Separability of Light Verb Constructions in Persian*

Separability of Light Verb Constructions in Persian*
Gholamhossein Karimi-Doostan, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj
E-mail: gh5karimi@uok.ac.ir
‘Abstract’
Persian Light Verb Constructions (LVCs), consisting of a light verb and a
preverb, fall into two groups: separable and inseparable. The nominal preverbs in the
former, unlike those in the latter, can function as direct object DP argument, can be
modified by an adjective, and can be relativized, scrambled and focused on by Whinterrogatives.
In this paper, it is argued that the (in)separability of LVCs cannot
necessarily be an indication of the fact that LVCs are formed at two levels of
representation. It is shown that (in)separability of LVCs follows from the semantic
and morphosyntactic properties of preverbs and light verbs in the language.
Key words: Persian complex predicates, light verbs, case marking, a-structure
1. Introduction
After the seminal article of Grimshaw and Mester (1988) on the Japanese light
verb suru 'to do', many researchers have focused on light verbs and complex forms of
verbs in different languages (Ahn, 1991; Sato, 1993; Kim, 1994; Mohanan, 1994; Rosen,
1989; Butt, 1995; 2003; Diesing, 1998; 2000; Choi and Wechsler 2001; Butt and
Ramchand 2005; among many others). Persian complex verbs have also attracted some
researchers (Mohammad and Karimi, 1992; Vahedi-Langroudi, 1996; Karimi, 1997;
Karimi Doostan, 1997; Megerdoomian, 2001; and Folli, Harley and Karimi, 2005; among
others). In fact, most of the Persian verbs are in complex forms consisting of a light verb
and a preverb (PV) 1 . The preverbs (PVs) are nouns, adjectives, adverbs or prepositions
(Karimi, 1987 and Folli, Harley and Karimi 2005) and the light verbs lack sufficient
*. I would like to thank the unanimous reviewers of Studia Linguistica for their enlightening comments. I
am also grateful to Mrs. Lamiah Hashemi, Mr. Thaher Sarhadi and Mr. Salman Ashabi for reading and
correcting some of the grammatical and spelling errors in the earlier version of this paper.
1 . The following abbreviations are used in this article: Def. = definite article; DOM = direct object marker;
DP = determiner phrase; Ez. = Ezafe particle; Fu. Aux = future auxiliary; Impf= imperfective; Indef. Art =
indefinite article; Neg = negation particle; NegP = negation phrase; PV = preverb; Prog. Aux. = progressive
auxiliary; VN = verbal noun. Where necessary the terms are defined in the text.

semantic force to function as independent predicates (Vahedi-Langroudi, 1996; Karimi-
Doostan, 1997; 2005). Any Persian complex verb, referred to as Light Verb
Constructions (LVCs) henceforth, can be broken by the Negation Particle (Neg), the
imperfective morpheme mi as in (1), modals and auxiliaries such as ba:yad ‘should,
must’, future auxiliary xa:stan ‘will’ and progressive auxiliary da:štan ‘to have’, as well
as clitic pronouns like -eš ‘it’ as in (2b-c).
(1) a. Ali gerye ne-mi-konad.
Ali cry Neg. Impf-do
‘ Ali does not cry.’
(2) a. Ali gerye da:rad mi- konad.
Ali cry Prog. Aux. Impf-do
‘Ali is crying.’
b. be ra:dyo guš xa:had kard.
to radio ear Fu. Aux. do
‘(He) will listen to the radio.’
c. guš-eš ba:yad mi-kardi.
ear-it should Impf.-do-Past
‘(You) should have listened to it.’
It should be noted that the auxiliaries are finite and carry the agreement features.
In addition to the separation of the components of LVCs by the negation particle,
the imperfective morpheme mi, the clitic pronouns like -eš ‘it’, modals and auxiliaries,
the nominal element of some LVCs may have a specific reading and function like a DP
argument which can be separated from the LV in some syntactic constructions. For
instance, a PV, as part of a LVC (3a), may occasionally appear in a DP which can be
modified by an adjective (3b) and function as the direct object (3c). Moreover, it can be
relativized (3d), focused on by Wh-interrogatives (3e) and scrambled (3f).
(3) a. tegarg be ba:q-e man latme zad.
hail to garden-Ez. I damage beat-past
‘The hail damaged my garden.’
b. tegarg latme-ye bad-i be ba:q-e man zad.
hail damage-Ez. bad-Indef.Par. to garden-Ez.I beat-past
‘The hail caused bad damage to my garden. / The hail damaged my garden
badly.’
2

c. tegarg-e diruz ʔin latme-ra: be ba:q-e man zad.
hail-Ez. yesterday this damage-DOM to garden-Ez. I beat-past
‘The yesterday’s hail caused this damage to my garden’
d. latme-ʔi ke tegarg be ba:q-ha: zad jobra:n na:pazir ʔast.
damage-Indef. Art. that hail to gardens beat-past irretrievable is
‘The damage caused by the hail to the gardens is irretrievable.’
e- Ali če latme-ʔi be šoma: zad?
Ali what damage-Indef. Art. to you beat-past
‘What loss did Ali cause to you?
f. ʔin latme-ra: tegarg-e diruz be ba:q-e man zad.
this damage-DOM hail-Ez. yesterday to garden-Ez. I beat-past
‘The yesterday’s hail caused this damage to my garden’
We should note that in (3) not only is a PV modified by an adjective (3b), preceded by a
determiner, i.e. ʔin ‘this’ (3c), and assigned direct object case (3c), but also the LVC is
broken by the PPs be ba:q-e man ‘to my garden’ (3b- c) and a relative clause can appear
between the PV and the LV (3d).
As far as separability is concerned, the LVCs in (4a) and (5a) behave differently
from the LVC in (3a). Unlike the LVC in (3b-f), a PV in the LVCs in (4b-f) and (5b-f),
can never appear in a DP which can be modified by an adjective (4b, 5b) and cannot
function as the direct object (4c, 5c). Moreover, it cannot be relativized (4d, 5d), focused
on by Wh-interrogatives (4e, 5e) and scrambled (4f, 5f). Following Karimi-Doostan
(1997), we refer to the LVCs such as those in (3) as separable LVCs and those like (4-5)
as inseparable LVCs.
(4) a. Ali ka:r-aš-ra: ʔanja:m da:d.
Ali work-his-DOM performing give-past
‘Ali did his work.’
*b. Ali ʔanja:m-e xub-i (ʔaz) (be) ka:r-aš da:d.
Ali performing-Ez. good-Indef. Art. (of) (to) work-his give-past
‘Ali had a good performance in his work. / Ali did his work well.’
*c. Ali ʔin ?anja:m-ra: (ʔaz) (be) ka:r-aš da:d.
Ali this performing-DOM (of ) (to) work-his give-past
‘Ali did his work.’
*d. ʔanja:m-i ke Ali (ʔaz) (be) ka:r-aš da:d mofid bud
performing-Indef. Art. that Ali (of) (to) work-his give-past useful was
‘Ali’s performing his work was useful.’
*e. Ali če ʔanja:m-i (ʔaz) (be) ka:r-aš da:d?
Ali what performance-Indef. Art. (of) (to) work-his give-past
‘What sort of performance did Ali have in his work?’
3

