Chapter 8

Support Verb Constructions

Fiammetta Namer
University of Nancy

8.1 Introduction

This chapter is the reviewed and extended version of Namer (1994b) which aimed at rewriting the
part of specifications for the analysis of support verb constructions - hereafter SVC - (also called
complex predicates, or light verb constructions, etc.) for monoclausal sentences. We will focus
on what we had called “cross-discontinuities”, i.e. the combination of the SVC phenomenon -
which can be seen as a “middle-size discontinuity” within long distance constructions, namely
control, raising and relativization. The chapter also includes the standard assumptions which have
been made wrt predicate argument structure (see chapter 6 (Predicate-Argument-Structure)). The
following structure is adopted for this chapter for the description of SVCs:

 The first part (8.2) provides (a) a definition of what we accept to call “support verb”
and, consequently, “support verb constructions”, (b) a description of the properties of
SVC-constituents, and (c) the illustration of behaviour of SVCs when involved in other
discontinuities.
 The second part (8.3) briefly describes several approaches to SVCs. We limit ourselves
to the Mel’čuk account and to some hypotheses which have been formulated in the TFS
framework. After exposing the motivations of our choice, we present in detail a lexicalist
treatment of predicative nouns, and the selected support verb.
 Finally, the third part (8.4) illustrates our proposal by some examplificatory treatments of
SVC both in “simple” and in “complex” clauses.

8.2 Linguistic Description

This section must be seen as an attempt to give a practical definition of what a SVC is, and which
its components’ properties are. We refer here to the theoretical results presented in the Eurotra
Reference Manual (1990) 7.0 and in Daille & Danlos (1992) (EUROTRA MT project), and to
the improvements and extensions proposed by P. Samvellian (see Danlos & Samvelian (1992),
Jörgensen & Samvelian (1993) and Samvelian (1995)).

8.2.1 DEFINITION

A support verb construction is basically a clause made up by a subject, a verb and a (possibly
marked) nominal object, in which the the object bears the meaning, whereas the verbal semantic
362 Fiammetta Namer

contribution is roughly limited to tense and aspect information 1.

(1) John took a walk.

Gianni fa l’analisi della situazione.
Hans hat Einfluss auf Marie.
Jean prend une décision.

The examples above show that (1) the construction may appear in any language, and (2) the verb
(take, make, have) is not used in its ‘real’ interpretation. Rather, the basic meaning of the first clause
is “to walk”, that of the second clause is “to analyse”, that of the third clause is “to influence”,
and that of the last clause is “to decide”. This leads to a first remark, namely that a construction
made up by such combinations, i.e. “semantically empty verb + direct object as semantic head”,
cannot be seen as ordinary construction. In fact the SupV (which can be called either support
verb, or light verb) and the object noun phrase (which PredN head is known as predicative noun
or valent noun) combine into a complex semantic unit, and it is this complex predicate which
subcategorizes for grammatical functions, and which semantically selects the arguments. On the
other hand, however, this complex predicate cannot be considered a frozen expression (such as
prendre part or take place), for properties specific to SVCs which are exposed below. Finally,
despite a number of common properties which ensure all SVCs to be distinguishable from both
ordinary predicates and frozen expressions, this class is unfortunately completely heterogeneous,
as concerns the nature of PredN involved, PredN behaviour wrt quantification, the variations and
aspect of the associated SupV, etc.
In order to give a more formal definition of SVC, we start with defining what a predicative (or
valent) noun is.

8.2.1.1 Predicative Noun

A predicative noun is a noun which subcategorizes for (and selects) arguments. Such as verbs,
predicative nouns vary in valency, which means that they subcategorize at least for a single
PP (which may have the same kind of thematic role that a corresponding verb’s subject can
have). Predicative nouns can be divalent or trivalent. Noun arguments are always optional and
prepositional. Now the question is : what a noun argument is ? Let us have a look at some
traditional definitions and the reasons why we do not consider them sufficient.

 First, if we consider the possession relation between a noun and a possessor as a predicate-
argument relation, we are forced to conclude that ANY noun is predicative :

(2) le centre (de la terre + de la porte).

(the (earth’s + tree’s) center)
(3) le nez de Paul.
(Paul’s nose).

1
We are going to see (section 8.2.1.2) that this definition is sometimes unsufficient. However, we will keep it for this part of
the discussion.
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 363

(4) la maison de Luc.

