Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
\parskip=2pt
\documentstyle[lingmacros,11pt]{article} % Set point size to 11
\pagestyle{plain}
% The paper itself starts here.
\begin{document}
\title{Complex Preds}
\section{Farrell Ackerman and Lesourd, Phil ms. Toward a Lexical
Representation of Phrasal Predicates. UC San Diego.}
(some notes were taken on an earlier draft: double check page numbers.
Discussion of Fox is left out)
PV V complexes in Hungarian and Fox involve ``functional words"
(argument taking predicates), while they are not zero level categories.
That is, they are composed in the lexicon.
Diachronic development: lexical representation (functional word) is realized
by independent syntactic elements, the independent syntactic forms begin
to take on morphological status though the pieces may be separable, finally,
the morpholigcal entitye begins to exhibit phonological coalescence and syntactic
atomicity.
Lexical Integrity Hypothesis: (Simpson 1992): "syntactic rules can neither
analyze nor change word structure."
They propose the revised Lexical Integrity Hypothesis: Syntactic rules
(e.g. principles of phrasal organization) cannot alter the
structure of syntactic words.
"...if lexical integrity can be claimed to hold over
anything, it presumably obtains for X0 level categories.
Inasmuch as we are arguing that not all ocmplex morphological
objects are integrated (i.e. synthetic) X0 level categories,
it would be mistaken to identify lexical integrity with
the morphological status of an object. Synthetic morphological
expressions represent a strong diachronic tendency: they do not
follow from a principle of grammar concerning the nature of morphological
objects." pg 55
Hungarian PV V exhibit properties which are both morphological (e.g. nominalizations)
and phrasal (separability)
PV can be separated by V by: 1) auxiliaries, negative morphemes,
"also" morpheme...[CLOSED class elements, like Persian!]
\section{Alsina, Alex. ms A theory of Complex Predicates:
Evidence from Causatives in Bantu and Romance. March 1993.}
Causative constructions in both Chichew\^a and Catalan are idential
at the level of argument structure, but they differ
at the level of phrase structure: the complex predicate
is represented by a single verb in Chichewa (and thus
is 'formed in the lexicon'), but by two
verbs in Catalan ('formed in the syntax').
There is a discussion of AA's mapping theory.
His Proto-Role classification is discrete (not gradient
like Dowty).
[Lots of oversimplifications here: e.g. all obliques are
said to be optional, no real semantics is given, no
room for lexical exceptions.]
Two binary features, but only three possibilities:
$Obj_{\theta}$ is a type of Obj.
[What about the fourth possibility?]
The differences in where the complex predicates are
formed is made to explain the differences in:
\begin{enumerate}
\item coordination (Catalan allows it, Chichewa doesn't)
\item separabiltiy (Catalan allows it, Chichewa doesn't)
\item nominalization (Chichewa allows it, Catalan doesn't)
\end{enumerate}
[What about all the languages that fall in between?
What does `formed in the syntax' mean? If the arg-struc is built
up compositionally in the syntax, then isn't the
linking from arg-struc to sytax a little after-the fact?]
\section{Butts, Miriam. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu}
(Urdu is basically the same as Hindi)
Permissive Complex Predicates
She notes the problem of having two semantic heads, the
permissive ("Let") and the (main) verb, both having up equals
down arrows.
In footnote she acknowledges the possibilility of Light-Pred and
Heavy-Pred features, but notes that there can also be two Light-Preds.
She follows Alsina 1992 and Rosen 1990, in
suggesting that the verbs combine by Argument Fusion at a-structure.
Aspectual Complex Predicates
There is split ergativity in Urdu. Ergative case is assigned when the
argument has "conscious choice"
\eenumsentence{\item He-nom scream.\\
He screamed (despite himself)
\item He-erg scream.
He screamed (on purpose).}
{\bf Light Verbs taking ergative subject}: le "take", de "give", daal "put", maar "hit"
nikaal "pry out"
{\bf Light verbs taking nominative subject}: aa "come" jaa"go", par "fall", mar"die",
nikal "emerge"
cuk "finish", bait "sit" ut "rise" (see paper for IPA diachritics)
(the light verbs, and not the main verbs determine the case marking of the subject)
If the semantics of the main verb and the light verb are incompatible, then the
complex is ill-formed:
\enumsentence{*He-erg fell put\\
He fell on purpose.}
[OK in the context of a play?]
The light verb cannot impose its semantic contribution on the complex
predicate.
Light predicates have aspectual properties as well. MB: "most verbs
in Urdu are underspecified as to their [aspectual dimension]." pg 17
MB uses Butt, Isoda and iells (1990)'s idea of a "transparent event":
this triggers complex predicate formation at the level of a-structure;
a transparent event is an incomplete predicate looking for another argument
taking predicate.
No thematic tier (the representation is Jackendoff's) is posited for light
verbs; it is this sense in which they are light.
\section{Doostan, Gholamhossein Karimi. Chapter 4.
Chapter 4 Light verb constructions in Persian and Kurdish.
University of Essex dissertation.}
See to.karimi and to.karimi1 in RESEARCH/Persian
\section{Durie, Mark. ms. Grammatical Structures
in Verb Serialization: some preliminary proposals.
University of Melbourne.}
MD discusses two types of serial verb constructions in
Pamese, an Oceanic language of Vanuatu.
\begin{enumerate}
\item a single serial verb complex describes a single
event
\item
the serial complex has shared tense, aspect, modality and polarity
\item
serial verbs "share" at least one and possibily more args
\item the complex takes only one subject/external arg
\item there is a very strong diachronic tendency to
lexicalization: this can involve treating the whole serial complex
as a single lexcical item, or `demotion' of hte meaing
and grammatical status of one of the verbs
to that of a modifier or casemarker
\end{enumerate}
Two types of serial verb complexes in Paamese:
CORE serialization: each verb retains morphological
marking for subject agreement.
NUCLEAR serialization: subject \& obj agreement
and mood marking only occur once, and one verb stem follows
the other with no intervening morphological material.
(This is not compounding (P also has compounding)
because verbs are phonologically
treated as two distinct words.)
MD argues strongly against Baker's account, accusing
him of faking data, ignoring counterexamples, etc.
