Argument alternations in complex predicates: an LFG+glue perspective

LiLT volume 17, issue 2 February 2019 Argument alternations in complex predicates: an LFG+glue perspective John J. Lowe, University of Oxford Abstract Vaidya et al. (2019) discuss argument alternations in Hindi complex predicates, and propose an analysis within an LTAG framework, com- paring this with an LFG analysis of complex predicates. In this paper I clarify the inadequacies in existing LFG analyses of complex predi- cates, and show how the LFG+glue approach proposed by Lowe (2015) can both address these inadequacies and provide a relatively simple treatment of the phenomena discussed by Vaidya et al. (2019). 1 Introduction Vaidya et al. (2019) discuss a number of issues in the analysis of Hindi complex predicates, or light verb constructions, in particular the agree- ment between light verbs and some embedded nominal predicates, se- lectional restrictions on possible noun verb combinations, and argument alternations as illustrated in (1) and (2). (1) m˜edak=ne frog.m.sg-erg bicchu=se scorpion.m.sg=instr bahas quarrel.f.sg k-ii do-prf.f.sg ‘The frog quarrelled(/debated) with the scorpion.’ (2) bicchu=se scorpion.m.sg=instr bahas quarrel.f.sg hu-ii be-prf.f.sg ‘There was a quarrel(/debate) with the scorpion.’ Following the assumptions of Vaidya et al. (2019), in both (1) and 1 2 / LiLT volume 17, issue 2 February 2019 (2) the noun bahas forms a complex predicate with the following light verb; the light verb also agrees with the gender of the noun (rather than showing default masculine gender). In (1), the complex predicate has two arguments, whereas in the resultative construction in (2), it has only one, the agent argument being impossible with the ‘intransitiviz- ing’ light verb hu ‘become’. According to Vaidya et al. (2019), kar ‘do’ vs. hu ‘become’ is the most productive light verb alternation in Hindi, but there are some nouns which cannot combine with hu because they imply too great a degree of agentivity (Ahmed and Butt, 2011, 308). Vaidya et al. (2019) propose an analysis of these phenomena in an LTAG framework, comparing this with an LFG analysis of com- plex predicates. In the following I clarify the inadequacies in existing LFG analyses of complex predicates, and show how the LFG+glue ap- proach proposed by Lowe (2015) can both address these inadequacies and provide a relatively simple treatment of the phenomena discussed by Vaidya et al. (2019). 2 Predicate fusion and argument merger in LFG LFG approaches to complex predicates share with Vaidya et al. (2019) the commitment to a syntactic analysis of predicate formation, based on work by Mohanan (1994), Butt (1995) and Alsina (1996). Since this early LFG work, a rich vein of research has developed on complex predicates, much of it by Miriam Butt and colleagues.1 The standard LFG treatment of complex predicates comes in two flavours, one more couched in the theory, the other more couched in the computational implementation, XLE; Lowe (2015) labels these the ‘linking’ approach and the ‘XLE’ approach respectively, and I use the same labels here. These two approaches are only partially distinct, but one of the dif- ferences is relevant to the argument alternations …

Content truncated to 500 words