In Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson, and Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai, eds., Chinese Syntax in a Cross-Linguistic
Perspective, Oxford University Press, New York, 251-269. (2014)

Selection and Incorporation in Complex Predicate Formation1
Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University and University of Connecticut

1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to examine the roles of selection and incorporation incomplex predicate formation. I consider lexical complex predicates in Japanese, theresultative serial verb construction in Edo, and compound verbs in Chinese, exemplified in(1)-(3) respectively.
(1) Hanako-ga
Taroo-oosi-taosi-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC push-make.fall-Past‘Hanako pushed Taroo and made him fall.’(2) Òzó suá Úyì dé
Ozo push Uyi fall‘Ozo pushed Uyi, which made him fall.’(3) Ta he-zui(jiu) lehe drink-get.drunk wine Asp.
‘He drank (wine) and got drunk.’(2) instantiates a serial verb construction with two independent verbs. But I assume, following
the analysis proposed in Saito (2001), that the second verb covertly incorporates into the firstand forms a complex predicate.
The three constructions are subject to different constraints. Thus, a Japanese lexical
complex predicate cannot be formed with the two verbs in (2) or (3), as shown in (4).

1This is a revised version of part of the material presented in a colloquium at Harvard University in2003 and in a syntax seminar at the University of Connecticut in 2005. I would like to thank Jim
Huang, Jonathan Bobaljik and Diane Lillo-Martin, among others, for helpful comments. I benefited
from discussions with many people at various occasions. Special thanks are due to Mark Baker and
Jim Huang for their extensive help with the analysis as well as the data. Shengli Feng, Seng-hian Lau
and Dylan Tsai also kindly provided me with relevant data from Classical Chinese and Chinesedialects. I regret that I was unable to discuss them in this version of the paper.

2(4) a. *Hanako-ga
Taroo-oosi-taore-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC push-fall-Past‘Hanako pushed Taroo, which made him fall.’b. *Hanako-ga
wain-onomi-yot-ta
Hanako-NOM wine-ACC drink-get.drunk-Past‘Hanako drank wine and got drunk.’
Although other factors may also be involved in these differences, I explore the hypothesis thatthey arise because of the ways in which derivations are constrained by selectional restrictions
and the interpretive mechanism of chains formed by incorporation. Kageyama (1993) argues
that Japanese lexical complex predicates are formed before they merge into larger syntactic
structures, i.e., in the lexicon in his terms. As mentioned above, the resultative serial verb
construction in Edo arguably involves covert incorporation. And I explore the possibility,
extending the ideas in Tang (1997) and Huang (2006), that Chinese compound verbs arederived by overt incorporation. The hypothesis pursued in this paper is that selection andchain interpretation interact with these differences in derivation and yield the variations in thepossible combinations of verbs.2
In the following section, I discuss the transitivity harmony principle, proposed by
Kageyama (1993) as a generalization on Japanese lexical complex predicates, and argue that
it follows from the selectional relation between v and V. Then, in Section 3, I examine theconsequences of this proposal for the Japanese light verb construction and the Edo resultative
serial verb construction. The conclusion there is that selectional restrictions are constraints on
the application of Merge, as opposed to the resulting phrase structure. In Section 4, I turn toChinese examples with compound verbs and illustrate their peculiarities in contrast with thephrasal resultative construction with two independent verbs in the language. Finally, I
compare the Edo serial verbs with Chinese compound verbs in Section 5 and suggest that
their differences may be attributed to the covert vs. overt distinction in complex predicate
formation. Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. Japanese Lexical Complex PredicatesIn this section, I argue that the restrictions on Japanese lexical complex predicates follow,
to a large extent, from the selectional requirements of v. I first briefly review Kageyama’s2

Li (1993) presents the most detailed comparison of Japanese lexical complex predicates and Chinesecompound verbs, to my knowledge. He assumes that both are formed in the lexicon with composite
argument structures. His analysis for the differences between the two, roughly speaking, is based on
the proposal that only the former is “doubly headed.” Although the account to be proposed in thispaper is syntactic and is quite different from Li’s, it does share some of his insights abstractly.