*f. ʔin ʔanja:m-ra: Ali (ʔaz) (be) ka:r-aš da:d.
this performing-DOM Ali (of ) (to) work-his give-past
‘Ali did his work.’
(5) a. Ali be ra:dyo guš- kard
Ali to radio ear do-past
‘Ali listened to the radio.’
*b. Ali be ra:dyo guš-e xubi kard
Ali to radio ear-Ez. good do-past
‘Ali listened to the radio well.’
*c. Ali ?in guš-ra: be ra:dyo kard
Ali this ear-DOM to radio do-Past
‘Ali did this listening to the radio.’
*d. guš-i ke Ali be ra:dyo kard va:zeh nabud.
ear-Indef. Art. that Ali to radio do-past clear wasn’t
‘The listening that Ali did to the radio was not clear.’
*e. Ali če guš-i be ra:dyo kard?
Ali what ear- Indef.Art. to radio do-past
‘What listening did Ali do to the radio?’
*f. ʔin guš-ra: Ali be ra:dyo kard
this ear-DOM Ali to radio do-past
‘Ali did this listening to the radio.’
In the present work, it is shown that different behaviors of PVs and the
(in)separability of LVCs is related to the fact that nominal PVs are of three different
types: Verbal Nouns (VN), predicative nouns and non-predicative nouns. It will be
illustrated that only the predicative noun PVs, as in (3), are able to be developed into DPs
which can be separated in the syntax, while the other two groups of PVs, such as VN
preverbs in (4) and non-predicative nouns in (5), are unable to be augmented into DPs
due to their semantic and morphosyntactic properties. Thus, they cannot be separated in
the syntax as in (4) and (5). This issue is explained in detail in section {3.2}. It is
demonstrated that the (in)separability of LVCs can be accounted for in the light of the
semantic and morphosyntactic properties of PVs and the (in)separability of LVCs in
cases like (3-5) cannot necessarily mean that LVCs are formed at two different levels of
representation, i.e. the lexicon and the syntax.
The data in (1-5) can raise some questions. Why are all LVCs uniformly separable
by some morphological and syntactic elements (1-2), while they behave differently in (3-
5)? Can the contrasts in (3-5) indicate that LVCs are formed at different levels, e.g.
4

lexicon or syntax and the internal structure of cases like (4) and (5) is not visible to the
syntax? How do some PVs sometimes function as parts of predicates (3a) and sometimes
as DP arguments playing the role of direct object? We have introduced the significant
data and issues related to this work present section. The general properties of LVCs in
Persian are presented in section {2}. In section {3}, the components of LVCs and their
characteristics are explained. The (in)separability of LVCs is particularly focused on in
section {4}. The concluding theoretical remarks of the paper are summarized in section
{5}.
2. Light Verb Constructions
Persian LVCs have attracted a number of researchers (Mohammad and Karimi,
1992; Vahedi-Langroudi, 1996; Karimi, 1987; Karimi Doostan, 1997; Dabir-Moghadam,
1995). More recently, Megerdoomian (2001) and Folli, Harley and Karimi (2005) have
mainly focused on event structure and aspectual properties of Persian LVCs; while in
Megerdoomian (2001) the LVs, in Folli, Harley and Karimi (2005) the VNs play an
important role in determining the aspectual properties of LVCs. Both approaches claim
that Persian LVCs can be accounted for syntactically and find it difficult to consider these
complex verbs as lexical units. They attempt to explain the internal structure of Persian
LVCs in the light of Hale and Keyser's (1993, 2002) lexical-syntax approach to verb
formation. A considerable number of complex predicates including those focused on in
this work are taken into consideration in both works and they take the position that the
LVs are responsible for agentive arguments. Goldberg (2003) argues that Persian LVC is
a zero level verb (V0) by default and whether LVC is expressed as a zero level verb or as
a phrasal entity is determined by independently motivated constructions. Default V0
status accounts for the CP’s zero level properties including its resistance to separation
5

and its appearance in derivational constructions. V0 status is a default case in the sense
that it can be overridden if and only if there is another construction in the grammar that
specifically overrides it. In Karimi-Doostan (1997), Persian LVCs consist of semantically
bleached LVs and nominal PVs. He argues that the LVs are capable of case marking and
hosting verbal features and they, in combination with T, can assign the nominative and
accusative case or only the nominative case. It is shown that the arguments of PVs can be
structurally case assigned via T and LV whose case assigning roles are not thematically
restricted. In other words, the arguments of PVs can be case marked by T and LVs.
The existence of separable and inseparable LVCs and the dual lexical and
syntactic properties of LVCs have led researchers to take different positions on the level
of LVC formation and consider LVCs as lexical units or syntactic phrases. Some linguists
(Ghomeshi and Massan, 1994; Goldberg, 1995; 2003) believe that LVC components have
zero level status and LVCs are formed in the lexicon. Similarly, in Karimi-Doostan
(1997) a LV and a PV, two zero level elements, conjoin together in the lexicon to form a
LVC with a single a(rgument)-structure whose internal structure is visible to syntactic
rules. Other researchers (Heny and Samiian, 1992; Vahedi-Langrudi, 1996;
Megerdoomian, 2001; 2002 and Folli, Harley and Karimi, 2005) suppose that LVCs are
syntactic units formed in the syntax. It seems difficult to account for the separable LVCs
such as those in (3) in the approaches which take LVCs as lexical units formed in the
lexicon. Moreover, cases such as (3b-f) in which PVs appear as referential and case
marked full DPs can undermine the positions which consider nominal PVs as unspecific
and non-referential nouns (Vahedi-Langroudi, 1996; Dabir-Moghadam, 1995;
Megerdoomian, 2002).
Karimi (1987), attempting to introduce various types of LVCs, provides the
following examples as LVCs in Persian. In each of the following cases, a verb (LV)
combines with a PV (a prepositional phrase, an adjective, an adverb or a noun) to form a
LVC with a single meaning as follows. The literal meaning of each PV has been enclosed
by parentheses.
6

(6) a. PP+V
az dast + dâdan (of hand giving) 'to lose'
az yâd + bordan (of memory taking) 'to forget'
be yâd + âvardan (to memory bringing) 'to remember'
be nazar + âmadan (to view coming) 'to appear'
be kâr + bastan (to work tying) 'to use'
az sar + gereftan (of head catching) 'to restart'
be sar + bordan (to head taking) 'to spend, to live'
be sar + âmadan (to head coming) 'to expire'
b. A+V
tamiz + kardan (clean doing) 'to clean'
bidâr + shodan (awake becoming) 'to wake up'
xarâb + kardan (destroyed doing) 'to destroy'
sabok + kardan (light doing) 'to degrade'
pahn + kardan (wide doing) 'to spread'
derâz + keshidan (long pulling) 'to lie down'
kam + kardan (little doing) 'to subtract'
c. Adv+V
birun +kardan (out doing) 'to fire (someone),
'to make someone leave'
bâlâ + bordan (up carrying) 'to promote'
pas + dâdan (back giving) 'to return'
pâyin + âvardan (down bringing) 'to degrade (someone/
the value of something)
bar + chidan (over arranging) 'to pick up, to remove'
dar + kardan (out doing) 'to fire (a shot), to deduct'
dar + gozashtan (off passing) 'to die'
dar + oftâdan (off falling) 'to quarrel, to oppose'
dur + andâxtan (far throwing) 'to throw away'
d. N+V
da'vat + kardan (invitation doing) 'to invite'
kotak + zadan (beating hitting) 'to beat'
shekast + dâdan (defeat giving) 'to defeat'
panâh + bordan (refuge carrying) 'to take refuge'
panje + andâxtan (palm throwing) 'to grip'
râh + raftan (way going) 'to walk'
âtash + zadan (fire hitting) 'to put on fire'
All types of LVCs in (6) can uniformly be broken by the morphosyntactic elements in (1)
and (2). However, the LVCs in (6a-c) cannot appear in constructions such as those in (3).
That means their PVs cannot function as specific DPs functioning as direct objects and
7

