A lexical semantic analysis of faa complex predicates in Norwegian

by 
Adams Bodomo
Department of Linguistics
University of Hong Kong
[June 1998]

0. Abstract
A complex predicate is an integration of two or more semantically identifiable elements, acting as a single predicate unit in terms of grammatical relations such as the sharing of subjects and objects. Many analyses in the literature assume that complex predicates are formed at a level of argument structure where the contributing predicates of the complex restructure their arguments to form a single but complex argument structure (Alsina 1993 for Romance, Butt 1995 for Urdu, and Loedrup 1996 for Norwegian).This paper proposes an alternative approach in which complex predicate formation is done, not by argument structure restructuring or predicate composition (Alsina 1993), but by conceptual structure restructuring or predicate integration (Bodomo 1997). The analysis is couched in an LFG-like framework which incorporates a level of conceptual structure (Hellan 1996, Jackendoff 1997). The empirical motivation for this lexical semantic approach to complex predicate formation is based on Norwegian complex predicate data such as Per fikk reparert bilen ‘Per got the car repaired’ (Loedrup 1996).

1.0. The facts and earlier analyses
Earlier analyses of Norwegian complex predicates include the pioneering studies of Taraldsen (1991) and Loedrup (1996). These mainly concern complex predicates formed with the verbs la ‘let’ and faa‘get’. The following sentences in (1) and (2) illustrate the two types of complex predicates in Norwegian.

(1)		vi      lot            løslate          fang-ene
		1.PL let.PAST release.INF prisoner-DEF.PL
		‘We allowed the prisoners to be released’

(2)		Per fikk          reparert                     bil-en
		Per get.PAST repair.PARTICIPLE car-DEF.SG
		‘Per got the car repaired’

I will refer to the former as a permissive complex predicate and the latter as a faa ‘get’ complex predicate. For the permissive complex predicate, Taraldsen proposes that both la ‘let’ and a verb like løslate ‘to release’ project the same VP and thus  constitute a complex predicate.  We shall not have much to say about the permissive complex predicates or la ‘let’ constructions in this paper. We shall instead concentrate  on  faa ‘get’ complex predicate constructions as shown in (2).

Sentence (2) as it stands can be ambiguous. It could mean either  that Per was able to repair the car by himself or that or he got someone to repair it. Loedrup (1996) distinguishes between the two interpretations of faa‘get’ constructions, calling the first instance where the subject is agent of repair the active interpretation and the second where the subject is a benefactive of someone’s repairing of the car a passive interpretation.  The active interpretation seems to be more prominent. Loedrup raises arguments against the idea that the faa‘get’ of the passive or non-active reading is an auxiliary in a passive construction and proposes that “the non-active faa‘get’ and the participle that it governs constitute a complex predicate” (Loedrup 1996:1). 

1. 1. Testing for complex predicatehood: clitic climbing
Among the evidence that these Scandinavian phenomena are complex predicates are the facts of clitic climbing within the construction. Clitic climbing is a known diagnostic for complex predicatehood in French and general Romance (Zaenen and Dalrymple 1996). While not using the term “clitic climbing”, Loedrup (1996: 9) cites as an argument for the complex predicate analysis of the construction in focus here “the fact that a pronoun that cliticizes on faa can realise an argument of the embedded participle.”  In the sentence in (3), seg “himself” is an obligatory indirect object of the embedded participle, which cliticizes on faa. According to Loedrup, if seg is replaced by an ordinary DP, it cannot precede the participle. I interpret this as a case of clitic climbing. Norwegian clitic  climbing is, however, different from that of French and general Romance, both in terms of the type of clitic and the distance of the clitic movement. First, it seems that only ‘indirect clitic’ climbing is possible in Norwegian, as shown in (3). By ‘indirect clitic’, I mean a clitic having an indirect object function.