3(1993) analysis and then present the argument.
Japanese employs complex predicates extensively. Kageyama, first, divides them into
two groups, lexical and syntactic. A syntactic complex predicate projects a structure withclausal embedding, where each element of the complex predicate functions as an independent
verb and projects a VP. Typical examples are shown in (5).
(5) a. Hanako-ga
Taroo-niwani-otabe-sase-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT alligator-ACC eat-make-Past‘Hanako made Taroo eat alligator meat’b. Taroo-ga
wani-otabe-hazime-ta
Taroo-NOM alligator-ACC eat-start-Past‘Taroo started to eat alligator meat’
As Kageyama points out, the first verb projects an independent VP in these examples, andhence, a pro-VP (or V’) form soo su ‘do so’ can substitute for the VP. This is shown in (6).
(6) a. Hanako-ga
Taroo-nisoo s-ase-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT so do-make-Past‘Hanako made Taroo do so.’b. Taroo-ga
soo si-hazime-ta
Taroo-NOM so do-start-Past‘Taroo started to do so.’A lexical complex predicate, on the other hand, projects a single VP. Examples areprovided in (7).
(7) a. Taroo-ga
ana-ni suberi-oti-ta
Taroo-NOM hole-in slip-fall-Past‘Taroo slipped and fell into a hole.’b. Hanako-ga
me-o
naki-harasi-ta
Hanako-NOM eye-Acc cry-make.swollen-Past‘Hanako cried and made her eyelids swollen.’In this case, the pro-VP (V’) form soo su cannot substitute for the first verb (and its internalarguments) as in (6) because the first verb does not project a VP (V’) by itself. Thus, the4examples in (8) are ungrammatical as expected.
(8) a. *Taroo-ga (ana-ni) soo si-oti-tab. *Hanako-ga (me-o) soo si-harasi-ta
Kageyama (1993), then, presents (9) as a generalization that applies to lexical complex
predicates.
(9) Transitivity Harmony Principle
In a lexical complex predicate V1+V2, if one of the verbs takes an external argument, sodoes the other one.
This generalization is based on the observation that complex predicates that consist of two
unaccusative verbs and those that include two unergative/transitive verbs are abundant, but
we rarely find those that combine an unaccusative verb and an unergative/transitive verb.
Relevant examples are listed in (10).
(10) a. transitive-transitive: hiki-nuk (pull-pull.out), nigiri-tubus (grasp-crash),tataki-otos (hit-make.drop), kiri-tor (cut-remove)b. unergative-unergative: hasiri-yor (run-go close), tobi-ori (jump-go down),
aruki-mawar (walk-go.around), mure-tob (form.a.flock-fly)c. unaccusative-unaccusative: suberi-oti (slip-fall), ukabi-agar (float-rise),umare-kawar (be.born-change), huri-sosog (fall-flow)d. transitive-unergative: moti-aruk (carry-walk), sagasi-mawar (look.for-go.around),mati-kamae (wait.for-hold)e. unergative-transitive: naki-haras (cry-make swollen), nori-kae (ride.on-change),nomi-tubus (drink-waste)
Note that *osi-taore ‘push-fall’ and *nomi-yow ‘drink-get.drunk’ in (4) instantiate thetransitive-unaccusative combination and are ill-formed. (11a-b), which contain complex
predicates of unaccusative-transitive combination, are equally ungrammatical.
(11) a. *Kareha-ga
zimen-ooti-kakusi-ta
dead.leaf-NOM ground-ACC fall-hide-Past‘Dead leaves fell and covered the ground.’5b. *Taroo-ga
kuzira-oukabi-mi-ta
Taroo-NOM whale-ACC float-see-Past‘A whale came to the surface and Taroo saw it.’Kageyama’s generalization in (9) has been discussed extensively since it was proposed.
Yumoto (1996) and Matsumoto (1998), for example, present detailed semantic analyses for
lexical complex predicates, and point out some potential counter-examples to thegeneralization. However, as Kageyama (1999) notes, those examples, even if they are indeed
problematic, are quite limited, and (9) clearly expresses a strong tendency that is observed
uniquely with Japanese lexical complex predicates.3 At the same time, the generalization, if
correct, calls for an explanation. Kageyama (1993) proposes (9) as a language-specificconstraint on lexical complex verb formation. But this raises questions as it is not clear why
Japanese should have this constraint and how children acquire it, for example, based on
positive evidence. Here, I propose that (9) is to be derived from selection.
It is widely assumed that both of the component verbs in a lexical complex predicate
participate in θ-marking. Thus, in (1), repeated below as (12), Hanako is the subject andTaroo is the object of both os ‘push’ and taos ‘make.fall’.

3

It seems to me that the most serious issue is the scope of the generalization rather than its accuracy.
As far as I know, there are three kinds of potential counter-examples. The first includes cases where
the same verb combines with an unergative verb as well as an unaccusative verb, as in naki-sakeb‘cry-scream’ and naki-kuzure ‘cry-collapse’. But nak, for example, can mean ‘cry’ or ‘be in tears’ andmay be ambiguous between unergative and unaccusative. The second group consists of examples
where the second verb is aki ‘be bored with, be tired of’, tukare ‘be tired with’ or the like, as in (i).
(i) Taroo-wa gengogaku-no hon-oyomi-aki-ta
Taroo-TOP linguistics-GEN book-ACC read-be.tired-Past‘Taroo was tired of reading linguistics books.’
The soo su ‘do so’ test mentioned in the text would classify yomi-aki in (i) as a lexical complex
predicate, but the possibility seems to remain that aki takes a full vP complement because theaccusative on the object comes from the transitive yom rather than the unaccusative aki. That is, thefailure of soo su substitution may be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a complex predicate
to be lexical. The last group consists of examples like tobi-kom ‘jump-go.into’, where it is dubious thatthe second verb has an argument structure of its own. There is no independent verb kom with theappropriate meaning. If Kageyama’s generalization has to do with the argument structures of thecomponent verbs, it may not include these examples in its scope to begin with. Kageyama (1993) infact proposes to analyze kom as a verbal suffix that adds information to the lexical-conceptual
structure. Finally, as compounds are at issue, it is not surprising if there are cases where they arelexicalized and registered in the lexicon independently of the parts they seem to be composed of. Once
this possibility is granted, the generalization loses its strict falsifiability. But it is difficult to avoid thesituation with the investigation of compounds, and as stated in the text, the generalization holds over alarge domain with at most limited potential counter-examples. See the references cited for moredetailed discussion on this issue.

