nominals with two indices to transfer are composed with dare,
‘give’, which has three argument slots;
 Intransitive deverbal nominals, which have only one index, are composed
with fare, ‘make’, which has two argument slots:
5
(8)
a.
Gianni ha fatto una risata/*una lavata alle camicie
Gianni has made a laughing/*cleaning to the shirts
b.
Gianni ha dato una lavata alle camicie/*una risata
Gianni has given a cleaning to the shirts/*a laughing.
The intuition is that the surplus argument slot in the light verb is required to host
the -ata nominalization itself, hence intransitives require a transitive light verb and
transitives a ditransitive one.
Samek-Ludovici’s proposal provides a clear basis for the strong effects of adicity
on selection of the light verb in the complex predicate.
However this approach does not capture several salient generalizations,
especially with respect to selectional differences between the complex predicates
and their non-complex counterparts, as well as with respect to effects introduced by
the properties of fare and dare.
3. Additional observations and puzzles
3.1 Verb class flexibility of –ata nominalization
 Unlike what is argued by Gaeta (2000) and Acquaviva (2003) verbs from various
event classes can give rise to-ata nominal’s:
(9) Unergatives:
dormire (to sleep)  dormita
nuotare (to swim)  nuotata
galoppare (to gallop)  galoppata
correre (to run)  corsa
ridere (to laugh)  risata
(10)
Degree Achivements:
salire (to climb/to rise)  salita
crescere (to grow/to raise)  crescita
aggiungere (to add)  aggiunta
allungare (to lengthen)  allungata
(11)
Transitive:
lavare (una camicia) (to wash (a shirt))  lavata (alla camicia)
mangiare (una mela) (to eat (an apple))  mangiata (alla mela)
studiare (la poesia) (to study (the poem))  studiata (alla poesia)
bere (il suo sciroppo) (to drink (his cough syrup))  bevuta (al suo sciroppo)
(12)
Unaccusatives:
entrare (to enter)  entrata
uscire (to exit)  uscita
6
venire (to come)  venuta
cadere (to fall)  caduta
scivolare (to slide)  scivolata
Unergatives fit unproblematically into the activity class, consistently with their
claims, but the remaining verb types above require some further consideration.
Degree achievements, while arguably unbounded, do take essere as an auxiliary,
so in some fundamental ways pattern with change of state unaccusatives rather
than activities.
Similarly, the transitive verbs which work well with –ata do tend to be objectdrop verbs, consistent with the activity hypothesis, but they can also participate in
the complex predicate construction with delimiting object arguments present, on
apparently accomplishment-based interpretations.
Finally, many clear unaccusative accomplishment/achievement verbs form
felicitous –ata nominals.
3.2 Adicity mismatches
On Samek-Ludovici's analysis, the number of arguments of the selecting light verb
is a hard constraint on the formation of the complex predicates: fare makes two
argument slots available, while dare makes three.
However, there are cases of dare+ -ata nominals of transitives which require dare
but can occur without the dative a-phrase:
(13)
Gianni (ha preso
Gianni (has taken
il martello
e ) ha dato una martellata.
the hammer and ) has given a hammering.
This seems to be possible when the nominalized verb is itself based on an
instrumental noun, as with martellare ‘to hammer’, sforbiciare ‘to scissor’, or
pedalare, ‘to pedal’.
This is puzzling in the context of an index-transference account, since lexical dare
never permits the omission of the dative DP without heavy contextual support:
(14)
Maria ha dato una bicicletta *(a Gianni)
Maria has given a bicycle *(to Gianni).
Similarly, with certain denominal –ata nominals, with the meaning 'take/give a
blow to N', dare is well-formed without the dative argument.
(15)
Gianni ha dato una testata prima di entrare in cabina
Gianni has given a heading before of entering the cabin.
"Gianni knocked his head before entering the cabin."
7
Again, both arguments must be present with lexical dare, even if as simply
pronominal clitics:
(16)
A:
B:
Gianni ha dato una bicicletta a Maria?
Gianni has given a bicycle to Maria
a.
*Si, Gianni l’ha data
*Yes, Gianni it has given
b.