(3)	han  fikk-seg                       paalagt            nye    oppgav-er
	3.SG get.PAST-3.SG.REFL impose.PAST   new.PL duty-PL
	‘He got himself assigned new duties’

Second, in Romance, the  clitic can climb beyond the light verb in the periphrastic complex predicate (Zaenen and Dalrymple 1996), but in Norwegian and possibly in general Germanic, the clitic does not climb beyond the light verb, landing only at the post-light verb position, as shown in (3), (4), and (5):

(4) 	...etter at EFkommisjon-en i  formiddag   faar     seg   forelagt        det endelige  utkast
           after that EUcomm.-DEF this aft.noon get.PRES REFL submit.PST DEF final.DEF draft
            ‘After the European Union Commision agrees to the final copy this afternoon’

(5) 	da              fikk         han     seg             ikke   anvist          nytt   arbeid
     	then.PAST get.PAST 3.SG  3.SG.REFL NEG assign.PAST new   work
	‘Then he did not get assigned new work’

1. 2. The argument structure approach
Having attested the complex predicate nature of the Norwegian facts, we may now discuss the issue of how this complex predicate is derived. Like most complex predicate analyses (e.g. Alsina 1993, 1994), Loedrup takes an argument structure approach, proposing that the argument structure of the verb  faa ‘get’ as shown in (6a) composes with that of reparert ‘repaired’ as in (6b) and the resulting complex predicate now has a complex argument structure as shown in (6c). The subscripts on the theme arguments for the two verbs show that they instantiate the same referent.

(6)	a.	faa 		<benefactive, themei < i >>
	b.	reparert	<agent theme>
	c.	faa-reparert	<benefactive, themei <agent themei>>

The resulting f-structure would thus be as shown in (7)

(7)		[PRED faa-reparert <SUBJ, OBJ>
		SUBJ [PRED Per]
		OBJ [PRED bil]
		TENSE past			      ]

2. 0. A Lexical conceptual approach
Our alternative approach to complex predicate formation does not recognize a level of representation such as argument structure.  While argument structure has been the basis of original proposals in linguistic theory, some discussions (e.g. Dowty 1991) point towards a concern that argument structure may not be a well-motivated level of linguistic representation, and ought thus to be eliminated, or at least have any substantial issues stated under it incorporated into a more universal, motivated, level such as lexical conceptual structure. Two issues may be mentioned here as problems for the argument structure approach. First, not all constructions may be said to have argument structure, so the concept is not universally appropriate to all syntactic constructions. This is the case with constructions involving weather verbs, as attested in Word Grammar approaches, such as Gisborne (1996). Second, Gropen et al (1992) in a lexical semantic study lists about four main weaknesses of the argument structure approach to issues such as linking. These include the inability of a classical argument structure approach to explain systematic semantic differences between two forms of an alternating verb involving the same kind of thematic roles, e.g. telic/atelic alternations such as:

(8)	a.	 John loaded the cart with apples (cart is completely full)
	b.	 John loaded apples into the cart (cart not yet filled)

Complex predicate formation thus has to take place at another level of representation. We have proposed for serial verbs and also for French causative constructions (Bodomo 1997a) that complex predicate formation is licensed by predicate integration at a level we call the conceptual-semantic structure, in line with many lexical decompositional studies such as Jackendoff (1990, 1997) and Hellan (1996). We shall proceed to provide an illustration of the theory of predicate integration before we discuss the conceptual-semantic representation of complex predicates.

2. 1.  Prediate integration: A preliminary illustration
To provide a preliminary illustration of predicate integration we draw on some serial verb data in the West African language, Dagaare, as shown in (9). 

(9)		te   nang  da     de    wa     ta      baare....te    da      nyu    la      koO
		1.pl just PAST take come reach finish....1.pl PAST drink FACT. water
		‘Upon arriving,....we drank water’

The dotted lines in the sentence indicate the dividing line between two main events. While the second part is a simple event, the first, lexicalized by (the four verbs in), te nang da de wa ta baare, is a complex event comprising a series of acts or subevents. The structure of complex events comprises a beginning part or subevent we call the inceptive stage, a core, and an ending or phasing out stage we call a terminative stage. Each of these stages can be lexicalized by any number of verbal predicates. The core is obligatory and the other parts are optional.