they cannot be relativized and focused on by Wh-interrogatives. Therefore, they fall
under the category of inseparable LVCs (Karimi-Doostan, 1997). In contrast, the LVCs
with nominal PVs (5d) behave differently. Some of them can appear in sentences such as
those in (3) while some cannot and they resist separation in the syntax as in (4) and (5).
Thus, the LVCs of (6d) type fall into two groups: separable and inseparable LVCs.
3. The Components of Light Verb Constructions
We believe that, to explain the separbility and inseparability of LVCs (3-5), it is
necessary to uncover the semantic and morphosyntactic characteristics of members of
LVCs. As mentioned earlier, every LVC of (6d) type, separable or inseparable, consists
of a LV and a nominal PV. We will examine and elaborate on the properties of LVs in
(3.1) and the semantic and morphosyntactic features of nominal PVs will be presented
and focused on in (3.2).
3.1. Light Verbs 2
In Megerdoomian (2002: 77) LVs are of two kinds: Inner LVs and Outer LVs.
The former contributes the inner event, internal argument and aspect but the latter
contribute the outer event, external argument and aspect. Folly, Harley and Karimi (2005:
1379) believe that LVs play agent/cause, eventive and duration roles in LVCs. Karimi-
Doostan (1997: 99-131), studying a wide range of LVs in Persian in detail, concludes that
LVs, lacking thematic roles and fully specified a-structure, have preserved their lexical
aspectual properties and they determine the (a)telicity of the VPs. Karimi-Doostan (2005:
1743-4), claiming that LVs are accusative case markers, points out that it is unknown
whether in LVCs (a)telicity follows from case properties or vice versa. To understand the
nature and morphosyntactic and semantic characteristics of LVs in Persian we compare
them with heavy (lexical) verbs and auxiliaries of this language in sections {3.1.1} and
{3.1.2}.
2 . The relationship between light verbs in Persian and little v in Minimalist Programme (Chomsky, 1995;
1999; 2001; Radford, 2004; among others) is dealt with in Karimi-Doostan (2005).
8

3.1.1. Light Verbs vs. Heavy Verbs
In this section, it is shown how LVs and heavy verbs behave differently with
respect to nominalization, the formation of manner adverbials, and modification by
adverbs, causativisation and argument structure.
3.1.1.1. Agentive (=Subject) Nominals: The agentive morpheme -ande ‘-er’ is added to
the stems of transitive and unergative heavy verbs and forms subject nominals, but the
LVs cannot often be subjected to this operation independently. Compare (7) with (8).
(7) Heavy Verbs:
a. xa:ndan ‘to sing, to read’ xa:n- (stem)+ -ande → xa:nande ‘singer, reader’
b. ra:ndan ‘to drive’ ra:n- (stem) + -ande → ra:nande ‘driver’
(8) LVs:
a. kardan ‘to do’ kon- (stem) + -ande → * konande ‘doer’
b. da:dan ‘to give’ dah- (stem) + -ande → * dahande ‘giver’
3.1.1.2. Adverbs of Manner: The bare stems of some Persian heavy verbs are capable of
combining with the morpheme -a:n and produce a type of adverbials of manner such as
xanda:n ‘while laughing’ in (9).
(9) Ali xanda:n va:red-e ʔota:q šod.
Ali while-laughing enter-Ez room became.
‘Ali, happily (while laughing), entered the room.’
None of the LVs can undergo this morphological operation independently. Consider the
following examples which indicate the contrast between these two classes of verb with
respect to this process.
(10) Heavy Verbs:
a. xandidan ‘to laugh’ xand- (stem) + -a:n → xanda:n ‘while laughing’
b. geristan ‘to cry’ geri- ( stem) + -a:n→ geria:n ‘ while crying’
9

(11) LVs:
a. kardan ‘to do’ kon- (stem) + -a:n → * kona:n ‘while doing’
b. zadan ‘to beat’ zan- (stem) + -a:n → * zana:n ‘while beating’
Only a full predicate can undergo this morphological process. LVs, being incomplete
predicates, are not able to be input to this rule. However, when LVs combine with other
items and become full predicates, they gain the capacity to undergo this operation. For
instance, the LVs in (11) as shown in (12) can form adverbs of manner like heavy verbs,
after combining with appropriate PVs.
(12) LVCs
a. raqs kardan ‘to dance’ raqs kon- (noun + stem) + -a:n → raqs kona:n
‘while dancing’
b. qadam zadan ‘to walk’ qadam zan- (noun + stem) + -a:n → qadam zana:n
‘while walking’
3.1.1.3. Modification by Adverbs: LVs, in contrast to heavy verbs, cannot
independently be preceded or modified by adverbs. Consider the following sentences:
(13) a. Ali Sasan-ra: šaba:ne zad.
Ali Sasan-DOM nightly beat-past
‘Ali punished Sasan nightly.’
b. tegarg be ba:q-e man šaba:ne latme zad.
hail to garden-Ez. I nightly damage beat-past
‘The hail damaged my garden nightly.’
*(14) tegarg be ba:q-e man latme šaba:ne zad.
hail to garden-Ez. I damage nightly beat-past
‘The hail damaged my garden nightly.’
As can be seen, the adverb šaba:ne ‘nightly’ may precede a heavy verb (13a) or an LVC
(13b), but it cannot precede or modify an LV (14). Thus, it is feasible to say that LVs, in
contrast to full verbs, cannot be independently preceded or modified by adverbs.
3.1.1.4. Argument Structure: As pointed out above, LVs and heavy verbs are different
from the viewpoint of a-structure. Heavy verbs normally tend to predicate a certain
number and types of arguments, while their LV counterparts do not seem to be consistent
in this regard and they predicate clauses with different number and type of arguments.
For example, the Persian da:dan ‘to give’ usually appears in sentences with three
10

arguments as in (15), when it functions as a heavy verb. However, it predicates different
number and type of arguments as in (16) in its light use.
(15) Ali keta:b-ra: be Sasan da:d. (Dative)
Ali book-DOM to Sasan give-past
‘Ali gave the book to Sasan.’
(16) a. Ali ʔesteʔfa: da:d (Intransitive)
Ali resignation give-past
‘Ali resigned’
b. Ali Sasan-ra: neja:t da:d (Transitive)
Ali Sasan-DOM rescue give-past
‘Ali rescued Sasan’
c. Ali ʔota:q-ra: be Sasan ʔextesa:s da:d (Dative)
Ali room-DOM to Sasan allocation give-past
‘Ali allocated the room to Sasan.’
In contrast to (15), in (16) the same LV predicates clauses with different number and type
of arguments; depending on the predicational characteristics of the PV elements of the
LVCs. Thus, it might be plausible to say that an LV has an unspecified, or defective astructure
(Di Sciullo, 1990; Butt, 1995) which turns into a fully-fledged one when the
given LV co-occurs with another element, while a heavy verb bears a fully specified astructure.
3.1.2. Light Verbs vs. Auxiliaries
Persian auxiliaries (e.g. šodan ‘to become’, budan ‘to be’, da:štan ‘to have’,
xa:stan ‘will’) in their usage as auxiliaries are different from LVs. LVs, bearing lexical
aspectual properties, contribute to the formation of predicates (= LVCs) by combining
with PVs. In contrast, auxiliaries, only capable of carrying functional features (e.g. tense
and agreement), are unable to participate in LVC formation and they may only co-occur
with already fully-fledged predicates either simple or complex. Consider the following
examples:
(17) a. Ali na:me-ra: xa:had xa:nd. (Future)
Ali letter-DOM will read
‘Ali will read the letter.’
11