Si, Gianni gliel’ha data
Yes, Gianni to.her.it has given
But in complex predicates with transitive ata nominals, the dative clitic may be
omitted in the same context:
(17)
A:
B:
3.3
Gianni ha dato una letta a Kant?
Gianni has given a reading to Kant?
Si, Gianni l’ha data
Yes, Gianni it has given
Independent status of –ata nominal
 Above we saw that -ata nominals are productively formed from all classes of
verbs, including transitive change-of-state verbs, contra the previous analyses
mentioned.
However, there is a salient difference between -ata nominals formed from
intransitive verbs and those formed from transitive ones:
 Ata nominals from intransitive verbs seem to have an independent existence
as nominals in the language,
 Ata nominals from transitive verbs are very restricted, tending to occur only
in construction with dare.
Intransitive –ata nominals appear to be fully-fledged nouns, while transitives do
not.
(18)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Che bella nuotata/risata/camminata!
What good swimming/laughing/walking!
Ogni risata ti allunga la vita.
Every laughing you.dat lengthens the life.
"Every laugh lengthens your life"
La mia nuotata quotidiana non si discute.
The my swimming daily not refl discusses
"My daily swim is not to be discussed."
Il dottore mi ha prescritto molte camminate in montagna.
The doctor to.me has prescribed many walkings in.the mountain
8
(19)
a.
b.
c.
d.
3.4
*?Che bella aggiustata/assicurata/attivata (alla macchina/carta)
What a beautiful fixing/securing/activating (to.the car/card)
*?La frequente aggiustata (alla mia macchina) mi
The frequent fixing (to.the my car) me.dat
permette di passare l'MOT.
permitted to pass the MOT.
*?Molte attivate (alla carta) possono causare di problemi.
Many activations (to.the card) can cause of.the problems.
*?La assicurata (alla macchina) mi è costata molti soldi.
The insurance (to.the car) to.me is cost much money
Impression of important size of -ata
Previous analyses have not suggested any approach to a subtle but salient
semantic effect of –ata nominalization, namely that the event denoted by the
nominal in general carries an implication of exceptional size or intensity.
For example, una camminata, 'a walking', cannot denote a small or short walk;
similarly, una dormita, 'a sleeping' cannot refer to a quick nap—it implies a long,
sound sleep.
(20)
a.
Gianni ha mangiato.
Gianni has eaten.
(Can describe a small or regular-sized eating event)
b.
Gianni ha fatto una mangiata
Gianna has done an eating
(Describes a substantial eating event)
c.
Che mangiata!
What an eating
(Describes a substantial eating event)
Interestingly, this effect seems to interact with the choice of light verb with which
the nominal composes:
 With fare (as in (20)b), above), the 'bigness' effect comes through clearly.
 However, when an –ata nominal composes with dare, the impression is in
fact the opposite—dare with –ata seems to suggest a brief, inconsequential
version of the event.
(21)
a.
Gianni ha fatto una studiata.
Gianni has made a studying
(Presupposes a serious amount of studying)
b.
Gianni ha dato una studiata a Kant
9
Gianni has given a studying to Kant
(Presupposes a quick scan).
We will argue that the size effect derives primarily from the fact that the
nominalizer is feminine, which correlates with cross-linguistic observations
concerning the use of feminine gender with objects of a certain size (Gerdts 2009
and references therein).
However, we will argue that the reverse effect which we see with dare derives
from the event structure properties of the light verb itself.
3.5 The semantic contribution of the light verb: verbs of creation
Another interesting contrast between complex predicate dare+ata nominals and
the corresponding non-complex forms can be seen with transitive verbs of creation.
On one interpretation, the object is understood as coming into being as the result
of the action; on a second interpretation, the pre-existing object is merely affected
by the action.
Crucially, in the former interpretation, there is no existence presupposition for
the object, while in the latter, an existence presupposition exists:
(22)
Michelangelo ha scolpito il pezzo di marmo / Il Bacio
Michelangelo has sculpted the piece of marble / The Kiss
In the corresponding complex predicate, however, the creation reading is
impossible; the only reading is the one in which the object is presupposed and is
affected:
(23)
Michelangelo ha dato una scolpita al pezzo di marmo / *al Bacio
Michelangelo has given a sculpting to the piece of marble / *to The Kiss.