Now, what our lexical semantic theory of complex predicates  — termed predicate integration  — claims is that the key to an understanding of the semantics and morphosyntax of the construction lies in an understanding of the lexical semantic structure of each of the various verbal predicates and how they modify or readjust this semantic structure, if and when necessary, in order to express and determine certain semantic and morphosyntactic peculiarities of the construction. The individual verbal predicates forming the complex, by their semantics, lead us through the right paths to an understanding of the meaning and morphosyntactic characteristics of complex verbal predicates.

In the above construction, the main point or core semantics, is about reaching a certain destination. The verb(s) lexicalizing the act of arriving such as ta ‘reach’ but also wa ‘come’, in some sense, are at the core of this complex event. But preceding this core is an act lexicalized by de ‘take’. Following the core is a third act, the ending or terminative part lexicalized by baare ‘finish, end’. Clearly enough, all these verbal predicates are brought together to form the complex. They all contribute in forming this structure and giving it its semantics and syntax. However, it is not enough to recognize that the meaning of the construction is the composite or sum of the meaning of the individual predicates and that by their individual meanings we can determine the morphosyntactic characteristics of the construction such as verb order, argument taking status, and argument placing. In addition, we have to understand that some of these predicates would have to readjust their meaning, once they are in the complex, to express certain parts of the construction and give it its peculiar semantics and morphosyntax. Such is, for instance, the case with the verb de ‘take’ in our example. ‘Take’ here does not mean the act of grabbing something physically or being in the possession of something, as one would expect from the normal lexical semantic structure of the verb. We believe that certain dimensions or parameters in the lexical semantic structure of de ‘take’ have to be readjusted or modified from one of possession to inception in order to express the inceptive stage of the complex event. The lexical semantics and its attendant formal representation of the verb are malleable or elastic enough to allow this contextual modification. Our theory of predicate integration does not only explain the compositionality aspect of the construction, which is the classical approach to semantics (Sowa 1993); it also explains such cases as illustrated by de ‘take’, whose meaning is modified in the context of complex predicate formation. The verb seems to have bleached off some of its lexical semantics of possession in favor of a global  semantics of inception.

In addition to this semantic readjustment or synchronic bleaching, it can also modify, readjust or bleach its syntactic argument taking properties from a dyadic to a monadic verbal status. Thus, we know that the whole construction is monadic or intransitive, not only because most of the contributing verbs — wa ‘come’, which expresses the deictic or movement aspects of the construction, ta ‘reach’, which is the core, and baare ‘finish’, which expresses termination — are monadic but also from the ability of de ‘take’ to readjust its syntax to intransitivity. From the above illustration, the theoretical analysis of predicate integration addresses both the representation aspects of the semantics of complex predicates and the interface of this semantic representation with the syntax of the construction. 

Predicate integration with the Norwegian sentence would involve a restructuring of the meaning - not just the argument structure - of at least one of the predicates, usually the ‘light’ predicate, in this case the verb faa ‘to get’. Indeed, the ambiguity of this Norwegian sentence depends heavily, if not solely, on the readjustment or varying interpretation of the lexical semantics of the verb faa ‘to get’, providing us with empirical evidence about the validity of our notion of predicate integration.

2. 2. The formal framework
Predicate integration is done first and foremost at the conceptual-semantic level of our constraint-based grammar of parallel grammatical architecture, a sketch of which is shown in (10). But for the conceptual-semantic level, this architecture, including all the functional structure and constituetnt structure levels of representation, and the correspondence between and within them, is synonymous with Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), as presented in Bresnan (1996).