6(12) Hanako-ga
Taroo-oosi-taosi-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC push-make.fall-Past‘Hanako pushed Taroo and made him fall.’
The sentence cannot depict a situation in which Hanako pushed a chair and as a result madeTaroo fall. This implies that each verb is visible in the interpretation of a larger structure. (13)illustrates how os and taos assign the theme role to Taroo.
(13) [VP Taroo [V [V osi]-[V taos]]]

Further, Kageyama (1993) presents clear evidence that each verb in a lexical complex
predicate participates in the selectional relations with the arguments. As Japanese morphology
is head-final, it is not surprising that the second verb projects its argument structure in thesyntax. But the following examples, adopted from Kageyama (1993) with slight changes,
demonstrate that the arguments must satisfy the selectional requirements of the first verb as
well:(14) a. Tuta-ga boo-ni maki-tui-ta
ivy-NOM stick-to wind-attach-Past‘An ivy twined around the stick.’b. Abura-ga kabe-ni simi-tui-ta
oil-NOM wall-to soak-attach-Past‘The wall was stained with oil.’(15) a. *Tuta-ga boo-ni simi-tui-ta
ivy-NOM stick-to soak-attach-Past‘The stick was stained with an ivy.’
b. *Abura-ga kabe-ni maki-tui-ta
oil-NOM wall-to wind-attach-Past‘The oil twined around the wall.’(15a) is ungrammatical because an ivy cannot soak into a stick, and (15b) because oil cannot
twine around a wall.
But if both verbs in a lexical complex predicate have selectional relation with the object,they must also participate in the selectional relation with v when v and VP are merged. (16)

7
illustrates this with osi-taos ‘push-make.fall’ in (12).

(16) [v’ [VP Taroo [V [V osi]-[V taos]]] v]

Here, v comes in two varieties, v* and v, as proposed in Chomsky (1995). v* selects for atransitive/unergative V and hosts an external argument, while v selects for an unaccusative V.
Then, the v in (16) must be v* and the structure is well-formed as it enters into proper
selectional relation with two transitive verbs. When the complex predicate consists of two
unaccusative verbs, the structure should also be legitimate with v selecting for unaccusatives.
But when the complex predicate consists of an unaccusative verb and a transitive/unergave
verb, a conflict in the selectional relation with v arises. If the VP merges with v*, then the v*
does not select for the unaccusative verb. On the other hand, if v is employed, its selectional
requirement fails with the transitive/unergative verb. Thus, Kageyama’s transitivity harmony
principle is derived.

3. Complex Predicate Formation with Covert Incorporation
In this section, I assume the account for the restriction on the Japanese lexical complex
predicates just presented, and explore its consequences for the analysis of the Japanese lightverb construction and the Edo resultative serial verb construction. I argued in Saito (2001)
that these constructions involve formation of complex predicates by covert incorporation.4 I
first show that the Japanese light verb construction exhibits a restriction similar to“transitivity harmony,” and argue that the account proposed in the preceding section extends
to this case. Then, I discuss the Edo resultative serial verb construction, and draw theconclusion that selection is a derivational constraint that applies to the application of Merge.
Let us start with the Japanese light verb construction. Typical examples are shown in(17).
(17) a. Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni [NP toti -no zyooto]-o si-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT
land-GEN giving-ACC do-Past‘Hanako gave a piece of land to Taroo.’4

I do not repeat the arguments here and refer the reader to Saito (2001). See also Grimshaw and
Mester (1988), Hoshi (1995), and Saito and Hoshi (2000) for detailed discussion on the Japanese lightverb construction, and Stewart (1998), and Baker and Stewart (1999) for comprehensive examinationof the Edo serial verb constructions.

8b. Hanako-ga
Taroo-kara [NP hooseki-no ryakudatu]-o si-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-fromjewelry-GEN robbery-ACC do-Past‘Hanako robbed Taroo of jewelries.’
The peculiarity of this construction, as discussed in detail in Grimshaw and Mester (1988), isthat the goal argument in (15a) and the source argument in (15b), Taroo, are θ-marked by thehead noun of the direct object, zyooto in (15a) and ryakudatu in (15b) respectively. Given this,
it is proposed in Saito and Hoshi (2000) that the head noun of the direct object covertly
incorporates into the light verb su ‘do’ and θ-marks Taroo.
(18) shows the structure of vP in (17a).5(18) [vP Hanako-ga [v’ [VP Taroo-ni [V’ [NP toti-no [N zyooto]]-o [V [N zyooto] [V su]] ]] v]]

The head noun zyooto ‘giving’ assigns the theme role to toti ‘land’ in the initial position, andthen, covertly incorporates into the verb su ‘do’ and assigns the goal role to Taroo from thelanding site. If the initial merger of an argument into a structure is confined to its θ-position,
as proposed in Chomsky (1995), then the covert incorporation must take place cyclically, that
is, as soon as the V su merges with the complement accusative NP. This is so because theposition of Taroo becomes a θ-position only after the incorporation of zyooto into su. The
cyclic application of covert movement is indeed possible, given the single-cycle model of
Bobaljik (1995), where the only distinction between overt and covert movements is whether
the phonetic features are realized at the landing site or the initial site.
Grimshaw and Mester (1988) point out a number of interesting constraints on the lightverb construction. Among them is that the head noun of the accusative NP cannot be
unaccusative. This is illustrated in (19).
(19) a. *Mizu-ga(sara-kara) zyoohatu-o
si-ta
water-NOM dish-from evaporation-ACC do-Past‘The water evaporated from the dish.’b. *Antena-ga(yane-kara) rakka-osi-ta
antenna-NOM roof-from falling-ACC do-Past‘The antenna fell from the roof.’
These examples receive a straightforward account along the lines proposed in Miyagawa
5

Saito and Hoshi (2000) assume the classical VP-internal subject hypothesis, and hence, place thesubject within VP. I assume here that it is merged at vP Spec.