Some ordering generalizations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item in instrumental serialization, the verb
which introduces the instrumental arg always
comes first.
\enumsentence{`` take axe cut tree."\\
``knife take cut"}
\item In cause-effect serialization, the verb indicating
a causing deed, e.g. 'hit' comes first.
\item In benefactive/goal serialization the main event
verb precedes the verb that contributes the goal or
benefactive role.
\end{enumerate}
These generalizatioons hold in SVO and SOV languages
showing serialization in different ways.
MD's explanation: the verb sequencing is 'iconic' :
the direction of causation will conform to temporal
sequencing, where this is applicable, but hte
direction of causation does not always allow a temporal
ordering. The iconic motivation is often grammaticalized.
Two distinct patterns e.g. in an SVO lang: SV..V (O) or SV(O)V(O)V(O)
Three generalizatoins:
\begin{enumerate}
\item verb serialization is univerally characterized
by heavy lexicalization of particular verb combinations
(e.g. "burn + make sound" = "start up an engine"-cannot be used to describe a car burning up noisily.;
``squeeze+remove = extract"; ``throw+arrive" = spear).
\item at the same time, serialization is productive;
One pattern: many serializations in Sranan (Sebba) include
one verb (drawn from a small set of around 40) whose
position and semantic contribution is fixed (this
seems like the light verbs of Miriam Butts)
Second pattern of productivity: event schemas, e.g. in
Kalam (described by Pawley):
\begin{shortex} {5}
{I & II & III & IV & V }
{movement.to.scene & action.at.scene & movement.to.next.scne & action.at.scene &
movement.away.from scene}
{}
\end{shortex}
\item Non-events are not acceptable:
*She take the fish buy. (the order is wrong: can't
take the fish and then buy it)
(cf. She take the fish sell)
*He ate return (cf. he ate sleep (normal siesta activity))
\end{enumerate}
The serial complex as a whole cannot contain duplicate
roles. There cannot be two agts, two patients, two
instruments, etc. ``This is one of the most important
ways in which verb series act like single verbs."
Multiple objects are sometimes allowed, but not
if they have the same semantic role.
Sometimes the arg shares two different roles from
two different verbs: e.g. `these young women' seems
to be the theme of 'go' but the agent of 'dig.':
woman young these go dig hit carrying come
``The young women dig and fetch (these animals)
MD suggests we aim toward an account of argument fusion:
a complex like I-take-stick-hit-Bill would have a fused argument
structure consisting of Agent Instrument and Patient,
existing alongside the independent argument structures of
the two verbs.
He reasons for this suggestion:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the constraint against role-doubling only
makes sense at the level of a fused arguments
structure fro the whole serial complex
\item the linking requires a fused arg structure
\item the sematnic contribution of args can
often only be unerstood in the context of the whole serial
complex
\end{enumerate}
\section{Evans, Nick. ms. Role or Cast? Noun incorporation
and complex predicates in Mayali. (do not quote).}
Trivalent verbs derived through benefactive and comitative applicative
constructions in Mayali: polysynthetic Australian language
of the Gunwinyguan family.
30 incorporable nominals (excluding body parts), the
only human nominal regularly incorporated is "child"
E raises the possibility that some transitive subjects
can incorporate, but is not completely convinced that
these are truly transitive.
{\bf
Thematic Role Account:}
Mithun: patients are preferentially incorporated,
with some languages also allowing instr and locations.
IO don't incorporate, because they are too high on
the hierarchy.
There is a complementarity of overt coding
between pronominal affixes and oncorporated nominals: the
former only encode full info for human referents, while
the vast majority of incorporable nouns refer to inanimates.
{\bf The problem for Thematic role account:
Comitative verbs}
\enumsentence{see OBJ with COM\\
hear OBJ with COM\\
feel OBJ for COM (frisk OBJ for COM)\\
hit OBJ over/for possission of COM\\
follow OBJ inbeing with COM (e.g. when two
men take it in turns to sleep with the same woman)\\
clean OBJ out of COM.}
NE gives these thematic roles theme or location
\enumsentence{leave OBJ with COM\\
put OBJ with COM\\
get OBJ from COM, from COM's possession\\
hide OBJ with COM}
NE gives these all thematic role location
[These could be said to have a different thematic
role: possessor]
NE argues that because of these cases, we need to
state the restriction on incorporated nominals:
the argument whose prototypical reference is more likely
to be inanimate is able to incorporate
[Doesn't seem to me to be in conflict with thematic role acct: if
roles are assigned differently--one could say that roles lower than
or equal to
patient incorporate, because higher roles are prototypically
animate. Would require COM to cover two distinct roles; otherwise,
maybe verb specific roles that, since they are associated with frames
of the verb, {\em could} capture prototypical information.]
MORAL: only inanimates incorporate (cf. Nunberg, Wasow and Sag stuff)
\section{Ghomeshi, Jila and Diane Massam. 1994. To Appear,
{\em Linguistic Analysis}.
Lexical/Syntactic Relations without Projection.}
Allows meaning for grammatical constructions.
Syntactic canonical object: the DO in the prototypical
transitive clause (Hopper and Thompson).
Presentational aspect: e.g. English imperfect -ing
Aktionsart: Dowty/Vendler classes (applied to predicates
actually)
Lexical aspect: idiosyncratic properties of verbs
Argues that Persian NI is best explained by allowing the
base-generation of object NPs in more than one position.
Cites Mithun's 4 classes of NI.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Type 1: Lexical Compounding: V+N denotes a conventionalized activity
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Type 1a: composition by juxtaposition: V and O form a tight bond
but remain phonologically separate
\item
Type 1b: morphological compounding: V and O form a single word
\end{enumerate}
\item Type II: manipulation of case is possible so that V+N unit
can function as a trasnitive unit with an oblique argument advancing
to DO status
\item Type III: manipulates discourse strucutre, such that known or
incidental information can be backgrounded by means of NI
\item Type IV: classificatory NI: N narrows the scope of the verb
such that a more specific object NP or part thereof can
also appear
\end{enumerate}
Mithun proposes implicational hierarchy: lng that has Type IV will also
have all the others, lng that has Type III will have Type I and Type II.