In S-L’s model, this contrast is unexpected— the specific theta-roles associated
with the transferred indices shouldn't be distinguished in terms of
creation/consumption vs affectedness .
Similarly, with nominalisation from verbs of consumption we do not necessarily
get an implication of completed consumption, while in the verbal form, the
completion implication is present (though cancellable)
(24)
a.
Gianni ha letto il libro.
Gianni has read the book
b.
Gianni ha dato una letta al libro
Gianni has given a reading to the book
10
Again, in Samek-Ludovici’s treatment, it is not clear why the simple and complex
predicates should differ in this regard.
Finally, with certain verbs, the choice of light verb is more flexible. Besides dare
and fare, they can occur with prendere 'take' and tirare 'throw':
(25)
a.
Gianni ha preso una sgridata.
Gianni has taken a scolding.
b.
Gianni ha tirato una frecciata.
Gianni has thrown an arrowing
"Gianni made a cutting remark
None of the previous analyses consider this variation on the general pattern. The
change in light verb is clearly associated with a change in the semantics of the
construction.
Consider in particular (25)a), where the subject Gianni is the recipient of the
scolding. This sentence has a counterpart with dare, illustrated in (26), in which
Gianni is the dative argument, rather than the subject:
(26)
Maria ha dato una sgridata a Gianni.
Maria has given a scolding to Gianni.
It is worth remarking that the verb prendere in Italian has two readings. As a main
verb, it has both an agentive and a non-agentive reading, illustrated in (27):
(27)
a.
b.
Gianni ha preso la sedia.
Gianni has taken the chair.
Gianni ha preso la febbre
Gianni has taken the fever.
(Agentive reading only)
(Non-agentive reading)
When prendere composes with an event-denoting nominal, it usually has the nonagentive, unaccusative reading — there is no equivalent to English phrases such as
John took the exam or John took a leak in Italian which use prendere.
Consistently, then, when it occurs with the ata event nominal, the unaccusative
reading is mandatory; there is no agentive prendere+-ata combination.
 The choice between dare and prendere here is determined by the intended
causative or unaccusative semantics, not by the number of arguments of the base
sgridata.
In sum, we have seen that the semantic makeup of the complex predicate
construction is significantly different than the simple predicate counterparts, with
respect to selection, creation/affectedness, size of event and completion.
11
4. The structure of Italian –ata complex predicates
The complex predicate construction consists of a light verb composed with an –
ata nominal, which fits smoothly with current proposals concerning the
decomposition of VP:
 the light verb corresponds to the v° head of the vP projection
 the –ata nominal realizes the lexical content in the predicate (verbal or not)
below (Hale and Keyser 1993, Chomsky 1995, Kratzer 1996, Borer 1998,
inter alia).
We have seen that –ata nominals appear with fare, dare and prendere as light
verbs.4
The structures we assume for the basic cases with the fare/dare pair are
illustrated below:
(28)
vP
DP
Gianni v
fare
v’
DP
una camminata
vP
DP
v’
Gianni v
ApplP
dare
Appl’
DP
Appl° DP
a Kant

una letta
The complex predicates formed with both dare and fare are agentive, and both
these light verbs select an external argument of their own.
In combination with the ata-nominal, this gives the interpretation “X agentively
does –ata”.
The difference between dare and fare lies in the presence of an Applicative
projection between the v° and the nominal in the former (McGinnis 1998, 2001,
Pylkkanen 2002, etc.).
The applicative head relates a second argument to the event nominal, expressing
an affectedness relation between the applied argument and the event nominal,
typical for internal arguments of transitive verbs.
The underlying causative light verb, we claim, is identical in the two cases. The
fare/dare alternation simply reflects the result of incorporating Appl° into v°:
 dare is the spell-out of v+Appl;
 fare is pure causative v°.
This is why light verb fare is incompatible with a dative argument in these
constructions: the dative argument is necessarily introduced by the applicative
We leave tirare ‘throw’ aside for future investigation, as we feel the construction
which involve tirare are somewhat less productive and in fact more idiomatic than
the other three.