9(1989) and Tsujimura (1990). The v in these sentences must be a v* as an accusative NP ispresent. Then, there must be an external argument, which is absent in both (19a) and (19b).
But interestingly, the light verb construction is incompatible with an unaccusative noun
even in the presence of an external argument, as shown in (20).
(20) a. *Taroo-ga
sara-kara [NP mizu-no
zyoohatu]-osi-ta
Taroo-NOM dish-fromwater-GEN evaporation-ACC do-Past‘Taroo made the water evaporate from the dish.’b. *Hanako-ga
yane-kara [NP antena-no
rakka]-osi-ta
Hanako-NOM roof-fromantenna-GEN falling-ACC do-Past‘Hanako made the antenna fall from the roof.’
In this case, there should not be any problem with θ-marking, as illustrated in (21) for (20a).
(21) [vP Taroo-ga [v’ [VP sara-kara [V’ [NP mizu-no [N zyoohatu]]-o [V [N zyoohatu] [V su]] ]] v]]

Zyoohatu ‘evaporation’ assigns the theme role to mizu ‘water’ in situ, and then assigns thesource role to sara ‘dish’ after covertly incorporating into su ‘do’. In addition, v hosts therequired external argument, Taroo, in its Spec.
But the analysis presented in the preceding section predicts the ungrammaticality of (20a,b) straightforwardly. Note that the covert incorporation of a noun into su creates a complex
predicate, and that the formed complex predicates in (20a, b) do not conform to Kageyama’s(1993) transitivity harmony principle. In these examples, the complex predicate consists of an
unaccusative noun and the verb su, which requires an external argument. Hence, the v,
whether it is v* or v, cannot have proper selectional relations with both. The grammatical (17a,b) do not face this problem because the incorporated noun is transitive in both cases.
It was shown that the account for Kageyama’s transitivity harmony principle extends tocomplex predicates formed by covert incorporation. In the remainder of this section, I argue
that the Edo resultative serial verb construction, which seems problematic on the surface,provides us with further insights into the role of selection in the derivation.
Representative examples of the Edo construction are shown in (22).
(22) a. Òzó suá Úyì dé
Ozo push Uyi fall‘Ozo pushed Uyi, which made him fall.’10b. Òmó dé wúchild fall die‘The child fell and died.’
I proposed in Saito (2001) that this construction involves covert incorporation just as in thecase of the Japanese light verb construction. The derivation of (22a) is illustrated in (23).
(23) [vP Òzó [v’ v [VP Úyì [V’ [V [V suá] [V dé]] [VP [V dé]] ]] ]](22a) exhibits the typical resultative paradox, that is, the object Úyì receives θ-roles from bothsuá ‘push’ and dé ‘fall’. The paradox is resolved by covert incorporation in (23). The matrix
verb suá takes the VP headed by dé as a complement and hosts Úyì in its Spec position. Thisconfiguration allows suá but not dé to θ-mark Úyì. But the incorporation of dé to suá creates
the desired configuration that makes it possible for both suá and dé to θ-mark Úyì.6
This analysis appears to be in conflict with the proposal on “transitivity harmony”
presented earlier because the complex predicate formed by covert incorporation consists ofthe transitive suá ‘push’ and the unaccusative dé ‘fall’. But there is a crucial difference
between this case and the Japanese light verb construction. In the latter, the covert
incorporation was required for the merger of an internal argument in VP Spec. In (17a),
repeated below as (24), the incorporation of zyooto ‘giving’ makes it possible for Taroo tomerge into a θ-position.
(24) Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni [NP toti -no zyooto]-o si-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT
land-GEN giving-ACC do-Past‘Hanako gave a piece of land to Taroo.’
Hence, the covert incorporation must apply cyclically prior to the merger of Taroo, andconsequently before the merger of v into the structure. The situation in (23) is different. Since
suá ‘push’ θ-marks Úyì, the incorporation of dé ‘fall’ is not required for the merger of Úyì
into the structure. Then, the incorporation can apply after v is merged into the structure as
illustrated in (25).
(25) a. [v’ v [VP Úyì [V’ [V suá] [VP [V dé]] ]] ] (merger of v with VP headed by suá)b. [v’ [v v [V suá]] [VP Úyì [V’ [V suá] [VP [V dé]] ]] ] (overt incorporation of suá into v)

c. [v’ [v v [V suá]] [VP Úyì [V’ [V [V suá] [V dé]] [VP [V dé]] ]] ] (covert incorporation of dé)
6

Suá raises overtly to v, yielding the surface word order.