``Persian has only Mithun's type I NI in that it does not allow
an oblique arguent ot be advanced intot he case position vacated by
the incorporated noun..." [WRONG!]
(aside: Mohamad and Karimi who treat compounds like {\em dars xAndan}
(compositional)
to be fundamentally different
than compounds such as {\em rang zadan} "to paint.")
G and M do not make this claim. Instead they argue that
there is an aspectual diffrence with CPs being less bounded.
They argue against a movement analysis since a number of
the compound verbs do not involve DOs, they coudl
not be derived by movement since they would involve a non-properly
governed trace. Other args against movement analysis are
given in Heny and Samiian adn Mohammad and Karimi.
They do not treat CPs as lexical because of hte -esh
clitic: "Since compounding is generally assumed to be derivational
as opposed to inflectional, it must occur prior to
affixation of enclitics. Threfore if the Persian process under
discussion was an instance of lexical compounding, the enclitic
could not occur inside the compound." pg 23
Also, compounds can be separated by phrasal material. They cite:
CHECK THESE:
\enumsentence{Hasan maSin az in mard xarid \\
Hasan car from this man bought+3sg \\
'Hasan bought a car from this man.'
(Heny and Samiian 195:8)}
\enumsentence{gush be man ne-mi-kon-e\\
ear to me NEG+PROG+DO+3sg\\
'She doesn't listen to me'\\
(Mohammad and Karimi 197:7)}
M \&K reference cited as having othe reasons against a lexical
approach.
Heny and Samiian propose a Reanalysis soln.
G\& M's solution:
V' $--> $ V0 $-->$ X0 V0 (allows base-generated adjunction structures at the X0 level)
``Note that above the V level the structure is identical to that of an
intransitive verb. This accounts for the observation made by Mithun
that in Type I NI the N+V unit functions as an intransitive predicate.
In Persian this decreased transitivity...has aspectual consequences...the
[setences involving juxtaposition] denote processes [not accomplishments]."
[WRONG--not all Persian CPs are processes]
\section{ Givon, T. 1991. Isomorphism in the Grammatical Code:
Cognitive and Biological Considerations. {\em Studies in Language}
15-1. 85-114.}
Quantity Principle
Proximity Principle
Co-leixcalization and event integration: ``The more
integrated the two events are, the more likely is the
complement verb to be co-lexicalized--i.e. appear
contiguously with the main verb" pg 95.
Relative proximity of grammatical morphemes to the stem to indicate
conceptual {\em scope} relations as in the ordering of tense-aspect-modality morphemes
(Givon 1982) or other verbal categories (Bybee 1985)
\section{Hale, Ken and Jay Keyser. On the Complex Nature of
Simple Predicators.}
Unambiguous Projection (i.e. unambiguous paths Kayne 1984: binary
branching) is assumed: I don't see any argument for it.
The relation sister holds unambiguously between V and VP,a nd
between NP and V.
Only V and P take complements
By hypothesis, laugh, sneeze, dance, shelve, corral, box, saddle,
blindfold, bandage, clear, narrow, lengthen all involve incorporation.
Unergative verbs: $~[_{V*} ~ V1~ [_{NP}~ Ni~]~ ]~ $, where
Ni is e.g. the noun {\em dance}.
What about unergative verbs like {\em speak, grimace, skate, jog,
mumble, quack, sleep, cry}: need to posit hypothetical lexical Ns?
ECP: X0 must properly govern any head which incorporates into it.
If a noun N is external to V*, e.g. if N is the subject (or adjunct),
then incorporation is prevented.
Syntax is projected from the lexicon
Argument Structure = syntactic structures defined in lexical relational
structure (LRS).
Assumes the UTAH: idential thematic relationships between items
are represnted by identical structural relationships.
They ask, why are there so few semantic roles? (are there?)
Answer: there are no roles: just places in the tree.
Category V is assocated with "event" (e)
\section{Heny, Jeannine and Vida Samiian. 1991. Three
Case of Restructuring in Modern Persian. In WECOL. K. Hunt
T. Perry and V. Samiian (eds). Cal State U, Fresno. 191-203.}
Do not specify whether their rule is in morphology or
syntax. ``...the process we propose must be capable
of producing `words'. In fact we will claim that Restructuring
of the sort we envision can produce output on both the
word and phrasal levels, depending on the operation of
other highly general principles which constrain the process
as well as its output." pg 193
Argue
against syntactic movement: is non-productive, do
not allow modifier stranding or specific reference of N.
Lack of any clear motivation for moving in the grammar.
They focus on cases in which the N-V construction
has counterparts which clearly involve NP + V syntactic
formation: e.g., {\em harf-ha-yeS-ra bA dustan-eS zad}
``he said the words he had to say to his friends."
They note, ``no material may intervene between N and V if
N is unmodified" (examples have adjuncts:
\enumsentence{*harf bA dustan-eS zad \\
words with friends-his hit}
\enumsentence{*Bush tasmin dar in jalese gereft ke...\\
Bush decision at this meeting took that}
They note that non-compound cases *do* allow
intervening material:
\enumsentence{Hasan maSin az in mard xarid \\
Hasan bought a car from this man}
Sadock's reanalysis would propose that
the N+V is simultaneously treated as a V for the purposes
of morphology and a VP for the purposes of syntax.
Inflexibility in word order:
\begin{quote}
...morpheme ordering is generally copmletely rigid and
in any case is much stricter than
phrasal ordering. Thus, where there is a conflict
between the two, it will be the principles of morpheme
ordering that win out. (Sadock 1985 pg 407
\end{quote}
However, they argue that the CP shows characteristics of V-Bar,
not V-0.
They also criticize this type of account because it doesn'ts
seem to distinguish between examples like \ex{-1} and \ex{0}.
Also, ``it implies a division between sytnax and morphology
stronger than we wish to defind atthis stage." pg 198 .
They suggest a restructuring analysis wherein:
V' --> N'' V is reanlyzed to: V' --> N V, if N'' is non-branching.
