Argument Structure of Light Verb Constructions 

                                              Gholamhossein Karimi Doostan
                                    	  English Language Dept. Kurdistan University
                                         	  Sanandaj, Iran <gh5karimi@yahoo.com>
 
                                                      “Abstract”
In this paper, we show that light verbs (LV), lacking fully specified argument structure, fall into three aspectual classes: atelic, telic and stative LVs. It is also illustrated that although accomplishments include an activity, a culmination point and a resulting state, each of the Persian LV classes contains only one of these aspectual sub-events. Each class of LVs can only be identified with a sub-event in Lexical Conceptual Structure of a pre-verb identical to its own sub-event.  As a result of this event identification, LVCs are formed in which LVs function as case-markers, case-marking the arguments of the LVCs differently. While atelic LVs can assign accusative case, Telic and Stative LV classes cannot assign accusative case. Claiming that LVs are Aspetual heads (Borer 1994), we attempt to show that there is a relationship between event structure and syntactic derivations.

Key words: Aspect, Argument Structure, Case, Event-identification, Complex predicates

1. Introduction                                                       
The majority of the Persian verbs are in complex forms containing a verb and a pre-verb (e.g. a noun). The pre-verbs refer to actions or states and the verbal elements seem to be semantically bleached. These kinds of verb are referred to as bleached or light verb (LV) in the literature (Cattell, 1984; Grimshaw and Mester, 1988; Butt, 1995; etc.). The Persian bleached verbs, being semantically incomplete, combine with pre-verbs to form fully-fledged verbs that contain all features of lexical verbs including semantic and verbal features. In Persian, the same bleached verb, e.g. KARD in (1a-1c), combines with different pre-verbs (PV) to form predicates with different number of arguments, one argument in (1a), two arguments in (1b) and three arguments in (1c). 
(1a) Ali  sekut  KARD.                                                    (Intransitive)
      Ali  silence did
    “Ali kept quite.”
(1b) Ali Mariam-ra:  ra:hnama:?i KARD.                        (Transitive)
 Ali  Mariam-DOM advice    did
“Ali advised Mariam.”
(1c) Ali ?in  keta:b-ra:     be Mariam ?ehda: KARD.         (Dative)
      Ali this book-DOM to  Mariam present  did
   “Ali gave this book to Mariam as a present.”

In the data in (1) we have the same LV, i.e. KARD “did”, but different PV’s and when a PV is replaced by another PV, the number of arguments may differ. This fact might incline one to think that what determines the number of the arguments is the PV and the LV does not have any role in this regard. However, the data in (2) and (3) show that it is not the case that the LVs don’t have any role in the realization of argument structure. 
(2a) Ali Mariam-ra:  ra:hnama:?i KARD.                             (Transitive)
 Ali  Mariam-DOM advice    did
“Ali advised Mariam.”
(2b) Mariam (tavasote Ali) ra:hnama:?i šOD                         (Inchoative)
       Mariam     by        Ali   advice         became
    “Mariam was advised by Ali.”
(3a) Ali ?in  keta:b-ra:     be Mariam ?ehda: KARD.               (Dative)
       Ali this book-DOM to  Mariam present  did
    “Ali gave this book to Mariam as a present.”
(3b) ?in keta:b (tavasote Ali) be Mariam ?ehda: šOD.              (Inchoative)
       this book (  by   Ali)  to Mariam present     
     “This book was given to Mariam by Ali as a present.” 

As shown, when we replace the bleached verb KARD (2a-3a) with the bleached verb šOD (2b-3b), the arguments of the complex predicates are realized differently and the sentences take passive like forms in which the object nouns in (2a-3a) function as subjects in (2b-3b) and the subject NP’s in (2a-3-a) are expressed in “by phrases” in (2b) and (3b). The data in (4) are more interesting. In all sentences, we have the same PV, but different LV’s. 
(4a) Ali ?ota:q-ra: be Sasan ?extesa:s DA:D.                      (Dative)           
         Ali room-DOM to Sasan allocation GIVE-Past
        ‘Ali allocated the room to Sasan.’
 (4b) ?ota:q be Sasan ?extesa:s YA:FT.                                (Inchoative)           
        room to Sasan allocation FIND-Past
        ‘The room was allocated to Sasan.’
(4c) ?ota:q  be Sasan ?extesa:s DA:T.                                (Stative)           
         room to Sasan allocation have-Past
        ‘The room was in the possession of Sasan.’