4
12
head, and light fare is simply (morphologically) blocked from appearing in that
context; dare wins the competition for spelling-out the v°+Appl° head (for
discussion of competition within the Distributed Morphology framework, see Halle
and Marantz 1993, Embick and Marantz 2008).5
This analysis essentially expresses Samek-Ludovici’s insight that the light verb
involved is crucially dependent on the number of arguments in the construction, and
vice versa, but implements it without positing an extra (pre-syntactic) lexical
mechanism.
4.1
Applicatives, small clauses and achievements
One fundamental difference between the dare and fare light verbs has to do with
the type of complement they take.
 Fare has a simple DP complement, denoting an event—the interpretation of
the construction is simply ‘X makes/does Y’, where Y is an event denoted by
the –ata nominal.
 The complement to v° in the dare construction is predicative, created by the
ApplP projection. The subject of this predication is the dative argument, and
the predicate is the relation denoted by the Appl° head plus its complement,
the event nominal. Essentially, in dare constructions the complement of v° is
a small clause, and the whole is interpreted as [vP X CAUSE [SC Y Rel –ata]]. This
is the canonical structure associated with a change-of-state event [Hoekstra
& Mulder 1992, Harley 2005, among many others).
This allows us to explain two of the puzzles outlined above.
First, consider the loss of the creation reading illustrated in example (23),
repeated below for convenience:
(29)
Michelangelo ha dato una scolpita al pezzo di marmo / *al Bacio
Michelangelo has given a sculpting to the piece of marble / *to The Kiss.
The dative object in a dare+-ata construction is an ‘inner subject’, in the
terminology of Hale and Keyser (1993) — the (affected) subject of a result state
predication. This position is well-known to involve a presupposition of existence,
since a non-existent item cannot undergo a change of state (Tenny 1987).
Consequently, the creation reading is impossible for (29).
What about the ‘lightness’ or ‘quickness’ implication associated with dare+-ata
and absent in the fare constructions?
Note that this account of light v°+Appl predicts that when you do see fare in the
presence of an applicative argument, as in La mamma ha fatto una torta a Maria,
“Mother made Maria a cake”, the fare in question must be ‘heavy’ fare, spelling out
the contentful lower predicative V head, as argued in Folli and Harley (2007).
5
13



Recall that –ata nominals occurring on their own carry an implication of
considerable size, which we hypothesize has to do with the feminine gender
of these nominals (Gerdts 2009, inter alia).
This implication of size carries over to the fare construction, as expected
given the structure we have proposed above, which means simply “make/do
event”—any size restrictions associated with the event will be retained when
the event composes with the light verb.
In contrast, the dare construction produces a connotation of punctuality,
such that the event is understood to be over with quickly.
In the dare construction, we propose that the semantics involve a simple
transition to the result state—the relationship between the dative argument and the
–ata nominal is asserted to be caused. The period of time required for the
establishment of the applicative relationship is then a function of the nature of that
relationship, not a function of the event type involved—the size/temporal extent of
the –ata nominal is essentially irrelevant.
 We conclude that the dare+-ata constructions are Achievement predicates, since
the small clause headed by the applicative is an instantiation of this possessor
relationship.
The temporal contrast between Gianni ha lavato una camicia “Gianni washed the
shirt” and Gianni ha dato una lavata alla camicia “Gianni has given a washing to the
shirt” is a reflection of the different predicates involved in the small clauses.
When lavare is a main verb, lavare itself is the predicate of the small clause,
contributing all its temporal properties, specifically an extended duration, to the
change of state.
In contrast, when dare una lavata, ‘give a washing’ is involved, the predicate is a
punctual one of affectedness, and the durational properties of una lavata are not
relevant to the small clause’s event structure.
4.2
"Unaccusative dare": prendere
Recall that a third light verb is sometimes possible with –ata nominals, namely
prendere, ‘take’.
These complex predicates have three salient properties:
 they are non-agentive
 they occur with intransitive –ata nominals only
 the subject is an affected argument or participant.
These construction fall into place straightforwardly in the larger framework of
the vP analysis.
The causative/inchoative alternation is taken to reflect an alternation in light
verb type, vCAUSE alternating with vBECOME (Marantz 1997 et seq.). The latter does not
select an external argument, and consequently an internal argument is promoted to
subject position.