. Ali na:me-ra: ---- xa:nd. (Past)
Ali letter-DOM read
‘Ali read the letter.’
*c. Ali na:me-ra: xa:had ------.
Ali letter-DOM will -----
‘Ali will ---- the letter.’
(17') a. Ali na:me-ra: qera:ʔat xa:had kard (Future)
Ali letter-DOM reading will do-past
‘Ali will read the letter.’
b. Ali na:me-ra: qera:ʔat ---- kard (Past)
Ali letter-DOM reading ---- do-past
‘Ali read the letter.’
*c. Ali na:me-ra: qera:ʔat xa:had -----
Ali Letter-DOM reading will
‘Ali will ---- the letter.’
The (c) examples in (17-17’) indicate that the heavy verb xa:ndan and the LV
kardan cannot be omitted and their deletion will result in ungrammaticality, but the
deletion of the future auxiliary xa:stan does not lead to ill-formed clauses (17b, 17’b).
The only function of this auxiliary is to change the tense from past (17b, 17’b) to future
(17a, 17’a). The deletion of this auxiliary in (b) examples, without any change in the
meaning of the propositions, shows that it is only a tense marker without any semantic
force and cannot predicate a clause without the existence of another verb, but LVs can do
so. Thus, opposed to auxiliaries, LVs can contribute to LVC formation or function as
main verbs in combination with PVs. In addition, (17’b) shows that LVs, opposed to
auxiliaries, which can only accompany verbal elements, may co-occur with non-verbal
items in order to form complex verbs.
Although researchers might disagree on the semantic force and aspectual
properties of LVs, they all argee that LVs can carry verbal features such as person,
number and tense markers and they are able to assign case. This position is supported by
the above data too.
3.2. Nominal Preverbs
Nominal preverbs fall into three groups. For expository reasons, we will refer to
them as Verbal Nouns (VN), predicative nouns and non-predicative nouns. As it will be
12

illustrated in sections {3.2.1} and {3.2.2}, the predicative nouns and VNs, referring to
actions or events, bear a-structure while non-predicative nouns, referring to things or
objects, do not bear a-structure. In addition, VN preverbs, unlike predicative and nonpredicative
nouns, lack N features. In (18), we show some LVCs containing these three
types of preverbs. The PVs in (18a) are VNs, those in (18b) are predicative nouns, and
those in (18c) are non-predicative nouns.
(18) a. Predicative Verbal Nouns:
ʔanja:m da:dan (performance + to give) ‘to perform, to do’
baya:n kardan (expressing + to do) ‘to express, to say’
ʔezha:r kardan (stating + to do) ‘to state, to say’
ʔa:xa:z kardan (beginning + to do) ‘to begin’
tahye kardan (providing + to do) ‘to provide’
b. Predicative Nouns:
komak kardan (help + to do) ‘to help’
gerye kardan (cry + to do) ‘to cry’
lotf kardan (favor + to do) ‘to do sb a favor’
latme zadan (damage + to beat) ‘to damage’
ra:hnema:ʔi kardan (advice + to do) ‘to advise’
daʔvat Kardan (invitation + to do) 'to invite'
c. Non-predicative Nouns:
gush kardan (ear + to do) ‘to listen’
ʔarre kardan (saw + to do) ‘to saw’
mashin kardan (machine + to do) ‘to machine’
ʔatash zadan (fire + to beat) ‘to fire, to set to fire’
qofl kardan (lock + to do) ‘to lock’
Karimi-Doostan (2008a: 189-192), based on semantic and morphosyntactic grounds,
claims that predicative VNs (18a) are different from nouns and they cannot be classified
as any of the Persian lexical categories, i.e. V, N, P or Adj/Adv. In the rest of this
section, different types of nominal preverbs are focused on.
3.2.1. Predication and Nominal Preverbs
The PVs may either refer to things or objects in the universe (18c) or to actions
and events (18a-b). Consequently, the nominal PVs are of two types, non-predicative and
13

predicative, with respect to a(rgument)-structure, predication and thematic force. The
non-predicative PVs are PV nouns like guš ‘ear’ and ʔa:taš ‘fire’ as in (19-20) which do
not carry a-structure, while the predicative PVs are action or derived nouns such as
ʔanja:m ‘performing’ and ra:hnama:ʔi ‘advice’ as in (21-24) which can bear a-structure.
The reason for such a classification is the fact that the non-predicative nouns cannot
appear in nominal form units with arguments which are predicated by the corresponding
LVCs to which these PV nouns belong. However, the VNs and predicative nouns, being
the nominal element of LVCs, can co-occur with their arguments in such nominal units
though the verbal elements of the corresponding LVCs are not needed. Compare the
following sentences predicated by LVCs in (a) examples with their nominal forms in (b)
examples. The well-formed nominal expressions in (b) can be used as titles of stories or
newspaper headlines. Also, note that there are no simple verbs corresponding to the
predicative PV nouns (23-26) in Persian.
(19) a. Ali be ra:dyo guš da:d / kard.
Ali to radio ear do-past / do-past
‘Ali listened to the radio.
*b. guš-e Ali be ra:dyo
ear-Ez. Ali to radio
‘Ali’s listening to radio.’
(20) a. Ali bute-ha:-ra ʔa:taš zad.
Ali bushes-DOM fire beat-past
‘Ali set fire to the bushes.’
*b. ʔa:taš-e bute-ha: tavasote Ali
fire-Ez. bushes by Ali
‘setting fire to bushes by Ali’
(21) a. Ali ka:r-aš-ra: ʔanja:m da:d.
Ali work-his-DOM performing give-past
‘Ali did his work.’
b. ʔanja:m-e ka:r tavasote Ali.
performing-Ez. work by Ali
‘Ali’s doing the work. / Doing the work by Ali.’
(22) a. Ali ka:r-aš-ra: ʔa:qa:z kard.
Ali work-his-DOM start do-past
‘Ali started his work.
14

. ʔa:qa:z-e ka:r-e Ali
start-Ez. work-Ez Ali
‘Ali’s starting the work’
(23) a. Ali Sasan-ra: ra:hnama:ʔi kard.
Ali Sasan-DOM advice do-Past
‘Ali advised Sasan.’
b. ra:hnama:ʔi-ye Ali be Sasan.
advice-Ez. Ali to Sasan
‘Ali’s advice to Sasan’
(24) a. Ali be Sasan komak kard.
Ali to Sasan help do-past
‘Ali helped Sasan.’
b. komak-e Ali be Sasan
help-Ez. Ali to Sasan
‘Ali’s help to Sasan’
As can be seen in the (b) nominal expressions in (21-24), the nominal elements of
LVCs in the (a) examples in (21-24) can head NPs which contain all the arguments of the
corresponding LVCs. Hence, it is justifiable to hold that the PVs in (21-24) are
predicative and responsible for the argument structures of the LVCs. On the contrary, as
indicated in (19b, 20b) nominal forms, the PVs in (19-20) sentences cannot head NPs
containing the arguments predicated in (19-20) sentences by the LVCs. Therefore, the
PVs such as those in (18c) as shown in (19-20) are non-predicative nominal PVs and the
PVs such as those in (18a-b) as shown in (21-24) are predicative PV nouns. Of course, it
is obvious that the predicational difference between the non-predicative PVs (19-20) and
the predicative ones (21-24) is related to the meaning of the PVs. While the former are
semantically opaque nouns referring to semantically referential objects in the universe,
the latter are predicative nouns referring to actions or events.
3.2.2. Morphosyntactic Properties of Nominal PVs
Most Persian lexical words can be categorized into word classes such as nouns,
verbs, prepositions and adjectives/adverbs and these categories can be differentiated from
each other by morphosyntactic and distributional tests. Although Croft (2005: 435) in
line with Schachter (1985: 5-6), Croft (1991: 45-46), Croft (2001: 75-83) and Eavan and
Osada (2005) criticizes the distributional method of lexical word categorization, he states
that the distributional method is the fundamental empirical method and there is no other.
15

Karimi-Doostan (2008a) shows that, according to distributional and morphosyntactic
tests, Persian lexical words fall under the categories of noun, verb, preposition and
adjective/adverb. Obviously, the nominal PVs are different from verbs, prepositions and
adjectives and do not fall under the categories of any of these word classes. To uncover
the characteristics of nominal PVs from the viewpoint of lexical categorization, we
attempt to illustrate how nouns behave when subjected to distributional and
morphosyntactic tests in {3.2.2.1} and then compare nominal PVs to nouns in {3.2.2.2}.
3.2.2.1.Nouns
Nouns such as daʔvat ‘invitation’, can be pluralized (25a), selected by adjectives
(25b) and can co-occur with demonstratives (25c), prepositions and Ezafe particle 3 (25e).
They can also function as subject (25f) and object (25a).
(25) a. daʔvat-hâ-ye ziyâdi dâšt-im.
Invitation-pl-Ez a lot had-1 st pl.
‘We had a lot of invitations.’
b. daʔvat-e xoob bood.
Invitation-Def. good was
‘The invitation was good’
c. ʔin daʔvat barâ-ye če bood
this invitation for what was
‘What was this invitation for?’
d. ʔaz daʔvat porsid.
from invitation asked
‘He/she asked about the invitation.’
e. daʔvat-e ali az man
invitation-Ez. Ali from me
‘Ali’s invitation to me’
f. ʔin da’vat kâr-o xarâb kard.
this invitation work-DOM ruining do-past
‘This invitation ruined the work.’
3.2.2.2. The Lexical Category of Nominal Preverbs
3 - The Ezafe particle –(y/ʔ)e appears between a noun and its complements, and between a noun and a
possessor, between a noun and a modifier, between an adjective/adverb and its complements, and between
a preposition and its complements. The constructs linked by the Ezafe particle are known as ‘Ezafe
constructions’.
16