(10)	 		The Conceptual-semantic level
					|
	 		      Fuctional (f-) structure
					|
			    Constituent (c-) structure

At the conceptual-semantic level, we undertake a quite detailed  decomposition of the lexical semantics of the contributing predicates in a potential complex predicate into various components. Some of the basic components in this componential / decompositional analysis include location, posture, possession, inn-ness, on-ness, impact and path feature specifications. Operations such as monotonicity (or persistent change), conditioning and iteration then serve to make this meaning or conceptual-semantic schema of the predicate more and more complex. Once these conceptual schemata are sufficiently developed or expanded such that we can say that they represent the set of conditions that a situation  has to satisfy in order for the speaker-hearer of the language concerned to say that the predicate in question lexicalizes that situation, we can now begin complex predicate formation by Predicate Integration. This Predicate  Integration may be schematically formalized as follows in (11).

(11)	Predicate Integration (PI):	 —> 	    V1              +      V2* 	=	 CE
		             	         	           (≠Con-sem)        (≠Con-sem)			

Complex event (CE) - whose grammatical realisations are complex predicates - formation by predicate integration (PI) consists of  combining the conceptual semantics of V1, denoted as (≠Con-sem) with that of V2, also denoted as (≠Con-sem), the ‘up’ arrow  referring to the constituent above the notation (cf: the use of  LFG up and down arrows). The PI rule is constrained by a number of principles and their implementational versions which guide their semantic and syntactic formation and their interface relations. I list below some of these principles, including the salience principle, the principle of temporal precedence - an iconicity principle - , the principle of exhaustive phasing, and interface principles involving argument selection and structure - function assignment. However, their explicit illustrations are beyond the scope of this paper. 

(12)	a. The Salience Principle (SP)
		Let E=Event and e1-n = potential sub-parts of E,
		Select any number of acts among e1-n that expresses the conceptually 		salient parts of E intended by the speaker-hearer.

	b. The Principle of Temporal Precedence (PTP)

		Let  S = SVC and E= Event,
		Let v1 and v2 = Verbs in S  and e1 and e2 = parts of E 
 		Suppose  S is a grammatical encoding of E and 
		v1 and v2 encode e1 and e2 respectively,
 		If e1 temporally precedes e2
 		Then v1 must structurally precede v2 .

	c. The Principle of Argument Placement (PAP)	
		Partners in a complex predicate do select competent members in a 
		syntactically appropriate environment to perform  categorial role  			placement on behalf of the complex. i.e. an argument relative to the 			first verb that can assign it a role.

	d. Principle of Exhaustive Phasing
		All salient phases of the group must be exhaustively expressed at 			grammatical structure.

	e. Grammatical Function Assignment (GFA)

		The Subject Condition:
		In correspondence from semantic to syntactic structure there must 			always be a subject

		The GFA for active sentences:
		In active sentences with realized subjects and objects:
		i. Map cell conditioner onto f-structure SUBJECT 
		ii. Map cell monodev1 onto f-structure OBJECT
		iii. Map cell monodev2 onto f-structure OBJ2 and obliques

	     If conditioner  is implicit, then by the Subject condition, monodev is the subject

	f.  Structure - Function Association (SFA)
	
		i. C-structure heads are f-structure heads
      		ii. Specifiers of functional categories are the syntacticized discourse 			functions or absent
      		iii. Complements of functional categories are f-structure co-heads
      		iv. Specifiers of lexical categories are the non-discourse argument 				functions
     	 	v.  Complements of lexical categories are the non-discourse argument 			functions
     	 	vi.  Constituents adjoined to maximal projections are non-argument 				functions

The semantics of the whole complex thus  formed, by the transparency hypothesis (Pesetsky 1987, Zaenen 1993 ) may serve as pathfinders to the formation and determination of the syntax of the whole complex. 

Having sketched the mechanisms of the alternative complex  predicate formation proposed here we will now illustrate with the Norwegian   faa ‘get’ construction by developing representations of it at the c-, f-, and consem- structure levels in the next sections.

 3. 0. The syntax of  faa complex predicates
Two alternative phrase structures are proposed here. The b. alternative in (13) is quite similar to that for French causative complex predicates — complementation analysis (Zaenen and Dalrymple 1996), while the b’. proposal is a VP adjunction analysis, as for Dagaare SVCs (Bodomo 1996, 1997a). We do not take a position as to which is the better, for in our grammar, phrase structure status is not crucial for determining complex predicate status.