``The compound retains V' status, although it functions semantically, etc. as a word,
possibly by virtue of its lexical specification" (197)
(They note the existence of PP-V compounds such as {\em bekar bordan},
``to work bring" = ``to use.")
Samiian has worked on the EZAFE construction that
Mohammad and Karimi cite. She argues that the restriction is htat
EZAFE never occurs within NP preceding a prepositional
phrase which would be regarded as subcategorized.
They do give the example: {\em dadan-e pul be dustan}
\section{Karimi, Essex. Diss chapter 4}
Dear Karimi,
Thanks for sending your chapter. I read it with great
interest.
It's good practise to always put your name somewhere on
every paper you give out. You might also put the title
of your diss, so that people like me will know how to cite it!
There was some kind of problem with the pages, especially
toward the end (where it got especially interesting!).
Page 31 didn't seem to follow page 30, and 32 didn't seem to follow
31. Page 34 repeated page 31, and page 37 was a repeat of
page 35. Is it possible for you to send me a new .ps version?
I could print that out here.
Here are some initial comments:
I noticed that people's judgments varied quite a lot on whether
gapping and conjunction of the PVs was allowed. Did you also find
that?
You cite two types of PVs: ``separable" and ``unseparable."
But the ``unseparable" cases are also separable under certain
conditions (as you note), and when the ``separable" ones are
actually separated, they generally occur with determiners (-i or ra).
In that case, as you note later, they are really acting like
arguments. But then it's not clear that they are actually parts
of complex predicates in that use.
Your take on it seems confusing given your discussion of
qaza: xord vs farib xord, where you want to distinguish
LVCs from VPs.
Of course it all depends on how you carve things up, and if
you can account for more data, that's always better. But it
should be made clear earlier in the text that these cases are
acting differently. As it is, the glosses do not always
note that the "-i" suffix is an indefinite determiner.
For example you claim correctly that I do not account
for example 43b: java:b-e xubi be ali da:d. But it's impossible
for the reader to know that this may not be something that
I (or others) have considered the same type of thing. In particular,
the "-i" suffix indicates that "java:b-e xub-i" is acting as
a regular argument of da:dan. Therefore, there is arguably no
complex predicate in the sentence.
The same is true for example 62) Ali raqs-e xaili xub-i kard.
Also, I know you are using the term "unseparable"
as a technical term (not to mean literally unseparable),
but I found it misleading that you cite me as assuming
that host and light verb are unseparable, since I didn't
use that terminology and I did try to explain exactly why
certain things *could* intervene (as I think you do mention at
some point).
I do agree that if you can count for the complex predicates *and*
the corresponding argument+verb cases, then your account
is preferable.
CPs in Iranian lngs is at least as old as middle
Iranian languages (Karimi 1987; Sheintuch 1973).
There are only 150 simple verbs in common use, but 2000 CPs.
In order of frequency:
\begin{quote}
\item kardan, zadan, da:dan, gereftan, budan, da:stan, ?a:madan, ?a:vardan, xordan,
kesidan, ya:ftan, Sodan, bordan, ?ofta:dan, raftan, ?anda:xtan (to fel, to throw), gozastan
(to put), didan (to tolerate, to experience), rasa:ndan (cuase to reach), varzidan(to
committ, to do), baxsidan (to forgive), rasidan (to reach).
\begin{quote}
\section{Klaiman, M.H. The Prehistory of Noun Incorporation
in Hindi. 1990. {\em Lingua 81} 327-350.}
Cites Southworth 1971: 129 that {\em kar} (do) is the usual
V in newly coined "conjuncts"; these often have relatd
intransitive versions with the V stem {\em ho-} (become/be).
(Just like Persian).
About a dozen or two Vs are involved. The following are
cited:
\eenumsentence{\item aa "come"
\item nazar aa "be visible"
\item de "give"
\item dikhaaii de "show up, appear"
\item rakh "put, keep"
\item tas\'riif rakh "sit"
\item le "take"
\item s\~a\~a le "breathe"}
[reminiscent of Bowerman and Clark stuff]
Argues that Hindi represents a preliminary stage prior to a potential
future development of NI, but is not a true NI language now.
At the same time, it has some properties that Mithun ascribes
to later stages of NI.
NOT NI because "at least" the negative morpheme {\em nah\~i\~i}
can intervene between N and V: it is not a clitic since
it can be stressed.
THe V can agree with the N of the CP.
Hindi has cases that are like memory came ({\em yad Amad}) in persian.
\section{Matsumoto, Yo. 1992. On the Wordhood of Complex Predicates
in Japanese. Stanford University dissertation.}
{\em complex predicate}: a predicate that is in some sense one word,
but is two words in some other sense.
{\em word} = atom
\begin{enumerate}
\item constituent structure: cannot be separated; X0; but
one-word status at c-structure does not necssarily entail
mono-clausality. Also a predicate can be
two morphological words in c-structure, but mono-clausal,
as in the case of German and Dutch separable complex verbs.
\item functional structure: a unit w.r.t. grammatical-functional
properties: governs its subject and object, is a unit for
passivization.
\item argument structure: has one logical subject, can only have one
agent, patient, etc.
\item semantic structure: packages meaning in an integrated way:
{\em send} is semantically bi-clausal, since there is an result
of something moving. (pg 8)
\end{enumerate}
[This leads to 2$^4$ possibilities: are they all exhibited?]
{\bf
Noun-incorporated periphrastic verbs}: {\em benkyoo suru}, Lit.
`study' + `do'. Evidence that there are two morphological words (two
words at c-structure):
\begin{enumerate}
\item focusing particles can intervene (pg 48)
\item the first morpheme can be coordinated (pg 48)
(and notes that compounds do not allow coordination)
\item one morpheme can occur alone in various environments:(48)
\enumsentence{\shortex{3}
{sore wa & rakka & shi-mashi-ta ka}
{it TOP & fall & do-POL-PAST-Q}
{Did it fall?}}
\enumsentence{\shortex{2}
{Hai, & shi-mashi-ta }
{Yes, & do-POL-PAST-Q}
{Yes, it did.}}
\end{enumerate}
{\bf T. Mohanan 1990}: Hindi N-V compounds: N+V is a single morphological word,
but
V agrees with N, which is taken as evidence that N is an OBJ.