Among the three groups of nominal PVs introduced above, non-predicative PVs
and predicative nominal PVs behave like nouns. That is, they can be pluralized, selected
by determiners, demonstratives, prepositions and Ezafe particle and they can function as
subject and object as in (25). However, predicative VNs do not morphosyntactically
behave like nouns. Unlike non-predicative nouns (18c) and predicative nouns (18b) as in
(25), the predicative VNs (18a) are different from the ordinary nouns. They cannot be
pluralized (26a), and selected by determiners (26b), demonstrative pronouns (26c) and
prepositions (26d). They also cannot function as subject (26e) or object (26a).
(26) *a ʔanjâm-hâ-ye ziyâdi dâštim.
performing-pl-Ez. a lot had-1 st -pl.
‘We had a lot of performances.’
*b ʔanjâm –e xoob bood.
performing-Def. good was
‘The performing was good’
*c ʔin ʔanjâm barâ-ye če bood
this performing for what was
‘What was this performing for?’
*d ʔaz ʔanjâm porsid.
from performing asked
‘He/she asked about the performing.’
*e ʔin ʔanjâm kâr-o xarâb kard.
this performing work-DOM ruining do-past
‘This performing ruined the work.’
Based on the above observations, it is reasonable to conclude that non-predicate
PVs and predicative PVs are [+N] 4 while the predicative VNs are [-N] from the
viewpoint of lexical categorization. Therefore, one can conclude that different nominal
PVs have the following thematic and lexical category properties in (27). We use the term
a-structure to indicate the predicative characteristics of PVs as explained in {3.2.1} and
[N] feature to show the lexical category of nominal PVs as elaborated on in (3.2.2.6}.
(27) a. predicative VN: [+ a-structure] [-N]
b. predicative nouns [+ a-structure] [+N]
c. non-predicative nouns [- a-structure] [+N]
4 . Following Chomsky (1970), most generative and related theories posit two binary features [±N, ±V] to
define noun [+N, -V], verb [-N, +V], adjective [+N, +V] and preposition [-N, -V] (Haegeman, 1994: 36-37)
17

As it was attested in (3), LVCs with predicative PVs are separable, but those with
predicative VNs (4) and non-predicative nouns (5) are inseparable. The comparison
between the separable LVCs in (3) and the inseparable ones in (4) and 5) may persuade
us to conclude that only PVs which carry a-structure and [N] feature can be separated in
the syntax as in (3). To find out more about the linguistic reasons behind the separability
of LVCs, we are led to the next section attempting to explain the separability of these
compound forms.
4. Light Verb Constructions and their Separability
Before concentrating on the separable and inseparable LVCs (3-5), we will focus
on the issue of breaking LVCs by some morphosyntactic elements illustrated in (1-2). In
such cases, the negation particle, the imperfective particle mi-, the pronominal clitics, the
future auxiliary xa:stan 'will' and the progressive auxiliary da:štan 'to have' appear
between the PVs and the LVs. In the following sections, we will account for the
separability of LVCs by the aforementioned linguistic elements before explaining the
(in)separablility of LVCs in cases like (3-5).
In contrast to some other languages, in Persian the negation morpheme is
obligatorily prefixed to LVs as well as heavy verbs. Grimshaw (1991: 44-46) argues that
there is a close relationship between verbness properties, especially tense features, and
negation. It follows from our explanation that LVs have sufficient verbness properties,
including tense features, to carry the negation morpheme or to be selected by the NegP
independently and the internal structures of LVCs, being visible to syntactic and
morphological rules, allow the insertion of the negation particle (head) ne ‘not’ as in (1).
The imperfective morpheme mi is prefixed to LVs or heavy verbs and forms
imperfective versions of LVCs or heavy verbs. We believe that although LVs are
semantically defective, they have enough verbness properties to function exactly like
heavy verbs in some cases like carrying the imperfective morpheme mi in (1).
Pronominal clitics such as -eš ‘it’ are attested, as in (2c), to intervene between
PVs and LVs. We assume Goldberg’s (1995: 18-20) analysis of clitic placement in LVCs
in which she finds a relation between clitic placement and stress facts. It is generally
18

accepted that only stressed zero-level items can host clitics. In Persian, pronominal clitics
are usually attached to lexical verbs, as these are the only stressed candidates which can
function as hosts for the clitics. In the case of LVCs, clitics usually follow PVs because it
is the PV which functions as the first stress carrier component of the LVCs (though in
some rare cases they follow LVCs as in (28b)). This behavior of clitics can be captured in
every analysis in which both PVs and LVCs have a zero status and speakers can either
stress a PV, then a host for clitics as in (28a), or stress LVCs as a single unit to carry
clitics as in (28b).
(28) a. guš-eš kard-am
ear-it do-past-1st.sg.
‘I listened to it.’
? b. guš kard-am-eš
ear do-past-1st. sg.- it
‘I listened to it.’
The recently grammaticalized auxiliary xa:stan ‘will’, as in (2c), was not used as
an auxiliary in Old Persian, Middle Persian and early Modern Persian (Khanlari, 1987:
286-295). In standard Persian, this verb in addition to its use as a main verb, meaning ‘to
want’, developed as the future auxiliary as well. In colloquial Persian, this verb is used
only as a main verb and it has not been grammaticalized as an auxiliary. xa:stan in both
cases, as an auxiliary and a main verb, precedes a main verb. The fact that the recently
developed auxiliaries such as xa:stan ‘will’, unlike other auxiliaries which follow the
main verbs, precede the main verbs makes the place of auxiliaries in this language appear
complicated. Other auxiliaries, like budan ‘to be’, follow the heavy verbs and LVs as in
(29a) and (29d) respectively, but the auxiliary xa:stan ‘will’ obligatorily precedes lexical
verbs, as in (29b), and LVs, as in (29c). It seems that xa:stan as an auxiliary is still
identical to its use as a main verb with respect to the fact that both precede a main verb.
(29) a. b.
V Aux Aux V
nevešte bud-am xa:h-am nevešt
‘written’ ‘was-1st Sing’ ‘will-1st Sing wrote
‘I had written.’ ‘I will write.’
19

c. d.
PV Aux LV PV LV Aux
ʔanja:m xa:h-am da:d ʔanja:m da:de bud-am
performance will-1st Sing gave performance given was-1st.Sg
‘ I will do ...’ ‘I had done ....’
The study of the sequence of auxiliaries and main verbs as in (29) is beyond the
scope of this work. However, what is significant to us is the fact that the existence of
cases like (29c), where an inflected auxiliary appears between the PV and the LV,
indicates, as assumed in this work, that the internal structure of the LVC is not opaque to
the syntax. In addition, the fact that LVs and heavy verbs behave identically with respect
to placement of auxiliaries supports our idea that LVs and heavy verbs, although
semantically different, are identical with regard to the so called ‘functional categories’
(compare (29a) with (29d), and (29b) with (29c)).
Finally, the separability of LVCs by the progressive auxiliary da:štan ‘to have’
(2b) and the modals like ba:yad ‘should’ (2d) can be captured in our account in which
LVCs remain analyzable in the syntax. These items can freely appear in different
syntactic positions as in (30), so they must be able to intervene between PVs and LVs too
as they do in (2b) and (2c).
(30) a. Ali (da:št) Sasan-ra: (da:št) ra:hnama:ʔi (da:št) mikard.
Ali Prog. Aux. Sasan-DOM Prog. Aux. advice Prog. Aux. do
‘Ali was advising Sasan.’
b. Ali (ba:yad) Sasan-ra: (ba:yad) ra:hnama:ʔi (ba:yad) mikard.
Ali should Sasan-DOM should advice should do
‘Ali should have advised Sasan.’
So far we have been dealing with those instances (1-2) in which the components of
LVCs can uniformly be broken by some items or rules. However, it was illustrated in the
previous sections that some LVCs like (3), repeated here as (31), are separable by
syntactic operations while others, such (4) and (5) repeated here as (32) and (33)
respectively, resist separation. This motivated us to classify LVCs into two groups:
separable (31) and inseparable (32-33).
20