In contrast to what we have in (1), the data in (2), (3) and (4) indicate that LVs are not semantically bleached and have a crucial function in determining the overall realization of the sentences. The above data raise several questions. How are the pre-verbs and light verbs combined to form complex predicates? What is the role of each component? What is the semantic and syntactic nature of a PV? If the LVs are not bleached, what semantic information do they contain? We will try to answer these questions in the following sections.

2. Light Verbs

Light Verbs (LVs), a term used by Jespersen (1954) and Cattell (1984) to refer to a class of verbs which are supposed to be semantically bleached and lacking enough thematic force to function as predicates independently, were seriously introduced into modern linguistics when Grimshaw and Mester (1988) used this term to refer to suru ‘to do’ in Japanese. Since then a considerable amount of literature has been produced, focusing on LVs in different languages from different perspectives. LVs, known to have a partially or completely empty semantic load, can carry agreement, tense, aspect and so on like any other verb (Park, 1992; Sato, 1993; Kim, 1994). These auxiliary-like bleached verbs seem to lack a-structure or to have unspecified a-structure. Although LVs are supposed to be defective in terms of predication, they appear in well-formed clauses as main verbs when combined with other elements forming complex units referred to as Light Verb Constructions (LVCs) or Complex Predicates.
	In some works, LVs are supposed not have any semantic force to contribute to LVCs and they may only have some functional roles (Han, 1988; Grimshaw and Mester, 1988; Park, 1992; etc). In some approaches, LVs carry arguments (external / internal) or possess sufficient semantic specification to license some of the arguments of LVCs (O’Grady, 1992; Sato, 1993; Mohanan, 1994, 1997; among others). It is explained in Karimi Doostan (1997, 2001) that although LVs seem to lack full argument structure of their own, there are some indications that LVs possess some semantic aspectual properties. In order to reveal the aspectual properties of LVs, we will classify them into aspectual groups. There are different systems of classification of verbs and researchers have agreed on some kinds of tests to differentiate between verbs with different aspectual properties. We will employ some of these tests and criteria in order to categorise LVs based on their aspectual properties. In the following parts, we will show that Persian LVs can be categorised into Statives and Dynamics (Transition LVs and Initiatory LVs).

2.1. Stative Light verbs vs. Dynamic light verbs
Stative LVs, though not referring to states on their own, form LVCs  which refer to states. States do not happen or involve change. In contrast, Dynamic LVs appear in LVCs that refer to events. Events, unlike states, happen or take place. Below, we will see how Stative LVs and Dynamic LVs fall into two groups. To do so, the two groups of LVs will be subjected to a variety of tests.
	The progressive tense has been used as one of the ways of differentiating between Stative and Dynamic verbs. Since Statives do not often appear in progressive forms, we will use the Persian progressive auxiliary da:štan as a test to distinguish Stative LVs from dynamic ones. This progressive auxiliary is added to the imperfective form of verbs and makes progressive forms. We, therefore, assume the progressive auxiliary da:štan as one of the tests to differentiate stativity from non-stativity. This auxiliary, though compatible with Dynamic LVs, does not co-occur with  Stative LVs as illustrated in (5).
	