14
Pesetsky (1995), Richards (2001), Harley (2002), inter alia, argue that
ditransitive verbs have transitive but unaccusative counterparts, where the external
agent argument does not appear and an internal Goal/Experiencer argument is
promoted. Evidence for such an alternation comes from pairs like those exhibited in
(30):
(30)
a.
b.
Bill gave John the creeps.
John got the creeps.
(Richards 2001)
The phrase the creeps receives the same idiomatic interpretation in the two
sentences in (30), despite the surface difference in the two verbs involved.
We propose that dare and non-agentive prendere stand in this same relation in
Italian, and the difference between the minimal pairs in (31) below is simply in the
type of v° head involved.
 dare is the spell-out of vCAUSE+Appl°, non-agentive prendere is the spell-out of
vBECOME + Appl°.
(31)
a.
b.
(32)
Gianni ha preso una sgridata.
Gianni has taken a scolding.
Maria ha dato una sgridata a Gianni.
Maria has given a scolding to Gianni.
a.
vP
v
prendere
Appl°
ApplP
Appl’
DP
Gianni
una sgridata
To
Spec
TP
DP
b.
vP
DP
v’
Maria v
ApplP
dare
Appl’
DP
Appl° DP
a Gianni

una sgridata
The prendere combination, then, results in an agentless construction in the same
way that a causative/inchoative alternation has transitive and intransitive
variants—the absence of an Agent slot associated with the vP.
4.3
Case assignment and argument licensing
We essentially adopt Samek-Ludovici (1997-2003)’s view of the case situation in
the fare and dare complex predicates, namely that there are two structural cases
available in the former, and three in the latter (but we differ from his proposal in
terms of the projections which make these cases available.)
All finite clauses have one structural case available in Spec-TP, where the highest
case-licensed argument appears.
15
Clauses with and without applicative heads, however, differ in the number of
structural cases available in the lower portion of the clause.
 Agentive vP has a structural case available, which licenses the accusative
object in most transitive constructions.
 the Applicative head carries a structural case feature, which can license a DP
argument as well
Following Marantz (1991), Bobaljik (1995), Harley (1995), Folli and Harley
(2007), we assume a relativistic ('dependent') approach to the spell-out of checked
structural Case features:
 Each DP, including the event nominal, enters the derivation with an
uninterpretable Case feature, which checks, via Agree, the Case feature of the
nearest c-commanding Case-licensing head.
(33)
T’
TiCase
ha
vP
DPuCase
v’
Maria
viCase
dato
ApplP
Appl’
Appl°iCase
(34)
a Gianni
vP
DPuCase
v’
Maria
(35)
DPuCase
una sgridata
T’
TiCase
ha
DPuCase
viCase
fatto
DPuCase
una risata
T’
TiCase
ha
vP
v
preso
ApplP
Appl’
Appl°iCase
DPuCase
DPuCase
Gianni
una sgridata
16
Each argument checks its uninterpretable Case features against the nearest ccommanding assigner, in accordance with the Minimal Link Condition.
Spell-out of these cases, however, is relativistic, with different winning casemarkers chosen depending on how many other case features are in the competition
withinin a given clausal domain, and depending on their configuration with respect
to other structurally case-marked DPs:
 A single case feature is spelled out as Nominative;
 two are spelled out as Nominative and Accusative,
 and three are Nominative, Dative and Accusative, regardless of which head is
responsible for checking the features of a given DP. For a more extended
discussion, see Folli and Harley (2007).
This now leaves us with our final puzzles concerning the distribution of
arguments.
 Why can’t transitive event nominals occur with their internal arguments on
their own, when they are simply appearing as argument nominals in a noncomplex predicate construction (as illustrated in examples in (18) and (19)
in section 3.3 above)?
 Why can’t transitive event nominals occur with fare?
 Finally, why do dare complex predicates sometimes allow the omission of the
dative argument, in contrast to main verb dare?
The answer to the first two of these questions concerns the availability of
licensers for the relevant arguments:
 The applicative head is only licensed in a verbal context, and may not appear
in an isolated nominal (built from the lowest portion of a VP structure, the
verb root and participial affix).
 The absence of the applicative head accounts for the ungrammaticality of
dative internal arguments in (19) above.