(13)		Per fikk          reparert         bil-en
		Per get.PAST repair.PAST car-DEF.SG
		‘Per got the car repaired’

   	 b. 		  IP				b’.        VP
			/     \					/   \
		         NP    I’				       NP    VP
		          |     /     \ 			        ∆      |  \
		         N   I        VP			    Per      V’ VP
		          |    |           |				  /        |    
		     Per	  I          V’				V       V’   
			  |          /   \				/       /   \
			fikk   V       NP		         fikk   V   NP
			         |           |				      /       ∆
			     reparert  bilen			reparert bilen

 	c.	[PRED faa-reparert <SUBJ, OBJ>
		SUBJ [PRED ‘Per’ ]
		OBJ [PRED ‘bil’    ]
		TENSE past			      ]

The (partial) functional structure in (13c) is identical with the representation provided by Loedrup (1996). We see that faa and reparert have combined or in the sense of Alsina (1993), composed to form a new (complex) predicate which takes Per as SUBJ and bil ‘car’ as OBJ. These representations are subject to all the constraints on c- and f- structures, as discussed in many LFG analyses (e.g. Bresnan 1996) - completeness and coherence. In the next section, we discuss the conceptual semantic level manifestations of this complex predicate formation.

 4. 0. The semantics of faa  ‘get’  complex predicates
Predicate integration (PI), as schematized in  (11) assumes a representation of the conceptual-semantic schemata  of the contributing verbal predicates. The diagram in (14) is a conceptual-semantic schema of faa ‘get’ which involves conditioning something to get done, while that in (15a) represents the conceptual-semantic structure of the predicate reparert ‘repaired’, involving changing something from a state of dysfunction to one of functionality. Diagram (14) has almost the same semantic features as that of causative verbs such the French faire ‘make’ (Zaenen and Dalrymple 1996). In such kinds of semantics, where we have a  conditioning dimension, there is a  conditioner (e1) which has as  value ‘Per’. This conditioner causes a monotonic change, involving causing something to be in the  stage of getting repaired, i.e. to a [+functionality] state. This object of repair is that of monodever (e2) which is instantiated with bilen ‘the car’.

(14)		conceptual schema for  faa‘get’ or ‘cause something to get done’:

			        Conditioning
				/            \
			Conditioner    Conditioned
			      |                            |
			    e1   	      Monodev
					        /      \
				       Monodever    2pt
					|	  /    \
				           e2      Stage1  Stage2
							....

(15)	a.   	conceptual schema for reparert ‘repair’ ie. ‘change of existing state to a more 		functional one’

		                   Conditioning
				/            \
	         	        Conditioner    Conditioned
	         	                       |                        |
	    		         e1                Monodev1
					        /      \
				       Monodever  2pt
					|	  /    \
				           e2      Stage1  Stage2
						|             |
					         [-func]   [+func]
							 |
						     Monodev2
						      /           \
					        Monodever   Recursion
						|                /            \
					         e2      str. of recurs.  Recursive unit, etc

	b.	Complex predicate forms from a merger of the two con-sem structures of  faa 		‘get’ and reparert ‘repair’ i.e. ‘causing something to get repaired’ or ability to 		get something repaired’:

		   Complex event
		       /               \
		Global	       Conditioning
				/            \
	            	  Conditioner    Conditioned
	         	                       |                        |
	    		         e1                Monodev1
					        /      \
				       Monodever  2pt
					|	  /    \
				           e2      Stage1  Stage2
						|             |
					         [-func]   [+func]
							 |
						     Monodev2
						      /           \
					        Monodever   Recursion
						|                /            \
					         e2      str. of recurs.  Recursive unit, etc

As is usual with this type of monotonic or persistent changes, we can identify two stages, stage1 being the precausation stage and stage2 the causation stage, or as with the second predicate, stage1 being the state of dysfunction and stage2, the state of functionality, encoded as [-func] and [+func], respectively. This explains why we have a ‘2pt’ attribute for the values, stage1 and stage2.