	 (5a) * man da:ram  ?etela:? (mi)da:ram  ....
                       I  Prog.Aux  information   (Imp)HAVE
                      ‘I know ... .’
             (5 b) * ?in ?ota:q da:rad      be Ali ?extesa:s (mi)da:rad.
                        this  room Prog.Aux to Ali allocation (Ipm)HAS
	          ‘This room is being belonged  to Ali.’
               (5 c) * man da:ram        šak (mi)da:ram.
                          I    Prog.Aux. doubt (Ipm)HAVE.
	           ‘I am not being sure. / I am being in doubt.’
               (5 d) * da:rand    nazm (mi)da:rand.
                         Prog.Aux. order (Imp)HAVE
                       ‘(They) are being organised’	

	Another test used in the literature to distinguish between aspectual classes of events is the addition of aspectual/temporal adverbs such as ‘suddenly’ and ‘gradually’. This type of adverb can be used in clauses referring to dynamic situations in which something happens or changes. They are odd with Statives, since states do not refer to any change or dynamic action. The Persian temporal adjectives betadrij ‘gradually’ and na:gaha:ni ‘suddenly’ refer to the manner that an event takes place. States don’t happen, so they should not be modified by these adverbs. This prediction is born out because the clauses containing the Stative LV daštan, become ungrammatical when used with these adverbs (6a-b), while those with Dynamic LVs are well-formed with these adverbs (6c-d).
	(5a) * man nagahan/betadrij  ?etela:?     da:ram.
                       I    suddenly/gradually information  HAVE-1st sing. past
                      ‘I know suddenly/gradually.’
             (5 b) * ?in ?ota:q  nagahan/betadrij    be Ali ?extesa:s da:rad.
                        this  room suddenly/gradually to Ali allocation HAVE-3rd sing. past
	         ‘This room is belonged to Ali suddenly/gradually.’
	(6 a) Ali  nagahan/betadrij daraxt-ha-ra: payvand ZAD.
Ali  suddenly/gradually  tree-pl-DOM graft STRIKE-3rd sing. past 	                                                                                                                                          ‘Ali grafted the trees suddenly/gradually.’
     	(6b) Ali  nagahan/betadrij  qadam ZAD.
          	       Ali    suddenly/gradually  step   STRIKE-3rd sing. past
	       ‘Ali walked suddenly/gradually.’

	Finally, it is observed that Statives do not normally occur in the imperative form and they do not yield to passivisation. Also, aspectual verbs such as ‘begin’ cannot be used with Stative verbs (Smith, 1991; McClure, 1995). Each of these tests can be used to differentiate the Stative LVs from the Dynamic LVs.

2.2. Transition LVs vs. Initiatory LVs
Now let us focus on the Dynamic LVs and find out if they can be further subcategorised. The Dynamic LVs fall into two aspectual classes: Transition LVs and Initiatory LVs. A Transition LV appears in telic VPs referring to events in which a patient argument is affected or undergoes a change of state. The event structure of the VPs seems to be bounded by the change of state of the argument. Unlike Transition LVs, Initiatory LVs are not necessarily telic. They may allow LVCs with atelic readings. They usually appear in clauses referring to events in which an entity initiates an action. Let us say Initiatory LVs may have atelic readings, while Transition LVs resist having atelic activity readings. For example, the Initiatory LV zadan ‘TO STRIKE’ is capable of forming atelic clauses (7a-b), but the Transition LV xordan ‘COLLIDE’ resists atelic readings (7c-d) and restricts LVCs with different Ns to a telic reading. To differentiate between telic and atelic sentences, we use temporal in/for phrases.
   (7a) Ali bemodate / (*dar) yek sa:?at daraxt payvand ZAD.
Ali  for               (in)    one  hour     tree   graft      STRIKE           	                                                                                                                                   ‘Ali grafted trees for / (*in) an hour.’
     (7b) Ali  bemodate / (*dar) yek sa:?at  qadam ZAD.
           Ali      for       /    (in)  one     hour  step   STRIKE-past
	 ‘Ali walked for / (*in) an hour.’
     (7c) daraxt-(ha:) dar/ (*bemodate) yek sa:?at payvand XORD(and).
	tree-(Pl.)  in / (for)    one hour graft COLLIDE-past.(3rd.Pl.)
	 ‘The trees got / were grafted in / (*for) an hour.’	
     (7d) Ali dar / (*bemodate) panj daqiqe gul XORD.
            Ali  in     (for)   /    five minute deception COLLIDE.
	 ‘Ali was deceived in / (*for) five minutes.’