 However, in some cases, alternative methods for licensing internal
arguments are available, analogous to the Last Resort assignment of of in
English event nominals, using the Italian equivalent di:
(36)
a.
Che lavata di camicie!
What washing of shirts!
b.
*Che lavata alle camicie!
What washing to.the shirts
c.
Che bevuta di latte!
What drinking of milk!
d.
*Che bevuta al latte!
What drinking of milk!
17
This, then, also provides the necessary ingredients to understand the absence of
transitive –ata nominals with fare:
 When we see fare with an –ata nominal, we can be sure, in the present
framework, that no Applicative head is present, since v+Appl is dare.
 Thus, again, we do not expect fare to co-occur with a dative-marked internal
argument.
 However, where a different argument-introducing strategy is available
internal to the DP, as in the partitive construction above, fare can in fact
occur with a transitive –ata nominal:
(37)
Gianni ha fatto una lavata di camicie.
Gianni has made a washing of shirts.
In short, the absence of internal arguments with fare+ata constructions follows
from the unavailability of a case-licensor for these arguments, which in turn follows
from the compositional approach advocated here in which each argument is
introduced by a head which contributes to the overall syntactic and semantic
properties of the whole.
Finally, we turn to the puzzle of why the dative argument is sometimes optional
in certain complex predicates with light verb dare, but may never be omitted when
dare is the main verb:
 in the complex predicate construction there is an applicative head which is
responsible for introducing the dative argument. When dare is a main verb,
on the other hand, the dative argument is a selected Goal complement of the
lexical verb (see e.g. Chomsky 1955, 1975, Larson 1988, Pesetsky 1995).
(38)
vP
DPAgent
Maria v°
v’
VP
DPTheme
il libro V
dare
V’
PPGoal
a Gianni
Since the dative arguments in the two constructions result from very different
selectional configurations, it is not surprising that they might differ in their
omissibility.
In particular, we note that the dative a with heavy verb dare is in this case a true
preposition, accomplishing case-marking of the DP internally to the VP.
18
In contrast, we have assumed above and in earlier work that the applicative
dative a is a case-marker. In such cases, the dative phrase is a simple DP, not a PP,
and as such is integrated into the structural case-marking configuration of the
clause (see also Miller 1992 for a extensive argumentation to this effect for French
à).
5. Conclusion








we have hoped to show that a constructionalist approach to argument
structure can give considerable leverage on some puzzling features of Italian
complex predicates in –ata, which contrast with those of their simplex
counterparts.
In particular, it provides a natural explanation for the unavailability of the
creation reading in complex predicates formed from verbs which ordinarily
license either creation or affected readings of their Theme argument.
It also explains the variation in thematic roles seen with a change in light
verb from agentive dare ‘give’ to non-agentive prendere ‘take’.
These facts especially constitute strong support for the hypothesis that there
are varieties of light verb with different argument-introducing properties
and event structure interpretation.
In addition, we have seen that the existence of gaps in the verbal sources for
these nominals is not only unproblematic for the present account, but could
in fact be said to be expected.
Similarly, the much-discussed intuition that –ata nominals are primarily
based on activity-denoting undergative verbs was shown to result from a
simple difference in distribution of these nominals compared to their
change-of-state, transitive counterparts.
The actual formation of the nominals is equally productive for both types of
verbs, but the argument-licensing needs of the transitive nominals prevents
them from appearing in several contexts in which the activity-denoting
verbs are possible.
From a broader perspective, the account also demonstrates the viability and
usefulness of the syntacticocentric approach to argument structure
phenomena.
References
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2003. I significati delle nominalizzazioni in -ATA e i loro correlati
morfologici . In: M. Grossmann and A. Thornton (eds.) 37 congresso della Società di
Linguistica Italiana: la formazione delle parole L'Aquila, Italy.
Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2008. Structuring participles.
Proceedings of WCCFL 26, 33-41.
19
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: the syntax of verbal inflection. Ph.D
Dissertation, MIT.
Borer, Hagit. 1998. The morphology-syntax interface. In Spencer, A. and A. Zwicky
(Eds.) Morphology. London: Basil Blackwell.