The semantics at the causation stage (stage2), needs to be saturated by the semantics of the lower  verb, reparert ‘repaired’. This semantics is partially represented by mondev2 in (15a), involving change of state from desrepair to being repaired ie. [-func] to [+func], and all the recursive features involved in repairing something. On the whole, (15b) represents the integration of these conceptual schemata according to the PI rule stated in (11) above. The combination of monodev1 and monodev2 in addition to all the other features constitute a complex predicate at the semantic level. Principles and constraints some of which are listed in (12) apply and constrain the output.

5. 0.  The syntax-semantics interface
The participants and elements at this conceptual semantic level can interface with  the other levels of representation subject to the conceptual mapping theory (CMT) as developed in Bodomo (1997a, b), a diagrammatic sketch of which is shown in (16). 

(16)			Conceptual Mapping Theory
			  /                       |                 \
		      Module1           Module2      Module3
			|		  |     	           |
		   Con-sem—>f-str  c-str—>f-str   Predicate mapping	
			|                         |                     |
		    Principles          Principles         Principles
		            |                         |                     |
		        GFA              Endocentricity     PTP

The CMT proposed here has three components or modules, as shown in (16). Module1 deals with how to realize grammatical functions  such as SUBJECT and OBJECT from conceptual-semantic level participants. The main principle operating in this module is the principle of grammatical function assignment (GFA) as stated in (12). Element e1 will ‘resurrect’ as the f-structure SUBJECT  and the c-structure subject while e2 comes out as the f-structure OBJECT and c-structure object. Module2 deals with mapping relations between the two structures at the morphosyntactic level, the c-structure and the f-structure. Here, we base our correspondence rules on the endocentric principles of structure argument correspondence as proposed in Bresnan (1996), also stated in (12). Module3 constitutes a proposal we make for handling multiple predicates in constraint-based parallel grammatical architectures, such as serial verbs which do not concern us in this paper. 

6. 0. Comparable Germanic constructions
The Norwegian construction treated here has counterparts in other Germanic languages, as illustrated in the German sentences in (17) and (18). The  German construction in (17) is closer to the Norwegian example, and is indeed as ambiguous as the Norwegian. The sentence in (18) is also structurally similar to the Norwegian one, but its analysis is quite controversial. 

(17) 	Hans kriegte das Fahrrad repariert
	Hans got the bicycle repaired

(18) 	er bekommt das Buch geschenkt
           ‘He gets the book given’
	
Traditional German grammarians see this as a  passive construction, known as Rezipientenpassiv ‘receiver passive’,  with bekommen as a kind of auxiliary (see, for example,  Askedal 1984 and the references there). This passive analysis is argued against by Haider (1984), with further discussion from  Reis (1985). Further analysis of this and similar constructions in other Germanic languages may reveal a general tendency about the  nature of complex predicates in Germanic.

7. 0.  Summary
This paper has proposed a number of issues that may be of relevance to other issues in the literature on complex predicates in Germanic and to general constraint-based grammatical analyses of the phenomenon (e.g. Alsina 1993, 1994; Butt 1995; Alsina, Bresnan, and Sells 1997). First, following the pioneering study of Loedrup (1996), the present paper draws attention to the idea that the Norwegian construction in (2) and similar ones should be analysed as complex predicates, in part, because of the facts of indirect clitic climbing as shown in (3), drawing attention to the fact that clitic climbing phenomena in Germanic are different from those in Romance. Second, and more substantially, the paper proposes that complex predicate formation should be accounted for, not based on argument structure phenomena, but on combinatorial phenomena at a level of representation called conceptual-semantic structure, where predicate meaning is decomposed into various semantic threads and it is a combination of these semantic threads by predicate integration which gives rise to complex predicate formation. Further issues may include a clearer specification of the exact nature of this conceptual semantic level and how it interfaces with other levels in a parallel grammatical architecture, and cross-linguistic investigation of these Norwegian data, with regards to Germanic and other languages.