So, the sublexical unit, N, bears the grammatical relation OBJ.
[Matsumoto here seems to assume thrat
Other sublexical functional specifications can include XCOMP as in
Japanese morphological causatives (Ishakawa 1985): V $-->$ V V,
where the first V is annotated with (up XCOMP) = down and the
second is the head (up = down).
The OBL$_{goal}$ phrase is captured by: (up XCOMP OBL$_{goal}$) = down,
which capitalizes on Functional Uncertainty:
{\bf
Functional Uncertainty:}
\smallskip
Kaplan and Zaenen (1988) proposed doing away with the constraint against
functional equations like: (up XCOMP OBL$_{goal}$) = down, which had
been ruled out by the Functional LOcality Condition, which prohibits more than
one attribute name from appearing in one equation.
K\&Z propose introducing a functionally 'uncertain' phrase in a phrase structure
rule as below:
\enumsentence{\shortex{4}
{ S & $-->$ & XP* & V}
{& & (up XCOMP* GF) = down & up = down}
{Functional Uncertainty for long distance dependencies}}
(Kleene star means 0 or more XCOMPs)
\medskip
[The problem may not arise if you adopt a constructioanl approach.
I should think about that]
{\bf Butts}:Urder permissive constructoin: mono-clausal functional structure,
but two morphological verbs: one PRED corresponds to two positions in
c-structure ("let-write") and 2) the two words comprising one PRED at
f-structure have different status in arg structure
``It is sometimes assumed that thematic role info...is the only
semantic info. needed for syntax...but this view is clearly false
(Dowty 1991, Matsumoto 1990a, T. Mohanan 1990, Pinker 1989)" pg 6
{\bf Japanese Light Verb construction}
verbal noun$_{acc case}$ + {\em suru} ("do"), analyzed by Grimshaw and Mester 1988
as requiring `argument transfer' (wherein args of the verbal noun
are transfered to the light verb).
M argues that there are other verbs that allow
the arguemnts of the verbal N to occur outside the transparent
NP, that {\em suru} isn't
the only one: there are aspectual verbs "begin", "repeat",
"finish" "continue" and verbs of thinking and wanting: "plan" "forget"
"decide". These are raising and equi verbs, respectively. (pg 88)
He argues that {\em suru}, too should be analyzed as a raising
or equi verb, wherein {\em suru}
or other light verb takes the N as an XCOMP. As in the
case of other XCOMPs in Japanese, the arguments of the XCOMP
are treated as arguments of the main clause.
1) The N must be controlled by the subj: this is expected
for XCOMP
[{\bf Differencs between Japanese construction and Persian}:
Japanese N is case marked and must be deverbal (has its own args).]
\medskip
{\bf Morphological Causatives}
\section{Mohammad, Jan and Simin Karimi. 1992.
Light Verbs are Taking Over: Complex Verbs in Persian.
{\em Western Conference on Linguistics} Joel Nevis and Vida
Samiian (eds). Dept of Linguistics. Cal State Univerity,
Fresno.}
Since 13th century, compound verbs have gradually replaced
simple verbs.
The number of
Simple verbs is less than 115. Comparing
{\em geristan} vs {\em gerye kardan} and a few others,
the CP is the only one used in colloquial speech.
Cps are productive: TAyp kardan (to type), telefon kardan (to call).
Claims the N is not not always an X0 on the basis of:
{\bf CHECK}: Can this occur with adverb before verb?
\enumsentence{KimiA ye zamin -e- saxti xord \\
KimiA a earth -gen- hard eat \\
(her gloss: KimiA a earth -EZ hard collide)\\
``KimeA fell badly.''}
Certain things can intervene: future, IO, {\em dige}
Discusses Heny/Samiian's restructuring hypothesis.
Reject because
the N allows branching as in \ex{0} (so they
say). Heny/Samiian account for cases wherein the
N and V are separated by claiming that in those
cases we have a VP as opposed to a reanalyzed V',
cannot account for transitive CPs, since the separated:
N would have to be the DO; then what would the other DO be?
Larson's V' Reanalysis is discussed and rejected.
Verbs are `light verbs' (following Jesperson)
They claim that ``The verbal element of the Persian
complex predicate is semantically empty." Instead they
claim that the semantic content is based on the nominal element.
This claim is supported by the existence of a few
cases wherein different verbs can be used with
the same meaning ({\bf CHECK}: is it really the same meaning?):
\enumsentence{ezhAr kardan vs ezhAr dAStan ``statemnt + V" to state}
\enumsentence{majbur kardan vs majbur nemudan(to show)
``forced + V" to force}
[However, this conclusion is clearly unwarrented as a general
statemetn. While there are a few cases wherein the change
of V does not drastically alter the meaning of the CP,
inthe majority of cases, a change in the V {\em does}
result in a predictable change in meaning. For example,
....]
They claim that the light verb does not bear a thematic relation
to its nominal element on the basis of the following
syntactic test: EZAFE construction, a construction that consists
of a head noun and its thematic arguments:
\enumsentence{\shortex{4}
{dAdan-e- ketAb & be rAmin & dorost & nabud}
{give-gen-book & to Ramin & right & neg.was}
{The giving of the book to Ramin was not right}}
They note that the CP changes its subcat frame.
[{\bf CHECK}:
\enumsentence{\shortex{4}
{dAdan-e- da?vat & be rAdio & dorost & nabud}
{give-gen-invitation & to Ramin & right & neg.was}
{The giving of the invitation to the radio was not right}}
Also check if Do in this construction always has a definite
interpretation: that alone would rule out CPs]
\subsection{Grimshaw and Mesler's (1988) argument transfer}
G\& M discuss Japanese (see Matsumoto for counterarguments).
N is nonreferential and cannot be relativized (the second
follows from the first, no?)
{\bf CHECK}: Ramin rA Kimea be-heS ketAb dAd
Ramin-ra Kimea to him book gave
Ramin, Kimea gave him books.
They want to claim that there are two structural positions
for objects in Persian one receiving inherent and one
structural case. The N and all nonspecific objects are sister
to the V (receiving structural case) but specific objects
are in SPEC of VP and receive inherent Case.
