March 19, 2003 0. Introduction Many languages form predicates productively by combining a N with a V, which combine to form a unit with properties of both the N and the V; usually the combination has the thematic structure of N and the case-marking properties of V. Languages with this construction include English, Japanese and Hindi/Urdu (1a-c) 1) a. We made them a promise [that we would be on time] [English] b. keikoku suru 'do warning, warn' john-wa murahito-ni [ookami-ga kuru-to] keikoku-o shita [Japanese] John-top villager-to wolf-nom come-comp warning do-pf 'John warned the villagers [that the wolf was coming] Grimshaw and Mester 1988:207. c. yaad kar-naa 'do memory, remember' [Hindi/Urdu] ....woo .. apnee priya vastuooN-koo deekh-kar apnee bacpan-kii yaad kar lee-taa 3s self's dear objects -dat see-prt self's childhood memory do take-impf 'Seeing his cherished objects, he would remember his childhood. (Bahl 1974 72-3) The combination of N and V as a single predicate is widespread and productive in the languages which have this process. One such language is Hindi/Urdu. In this paper I base an analysis on the N+P predicates of this language to inquire more closer into the general syntactic and semantic questions which they raise, especially in the context of syntactic analyses conforming to the constraints of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1986, 1995). In particular I want to show the effect of the Principle of Full Interpretation on syntactic derivations well as semantic interpretation at the LF interface. This condition requires that every part of the (LF) representation must be licensed, by being case and theta marked if is an argument, or by assigning its theta roles if it is a predicate (Chomsky 1986: 97-103). One instantiation of Full Interpretation could be found in Higginbotham’s condition (1985) that arguments (receiving a theta roles) must be saturated, that is, they must not have to assign theta roles. The N component of N+ V combinations has a paradoxical nature. The Ns of this construction are event nominals having a complex event structure and a theta array, more like V category heads than Ns. Yet the N is clearly the syntactic object of V. Further, the properties of N +V are strongly 1 influenced by N rather than V. These properties have been explained in much of the previous literature as the result of a lexical composition of a fully specified N with a specially designated ‘light’ lexical version of V, which lacks the normal argument structure of V. I will propose a syntactic rather than lexical derivation for N+V, which relies on a fully specified N merging as the syntactic object of V. But N is not fully saturated , as it has its own theta roles of assign. Successful merger of N as a syntactic object of V requires that the event structures of N and V have to merge. If unification of their event properties takes place, then the remaining arguments are all licensed and no theta roles are left undischarged, satisfying Full Interpretation at LF. The goal of this syntactic proposal is to show that the construction is an instance of a very general syntactic process of merger, theta discharge and case licensing, without special lexical stipulations, other than the specifications of lexical information encoded by N and V. I want to simplify greatly the role of the lexicon in the formation of N+V, to show the effects of Full Interpretation. One consequence is that syntactic licensing by case checking is not identical to semantic licensing via theta assignment. Another is that there are no special lexical ‘light’ verbs, but some verbs are lighter than others, and these are the ones which participate in N+V combinations. Finally I want approach the problem of complex N + V predicates form the point of view of syntactic composition, defining the contribution of syntactic structure to interpretation. The verbal projection is constituted of sub-events and so N+V combinations have an accomplishment interpretation by virtue of N in syntactic object position, corresponding to a sub-event defining a result or end point. 