(31) a. tegarg be ba:q-e man latme zad.
hail to garden-Ez. I damage beat-past
‘The hail damaged my garden.’
b. tegarg latme-ye bad-i be ba:q-e man zad.
hail damage-Ez. bad-Indef. Art. to garden-Ez. I beat-past
‘The hail caused bad damage to my gardens. / The hail damaged my garden
badly.’
c. tegarg-e diruz ʔin latme-ra: be ba:q-e man zad.
hail-Ez. yesterday this damage-DOM to garden-Ez. I beat-past
‘The yesterday’s hail caused this damage to my garden’
d. latme-ʔi ke tegarg be ba:q-ha: zad jobra:nna:pazir ?ast.
damage-Indef. Art. that hail to gardens beat-past irretrievable is
‘The damage caused by the hail to the gardens is irretrievable.’
e- Ali če latme-ʔi be šoma: zad
Ali what damage-Indef. Art. to you beat-past
‘What loss did Ali cause to you?
f. ʔin latme-ra: tegarg-e diruz be ba:q-e man zad.
this damage-DOM hail-Ez. yesterday to garden-Ez. I beat-past
‘The yesterday’s hail caused this damage to my garden’
(32) a. Ali ka:r-aš-ra: ʔanja:m da:d.
Ali work-his-DOM performing give-past
‘Ali did his work.’
*b. Ali ʔanja:m-e xub-i (ʔaz) (be) ka:r-aš da:d.
Ali performing-Ez. good-Indef. Art. (of) (to) work-his give-past
‘Ali had a good performance in his work. / Ali did his work well.’
*c. Ali ʔin ʔanja:m-ra: (ʔaz) (be) ka:r-aš da:d.
Ali this performing-DOM (of ) (to) work-his give-past
‘Ali did his work.’
*d. ʔanja:m-i ke Ali (ʔaz) (be) ka:r-aš da:d mofid bud
performing-Indef. Art. that Ali (of) (to) work-his give-past useful was
‘Ali’s performing his work was useful.’
*e. Ali če ʔanja:m-i (ʔaz) (be) ka:r-aš da:d?
Ali what performance-Indef. Art. (of) (to) work-his give-past
‘What sort of performance did Ali have in his work?’
*f. ʔin ʔanja:m-ra: Ali (ʔaz) (be) ka:r-aš da:d.
this performing-DOM Ali (of ) (to) work-his give-past
‘Ali did his work.’
(33) a. Ali be ra:dyo guš- kard
Ali to radio ear do-past
‘Ali listened to the radio.’
*b. Ali be ra:dyo guš-e xubi kard
Ali to radio ear-Ez. good do-past
‘Ali listened to the radio well.’
21

*c. Ali ʔin guš-ra: be ra:dyo kard
Ali this ear-DOM to radio do-past
‘Ali did this listening to the radio.’
*d. guš-i ke Ali be ra:dyo kard va:zeh nabud.
ear-Indef. Art. that Ali to radio do-past clear wasn’t
‘The listening that Ali did to radio was not clear.’
*e. Ali če guš-i be ra:dyo kard?
Ali what ear- Indef.Art. to radio do-past
‘What listening did Ali do to the radio?’
*f. ʔin guš-ra: Ali be ra:dyo kard
this ear-DOM Ali to radio do-past
‘Ali did this listening to the radio well.’
Some linguists consider nominal PVs as zero level elements/nouns or nonreferential
and indefinite nouns ( Barjaste, 1983; Ghomeshi and Massam, 1994; Dabir-
Moghdam, 1995: 39; Vahedi-Langroudi, 1996: 20-50; Megerdoomian, 2001; 2002;
Goldberg, 2003; among others). These researchers have usually focused on LVCs such
as those in (32-33) and ignored cases like those in (31) or have claimed that such
structures are not LVCs or complex verbs (Dabir-Moghdam, 1995: 40). These
approaches face two problems. First, it is not easy for them to account for the fact that
some nominal PVs (31 and 18b) can co-occur with definite articles and demonstratives
and function as subject and direct object (31). Moreover, they can be modified,
relativized, scrambled, and focused on by Wh-interrogatives (31). Second, they are not
able to explain the a-structure and predicational nature of these kind of structures. For
instance, let us consider the cases in (34) and (35).
(34) a. Ali Sasan-ra: ra:hnama:ʔi kard.
Ali Sasan-DOM advice do-past
‘Ali advised Sasan.’
b. Ali ra:hnama:ʔi-ye xub-i be Sasan kard.
Ali advice-Ez. good-Indef. Art. to Sasan did.
‘Ali gave good advice to Sasan.’
c. Ali ʔin ra:hnama:ʔi-ra: be Sasan kard.
Ali this advice-DOM to Sasan do-past.
‘Ali gave Sasan this advice.’
22

(35) a. tegarg be ba:q-e-man latme zad.
hail to garden-Ez-I damage beat-past
‘The hail damaged my garden.’
b. tegarg latme-ye bad-i be ba:q-e man zad.
hail damage-Ez. bad-Def. Art. to garden-Ez. I beat-past
‘The hail caused bad damage to my gardens. / The hail damaged my garden
badly.’
c. tegarg-e diruz ʔin latme-ra: be ba:q-e man zad.
hail-Ez. yesterday this damage-DOM to garden-Ez.-I beat-past
‘The yesterday’s hail caused this damage to my garden’
We have two arguments in (a) examples in (34-35) because the PVs are zero level
non-referential items and can be taken as parts of the LVCs. But there are three specific
DP arguments in (b-c) examples in (34-35). In addition to the subject arguments, the
direct objects have been realized as PPs, and the PVs have developed into DPs modified
and functioning as the direct objects marked by the direct object marker ra:. The verbs
in (34-35) are not lexical verbs, because the lexical verbs zad ‘beat’ and kard ‘did’ are
cross-linguistically two-place arguments verbs and cannot contribute three arguments in
(34-35). The most feasible solution is to consider cases like (18b) and (31) as LVCs
whose a-structure is determined by the PVs (Mohammad and Karimi, 1992; Vhahedi
Langruodi, 1996, Karimi-Doostan, 1997; 2001; 2005; 2008b) or both PVs and LVs
compositionally contribute to the a-structure of LVCs (Mergerdoomian, 2000; Folly,
Harley and Karimi, 2005).
Now we are in a position to turn back to the issue of the separability of LVCs
again. We have already explained the separation of LVCs by morphosyntactic elements
such as those in (1-2). As noted above, although all LVCs can be uniformly broken by
morphological or syntactic elements (1-2), some LVCs are separable in the syntax as in
(31) but some are not as in (32-33). Many scholars such as Grimshaw and Mester
(1988), Sells (1989), Park (1989), Miagawa (1989) and Ahn (1990, 1991), among
others, allude to the notion that in Japanese and Korean the incorporated LVCs are
formed in the lexicon, while the case-marked ones are formed at the syntax. Alsina
(1997) also argues that some causatives are formed syntactically and some lexically. We
propose that the existence of separable and inseparable LVCs in Persian cannot
necessarily be an indication of the fact that LVCs are formed in two levels of
23