11This derivation allows v, or more precisely v* in this case, to satisfy its selectional
requirement at the point it is merged into the structure. Thus, there is a way for the Edo
resultative construction to circumvent “transitivity harmony.”
The account for the difference between Japanese and Edo proposed above has a few
consequences. First, incorporation can apply as soon as the target is introduced into thestructure as in the case of the Japanese light verb construction, or wait until a later point as in(25). Second, the analysis of Edo implies that selectional restrictions are constraints on theapplication of Merge, and not on the derived structure. This is so since v* in (25) is in aproper selectional relation with the complement V at the point it is merged into the structure
as in (25a), but not after dé ‘fall’ incorporates into suá ‘push’ as can be seen in (25c). Thisconclusion may seem surprising because selectional requirements are understood to besemantic in nature. However, it is in accord, for example, with the head movement of be to T
as in (26).
(26) Mary thinks [CP that [TP John is not the best candidate]]
The main verb be raises to T in the embedded clause of (26). Nevertheless, the embedded C isin selectional relation only with the embedded T and not with the raised verb. The conclusion
indeed seems plausible.

4. Chinese Compound Verbs and the Object Restriction
Chinese compound verbs are not subject to transitivity harmony either. For example, thefollowing examples cited from Huang (1992) contain compounds that consist of atransitive/unergative verb and an unaccusative verb:(27) a. Ta chi-bao (fan) lehe eat-full rice Asp.
‘He ate (rice) and became full.’b. Ta he-zui(jiu) lehe drink-drunk wine Asp.
‘He drank (wine) and became drunk.’
If these compounds are formed by overt incorporation, they can be accounted for in the same
way as Edo. That is, the incorporation of the second verb into the first applies after v ismerged into the structure. At the same time, Chinese resultatives with compound verbs
exhibit an outstanding property that is not shared by the Edo resultatives: they are not subject
to Simpson’s (1983) object restriction. I discuss this property in this section and then compare12Chinese and Edo in the next.
It is known that resultative constructions are, to a large extent, subject to the object
restriction, as discussed in detail in Simpson (1983). The restriction states that the result
predicate is predicated on the object. Thus, the contrast between (28) and (29) obtains.
(28) a. John painted the barn red
b. The metali was pounded ti flatc. The liquidi froze ti solid(29) a. *John ran tiredb. *Mary ate the rice full
The restriction applies to the Edo resultative serial verb construction as well, as pointed out inBaker and Stuart (1999). 7 The following examples illustrate this:(30) a. *Òzó ré kp`Ol´O
Ozo ate be.big‘Ozo ate himself fat.’b. *Òzó dá (ày´On) mu`Emu´E
Ozo drink palm wine be.sluggish‘Ozo drank palmwine and became sluggish.’On the other hand, Chinese compound verbs are not subject to this restriction as discussed indetail in Li (1990, 1993) and Huang (1992). This is demonstrated by the examples in (27).
The subject ta ‘he’ becomes full in (27a) and becomes drunk in (27b). In this section, I briefly
go over the discussion in Huang (2006), which indicates that the object restriction isinapplicable to the Chinese examples in (27) because they employ compound verbs unlike theEnglish examples in (29) or the Edo examples in (30).
Huang (2006) examines the absence of the object restriction in Chinese in detail. He firstnotes that compound resultatives and non-compound, phrasal resultatives both apparently do
not exhibit the object restriction. (31a) contains a compound tiao-lei ‘dance-tired’ whereas(31b) has two independent predicates xiao ‘laugh’ and zhan-bu-qilai ‘cannot-stand-up’ withthe former followed by de.8

7

It is distinguished in this respect from the other serial verb constructions in the language, covert
coordination and the consequential serial verb construction. See Baker and Stewart (1999) for detailed
discussion.
8

Huang’s (2006) analysis crucially relies on the properties of de, which will be discussed later.

13(31) a. Lisi tiao-lei
leLisi dance-tired Asp.
‘Lisi danced himself tired.’b. Zhangsan xiao-de zhan-bu-qilai
Zhangsan laugh-till cannot-stand-up‘Zhangsan laughed so much that he couldn’t stand up.’
But the violation of the object restriction in phrasal resultatives, Huang argues, is only
apparent.
The resultatives with compounds are not totally free of restrictions. For example, Huang(2006) notes that (27a) is acceptable in the presence of an object only when the object is abare NP that is part of the expression chi fan, which simply means ‘eat’ or ‘have a meal’.
Thus, the following example is unacceptable:(32) *Zhangsan chi-bao-le na-wan fan / liang-wan fan
Zhangsan eat-full-Asp. that-bowl rice two-bowl rice
‘Zhangsan ate that bowl of rice / two bowls of rice and became full.’
However, he also notes that there are examples in which the result predicate can or even must
be predicated of the subject even when the object is referential. (33) is one of his examples.
(33) Zhangsan kan-lei-leLisi / na-ge ren
Zhangsan chase-tired-Asp. Lisi that person‘Zhangsan chased Lisi / that person and became tired.’
Given this, he concludes that the second verb in a resultative compound may sometimes be
predicated of the subject even in the presence of an object.
The pattern that Chinese phrasal resultatives with two independent verbs exhibit is quite
different. Although the second verb can apparently be predicated of the subject as in (31b),
this is possible only when the first verb is unergative. When the first verb is transitive and an
object appears, the object restriction is indeed observed. The following contrast between acompound resultative and a phrasal resultative illustrates this:99Huang notes that there are limited potential counter-examples to this generalization and offers
speculations on them.