1. The nature of N+V complex predicates These constructions have long been understood to present interesting problems of syntax, morphology and syntax, from a variety of descriptive and theoretical viewpoints. There is a vast array of papers on complex predicates in many languages. See Cattell 1984, Mohanan 1994, Butt 1995, Dubinsky 1997, Karimi-Doostan 1997 and other papers for references to much of this literature. The combination of V with N or another V in Hindi/Urdu has been discussed by Hook 1973, 1979, Verma 1993, Gambhir 1993, Mohanan 1994, Butt 1995 and Butt and Ramchand 2001. It is interesting that there has been from the first discussions, substantial agreement on the properties of the construction, though there are many different approaches to its derivation. Jackendoff’s 1974 paper on English complex predicates of the general type (1) called attention to two features: the construction as a whole has the theta roles and subcategorization properties of N, not V, and the combination of N +V depends on some sort of compatibility in argument structures between N and V. Grimshaw and Mester’s 1988 study of Japanese N + suru, as in (2), conclude that the accusative-marked N forms a NP phrase with its thematic object (internal argument), while the subject and other arguments are outside the NP. These two points are well-grounded in empirical evidence and are important properties which must enter into accounts of the construction, including this one. 1.2 Interface conditions The conditions on the LF interface restrict the syntactic object so as to exclude combinations which 2 cannot have a conceptual-intensional interpretation. What these conditions are is less clear. Referentially dependent expressions such as anaphors must somehow be associated with syntactic antecedents conforming to the binding conditions of the language in question. The syntactic head- specifier relation may be invoked if anaphors are cliticized in some way to a functional head such as TENSE or AGR, identified the DP in the specific position of the projection (Cole and Sung 1995, Cole, Hermon and Huang 2001). But not much has been said about the consequences of LF interface conditions and what derivations would create violations leading to lack of interpretability at LF. There is a condition on semantic interpretation originally proposed by Higginbotham 1985, and discussed and somewhat restructured by Speas (1990). Though proposed in the context of an earlier theory of syntax, I propose that it constrains LF representations in a way which is appropriate to the Minimalist Program. This condition constrains theta discharge and can be summed up as 2) Arguments are fully saturated (Higginbotham 1985:561) A constituent is saturated if it contains no undischarged theta roles in the array associated with its head. For an argument to be assigned a theta role by a head bearing a theta-array, the argument must not itself have any theta roles which are not discharged. Higginbotham's original proposal is grounded in the concept of government, which defines a local relation of syntax and construal. in D-structure and S-structure, levels of representation abandoned by the Minimalist Program because they are not motivated by interface conditions (phonetic and semantic). Some of the functions of government in defining a close syntactic relation are found in the operation MERGE. Heads merge with phrases which are arguments of the head and discharge one of the head's theta roles. Theta discharge takes place at the same time as MERGE (Chomsky 1995, Ura 2000). Here I propose that it is a condition on LF which constrains possible executions of the operation MERGE, and guarantees a well-formed LF representation. If MERGE takes place combining a theta-marking head with an unsaturated argument phrase, the result is an uninterpretable and ill-formed LF structure. An example of normal MERGE of a head with a theta array and its arguments is shown in ( ). The theta related operations are theta discharge and theta projection (Higginbotham 1985: 560ff, Speas 1990). : 3) a. A friend remembered Sam b. remember <1,2,e> MERGES with Sam, discharging the 2 argument position c. The V head PROJECTS upward, with its theta grid containing one discharged position V<1,2*,e> PROJECT 3 3 V<1,2,e> DP remember Sam MERGE d. The combination in ( c) MERGES with a friend: V<1*,2*,e> PROJECT 3 DP V <1,2*,e> MERGE a friend 3 V<1,2,e> DP remember Sam The theta grid projects upward, allowing the projected phrase to combine with other arguments until all theta roles are discharged. Finally, the event argument e in the theta array is theta bound by TENSE (Higginbotham 1985). The syntactic object formed by these operations can be interpreted at LF. No theta positions are unsaturated. 1 A rough approximation of a the LF representation is given in (2), in a kind of English syntactic order for legibility. The principal feature of this representation, however, is that each position in the theta array is related to some component of the sentence, and this relation will be represented as coindexing, as Higginbotham originally proposed (1985); this coindexing is a means of cross- referencing phrases with the heads which license them, identifying their syntactic and semantic roles. Any equivalent notation or conditions will serve the same purpose. ______________________ | | 4) TENSE(I) [ DP(j) ...[V<1(j), 2(k), e(I)> DP(k)] |________| |__________| The theta grid of V contains no open positions.