epresentation; for example separable LVCs in the syntax and inseparable ones in the
lexicon.
Focusing on N-movement to D(eterminer) position and the distinction between
NP and DP in Italian and English, Longobardi (1994) argues that a ‘nominal expression’
is an argument only if it is introduced by the category D. He claims that proper names
that occur in the argument function without any overt determiner undergo raising from N 0
to D 0 in order to function as syntactic arguments. Longobardi also suggests that DP can
be licensed either as an argument in most cases or as a predicate in others (e.g. many
copular or small clause constructions). By contrast, NP is not able to assume argument
function unless introduced by an overt or empty determiner. Masullo (1992), following
Abney (1987) and Stowell (1989) distinguishes between bare nouns and DPs and argues,
based on case assignment facts, that only DPs can function as case-marked arguments.
Partee (1987, 1992) proposes that NPs are of three types: referential, predicative
and quantificational. She believes that while all NPs have quantificational meaning, only
some can have referential and/or predicative interpretations. It is assumed that some type
shifting principles change NPs from one type to another. These principles might be
lexical or syntactic. Determiners (THE, A, SOME) are considered as functors which shift
NPs from one type to another. (See Partee (1992: 120) for the principles shifting the three
types of NPs into each other.)
According to the properties of nominal preverbs and LVs explained in the previous
sections and in the spirit of Longobardi (1994), Partee (1987, 1992) and Masullo (1992)
we suggest that a generalization like (36) might be at work in the syntactic realization of
PVs in Persian.
(36) A nominal preverb can be a specific referential DP argument if and only
if the nominal PV carries +N feature and bears a-structure 5 .
It is possible to capture the separabilty and inseparability of LVCs in the light of
(36). The predicative nouns are predicational (a-structure bearing) and at the same time
5 . See Karimi-Doostan (1997: 184-207) and Wechsler (2008) for the discussion of predicative role of PVs
in LVCs. Why only predicative nouns may develop into DPs or LVs select predicative DP PVs needs
further investigation.
24

they have N features as in normal nouns enabling them to occur with nominal elements
such as those in (31) and to function as N head in DPs. When nominal predicative
preverbs (18b) can be augmented into DPs, then they are liable to be modified by
adjectives (31b) and function as objects (31c). They can consequently be relativized
(31d), focused on by Wh-interrogatives (31e) and scrambled (31f). That is, as an example
in (37a) the nominal PV ra:hnema:ʔi ‘advice’ providing the two arguments of the LVC,
has remained unspecified and non-referential as a part of the LVC. Both arguments of the
clause are case marked. The subject argument, Ali, receives nominative case and the
object argument, Sasan, receives accusative case 6 and the sentence is well-formed. In
(37b), Ali receives nominative case but, unlike (37a), the PV has appeared as a DP
argument receiving accusative case 7 . The PV, capable of contributing two arguments,
discharges its internal argument, Sasan, as PP. The appearance of the internal argument
as a PP is because of the fact that there is no other structural case 8 available for this
argument, so it is licensed as a PP receiving its case from a P.
(37) a. Ali Sasan-ra: ra:hnama:ʔi kard.
Ali Sasan-DOM advice do-past
‘Ali advised Sasan.’
b. Ali ?in ra:hnama:ʔi-ra: be Sasan kard.
Ali this advice-DOM to Sasan do-past.
‘Ali gave Sasan this advice.’
Now let us consider (38) as an example with an LVC containing a VN PV.
Although the VN PVs such as ʔanja:m and ʔa:qa:z (18a), like predicative noun PVs (37)
have a-structure, they lack N features (27) or have an intermediate status between a noun
and a verb (Grimshaw, 1991). Therefore, they cannot satisfy the requirement to function
as lexical heads to develop into DPs (38b) and remain as parts of LVCs non-separable in
6 . We assume as argued in Mohammad and Karimi (1992); Vahedi-Langroudi (1996) and Karimi-Doostan
(1997; 2002; 2005) that LVs lack a-structure and can assign case while nominal PVs contribute the
semantic force and the a-structure of the LVCs.
7 . Note that PV DPs can only be case marked by the accusative case marker ra:, if they co-occur with a
determiner as in (37b). However, a regular direct object can be case marked even without a determiner as in
(i).
(i). Ali keta:b-ra: xa:nd.
Ali book-DOM read
'Ali read the book.'
8 . Persian LVs and their case marking properties are explained in Karimi-Doostan (2005) in detail.
25

the syntactic structures such as those in (32-33). Thus, when VN preverbs cannot be
realized as DPs, we should not expect them to be used in the so called separable LVCs,
cf. (32 and 33) with (31).
(38) a. Ali ka:r-aš-ra: ʔanja:m da:d.
Ali work-his-DOM performing give-past
‘Ali did his work.’
*b. Ali ʔin ʔanja:m-ra: (ʔaz) (be) ka:r-aš da:d.
Ali this performing-DOM (of ) (to) work-his give-past
‘Ali did his work.’
Finally, let us look at (39) as an example of inseparable LVCs (33) with nonpredicative
nouns and explain the inseparability of this kind of LVCs (18c) too.
(39) a. Ali be ra:dyo guš- kard
Ali to radio ear do-past
‘Ali listened to the radio.’
*b. Ali ?in guš-ra: be ra:dyo kard
Ali this ear-DOM to radio do-past
‘Ali did this listening to the radio.’
Although this kind of PV, like predicative nouns (37), can have N features, they lack astructure
(27c). It was also shown in {3.1.1} that LVs are different from heavy verbs,
especially from the viewpoint of a-structure. Almost all researchers (Mohammad and
Karimi, 1992; Vhahedi-Langruodi, 1996; Karimi-Doostan , 1997; 2001; 2005; 2008b;
Mergerdoomian, 2000; and Folly, Harley and Karimi, 2005; among others) agree that
LVs have defective a-structure or lack a-structure. Therefore; in (39a), unlike (37a) and
(38a), none of the members of the LVC can independently be responsible for contributing
the a-structure of the LVC. Both members are compositionally responsible for the astructure
of LVCs. Since according to (27) PVs, lacking a-structure, cannot be realized as
DPs. Then, the PV guš ‘ear’, being non-predicative, cannot be augmented to a DP. The
reason behind this fact is obvious. The LVs merge with zero level PVs (37a-39a) or
argument bearing DP PVs (37b) to gain thematic force and a-structure to function as
predicates. However, if the non-predicate PVs are realized as DPs, they are concrete DP
arguments which can only be predicated by heavy verbs not by LVs. For example, in
(39b), three specific and referential DP arguments have appeared in a clause with a LV.
26

Neither can the LV itself predicate the clause nor is there any semantically transparent
argument bearing DP or N to complete its defective or bleached a-structure.
5. Conclusion
LVCs as compound units, functioning as single predicates, are different from
simple lexical verbs because the simple verbs, unlike LVCs (1-5 or 31-33), cannot be
broken and separated. However, the inseparability of cases like (32-33) could mislead
some to believe that the internal structure of some LVCs is not visible to the syntax and
the LVCs are lexical items identical to simple verbs. It has been clarified that the
inseparability of LVCs is because of the semantic and morphosyntactic properties of PVs
and LVs, so it cannot be because of the fact that separable and inseparable LVCs are
formed at two different levels of representation.
The role of LVs and PVs in LVCs or clauses, especially the dual role of PVs as a
part of a predicate and at the same time as a case marked specific DP argument is a
complicated issue. Although researchers do not agree on the exact role of LVs and PVs,
in Karimi-Doostan (2005) PVs contribute the thematic roles or a-structure of LVCs while
LVs at least carry verbal features and may assign accusative case. Case marking ability of
the LVs is not semantically restricted. This means that the LVs may case mark DPs
which are not the arguments of the LVs. In Megerdoomain (2001; 2002) and Folly,
Harley and Karimi (2005), the internal arguments are contributed by the PVs and they
may be case marked as direct objects. Obviously, they receive their case from the LVs.
When the LVs can case mark the arguments of PVs we should expect them to be able to
case mark the DP PVs too, provided that the PV is predicative (36). On the contrary, in
the inseparable LVCs (18a, 18c, 32-33), the PVs cannot be augmented into DP and
cannot receive accusative case from the LVs because they do not satisfy the requirements
in (36).
Reference:
Abney, S. (1987) The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspects. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Cambridge: MIT.
Ahn, H. (1990) 'On light verb construction in Korean and Japanese,' In Hajime Hoji
27

