Syntactic composition and selectional preferences in Hindi Light Verb Constructions

LiLT volume 17, issue 1 2019 Syntactic composition and selectional preferences in Hindi Light Verb Constructions Ashwini Vaidya, IIT Delhi Owen Rambow, Columbia University Martha Palmer, University of Colorado, Boulder 1 Abstract Previous work on light verb constructions (e.g. chorii kar ‘theft do; steal’) in Hindi describes their syntactic formation via co-predication (Ahmed et al., 2012, Butt, 2014). This implies that both noun and light verb contribute their arguments, and these overlapping argument structures must be composed in the syntax. In this paper, we present a co-predication analysis using Tree-Adjoining Grammar, which mod- els syntactic composition and semantic selectional preferences without transformations (deletion or argument identification). The analysis has two key components (i) an underspecified category for the nominal and (ii) combinatorial constraints on the noun and light verb to spec- ify selectional preferences. The former has the advantage of syntactic composition without argument identification and the latter prevents over-generalization, while recognizing the semantic contribution of both predicates. This work additionally accounts for the agreement facts for the Hindi LVC. 2 Introduction Light verb constructions have been defined as “two (or more) pred- icational elements that each contribute to a joint predication” (Butt, 2010). A light verb construction e.g. give a kiss consists of a ‘light’ verb give and a second predicating element viz. the noun kiss. In comparison 1 2 / LiLT volume 17, issue 1 2019 to the simple event verb kiss, the light verb construction has a more nuanced meaning, where there is a ‘transfer’ of the kiss from giver to receiver. The verb give in this light verb construction contributes this meaning, which is more abstract as compared to its ordinary lexical usage as give in give a book. Light verb constructions (henceforth, LVCs) are found across lan- guages such as Japanese, Korean, Persian and English as well as Ger- man. In languages like Hindi, Urdu and Persian, these constructions are particularly pervasive. LVCs in Hindi are often subsumed under the term ‘complex predicates’ because light verbs in Hindi can combine with another verb, an adjective, adverb or even a borrowed English verb or noun. Complex predication of this sort is highly productive in Hindi, as well as other South Asian languages (Masica, 1976). In this paper, we continue to refer to predicating noun and light verb combinations as ‘light verb constructions’, though they are also sometimes referred to as ‘support verb’ or ‘complex verb’ constructions. One of the primary syntactic challenges for LVCs is monoclausality with two predicating heads. For simple predicates, such as the examples seen in (1) and (2), a single set of semantic roles will map to their respective grammatical functions. E.g. subject and object to Agent and Patient respectively. In the case of LVCs as seen in (3), two predicating heads will result in a composite argument structure (see also Figure 1). (1) Simple predicate mohan=ne Mohan.m.sg=erg shyam=ko Shyam.m.sg=acc t”alaash-aa search-prf.m.sg ‘Mohan searched for Shyam’ (2) Simple predicate mohan=ne Mohan.m.sg=erg apna his.m homework homework.m.sg kiy-aa do-prf.m.sg ‘Mohan did his homework’ Hindi …

Content truncated to 500 words