(Luc’s house).
(5) le chef de l’equipe...
(the head of the team)

We assume that noun relational complements are to be distinguished from noun arguments.
A noun can be considered predicative monovalent if it has selective constraints wrt to its
argument :

(6) le sommeil de Paul.

(Paul’s sleep)

which includes consequently all nouns which are derived from monovalent verbs or adjec-
tives :

(7) la vie de Paul.

(Paul’s life)
(8) la mort de Luc.
(Luc’s deapth)
(9) la beauté du diable.
(the beauty of the devil)
(10) la sincerité de Jean
(Jean’s sincerity)

 One of the usual definitions of a PredN is that of an abstract noun. We have seen that some
abstract nouns don’t satisfy the above definition : centre, bordure, milieu, sommet, creux,
bosse ... select a rather unrestricted argument. On the other hand, there is a well-known
class of nouns, which are either processive (abstract) or resultative (concrete). Both reading
can appear together, e.g. in a sentence such as :

(11) le livre de Sartre est rouge

(Sartre’s book is red)

livre selects its arguments (the agent, or author, and the topic) as two constituents which
have specific syntactic properties : the agent is a prepositional phrase introduced by de,
and the theme is a prepositional phrase introduced by any preposition whose meaning is
about. So, as regards the definition, livre is predicative. On the other hand, livre cannot
be labelled as an abstract noun, for abstracts cannot be characterized by a colour. Another
example of “concrete” predicative noun is given by cadeau. Here again, we have a concrete
noun (le cadeau est volumineux) and at the same time, a noun which subcategorizes for two
arguments which are syntactically and semantically constraint :

(12) le cadeau de Luc à Marie.

(Luc’s present to Mary)
364 Fiammetta Namer

 Another “traditional” definition of a predicative noun, is that of a deverbal noun : a

predicative noun derives from a verb with which it shares the argumental structure. Once
again, there are examples of nouns which do not satisfy this definition, and which however
are valent nouns : these are nouns such as patience, beauté, excursion ....

To summarize, predicative nouns form a heterogeneous class. In fact, a predicative noun is a

valent noun. It imposes syntactic and semantic constraints on its arguments it subcategorizes
for. It subcategorizes for at least one argument, which is usually an agent, an instrument, or an
experiencer (cf. Samvelian (1995)). We refer to it here by the term arg1. A predicative noun can
be :

 concrete (la thèse)

 abstract, derived from a verb (la destruction)

 abstract, derived from an adjective (la beauté)

 abstract, non-derived (la passion)

The minimal common knowledge of the hypothesis above seems to show that the only prerequisite
for a noun to be predicative, is that it must have a non empty subcat list, and it must bring selectional
constraints on its arguments. For nouns which traditionnally are considered monovalent, this
definition excludes relational complements.

8.2.1.2 Support Verb Construction

Let us limit ourself to the hypothesis that a support - or light - verb is an element with no proper
meaning. This definition may be considered as true for entries such as faire, whose semantic
contribution is purely temporal and aspectual. But it is definitely wrong in the case of other verbs,
such as donner. Recall that this verb, such as light verbs in general, has a “real” meaning, e.g.
when used with a direct object headed by the noun livre :

(13) Paul donne un livre à Marie.

(Paul gives a book to Mary)

Here, donner expresses a transfer of an object from a source to a goal. Donner can be used as a
support verb, too, with a predicative direct object, such as in :

(14) Paul donne un baiser à Marie.

(Paul gives a kiss to Mary)

where the meaning of the predicate is to kiss. However, donner also allows the coordination of
these two sorts of direct object :

(15) Paul donne un livre et un baiser à Marie.

(Paul gives a book and a kiss to Mary)
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 365

If a support verb is assumed to have no specific semantic properties at all, coordinated structures
such as this would be impossible. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that a support verb’s
semantic content is not necessarily empty, and that the resulting semantics of the support verb
construction is actually some kind of semantic combination of the meaning of the predicative
noun with that of the verb. This assumption will be taken into account in the second part of the
chapter, by assuming an abstract “operator” for the semantic association. Meanwhile, we assume
in this part the definition of a support verb as that of a semantically-empty unit.
Let us now try to give a more formal definition of support verb. Let us assume an active declarative
monoclausal sentence, whose structure could be labelled as follows :

(A) NP1 V P [ SupV NP2[ (prep2) Det PredN ( PP3 [prep3 NP3] ) ( PP4 [prep4 NP4] )]].