So only the specific NP bears the thematic role.
[I don't know what they do when a transitive CP has a non-specific
object: then there are TWo objects receiving structural case?
What about binary branching??]
{\bf Conclusion}: ``We have shown ...that the verbal element in
Persian copmlex prediates is semantically empty, and that
it coocurs with a transparent NP. The latter
transfers its thematic roles to the verb. This
fact accounts for the differences
between the light and the corresponding heavy verb, on the
one hand, and the differences observed between complex
predicates that appear with the same verb, on the other hand.
We have also shown that the nominal element of the light verb in a complex
predicate construction is a nonspecific NP, that
does not bear thematic relationship to the verb. This fact excludes
the Incorporation hypthesis since incorporation involves an NP that is
assigned
a thematic role by the verb...." 208-209.
\section{Mohanan, Tara. ms. Multidimensionality of Representation:
Noun-Verb Complex Predicates in Hindi. National University of Singapore}
Complex predicate construction is one in which two semantically
predicative elements jointly determine the structure of a single
syntactic clause.
TM concentrates on N+LightVerb and complexes (similar
to those in Persian). The noun is the HOST, the verb, a LIGHT
VERB (Jespersen 1954).
She argues that the N is a lexical X0 category, and the V is a V1 category
(can have auxiliaries as sisters). The N + V1 are taken to form a
phrasal unit.
She notes that Lexical Integrity: subconstituents of a lexical unit cannot undergo
syntactic reordering, entails that the host and light verb cannot consitute a lexical unit.
(Note that while the N+LV cannot be separated by scrambling, the LV can be
topicalized).
She notes that the argument structure of the clause is determined conjointly by
the N and the LV. This is then in conflict with the
Direct Syntactic Encoding (Bresnan 1978, 1982): function changing
phenomena can take place only in the lexicon.
The complex predicate as a whole and the light verb are both phrasal categories.
"No lexicalist theory would therefore wish to treat the N+V CP in Hindi as
being formed in the lexicon."
She is with Alsina it seems in treating these complexpreds as being formed
in the syntax.
[She and Farrell \& Phil both note a conflict between Lexical Integrity and
Direct Syntactic Encoding; she rejects DSE, F\&P reject Lexical Integrity in
its strong form.]
\section{Nash, David George. 1980. Topics in Walpiri Grammar.
MIT dissertation.}
The auxiliary clitic (rli: pronominal clitic: we dual inclusive subject) appears in second
position after
the first immediate consituent of hte sentence. It can appear
after the N+V or after the N:
\enumsentence{Wuruly(pa)-ya-ni-rli\\
seclusion-go-NPast-12 \\
Let's go and hide}
\enumsentence{Wuruly-rli ya-ni\\
seclusion-12 go-NPast\\
Let's go and hide}
Doesn't seem very auxiliary-like, does it: Also
{\em ka} (Present auxiliary) can intrude (1980:53).
\section{Sells, Peter. 1994. Sub-Phrasal Syntax in Korean.
{\em Language Research}}
\section{Williams, Edwin. 1993ms. Notes
on Lexical and Syntactic Complex Predicates:
prepared for Stanford workshop presentation
May 1993}
Argues for two types of complex preds:
lexical and phrasal; and that they should
not be treated uniformly.
Lexical: can occur: V Pred NP even without
heavy NPs:
\enumsentence{John wiped clean the table.}
That it is lexical is supported by the
existance of nominalizations:
\enumsentence{the wiping clean of the table}
Pseudopassives:
\enumsentence{*John was taken great advantage
of.\\
John was taken advantage of}
Some cases of intrinsic V+Particle (cf below)
{\bf Phrasal}: cannot occur V Pred NP:
\eenumsentence{\item
*John considers clean the table.
\item John considers clean any table witha reeflectant surface.}
Note that this order is out whenever
the complex predicate is itself complex
(Emonds 1969):
\eenumsentence{\item *I picked right up the paper
\item *I wiped very clean the table.}
EW notes that if we take seriously the
idea that complex predicate formation is
a lexical rule, then it should be incapable of
generating "wipe very clean" since this
is not a possible lexical unit.
EW concludes that \ex{0} do not involve
complex predicates (which he takes
to be lexical).
Further evidence comes from the fact that
consider+A does not allow nomiinalization:
\enumsentence{*the considering silly of Bill}
All cases of V+particle(external):
EW suggests that [consider NP AP] structues
are clausal in the sense that there is a subject-predicate structure (I guess, semantically
clausal), but he rejects the idea that there
is a small clause constituent.
Rather, the entire VP is the "clause"
The head is the "glue" that binds the subejct
and prediate together:
\enumsentence{ [consider NP AP]vp \\
glue subj pred}
He observes that the AP cannot be "specificatoinal", but must be "predicational" (cf.
Borkin):
\enumsentence{*I consider the mayor John}
Two types of verb+particle:
\begin{enumerate}
\item intrinsic properties of object
\item extrinsic properties of object to
other objects
many verb+part are ambiguous:
\eenumsentence{\item John put the planes
together.\\
assemble (intrinsic)\\
side-by-side (extrinsic)
\item John kicked the vase over.\\
on its side (intrinsic)\\
over to me (extrinsic)}
\end{enumerate}
Without heavy NP shift, the V-Part-NP order
is not grammatical with the extrinsic readings.
Williams goes on to suggest that although
English does not have complex predicates
of the form: V --> [V XP]vx, where vx is
some kind of argument taking non-maximal
unit, such complex predicates do exist
in French: e.g. {\em faire partir}.
Phrasal result phrases cannot occur before the NP:
\enumsentence{
*I picked right up the paper.}
A lexical rule such as V $\Longrightarrow$ V A could not generate
\ex{0} anyway.
W claims that:
\enumsentence{I wiped the table very clean.}
does not involve a complex predicate.