14(34) a. Lisi qi-lei-lema leLisi ride-tired-Asp. horse Asp.
(i) ‘Lisi rode a horse and got tired from it.’(ii) ‘Lisi rode a horse and got the horse tired.’b. Lisi qi-de ma hen lei
Lisi ride-till horse very tired‘Lisi rode a horse and got the horse tired.’In (34a) with the compound qi-lei ‘ride-tired’, lei can be predicated of the subject, Lisi. But(34b) only has the reading in which lei is predicated of the object, ma ‘horse’.
Having observed that subject predication is allowed in phrasal resultatives only when thefirst verb is unergative, Huang (2006) goes on to argue that the violation of the object
restriction in this case is only apparent. He first notes that phrasal resultatives with unergative
verbs exhibit inchoative-causative alternation as shown in (35).
(35) a. Ta tiao-de man-shen-da-han
he dance-till whole-body-big-sweat‘He danced [himself] all sweaty.’b. Yi-zhi tangewu tiao-de ta man-shen-da-han
one-CL tango
dance-till he whole-body-big-sweat‘A tango dance caused him to dance himself all sweaty.’
Here, it is known that unaccusatives, but not unergatives, show alternation of this kind. (36b)is fine but (37b) is totally ungrammatical.
(36) a. The boat sankb. The bomb sank the boat(37) a. John laughedb. *The joke laughed John
Then, the grammaticality of (35b) indicates that tiao-de in (35a) is unaccusative. At this point,
Huang observes that -de evolved out of the verb de ‘get’, which can be paraphrased as
bian-de ‘become’ or shi-de ‘cause’, just like its English translation get. He then proposes that-de with the unaccusative meaning ‘become’ heads tiao-de in (35a), and tiao modifies it
indicating the manner in which the event happens.

15
Huang’s (2006) analysis of phrasal resultatives in Chinese implies that they are subject
to the object restriction. Then, the violation of the restriction is a unique property of thecompound resultatives. In the following section, I consider the difference between the
Chinese compound resultatives and the Edo serial verb resultatives with respect to the object
restriction. I entertain the possibility that the difference arises because incorporation is overt
in the former while it is covert in the latter, and present an analysis in terms of chaininterpretation.10

5. Comparison of Chinese Compound Resultatives with Edo Resultatives
As discussed in the preceding section, Edo resultative serial verb construction exhibits
the object restriction whereas the Chinese resultative construction with compounds does not.
Relevant examples in (30) and (27) are repeated in (38) and (39).
(38) a. *Òzó ré kp`Ol´O
Ozo ate be.big‘Ozo ate himself fat.’b. *Òzó dá (ày´On) mu`Emu´E
Ozo drink palm wine be.sluggish‘Ozo drank palmwine and became sluggish.’(39) a. Ta chi-bao (fan) lehe eat-full rice Asp.
‘He ate (rice) and became full.’b. Ta he-zui(jiu) lehe drink-drunk wine Asp.
‘He drank (wine) and became drunk.’
In this section, I investigate the source of this difference on the assumption that thecompounds in (39) are formed by overt incorporation.
Let me first note that the incorporation analysis proposed in Section 3, as it stands,
allows both (38) and (39). A possible derivation for (38a) is shown in (40).
10The Edo construction is chosen as the target of comparison because I argued in Saito (2001) that it
involves covert incorporation. It is argued there that English resultatives are not derived by covert
incorporation but by NP movement. A discussion of the derivation of Chinese phrasal resultatives isbeyond the scope of this paper. I refer the reader to Huang (2006) for an analysis.

16(40) a. [vP Òzó [v’ v [VP [V ré] [VP [V kp`Ol´O]] ] ]] (Merge to yield the base vP structure)b. [vP Òzó [v’ v [VP [V [V ré] [V kp`Ol´O]] [VP [V kp`Ol´O]] ] ]]c. [vP Òzó [v’ [v v [V [V ré] [V kp`Ol´O]]] [VP [V [V ré] [V kp`Ol´O]] [VP [V kp`Ol´O]] ] ]]In (40b), kp`Ol´O ‘be.full’ covertly incorporates into ré ‘ate’. Then, the complex V, rékp`Ol´O ‘ate-be.full’ overtly raises to v in (40c). The second verb kp`Ol´O should be able toθ-mark Òzó from this position, yielding the intended interpretation. The Chinese (39a) can beanalyzed in exactly the same way. Its derivation is shown in (41).11(41) a. [vP Ta [v’ v [VP fan [V’ [V chi] [VP [V bao]] ]] ]] (Merge to yield the base vP structure)b. [vP Ta [v’ v [VP fan [V’ [V [V chi] [V bao]] [VP [V bao]] ]] ]]c. [vP Ta [v’ [v v [V [V chi] [V bao]]] [VP fan [V’ [V [V chi] [V bao]] [VP [V bao]] ]] ]]In (41b), bao ‘full’ incorporates into chi ‘eat’ to form a compound. The compound, then,raises to v in (41c), and bao θ-marks ta ‘he’ from this position.
The fact that (39a) can be analyzed as in (41) suggests that this may indeed be a viable
analysis for the example. The issue, then, is why (38a) cannot have the derivation in (40).
Here, the obvious difference between Edo and Chinese is whether the incorporation in Step b
is covert or overt. Let us then explore the possibility to attribute the contrast between (38) and(39) to this difference.
Throughout this paper, I have been assuming Bobaljik’s (1995) proposal that the only
difference between overt movement and covert movement is whether the phonetic features areinterpreted at the landing site or at the initial site. I express this as in (42), where α is α with
its phonetic features deleted.
(42) a. overt movement: α … αb. covert movement: α … α

11

I ignore the aspect le in (41) as it is irrelevant for the point made here.