NP1 refers to the subject of the SupV, and NP2 is headed by the PredN. A PredN being always
a valent noun, it can have an argument structure (represented above by the two optional PPs,
PP3 and PP42). The predicative NP (NP2) can be marked by a preposition (indicated here by the
optional prep2 symbol).

8.2.1.2.1 Derivation of (A)

Actually, (A) is produced on the basis of the noun phrase structure (B) :

(B) NP2 [ Det PredN PP1 [prep1 NP1] ( PP3 [prep3 NP3] ) ( PP4 [prep4 NP4] )]].

The obtention of B from A is the first criterion to determine the link between a predicative NP
and the corresponding SVC : a SupV allows for a structure like A, in which the subject (NP1)
semantic content is token identical to the unrealized arg1 of the predicative noun. This property
is used to distinguish SVCs from frozen expressions, for which e.g. the following equivalences
don’t hold :
take into account : John took the data into account
=
6 John’s account of the data

prendre place : Jean prend place dans le cortège

=
6 La place de Jean dans le cortège

8.2.1.2.2 Relative Clause Paraphrase

The second criterion says that the arguments of a PredN in an NP such as (B) can be paraphrased
by a relative clause. The head of the clause is the SupV.

2
optionality is indicated by parenthesis
366 Fiammetta Namer

John’s attack against Mary

= the attack that John carried out against Mary

L’agression de Jean contre Marie

= l’agression que Jean a commise contre Marie

Hans’ Angriff gegen Maria

= Der Angriff, den Hans gegen Maria richtete
We could schematize this paraphrases by the following structures equation :

(B) NP2 [ Det PredN PP1 [prep1 NP1] ( PP3 [prep3 NP3] ) ( PP4 [prep4 NP4] )]].
= (C) NP2 [ Det PredN2 rel [WH2 NP1 SupV ( PP3 ) ( PP4 )]].

The paraphrase property differentiates a SupV from an ordinary verb as exemplified in (16) and
(17) :

(16) Max criticizes the speculations on the dollar.

(17) Max exige l’expulsion de criminel vers la Suisse.

since these verbs don’t allow paraphrases such as :

Max’s speculations on the dollar
6= the speculations that Max criticizes on the dollar

L’expulsion par Max du criminel vers la Suisse

6= L’expulsion que Max exige du criminel vers la Suisse

8.2.1.2.3 Unrealized PredN Agent

In an SVC - as described by structure (A) - the agentive position in the PredN structure must be
empty :

(18) Peter carried out John’s attack against Mary.

Pierre a commis l’agression de Jean contre Marie.
Pater has Hans’Angriff gegen Maria gerichtet.

Here again, the constraints on the subjects are not true in ordinary verb construction.

(19) Max criticizes John’s speculations on the dollar.

(20) Ed exige l’expulsion du criminel par la police.

8.2.1.2.4 Double Analysis

The fourth main property of an SVC is the so-called “double analysis” or “multiple extraction”
property. In an SVC whose structure is (A), in which the PredN argument structure is not empty,
there are several extraction possibilities for NP2 (headed by PredN), which means that NP2 can
be analysed in several ways.
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 367

Divalent PredN: Let us consider first an SVC with a divalent PredN :

(21) Max carried out an attack against Mary

A first extraction, which is realized by means of the clefting operation, shows that an attack
against Mary can be analysed as a single constituent :

(22) It is an attack against Mary that Max carried out

However, the head of NP2 alone can also be extracted :

(23) It is an attack that Max carried out against Mary

Similarly, the extraction may concern only the PredN second argument :

(24) It is against Mary that Max carried out an attack

Trivalent PredN: Now, let us examine the example of another SVC (25) containing the trivalent
PredN expulsion :

(25) La police a procédé à l’expulsion du criminel vers la Suisse.

Various extractions are allowed :

(26) C’est à l’expulsion du criminel vers la Suisse que la police a proc édé.
(27) C’est vers la Suisse que la police a procédé à l’expulsion du criminel.
(28) C’est de ce criminel que la police a procédé à l’expulsion vers la Suisse.

Other aren’t :

(29) C’est à l’expulsion que la police a procédé de ce criminel vers la Suisse.

(30) C’est du criminel vers la Suisse que la police a proc édé à l’expulsion.
(31) C’est à l’expulsion du criminel que la police a proc édé vers la Suisse.
(32) C’est à l’expulsion vers la Suisse que la police a procédé du criminel.

Passivization: Building clefted sentences from SVCs is not the only way to show the “double
analysis” property. It also can be shown by means of the passive transformation of (A),
provided that the SupV is transitive. Let us examine the results obtained from (21) :

(33) An attack against Mary has been carried out by Max.