Intrinsic vs extrinsic interpretation of particles:
\enumsentence{
John put the planes together\\
a. assemble (intrinsic)\\
b. side-by-side (extrinsic)}
The order V prt NP can only have intrinsic interpretation:
\enumsentence{I put together the planes.}
Two constructions: one lexical:
a. V $\Longrightarrow$ V P (intrinsic sense)
(also V $\Longrightarrow$ V A)
The other not:
b. VP $\Longrightarrow$ V NP P(P) (for both the intrinsic and extrinsic cases)
the wiping clean of the table (lexical)
*the considering silly of Bill (non-lexical)
"Small clause constructions" are clausal in the sense that there
is a subject-predicate structure:
\enumsentence{
I [consider NP AP$]_{VP}$}
[consider NP AP]
glue subj pred
Williams, Edwin. 1983. Against Small Clauses. {\em LI} Vol 14 No 2.
pg. 287-308.
Predication theory:
{\em Subject as External Argument}: The subject of a predicative
phrase XP is the single argument of X that is located outside
of the maximal projection of X. (Williams 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982)
The subject-predicate relation is captured by coindexing.
Also, subjects must c-command their predicates.
[NP0 XP0]0, where
XP is a maximal projection of X (so M cannot be a projection of X).
The Predication theory makes the subject-predicate relation
primary, the notion of "clause" derived. The Small Clause
theory does the opposite:
The small clause theory says, "all subjects must be
structural subjects."
Arguments for Predication theory:
1)scope
2) the statement of "thematic independence": thematically
independent predicates cannot occur in argument positions,
and they can occur in non-argument positions.
3) The nature of the small clause (X*) category: the X* must
be nonmaximal, since goverment (and casemarking) can apply
across it. But the head of this nonmaximal projection X* turns
out to be maximal:
John considers [Bill [Bob's friend]
What does John consider [Bill [t]
(Wh Movement moves only maximal projections)
That in itself is wierd.
We have:
(a) X* --> ...XP...
Moreover, both {\em Bill} and {\em Bob}
are the subject of the same nominal projection. Moreover,
since X* is nonmaximal, projections such as:
(b) XP -> ...X*...
are allowed, which would give a single projection of infinite
length, since (a) and (b) are recursive.
This particular argument could be rectified if {\em only}
S or S' small clauses were allowed, though.
4) accounting for the differences between infinitives and
predicates of "small clauses". the infinitive only has
the property of thematic independence in argument positions,
and the property of taking a subject of arbitrary reference.
Predication Theory: only infinitives have a structural PRO
subject. (Williams notes that LFG also does not distinguish
between infinitives and other predicates, assigning neither
of them a structural subject--this will also fail
to account for the distinction).
{\em Argument Complex}:
An arugment complex consists of a predicate, its arguments,
its arguments' arguments, and so forth.
{\em The Restricted Theta Criterion} (restricted to argument
complexes):
In an argument complex, each phrase is assigned only one theta role.
BUT: In {\em John ate the meat raw}, {\em the meat} is
assigned two theta roles. "This does not violate the Theta
Criterion, however, because {\em raw} is not an argument of
{\em eat}. Hence there is no argument complex htat includes
both {\em eat} and {\em raw}."
[What about resultatives, then? In particular, what about:
{\em render, make} which subcategorize for a resultative?
If you don't have small clauses, how can you do these?]
Chomsky (1981) says that the Projection Principle rules
out the possibility of analysing {\em consider} as having
an NP and AP copmlements, since semantically (and at LF structure)
it has a single clausal complement. Williams responds wisely:
why do we take the LF structure of a {\em consider}
sentence to have a clause? because it is a semantic unit, but
that shouldn't mean it has to be a syntactic unit. We can
let the NP AP structure be the representation in LF.
The Predication Theory does run counter to Chomsky's
principle (1981) that if a verb subcategorizes for a position it
must theta-mark it, since the postverbal NP of {\em consider}
does not get a theta-role from the verb.
\section{Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1989. Two Types of Noun
Incorporation: A Lexical Analysis. {\em Language 65 2}.}
With Mithun and DiSciullo \& WIlliams, she argues that NI
is a lexical process (against Baker and Sadock).
Two types of NI:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Compound NI: involve simple compounding: one argument of the simple verb is
satisfied
within the verb. (Mithun's first 3 classes) (e.g. Engl "meat-eater")
\begin{enumerate}
\item
the arg structure of the simple verb is
changed to become intransitive
\item no stranding of modifiers
\item no doubling outside verb
\end{enumerate}
\item
Classifier NI:
can still take an object: the incorporated N is semantically
like a classifier of the object.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Simple and complex verb's arg structure is the same: can still
take an object
\item
Languages with this type of
NI are said to allow 'stranding' of modifiers (null-head modifiers).
\item doubling outside of verb
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
Compounding shoudl be invisible to the syntax.
[This typology doesn't seem to allow for transitive CPs which are not
classifier type: Mithun's type II]
R notes that there is a subject/non-subject asymetry: with
deep subjects not incorporating: instrumentals incorporate
in Nahuatl, means phrases incorporate in Niuean, and some locatives
incorporate in Samoan--non of these phrases is ever a DO.
Goals and benefactives never incorporate in any language.
\section{Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Wordhood and Lexicality: Noun
Incorporation in Hindi. Submitted to NLLT}
NI: noun combining with a verb to form a complex verb:
Mithun 1984, Hopper and Thompson 1984, Sadock (1980, 1991),
Baker(1988), DiSciullo and WIlliams(1987) and Rosen (1989)
are cited as general refs.
Agreement facts argue that the N must be treated syntactically
as an argument on par with the other args of the verb
(I think this is Baker's take, too). At the same time, though,
NI is lexical in various ways.
Most NI sentences are actually ambiguous between an NI reading,
and a simple verb reading. (e.g., "Anil will sell books," OR
"Anil will do book-selling.")
\begin{enumerate}
\item nothing may intervene between N and V in NI: not
subject, locative adjunct, or negative. (word order is
usually free in Hindi)
[certain things can intervene in Persian]
\item N cannot be modified, and modifier cannot
be stranded either: this is not predicted by Baker's account
of head-movement, or by Sadock's coanalysis account.
[same is true in Persian]
\item neither wh-words nor pronouns can be the N in NI:
``*what-selling" ``*this-selling": M attributes this fact
to the fact that wh-words and pronouns are maximal
projections, and N of NI is necessarily zero-level.