17
Then, phonetic features are deleted at the initial site with overt movement whereas they aredeleted at the landing site with covert movement. Assuming that there is indeed deletion ofphonetic features in this way, there are two possibilities with the timing of the deletion. First,
the deletion of phonetic features can apply as soon as the movement takes place. Second, thedeletion can apply at the phase level as part of the Transfer Operation in the sense ofChomsky (2005), which sends information to the C-I system and the S-M system. Let us
consider these two possibilities for the derivations in (40) and (41) to see if they successfully
distinguish these derivations.
The Chinese case in (41) is straightforward. The derivations in (40)-(41) can both beschematically expressed as in (43).

(43) [ … v + [V1 + V2] … [V1 + V2] … V2 … ]For (41), if deletion takes place after each step of the derivation, then the phonetic features of
V2 are deleted at the initial site after the verb incorporates into V1 as in (44a).
(44) a. [… [V1 + V2] … V2 … ]b. [ … v + [V1 + V2] … [V1 + V2] … V2 … ]c. [ … v + [V1 + V2] … [V1 + V2] … V2 … ]Then, V1+V2 incorporates into v as in (44b), and its phonetic features are deleted at the initialsite as in (44c). Thus, the grammatical examples in (39) are successfully derived. But thisdoes not provide evidence that deletion of phonetic features applies cyclically. This is because
the same result obtains even if deletion applies after the construction of the vP phase iscompleted. (43) contains two chains, (V2, V2) and (V1+V2, V1+V2). The phonetic features ofV2 can be deleted at the initial site, and then, those of V1+V2 can be deleted also at the initialsite.
The situation with the Edo (40), however, is different. If deletion of phonetic features
applies immediately after incorporation, then the incorporation of V2 into V1 yields (45a).
(45) a. [… [V1 + V2] … V2 … ]b. [ … v + [V1 + V2] … [V1 + V2] … V2 … ]c. [ … v + [V1 + V2] … [V1 + V2] … V2 … ]Then, V1+V2 incorporates into v as in (45b), and its phonetic features are deleted at the initialsite as in (45c). Hence, if this derivation is allowed, (40) should be grammatical. On the other18
hand, a different result obtains if deletion of phonetic features applies after the completion of
the vP phase. Consider the configuration in (43) again, repeated here as (46a).
(46) a. [ … v + [V1 + V2] … [V1 + V2] … V2 … ]b. [ … v + [V1 + V2] … [V1 + V2] … V2 … ]c. [ … v + [V1 + V2] … [V1 + V2] … V2 … ]As the incorporation of V2 is covert, its phonetic features must be deleted at the landing site.
This yields (46b). But then, a problem arises with the chain (V1+V2, V1+V2). First, the two
members of the chain are not identical with respect to phonetic features, and this by itself may
cause a problem for the deletion operation. But even if the operation successfully applies,(46c) is derived with the phonetic features of V2 remaining at the landing site. Note that thesame problem arises even if deletion applies to the (V1+V2, V1+V2) chain first. In this case,the deletion directly yields (46c) from (46a). Since the leftmost V2 in the v position and therightmost V2 at the initial site do not form a chain, there is no way to delete the former. Thus,
the ungrammatical examples in (38) cannot be derived, a desirable result.12
It was shown above that the difference in (38) and (39) between Edo and Chinese can be
successfully captured if deletion of phonetic features takes place upon the completion ofphase. The contrast between (38) and (39), then, provides evidence that the deletion ofphonetic features applies in this way. The mechanism is conceptually motivated as well, as
long as the deletion of phonetic features is part of the Transfer Operation that sends
information to the C-I and S-M interfaces.
Before I conclude this section, I would like to point out an implication for the analysis of
V-T merger in Japanese. It is generally assumed that there are two distinct ways for V tomerge with T, by incorporation of V to T as in (47a) and by phonological merger (or affix
hopping in the sense of Chomsky 1957) as in (47b).
(47) a. John is quickly solving the problem
Tbeb. Mary

quickly solved the problem
T
solve

Only auxiliary verbs and be-verbs take the first option in English, but as first observed by
12

A question arises as to why (46c) itself is not allowed with two copies of V2 pronounced. I assume
here that this is ruled out by an independent principle that restricts the realization of phonetic featuresat two positions.

19
Emonds (1978), the option is widespread cross-linguistically. At the same time, it has notbeen clear which option Japanese employs because the language is strictly head-final, andadverbs, for example, cannot right-adjoin to any phrase. As nothing can intervene between V
and T in Japanese, it is difficult to find evidence that distinguishes the two options.
But the discussion in this section implies that Japanese resorts to phonological merger.
The account for the ungrammaticality of the Edo examples in (38), as illustrated in (46),implies that a covert incorporation cannot be followed by an overt incorporation in the way
shown in (48).13(covert)(48) [ … γ + [β + α] … [β + α] … α … ](overt)With this in mind, let us consider again the example of the light verb construction in (24),repeated here as (49).
(49) Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni [NP toti -no zyooto]-o si-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT
land-GEN giving-ACC do-Past‘Hanako gave a piece of land to Taroo.’
According to the analysis presented in Section 3, zyooto ‘giving’ covertly incorporates into su‘do’, and makes the merger of the goal argument Taroo possible. If su is to eventually move
to T, it must first overtly incorporate into v so that it is located at the phase edge of vP. But
this is excluded because it creates the illegitimate configuration in (48). It follows then thatphonological merger is the only option for the merger of su ‘do’ and ta ‘Past’ in this case.

