Separability of Light Verb Constructions in Persian*

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