[would also seem to be ruled out by the naming pragmatic
constraint, though]
\item neither the N or the V can be gapped in a coordination
construction: ``*Anil does horse buying and Ram does -selling."
``*Anil does hourse-and Ram elephant-selling."
This is claimed to follow from the Lexical Integrity
Hypothesis: the categorial representation formed inthe
lexical modeule is not visible to principles of phrasal
organization. [M points out that adopting this principle
effectively rules out a head-movement analysis like
Baker's or a coanalysis like Sadock's as well].
\item neither N or V can be conjoined in NI: this is attributed
to the fact that lexical categories cannot be
conjoined in Hindi.
\item N doesn't bare an overt case clitic: but M claims N is
in nominative case: is nominative case is unmarked? how do
we know it's there at all?
Explanation for this is that clistics apply to phrasal
categories, not zero level categories.
\item evidence also comes from phonology: stress contours
\item NI can be input to lexical derivational N formation:
via
derivational suffix {\em -vaalaa}
\end{enumerate}
Semantic/Pragmatic constraints on NI:
\begin{enumerate}
\item N must be generic or ``non-referential": it can only
refer to the class of entities denoted by the noun,not to the idividual
members of the class. (M cites references that point out that
Ni is not necessarily accompanied by genericity or nonspecificity
(cf.Mohawk(mithun 1984), Eskimo(Sadock 1980).
\item the activity or process refered to by NI must be
``salient" or ``name-worthy"in what Hale and Keyser (1991:13)
call the ``cultural encyclopedia" of language users.
``\#clothes-tearing, \#grass-seeing, \#book-giving, \#book-lifting"
[In this section she notes \#kissed bride, vs unkissed bride
in Eng]
This also follows from idea that nameworthiness is a property
of lexical items (Hale \& Keyser 1991: 13)
\end{enumerate}
\bigskip
EVIDENCE FOR PHRASAL STATUS:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Agreement facts:
1) Verb agrees with the object iff the object is NOM, and
the subject is not NOM.
2) NOM case can only be determined after phrasal concatenation:
because phrasally concatenated model can assign DAT case to the
subject
3) V can agree with incorporated in NI
\end{enumerate}
SOLN to the paradox: separate two dimensions of
syntactic info: grammatical functions (NI involves PRED
and OBJ) and grammatical categories (V0 -> N0 V0).
\section{Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The Evolution of Noun
Incorporation. {\em Language 60: 4}. pg 847-894.}
{\bf Type I Noun Incorporation (NI)}:
Micronesian, Mayan (patients), Lahu (patients, instruments and locatives)
Lexical compounding:
Compound must designate some institutionalized
activity. Noun is not specific, does not refer, is not
marked for definiteness or number, cannot occur with demonstratives
or numerals.
Sometimes the formal unity of V N is not obvious,
since in most languages be written as separate words, and retain their
independent stress patterns, but cliticization, aspect suffixes,
and the placement of manner adverbs reveal that the V N is
treated as a syntactic unit.
[In Persian, stress is different. ]
In Samoan, particles which
normally cliticize to the right of the V
cliticize to the right of the VN complex under NI (Chung 1978).
In Micronesian languages, suffixes whcih normally follow the
V, follow the VN complex under NI (Mithun 1984):
\enumsentence{\shortex{3}
{I & kanga-la & wini-o}
{I & eat-COMP & medicine-that}
{``I took all that medicine."}}
\enumsentence{\shortex{2}
{I & keng-winih-la}
{&}
{``I completed my medicine-taking."}}
V N forms an intransitive verb.
``All languages which exhibit such morphological structures
also have syntactic paraphrases." (pg 848).
Name-worthiness (Zimmer 1971, 1972, Downing 1977, Pawley 1982)
``The term 'incorporation' is generally used to refer
to a particular type of compounding in
which a V and N combine to form a new V." (848).
\enumsentence{\shortex{2}
{Ngoah & ko oaring}
{I & grind coconut}
{``I am coconut-grinding." Mokilese (Micronesian, Austronesian;
Harrison 1976)}}
Matisoff 1981: Lahu NI often become idiomatic.
Mithun notes that in some languages, the compounds are
considered single words by speakesr and
are subject to all regular word-internal phonological processes
(Niska, a Tsimshian language of British Columbia;
a number of Australian Aboringial languages).
Gurindji, Australian aboriginal language Hudson 1978:
\enumsentence{pina-karri \\
ear-stand \\
``to listen, hear"}
{\bf Type II NI}: A normally oblique argument appears in
the case position (obj or subj) vacated by the IN.
IN's lose their syntactic status as arguments of the clause;
they are unmarked for definiteness, number or case, although
they are not necessarily indefinite.
\eenumsentence{\item his-face I-it-wash (unincorporated)
\item I-him-face-wash "I face-washed him" (incorporated)}
(type of possessor raising)
\eenumsentence{\item I chop the tree in my cornfield.
\item I chop-tree my cornfield.}
{\bf Type III NI}: The manipulation of discourse structure.
NI of known, incidental, non-salient nouns. IN is not necessarily
non-specific and indefinite, but is unmarked for those features.
\eenumsentence{\item $<$ Where is the knife? I want it now $>$
\item He knife-cut bread. "He cut the bread with it."}
{\bf Type III NI}: Classificatory Noun Incorporation. IN serves
to narrow down the possible designation of the V, while a more
specific overt nominal appears as well.
\enumsentence{ they-tree-saw cashew.nut \\
"They saw a cashew tree"}
The accompanying independent NP need not contain a morphological
N, but a determiner, number or adjective may stand alone.
This might lead one to a syntactic account, but in fact the
only languages that do this, always allow a determiner, number
marker or adjective to stand in the place of a full NP, whether
or not there is NI.
Hopper and Thompson 1980: general tendency for V's to coalesce with indefinite
DaDOs. They cite Hungarian in this respect (DOs that are both
referential and definite follow the V, indefinite, non-referential
Objects precede the V; if hte object is referential but indefinite,
no marker appears in the V (and it follows)).
Turkish is cited (seems like Persian): indefinite objects do not
appear with an article and adverbs may not intervene between
N and V.
\end{document}