	What we are interested in is why Initiatory LVs can form VPs with an atelic reading and can appear in clauses with external arguments (7a-b), while Transition LVs uniformly cannot have an atelic reading and their subject argument is an internal argument (7c-d). Minimal pairs such as those in (4a-c), and those in (7a-d) where we have the same Ns in each group but different LVs indicate that LVs, but not Ns, are responsible for the relationship between a/telicity and the realisation of the different types of arguments of Ns.
	So the behavior of LVs in (2-4) and the results of the above aspectual tests show that in Initiatory LVs an entity initiates an action and this type of LVs may appear in LVCs with atelic reading, while Transition LVs tend to form telic VPs in which the event is bounded as a result of a culmination point at which an internal argument undergoes change of state. In contrast to dynamic LVs, Stative LVs appear in stative clauses with no action or change of state. In short, Persian LVs constrain clauses to refer to a stative, Transitional (Accomplishment & Achievement) or Initiatory (Activity) situation. It might, now, be feasible to assume that although Persian LVs lack specified argument structures, their Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS), in Jackendoff (1983), Hale and Keyser (1986) and Rappaport and Levin’s (1988) sense, still possesses aspectual properties which can be represented as an event structure (Grimshaw, 1990; Grimshaw and Vikner (1993); Pustejovsky, 1991; Tenny, 1994). Kamp & Reyle (1994) believe that the composite temporal structure of a complete event (Accomplishment) may be represented as a three-phase structure, including an activity phase (I), a culmination point (II) and a resulting state (III), as shown in (8).  
      8.                   I                        II                      III
                       activity          culmination       resulting state  
In the spirit of Kamp and Reyle (1994) we assume that an event structure may contain at least one, two or three of the phases in (8) and we will refer to these phases as sub-events. Due to the fact that our initiatory, transitional and stative situations are almost identical to the three phases in (8) respectively, we presume that each class of the Persian LVs contains one of these sub-events in its event structure (ES). In fact, Initiatory LVs are –Telic (I in 8), Transition LVs are +Telic (II in 8 )  and Stative LVs are –Dyn(amic) (III in 8).  The LCS and the ES of each class of LVs is represented in (9).
(9a) Initiatory LV:  LCS <An entity (x) initiates an action >
           	                              ES <-Telic >
(9b) Transition LV: LCS <An entity (y) undergoes a change of state>
                                            ES < +Telic>
(9c) Stative LV: LCS  < An entity (y) is in a state>
                                      ES < -Dyn>

In this section, we scrutinized the lexical semantic characteristics of LVs. To find out how LVs combine with PVs, we need to examine the PVs’ lexical properties too. 

3. Pre-verbs
	The PVs are nouns or adjectives that refer to an action or state. They are abstract nouns, deverbal nouns or borrowed Arabic infinitival forms known as ‘masdars’. It is proposed that transparent argument-bearing nouns have event structures identical to those of their verbal forms (Grimshaw, 1990; Kiefer, 1996). Cornilescu (2001), focusing on Romanian Nominalizations, argues against Grimshaw’s (1990) ‘suppressed external argument’ and shows that event nominals have complete argument structure in which the agent, though semantically active, is not projected syntactically and is interpreted like a PRO subject. She also takes the position that deverbal nouns inherit the same argument and event structures from the verbal forms. Therefore, we also accept that Persian PVs are transparent argument-bearing nouns with the same event structure as in their verb forms. For the sake of clarification, the LCS and the ES of three PVs are represented in (10). The first two PVs are used in (1a) and (4) and the last one is a Stative PV. These are the most common PV types in Persian.  
(10a) sekut “silence”:  LCS <an entity (x) initiates the action of silence>
                                                ES < -Telic>
	(10b) ?extesa:s “allocation”: 
                LCS <an entity (x) initiates the action of allocation, another entity (y)
                        undergoes the process of allocation, another entity (z) receives
                        allocation and (y) remains in the state of allocation>
               ES:  < - Telic, + Telic, -Dyn> 
	  (10c) niya:z “need”  LCS : <an entity is in the state of needing allocation>
                                                ES  :  < -Dyn> 
 The participant in the action or state of each LCS are represented by x, y, and z. Since we, unlike Grimshaw (1990), Rappaport et al (1993) and Booij (192),  believe that there is not an intermediate argument structure level between the lexicon and the syntax (Jackendoff, 1990), the variables x, y, z are supposed to represent the number and type of participants which map from LCS into syntax.