6. Conclusion
In this paper, I examined the roles of selectional restrictions and the interpretive
mechanism of incorporation chains in the formation of complex predicates. Given the theoryof Merge in Chomsky (2012), the operation applies freely in the construction of phrase
structure. Then, much burden is placed on selection to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate
derivations. I first argued in Section 2 that Kageyama’s (1993) transitivity harmony principle
on Japanese lexical complex predicates can be derived from the selectional relation between v
13

The account implies more generally that covert movement cannot be followed by overt movement
whether the movement is incorporation or not. Overt movement, by definition, retains the phonetic
features at the landing site. Given this, if the second step of movement is overt, the first step must be
as well because otherwise the phonetic features are realized at two positions, the final landing site andthe initial site. It is probably of some interest that overt movement must precede covert movement
even in a single-cycle model.

20
and V. This showed that the selectional requirements of v constrain the possible forms ofcomplex predicates. Then, I examined the Japanese light verb construction and the Edo serialverb construction in Section 3, and concluded that selectional requirements constrain theapplication of Merge rather than the resulting phrase structure. In Section 4, I briefly reviewed
the discussion in Huang (2006) on Chinese resultatives. In particular, I introduced hisargument that phrasal resultatives, as opposed to compound resultatives, are subject to theobject restriction just like resultatives in Edo. Based on this, I concluded that the uniqueproperties of compound resultatives in Chinese are due to the fact that they employ
compounds. Finally, in Section 5, I suggested an analysis for the difference between the
Chinese compound resultatives and the Edo serial verb resultatives with respect to the object
restriction. The analysis provided empirical support for the conceptually motivatedassumption that the deletion of phonetic features, which distinguishes covert and overt
movements, applies upon the completion of a phase as part of the Transfer Operation to theinterfaces.
As noted at the outset of this paper, Japanese lexical complex predicates, Edo resultative
serial verbs, and Chinese compound verbs all exhibit different properties. I argued that no“language-specific principles” are necessary to account for those differences. The three typesof complex predicates are formed differently. Japanese lexical complex predicates are formed
before they are merged into a larger syntactic structure. Edo resultative serial verb
construction involves covert incorporation. And I entertained the possibility that Chinesecompound verbs are formed by overt incorporation. I argued that given this, the theories of
selection and chain interpretation explain the different properties these three constructions
exhibit.

References
Baker, Mark and Osamuyimen T. Stewart (1999) “On Double-Headedness and the Anatomyof the Clause,” unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. (1995) Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Chomsky, Noam (1957) Syntactic Structures, The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2012) “Problems of Projection,” unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Emonds, Joseph (1978) “The Verbal Complex V’-V in French,” Linguistic Inquiry 9:
151-175.
Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester (1988) “Light Verbs and θ-Marking,” Linguistic Inquiry
19: 205-232.
Huang, C.-T. James (1992) “Complex Predicates in Control,” in Richard K. Larson, et al.,eds., Control and Grammar, 109-147, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, C.-T. James (2006) “Resultatives and Unaccusatives: A Parametric View,” Bulletin of

21
the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan 253: 1-43.
Kageyama, Taro (1993) Bunpoo to Gokeisei [Grammar and Word Formation], Tokyo: Hituzi
Syobo.
Kageyama, Taro (1999) Keitairon to Imi [Morphology and Meaning], Tokyo: Kuroshio
Shuppan.
Li, Yafei (1990) “On V-V Compounds in Chinese,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8:
177-207.
Li, Yafei (1993) “Structural Head and Aspectuality,” Language 69: 480-504.
Matsumoto, Yo (1998) “The Combinatory Possibilities in Japanese V-V Lexical Compounds(in Japanese),” Gengokenkyu 114: 37-83.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989) “Light Verbs and the Ergative Hypothesis,” Linguistic Inquiry 20:
659-668.
Saito, Mamoru (2001) “Movement and θ-Roles: A Case Study with Resultatives,” in Yukio
Otsu, ed., The Proceedings of the Second Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 35-60,
Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Saito, Mamoru and Hiroto Hoshi (2000) “The Japanese Light Verb Construction and the
Minimalist Program,” in Roger Martin, et al., eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist
Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 261-295, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Simpson, Jane (1983) “Resultatives,” in Lori Levin, et al., eds., Papers in Lexical-Functional
Grammar, 143-157, Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Stewart, Osamuyimen T. (1998) The Serial Verb Construction Parameter, Ph.D. dissertation,
Rutgers University.
Tang, Sze-Wing (1997) “The Parametric Approach to the Resultative Construction in Chineseand English,” UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 203-226.
Tsujimura, Natsuko (1990) “Ergativity of Nouns and Case Assignment,” Linguistic Inquiry
21: 277-287.
Yumoto, Yoko (1997) “Word Formation and the Lexical-Conceptual Structure (in Japanese),”in Publishing Committee, ed., Gengo to Bunka no Shosoo [Aspects of Language andCulture], 105-118, Tokyo: Eihoosha.