(34) An attack has been carried out by Max against Mary.
(35) An attack by Max against Mary has been carried out.

Permutation: Finally, the double attachment possibility for the arguments of a predicative noun
can sometimes be observed in a monoclausal non-clefted active SVC, in which the noun
argument is moved out of the NP domain :
368 Fiammetta Namer

(36) Max a commis une agression monstrueuse contre Marie.

Max a commis contre Marie une agression monstrueuse.

SVC vs other Constructions: The property of double analysis is generally used to distinguish
SupV from ordinary verbs :

(37) Max condamne l’expulsion du criminel vers la Suisse.

C’est l’expulsion du criminel vers la Suisse que Max condamne.
 C’est vers la Suisse que Max condamne l’expulsion du criminel.

(38) Max is describing an attack against Mary.

It is an attack against Mary that Max is describing.
It is against Mary that Max is describing an attack.

and from frozen expressions :

(39) Max prend part à ce cortège. C’est à ce cortège que Max prend part.
C’est part à ce cortège que Max prend.

Extraction Constraints: We have just seen that the argument extraction paradigms depend on
the predicative noun which selects these arguments. So, examples (22) to (24) show that
agression puts no restriction on args extraction, and the opposition between examples
(26) to (28), end examples (29) to (31) show that expulsion activates a different kind of
extraction paradigm. The same paradigm is observed with another 3-valent noun, which is
characterized by a frame of type “ASSOC”:

(40) Max fait l’échange de A avec B.

Max does the exchange of A with B.
(41) C’est l’échange de A avec B que Max fait.
(42) * C’est l’échange de A que Max fait avec B.
(43) * C’est l’échange avec B que Max fait de A.
(44) * C’est l’échange que Max fait de A avec B.
(45) C’est de A que Max fait l’échange avec B.
(46) C’est avec B que Max fait l’échange de A.
(47) * C’est de A avec B que Max fait l’échange.

So at a first glance, we could make the hypothesis that a predicative noun PredN which
governs an NP looking like:

det PredN NPa NPb

allows for the extraction of at least the following sequences:

(48) det PredN , provided that “det” is undefinite (It is an attack that A committed
against B vs C’est l’échange que Max fait de A avec B,
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 369

det PredN NPa NPb ,

NPa ,
NPb

When the noun arguments are prepositional, (especially for directional locatives) they
can sometimes be extracted as a whole, above all when the composed meaning can be
unsderstood as “path unit”:

(49) C’est de Douvres à Calais que Max a fait ce voyage.

At our knowledge, there are no other cases such as (49). Of course a systematic investi-
gation of the 3-valent predicative nouns should be done. Nevertheless we will make the
assumption that extraction conditions are syntactic (and not lexically set), and correspond
to the description given in (48).

To conclude, the characteristics of a support verb are summarized below :

(c1) A support verb builds a clause (called SVC) from a predicative NP : the notion of support
verb construction derives from that of predicative noun.

(c2) An NP headed by a predicative noun can be paraphrased by an SVC embedded in a relative

clause. In other words, the SupV associated to a PredN is unique (exception: possible
stylistic and aspectual variants).

(c3) In an SVC, the deep subject of the verb is coreferent with the arg1 of the PredN. Therefore,
the arg1 of the PredN must be left unrealized.

(c4) In a clefted sentence which is obtained from an SVC, the extracted object element is either
the whole NP headed by the PredN, or the head, or one of the PredN arguments.

Given these properties, and bearing in mind the definition we gave of a predicative noun, we
are able to distinguish SupV from frozen expressions, and from a large part of ordinary verbs.
However, some verbs which cannot be considered SupV satisfy these 4 criteria :

(50) Max écrit un livre sur les fourmis.

(Max writes a book about ants)
(c1) le livre de Max sur les fourmis.
(Max’s book about ants)
(c2) le livre que Max écrit sur les fourmis.
(the book Max wrote about ants)
(c3) Max écrit le livre de Luc sur les fourmis.
(Max writes Luc’s book about ants)
370 Fiammetta Namer

(c4) C’est un livre sur les fourmis que Max écrit.

(It is a book about ants that Max writes)
C’est un livre que Max écrit sur les fourmis.
(It is a book Max writes about ants)
C’est sur les fourmis que Max écrit un livre.
(It is about ants that Max writes a book)

Therefore we have to add a last criterion to distinguish SupVs from ordinary verbs : a support
verb must subcategorize for an obligatory object. So :

(51) Max fait un résumé.