4. Complex Predicate Formation

A comparison between what we have in (9) and (10) may reveal that there is an action or a state in the LCS of a LV, but in the LCS of a PV not only is there a state or an action but also the name of the action, e.g. ‘silence’ (10a), ‘allocation’ (10b) and ‘need’ (10c), is mentioned. In other words, unlike a LV, in a PV the name of the action is expressed. However; although like a PV a LV refers to an action or a state, it lacks the name of the action or state and that is what makes it bleached and motivates LVs to select and combine with a PV in order to function as a full predicate. Vahedi Langrudi (1996) correctly suggests that in complex predicate formation the event of a PV is identified with that of a LV (Higginbotham, 1985, 1987). In the same line, we accept that in the process of LVC formation the sub-event in the ES of each LV is identified  or merged with the identical sub-event in the ES of a PV. This means that a LV only combines with the PVs which have a sub-event in their ES identical with that of the LV. 
Now, let us see how the compositionality of complex predicates can be accounted for in the light of event identification approach.  To do so, we will consider the formation of the complex predicates in (1a), (4a-c) and the complex predicate niyaz daštan (need + have) “to need” as the typical examples of the complex predicates in Persian. (1a) is a complex predicate which contains a LV with a lexical representation as in (9a) and a PV with a lexical representation as in (10a). Thus, the event identification in this complex predicate can be shown as in (11).

(11a) KARD “did”:  LCS <An entity initiates an action>                                              (LV)                    
                                ES <-Telic >
(11b) sekut “silence”:  LCS <an entity (x) initiates the action of silence>                     (PV)
                                             ES < -Telic>                                                       ↓
=================================================================
(11c) sekut KARD: LCS <an entity (x) initiates the action of silence>                        (LVC)
                                             ES < -Telic>
	
(4a) is a complex predicate containing a LV of (9a) type and a PV of (10b) type. So the semantic contents of its components combine as in (12).  

 (12a) DAD “give” :  LCS <An entity initiates an action>                                                (LV)
           	                       ES <-Telic >
 (12b) ?extesa:s “allocation”: 
                LCS <an entity (x) initiates the action of allocation, another entity (y)          (PV)
                        undergoes the process of allocation, another entity (z) receives
                        allocation and (y) remains in the state of allocation>             ↓
               ES:  < -Telic, +Telic, -Dyn> 
(12c) ?extesa:s DAD: 
                LCS <an entity (x) initiates the action of allocation, another entity (y)         (LVC)
                        undergoes the process of allocation, another entity (z) receives
                        allocation and (y) remains in the state of allocation>
               ES:  < -Telic, +Telic, -Dyn> 

(4b) is a complex predicate containing a LV of (9b) type and a PV of (10b) type. So the semantic contents of its components combine as in (13).

   (13a) YAFT “found” : LCS <An entity undergoes a change of state>                         (LV)
                                            ES < +Telic>
  (13b) ?extesa:s “allocation”: 
                LCS <an entity (x) initiates the action of allocation, another entity (y)           (PV)
                        undergoes the process of allocation, another entity (z) receives
                        allocation and (y) remains in the state of allocation>            ↓
               ES:  < -Telic, +Telic, -Dyn> 
(13c) ?extesa:s YAFT: 
                LCS <an entity (x) initiates the action of allocation, another entity (y)         (LVC)
                        undergoes the process of allocation, another entity (z) receives
                        allocation and (y) remains in the state of allocation>
               ES:  < -Telic, +Telic, -Dyn> 

(4c) is a complex predicate containing a LV of (9c) type and a PV of (10b) type. So the semantic contents of its components combine as in (14).