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Helge Loedrup for his insightful discussion of the Norwegian data in this paper, which is basically an alternative analysis of his pioneering study of complex predicates in Norwegian. I also thank Miriam Butt who has given me very useful comments with regards to general complex predicate analysis. I am however solely responsible for  any  errors of data and analysis in this paper.

 References
Alsina, Alex. 1993. Predicate Composition: A Theory of Syntactic Function Alternations. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Alsina, Alex. 1994. A theory of complex predicates: Evidence from causatives in Bantu and Romance. ms. Stanford University.
Alsina, A., Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells. 1997. Complex Predicates, CSLI publications.
Askedal, J. O. 1984. Zum kontrastiven Vergleich des sogenannten “bekommen/erhalten/kriegen-Passivs” im Deutschen und entsprechender norwegischer Fugungen aus faa und dem Partizip Perfekt. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 2, 133-166 Novus, Oslo.
Bodomo, A. B. 1996. Complex predicates: The case of serial verbs in Dagaare and Akan. In Butt and King (eds.), Proceedings of the First LFG Conference pp. 89 -103, Grenoble, August 26-28 1996.

Bodomo, A. B. 1997a. Paths and Pathfinders: Exploring the Syntax and Semantics of 	Complex Verbal Predicates in Dagaare and other Languages. Doctoral 	dissertation, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, 	Norway. <http://linguistlist.org/diss/diss-html/1986.html>

Bodomo, A. B. 1997b.A conceptual mapping theory for serial verbs. In Butt and King 	(eds.) On-line 	Proceedings of LFG97, UCSD, USA, 6/97. CSLI, Stanford 	University, USA. <http://www-csli.stanford.edu/publications/LFG2/bodomo-lfg97.html>
Bresnan,  J. W. 1996.  Lexical Functional Syntax: Lectures Notes for LFG Course, Stanford University, USA.
Butt, Miriam. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. CSLI, Stanford University.
Dalrymple,  M., R. M. Kaplan, J. T. Maxwell and A. Zaenen (eds.) . 1995. Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. 
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67.3, 547 - 619
Gisborne, N. S. 1996. English Perception Verbs. Doctoral dissertation. University College of London.
Gropen, J, S. Pinker, M. Hollander, and R. Goldberg. 1992. Affectedness and direct onjects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. In Levin and Pinker eds. Lexical and Conceptual Semantics, pp. 153 - 195. Blackwells.
Haider, H. 1984. Mona Lisa lachelt stumm - Uber das sogenannte deutsche ‘Rezipientenpassiv’. Linguistische Berichte 89, 32 - 42.
Hellan, L 1993. Minimal signs and grammar, ms, Dept of Linguistics, University of Trondheim, Norway.
Hellan, L. 1996. Serial verb constructions in a Sign Model perspective, ms. NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990.  Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Loedrup, H. 1996. The theory of complex predicates and the Norwegian verb få ‘get’. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57, 76-91.
Pesetsky,  D.  1987. Binding problems with experiencer verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 126 - 140.
Reis, M. 1985.  Mona Lisa kriegt zuviel - Vom sogenannten Rezipientenpassiv  im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 96, 140 - 155.
Sowa, J. F. 1993. Lexical structures and conceptual structures. In Pustejovsky ed. Semantics and the Lexicon. pp. 223 - 262.
Taraldsen, K. T. 1991. A directional parameter for subject-object linking. In R. Freidin (ed.) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cambridge; MIT Press pp. 219 - 268.
Zaenen, A. 1993. Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating syntax and lexical semantics. In Pustejovsky (ed) 1993. Semantics and the Lexicon. Kluwer, Netherlands.
Zaenen, A. and Mary Dalrymple 1996. Les verbes causatifs “polymorphiques”: Les predicats complexes en francais. ms. Rank Xerox Research Center, Meylan, France and Xerox Parc, Palo Alto, USA.