Argument alternations in complex predicates: an LFG +glue perspective (2019)

Abstract: Vaidya et al. (2019) discuss argument alternations in Hindi complex predicates, and propose an analysis within an LTAG framework, comparing this with an LFG analysis of complex predicates. In this paper I clarify the inadequacies in existing LFG analyses of complex predicates, 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).

## a glue analysis given the problems with the standard lfg approaches to complex predicates, in particular the question mark over their monoclausality and the lack of formalization of argument merger, it is worth considering an alternative. compared with the wealth of syntactic analyses, there has been relatively little work in lfg on how semantics interacts with the syntax of complex predicate formation; exceptions include @xcite , @xcite , @xcite , @xcite , @xcite and @xcite . the latter is the only existing account of complex predicates within the standard 'new' glue format and within standard assumptions regarding the lfg architecture. in this section, i show how the approach of lowe (2015) can simply and effectively handle the argument alternations discussed by @xcite . ## conclusion the standard lfg approach to complex predicates suffers from two main difficulties: the use of restriction, which undermines monoclausality, and a lack of formalization (or avoidance) of the process of argument merger. the lfg+glue approach developed by lowe (2015) overcomes both these problems. i have shown here that the light verb alternations discussed by @xcite can be unproblematically captured by the lfg+glue approach. crucially, the kar vs. hu alternation can be modelled without assuming multiple subcategorization frames for the lexical predicate, i.e. without assuming lexical ambiguity. the alternation can also be modelled unproblematically without prejudice as to whether nominal predicates like bahas 'quarrel' select for an agent (≈ subject) argument or not. note that the agreement phenomena discussed by @xcite are unproblematically captured by the lfg+glue analysis proposed here: since lexical predicate and light verb contribute to the same f-structure, if the noun supplies gender and number features to the fstructure, then the verb can agree with those features. preventing such agreement in the case of nouns like yaad 'memory', a feminine noun which occurs with default masculine agreement on the verb, would be relatively trivial. there is no need, as suggested by @xcite , to require the nominal predicate to somehow serve as the object of the light verb for agreement purposes. lowe (2015) acknowledges one significant weakness in his proposal: it provides no account of scope constraints in multiply embedded complex predicate constructions. as noted in lowe (2015), this is not a weakness of the semantic analysis, but a broader issue with lfg's functional structure, which affects also the treatment of scope in recursive modification @xcite . this issue has been taken up by @xcite , who proposes changes to the standard approach to f-structure within lfg which resolves these issues. as shown for the semantics of adjectival modification by @xcite , it would require only a relatively minor set of changes to the glue terms provided above in order to integrate the present lfg+glue proposal with andrews's approach to f-structure, eliminating the one major weakness of lowe's (2015) approach.