  (14a) DašT “had” : LCS  < An entity is in a state>                                                       (LV)
                                      ES < -Dyn>
  (14b) ?extesa:s “allocation”: 
                LCS <an entity (x) initiates the action of allocation, another entity (y)          (PV)
                        undergoes the process of allocation, another entity (z) receives
                        allocation and (y) remains in the state of allocation>            ↓
               ES:  < -Telic, +Telic, -Dyn> 
(14c) ?extesa:s DAšT: 
                LCS <an entity (x) initiates the action of allocation, another entity (y)       (LVC)
                        undergoes the process of allocation, another entity (z) receives
                        allocation and (y) remains in the state of allocation>
               ES:  < -Telic, +Telic, -Dyn> 

Finally, niyaz daštan “need” is a complex predicate containing a LV of (9c) type and a PV of (10c) type. So the semantic contents of its components combine as in (15). 

  (15a) DAšT “had” : LCS  < An entity is in a state>                                            (LV)
                                      ES < -Dyn>
  (15b) . niya:z “need”  LCS : <an entity (y) is in the state of needing>                  (PV)
                                              ES  :  < -Dyn> allocation                                             ↓
 =============================================================
(15c) . niya:z DAšT  LCS : <an entity (y) is in the state of needing>                  (LVC)
                                              ES  :  < -Dyn> 

	One may think that the lexical-semantic representations of PVs in (11b-15b) and the lexical semantic representations of LVCs or complex predicates in (11c-15c) are exactly the same and, therefore, PVs and LVCs are not different. However we should note that it is not the case and the LCS and ES of PV are different from those of a LVC. In a LVC, a sub-event of a PV is identified with the sub-event of a LV. The identified or merged sub-events are represented in bold face. As a result of this identification a composite form is constructed, headed by a LV. This means that a LVC in addition to all the semantic contents of its components possesses the verbal features such as agreement and case-marking properties. Moreover, in the ES of every LVC one sub-event, i.e. –Telic, +Telic or –Dyn, is represented in bold face. This is supposed to indicate that in each ES only one sub-event is focalized (Cornilescu, 2001) and the focalized sub-event determines the ES type of each LVC. So we have a -Telic LVC in (12c), a +Telic LVC in (13c), and two (-Dyn) LVCs in (14-15c). Note that (12c) the event starts with  a -Telic (Activity) sub-event and whether it remains an activity or become telic depends on the properties of the internal arguments. For instance, if the internal argument is definite it measures out the event (Tenny, 1994) and results in an accomplishment or +Telic reading.

5. The Syntax of Complex predicates
We observed that LVCs can predicate sentences with different number of arguments (1-4). In this section, we will attempt to account for syntactic properties of LVCs. A simple binary phrase structure system within a minimalist framework (Chomsky, 1995) will be used as the syntactic theory in this paper. Borer (1994) assumes an Aspectual head which selects a VP and the Specifier (SPEC) of the Aspectual Phrase (AspP) may project and provide a landing site for the internal arguments. The arguments that move to this position measure out the events (Tenny, 1994). In Borer’s system the SPEC of AspP may or may not project. We showed that Persian LVs only contain aspectual information and some verbal features such as agreement and case. So, it might be plausible to accept that they behave like Borer’s Aspectual heads and they are base generated above VP. Also let us assume that in the spirit of Barner and Bale (2002) PVs, regardless of their lexical categories, can head the VPs which are selected by the LVs. Thus, like Borer’s (1994) AspP, the LVs are base generated above VP and the PVs, as argument bearing elements, are base generated under VP.  We propose that the merger of a LV with a VP headed by a PV and the process of event identification takes place simultaneously. Since both heads share the same arguments, the arguments are licensed and case marked by the LV member of each LVC at the syntactic level.
	Based on these assumptions and explanations, we will look at the syntactic derivation of some of the typical examples selected from the above data.  (1a) is an unergative clause with an activity reading. We suggest that (1a) is derived by the movement of the x argument into SPEC TP as illustrated in (16). LV can also be considered similar to v in Chomsky (2001) and in the diagrams instead of LV we have used v which is a more familiar term in the literature. 
         
