Separability of Light Verb Constructions in Persian*

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Separability of Light Verb Construc
Page 3 and 4: c. tegarg-e diruz ʔin latme-ra: be
Page 5 and 6: lexicon or syntax and the internal
Page 7 and 8: (6) a. PP+V az dast + dâdan (of ha
Page 9 and 10: 3.1.1. Light Verbs vs. Heavy Verbs
Page 11 and 12: arguments as in (15), when it funct
Page 13 and 14: illustrated in sections {3.2.1} and
Page 15 and 16: . ʔa:qa:z-e ka:r-e Ali start-Ez. w
Page 17 and 18: Among the three groups of nominal P
Page 19 and 20: accepted that only stressed zero-le
Page 21 and 22: (31) a. tegarg be ba:q-e man latme
Page 23 and 24: (35) a. tegarg be ba:q-e-man latme
Page 25: they have N features as in normal n
Page 29 and 30: Francis and L. Machaelis (eds.), mi

Separability of Light Verb Constructions in Persian*

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?