Borer, Hagit. 2005b. The Normal Course of Events. Structuring Sense, Volume II.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Butt, Miriam, and Gillian Ramchand. 2005. Complex aspectual structure in Hindi/Urdu. In
The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation, eds. Nomi ErteschikShir and Tova Rapoport, 117-153. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago, University
of Chicaro Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dardano, Maurizio. 1978. La Formazione delle Parole nell'Italiano Contemporaneo.
Roma: Bulzoni.
Embick, David. 2004. On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English. Linguistic
Inquiry, 35:3. 355-392.
Embick, David and Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry
39.1, 1-53.
Folli, Raffaella. 2002. Constructing Telicity in English and Italian. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Oxford.
Folli, Raffaella. and Heidi Harley. 2007. Causation, obligation and argument structure:
On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38.2, 197-238.
Folli, Raffaella, Heidi Harley and Simin Karimi. 2005. Determinants of event structure in
Persian complex predicates. Lingua 115.10, 1365-1401.
Gaeta, Livio. 2002. On the interaction between morphology and semantics: the Italian
suffix – ATA. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47. 4, 205-229.
Gerdts, D. 2009. Women, fire, and not so dangerous things: Explorations in Halkomelem
gender. Presidential address, 2009 Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of the
Indigenous Languages of the Americas, January 9, 2009, San Francisco, CA.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Grimshaw, Jane and Mester, Armin. 1988. Light Verbs and θ-Marking. Linguistic Inquiry
19.2: 205-232.
20
Hale, Ken and Samul J. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression
of syntactic relations, in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.) The View from Building 20:
Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 51–
109.
Halle, Moris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of
inflection, in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.) The View from Building 20: Essays in
Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–76.
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, Events and Licensing. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA:
MIT.
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction . In The linguistic
variation yearbook, vol. 2, Pierre Pica and Johan Rooryck (eds.), 29–68. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Harley, Hieid. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, Manner
Incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir and
Tova Rapoport, (eds.), The Syntax of Aspect, 42-64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, Heidi. 2007. External arguments: On the independence of Voice and v°. Talk
presented at GLOW 30, April 14, 2007, Tromsø, Norway.
Tubino-Blanco, Mercedes. and Heidi. Harley. 2007. Sobre la opcionalidad del Causado
en las causativas indirectas en yaqui. In the Proceedings of the 2007 Friends of UtoAztecan Meeting/Taller de los amigos de lenguas yuto-aztecas, Editorial Unison,
Hermosillo, Son., Mexico.
Hoekstra, Teun and René Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and
existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7: 1–79
Ippolito, Michela. 1999. On the Past Participle Morphology in Italian. In: MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 33, 111-137.
Kratzer, Angelica. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In: J. Rooryck &
L. Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:335–392.
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and Licensing. In Germán F. Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and
Hee-Rahk Chae, eds., Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on
Linguistics, pp. 234–253.
21
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions. In
Sam A. Mchombo, ed., Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1. CSLI Publications,
Stanford, CA, 113-151.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don't Try Morphological Analysis in the
Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. U.Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2: 201-225.
Mayo, B., M.-T. Schepping, C. Schwarze, and A. Zalfanella. 1995. Semantics in the
derivational morphology of Italian: implications for the structure of the lexicon.
Linguistics, 33:583-638.
McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement, PhD dissertation, MIT.
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the syntax of applicatives. In The Linguistics
Variation Yearbook Vol 1, 105-146.
Miller 1992 1992. Clitics and constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. Garland, New
York.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cam- bridge, Ma.: MIT
Press.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Ramchand Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, Norvin. 2001. An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic
Inquiry 32:183–192.
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 1997. A Unified Analysis of Noun- and Verb-Based
Nominalization in -ata, Arbeitspapier No. 80, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, University
of Konstanz.
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 1999. The Internal Structure of Arguments, Arbeitspapier No.
102,Sonderforschungbereich 471, University of Konstanz.
Samek-Lodovici,Vieri. 2003. The internal structure of Arguments. Evidence from
complex predicate formation in Italian”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, p.
835-881.
Scalise, Sergio. 1984. Morfologia Lessicale. Padova: CLESP.
Scalise, Sergio. 1994. Morfologia. Bologna: il Mulino.
22