                (16)                                               TP

                                                      SPEC                         T

                                                                                T                         vP
                                                 
                                                                                      VP                                  v

                                                                                      PV, NP(x)

                                                      Ali                        sekut                                KARD   
                                                     ‘Ali’                     ‘quite’                              ‘did’
 	Now consider (4c) which is an intransitive Stative clause whose syntactic derivation is illustrated in (17).         
                              (17)                               TP

                                                    SPEC                           T

                                                                               T                        vP
                                                 
                                                                                        VP                                v
                                                                              PP             V’

                                                                                                PV, NP(y), PP(z)

                                                  ?otaq                be   Sasan  ?extesas                 DAšT   
                                                 ‘room’  	   to    Sasan  ‘allocation’             ‘had’

In (16) and (17), the SPEC of vP is not projected and the NPs directly move into SPEC TP to receive Nominative Case (Borer (1994: 29). Perhaps, the aspectual similarity of activities and Statives results from these similar syntactic derivations. For instance, both classes are grammatical with ‘for time expressions’. 
 	Now let us look at (4b). As discussed in Karimi Doostan (1997:144) sentences of (4b) type are unaccuasative and telic. The syntactic derivation of (4b) is shown in (18). 
                              (18)                               TP

                                                    SPEC                           T’

                                                                           T                          vP
                                                                                  SPEC                  v’
                                                                                     
                                                                                        VP                                v
                                                                              PP             V’

                                                                                                 PV, NP(y), PP(z)

                                                  ?otaq                be   Sasan  ?extesas                 YAFT   
                                                 ‘room’  	   to    Sasan  ‘allocation’            ‘found’

Unlike (16) and (17), in (18) the internal argument is raised to SPEC vP and measures out the event. But since the event is measured out and there is no Accusative case available due to the lack of an external argument (Burzio, 1986) the NP raised to SPEC TP to receive Nominative case. In all cases, the z arguments are licensed by Prepositions, realized as PP.
	Finally, (4a) is a transitive clause which depending on the status of its object argument can be telic or atelic. According to the framework used here, it can have a structure like (19).
                             (19)                                TP

                                              SPEC                                    T’

                                                                T                               vP
                                                                          
                                                                  SPEC                                v’
                                                                                     
                                                                                        VP                                              v
                                                                              PP             V’

                                                                                                PV, NP(x), NP(y), PP(z)

                                            Ali        ?otaq-ra    be Sasan   ?extesas                                  DAD   
                                             Ali        ‘room’    ‘to Sasan’   ‘allocation’                          ‘gave’

As we see in (19) the x argument moves into SPEC TP to receive Nominative case and y argument moves into SPEC vP where it receive Accusative case. We assume that whether or not the object argument in SPEC vP measure out the event to give telic reading depends on the properties of the object NP. In (18), the internal argument measures out the event and moves into SPEC TP where it is no more available to alternate the aspectual properties of the clause. However, in (19) the object argument plays a role in determining the aspectual properties of the clause. For example, if it is definite the clause will be telic, but if it is a generic or mass noun the sentence will be atelic. The different focalized sub-events in (12) and (13) might be one of the reasons for different aspectual behaviors of the clauses in (18) and (19).   
	Similar to the present approach, Svenonius (2002) attempts to find a relationship between case marking and aspectual properties of verbs. He claims that features of Aktionsart may determine the distribution of object case and interpretable features of inner aspect or Aktionsart may determine case. 
	Now let us look at the similar data in some other languages. There is a difference between Korean hata “to do”and Urdu daal “to put” type LVs on the one hand and Korean toyta “to become” and Urdu par “to fall” type LVs on the other hand. The former may appear in LVCs with external or agentive arguments, but the latter tend to form LVCs with internal or theme arguments. Likewise in LVCs with nominal PVs in South Asian languages, it is possible to find pairs of LVs where one group appears in transitive LVCs with external arguments, while the other group tends to form passive-like intransitive LVCs with internal arguments. This cross-linguistic observation indicates that the transitive/inchoative pairs in (1-4) are comparable to the pairs from Korean and Urdu. If so, then our approach can be extended to explain the identical data in other languages.    