(ed.) Japanese and Korean Linguistics 221-37. Stanford: Centre for Study of language
and Information.
Ahn, H. (1991) Light Verbs, VP Movement, Negation and Clausal Architecture in
Korean and English . Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Alsina, A. (1997) 'Causatives in Bantu and Romance'. In Complex predicates. (eds.) A.
Alsina et al. Standford: CSLI. 203-246.
Barjaste, D. (1983) Morphology, Syntax and Semantics of Persian Compound Verbs: A
lexicalist Approach Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign.
Butt, M. (1995) The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford, Clifornia: CSLI
Publications.
Butt, M. (2003) 'The Light Verb Jungle'. In G. Aygen, C. Bowern and C. Quin (eds.),
Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol., 9.
Butt, M. and G. Ramchan. (2005). 'Complex Aspectual Structure in Hindi/Urdu.'
In Nomi Ertischik-Shir and Tova Rapoport (eds.) The Syntax of Aspect, 117–153.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Choi, I. and S. Wechsler, (2001) 'Mixed categories and argument transfer in the Korean
LVCs'. In Proceedings of 8 th International HPSG Conference, Norwegian University
of Science and technology, 3
Chomsky, N. (1970) ‘Remarks on Nominalization’ In Reading in Transformational
Grammar, (ed.) Rodrick Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum. Boston: 184-221.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1999) Derivation by Phase. Manuscript. MIT.
Chomsky, N., 2001. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. Manuscript. MIT
Croft, W. (1991) Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive
Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W. (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological
Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (2005) ‘Word classes, parts of speech, and syntactic argumention’. Linguistic
Typology 9: 431-441.
Dabir-Moghadam, M. (1995) ‘Compound Verb in Persian’. Iranian Journal of Linguistics
Vol.12. No. 1&2, 2-46.
Diesing, M. (1998) 'Light Verbs and the Syntax of Aspect in Yiddish'. The Journal of
Comparative Linguistics 1, 119-156.
Diesing, M. (2000). 'Aspect in Yiddish: The Semantics of an Inflectional Head'. Natural
Language Semantics 8, 231-253.
Di Sciullo, A.M . and Rosen, S.T. (1990) 'Light and Semi-light Verb Constructions'. In
K. Dziwirek, P. Farrel and E.M. Bikandi (eds.) Grammatical Relations. Stanford:
Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Evans, N. and T. Osada (2005) Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes.
Linguistic Typology, 9: 351-391.
Folli, R., Harley, H. and Karimi S., 2003. Determinants of the event type in Persian
Complex predicates. In: Astruc, L. and M. Richards (eds.) Cambridge Occasional
Papers in Linguistics.
Ghomeshi, J. and D. Massam (1994) “Lexical/Syntactic Relations Without Projection,”
Linguistic Analysis, 24: 173-217.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995) 'Persian Complex Predicates and the Lexicon'. Manuscript,
University of California, San Diego.
Goldberg, A. E. (2003) ‘Words by Default: The Persian Complex Constructions'. In E.
28

Francis and L. Machaelis (eds.), mismatches: Form-Function incongruity and the
Architecture of Grammar, CSLI Publications, 83-112.
Grimshaw, J. (1991) ‘Extended Projection’. Manuscript, Brandies University.
Grimshaw, J. and A. Mester (1988). 'Light Verbs and Theta-Marking'. Linguistic
Inquiry, 19: 205-232 .
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory (2 nd Edn). Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser (1993) 'On Argument Structure and Lexical Expression of
Syntactic relations,' In K. Hale and J. Keyser (eds.), Views from Building 20, MIT.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser (2002) Prolegmenon to a Theory of Argument Structure.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heny, J. and V. Samiian (1992) 'Three Cases of Restructuring in Modern Persian,' In K.
Hunt, T. Perry and V. Samiian (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Conference in
Linguistics.
Karimi, S. (1987) 'Compounds in Persian,' In Linguistics Working Papers, University
of Washington, Department of Linguistics, Seattle.
Karimi-Doostan, Gh. (1997) Light verb constructions in Persian. Ph.D dissertation. Essex
University. England.
Karimi-Doostan, Gh. (2001) 'N + V Complex Predicates in Persian,' In Structural Aspects
of Semantically Complex Verbs, Dehe & Warner (eds.), 277-292. Frankfort: Peter
Lang.
Karimi-Doostan, Gh. (2002) ‘Compositionality Complex Predicates in Persian’. In
Proceedings of the Linguistics Society of Korea vol. 1, 255-268. Seoul.
Karimi-Doostan, Gh. (2005) 'Light Verbs and Structural Case'. Lingua, 115: 1737-1756.
Karimi-Doostan, Gh. (2008a) ‘Predicative nouns and adjectives’. Grammar 3: The Journal
of Iranian Academy of Persian Language and Literature 3, 187-202.
Karimi-Doostan, Gh. (2008b) ‘Event structure of verbal nouns and light verbs’. In S.
Karimi, V. Samiian and D. Stilo (eds.), Aspects of Iranian Linguistics.
Khanlari, P. N. (1987) Tarix-e Zaban-e Farsi (Persian Language History). Tehran: Nashr-e
Nou Press.
Kim, S. W., 1994. A Study of Light Verb Constructions. Language Research, 30; 137-
159.
Longobardi, F. (1994) 'Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in
Syntax and Logical-Form'. Linguistic Inquiry, 25: 609-665.
Masullo, P. J. (1992) Incorporation and Case theory in Spanish. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Washington.
Megerdoomian, K. (2000) Beyond words and Phrases: A unified Theory of Predicate
Composition. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Megerdoomian, K. (2001) Event Structure and Complex Predicates in Persian. Canadian
Journal of Linguistics, 46:97-125.
Miyagawa, S. (1989) 'Light verbs and the Ergative Hypothesis'. Linguistics
Inquiry, 20: 659-668.
Mohammad and Karimi (1992) 'Light Verbs are taken over: Complex Verbs in Persian'.
Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, Vol. 5: 195-212.
Mohanan, T. (1994) Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, Clifornia: CSLI Publications.
Park, K. (1989) 'A Lexical Approach to the syntax of Compound verbs,' Harvard Studies
in Korean Linguistics III : 319-328.
29

Partee, B. (1992) 'Syntactic Categories and Semantic types,' In Rosener, J. and R.
Johnson (eds.), Computational Linguistics and Formal Semantics. Cambridge
University Press.
Partee, B. H. (1987) 'Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-Shifting Principles,' In
Groenendijk, J.and D. de Jongh and M. Stokhof (eds) Studies in Discourse
Represintation Theory and the Theory of Generalized quantifiers. Dordrecht: Foris.
Radford, A. (2004) Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rosen, S. (1989) Argument Structure and Complex Predicates. Ph.D. Thesis, Brandeis
University.
Samiian, V (1983) Origin of Phrasal Categories in Persian: an X-bar analysis. Ph.D.
UCLA
Sato, Y. (993) Complex Predicate Formation with Verbal Nouns in Japanese and Korean:
Argument Transfer at LV. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii.
Schachter, P. (1985) Parts of Speech Systems. In Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language
typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. I: Clause Structure, 3-61. Cambridge
University Press.
Sells, P. (1989) 'More on Light Verbs and Theta-marking'. Manuscript, Stanford
University.
Stowell, T. (1989) 'Raising in Irish and the projection Principle,' Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory, 7: 317-360.
Vahedi-Langrudi, M. (1996) The syntax, Semantics and Argument Structure of Complex
Predicates in Modern Farsi. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ottawa.
Wechsler, S. (2008) 'Idioms, Light Verbs and Lexical Decomposition'. NORMS Working
on Argument Structure. Lund, February, 5-6, 2008.
30