References:

Barner, D. and A. Bale (2002) “No nouns, no verbs” Lingua, 112: 771-791.	
Booij, G (1992) “Morphology, Semantics and Argument Structure” In Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, I. Roca (ed), 47-63. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.	
Borer, H. (1994) “The Projection of Arguments”. In E. Benedicto and J. Runner (eds), Umass Occasional papers in linguistics, 17, Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA, 1-29.	
Butt, M. (1995) The Structure of Complex Predicates. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 	
Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. 	
Cattell, R. (1984)  Syntax and Semantics: Composite Predicates in English. London: Academic Press.	
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht:  Foris.	
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001) “Beyond Explanatory Adequuacy” In L. Rizzi (ed.) Proceedings of the Pontignano Conference.  	
 Cornilescu, A. (2001) “Romanian nominalizations: case and aspectual structure” Journal of Linguistics, 37: 467-501.  	
Grimshaw, J . (1990) Argument Structure, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph18. Cambridge: MIT Press.	
Grimshaw, J. and A. Mester (1988) “Light Verbs and Theta-Marking” Linguistic Inquiry, 19: 205-232  .	
Grimshaw, J. and S. Vikner (1993) “Obligatory adjuncts and the structure of Events” In Knowledge and  Language II, E. Reuland and W. Abraham (eds.). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.	
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser (1986) “Some Transitivity Alternations in English”. Lexicon Project Papers 7, Cambridge: MIT.  	
Han, H. (1988) “Light Verbs and Raising,” Language Research, 24: 565-581.	
Higginbotham, J. (1985) “On Semantics,” Linguistics Inquiry, 16: 547-593.	
Higginbotham, J. (1987) “Indefiniteness and Predication”. In The Representation of (In)definiteness E. J. Reuland & Alice g. B. ter Meulen (eds.) The MIT Press.  	
Jackendoff, R. (1987) “The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory” Linguistic Inquiry, 18: 369-411.         	
Jackendoff, R. (1990) Semantic Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.	
Jespersen, O. (1965)  A Modern English Grammar on Historical  Principle. London: George & Unwin.	
Kiefer, F. (1996) “The Inheritance of Aspectual Structure”. (ms) Akademiai Kiado, Budapest. 	
Kim, S. W. (1994) “A Study on the Light Verb Construction in English and Korean,” Language Research 3, 137-159. 	
Kamp, H. and U. Reyle (1994) From Discourse to Logic. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.	
Karimi Doostan, Gh. (1997) Light Verb Construction in Persian. Ph. D. Dissertation . Essex University.	
Karimi Doostan (2001) “N + V Complex Predicates in Persian” In Structural Aspects of SemanticallyComplex Verbs, Dehe & Warner (eds.), 277-292. Frankfort: Peter Lang.	
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport (1988) “Non-event -er Nominals: a Probe into Argument Structure,” Linguistics 26, 1067-1084.	
McClure, W. T. (1995) Syntactic Projections of the Semantics of Aspect. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.	
Mohanan, T (1994) Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.	
Park, K. (1992) Light Verb Constructions in Korean and Japanese. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of  North Carolina at Chapel Hill.	
Pustejovsky, J (1991) “The Syntax of Event Structure” In Lexical and Conceptual Semantics, B. Levin and S. Pinker (eds.), 47-87. Cambridge: Blackwell.  	
Rappaport , M. and B.  Levin (1988) “What to Do with Theta Roles” In Syntax and Semantics 21: Thematic Relations W. Wilkins (ed.). New York: Academic Press.	
Rappaport, M. et al (1993) “Levels of Lexical Representation” In Semantics and the Lexicon, J. Pustejovsky (ed.), 37-55. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.	
Sato, Y. (1993) Complex Predicate Formation with Verbal Nouns in Japanese and Korean: Argument Transfer at LF. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii.	
Svenonius, P. (2002) “Case is Uninterpretable Aspect”. Proceedings of Perspectives on Aspect. Utrecht. 	
Smith, S. C. (191) The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.	
Tenny, C. (1994) Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 	
Vahedi-Langrudi, M. (1996) The Syntax, Semantics and Argument Structure of Complex Predicates in Modern Farsi. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ottawa.