(Max makes a summary)

is an SVC, because the 4 criteria are met, and in addition Max fait is ungrammatical. On the
other hand :

(52) Max écrit un résumé.

(Max writes a summary)

is not an SVC, though the 4 criteria are met. In fact, écrire can be used in an absolute way (Max
écrit) without changing the meaning of the sentence in a signifiant way.
Now that the main criteria to recognize predicative nouns, SupVs and SVCs have been presented,
let us see the other properties which characterize SVCs.

8.2.2 OTHER PROPERTIES

In this section, we are going to list briefly a series of secondary linguistic aspects of SVCs.

8.2.2.1 Stylistic and Aspectual Variants

A stylistic or aspectual variant can substitute for the support verb :

(53) John has influence over Mary.

(54) John gains influence over Mary.

Jean prend de l’influence sur Marie.
Hans gewinnt Einflußauf Marie.

In general a SupV’s aspectual/stylistic variants satisfy criteria (3) and (4) above, but not (2).
In an SVC we can at least distinguish the following aspectual variants for a SupV :

 neuter, which is generally the “base” support verb, such as have in John has influence over
Mary.,
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 371

 inchoative, such as gain wrt have in: John gains hope of getting a job.,
 durative, such as keep wrt have in: John keeps hope of getting a job.,
 terminative, such as loose wrt have, in: John lost hope of getting a job.

 iterative, such as multiply wrt carry out in: John multiplies his attacks against Mary.

It is obvious that the examples show an opposition between the neuter variant as a non-marked
item and all the others which are marked to focus on a specific phase of a process. A process
begins at a point of time, remains during a period of time and ends at a point of time. To focus on
the beginning of a process we can use the inchoative variant, to focus on the end of a process, the
terminative variant can be used. The durative variant focuses on the fact that the process is still
developing while the iterative variant focuses on the repetition of the same process. The neuter
variant is used when the process is referred to as a whole without focusing on a specific phase or
modality of its development.
The difference between markedness and no-markedness of variants of explain why only the neuter
variant of support verbs can be used for a paraphrase of NP headed by a PredN. Such an NP does
not include any information about a focus on a special phase of the process and therefore only the
neuter variant allows a correct paraphrase.
In addition to aspectual variants ther also exist stylistic variants. Those variants do not focus on
a specific phase of a process :

(55) Max (a + caresse + nourrit) l’espoir de revoir Marie

8.2.2.2 Determination of the PredN

8.2.2.2.1 Articles
The selection of an article for a predicative noun in an SVC is not free but it is rarely completely
fixed. There are complex constraints on the use of articles depending on different properties of
the predicative noun and the support verb.
So, the use of a specific article can vary for the same predicative noun depending on the variation
of the argument-structure, which is not specific to SVCs, and neither to predicative nouns, but is a
general NP specification issue. On the other hand, the use of a specific article sometimes depends
on the support verb variant. In the German examples below, the terminative variant selects a
definite article for the predicative noun:

(56) Max hat (0 + *eine + *die) Hoffnung auf eine Stelle.

(Max has hope for a job).
(57) Max verliert (*0 + *eine + die) die Hoffnung auf eine Stelle.
(Max loses the hope for a job).
(58) Max hat Mut.
(Max has courage).
(59) Max verliert den Mut.
(Max loses the courage)
372 Fiammetta Namer

Possessives
For most predicative nouns, a possessive can introduce a PredN in an active SVC only if it is
coreferent with the subject : a sentence like

(60) John carried out my attack against Mary

is as deviant as :

(61) John carried out Peter’s attack against Mary

A possessive coreferent to the subject is possible only with some PredN :

(62) I made my decision about Mary.

I gave Mary my kiss

This use of a possessive coreferent to the subject is anaphoric : it can occur in a context like

(63) I have to make a decision about Mary. I will make my decision next week.

where the possessive can alternate with a demonstrative without clear change of meaning.
The possibility for a PredN in an SVC to be introduced by a possessive coreferent to the subject
may depend on the variant of the SVC :

(64) J’ai mon courage. [neuter]

J’ai perdu mon courage. [terminative]

In this case, the use of a possessive coreferent to the subject looks lexical, although it can be
considered as anaphoric because of the following paraphrase:
J’ai perdu mon courage
= J’ai perdu le courage que j’avais

8.2.2.3 Argument Realization

A last linguistic property shall be mentioned. It has to do with the various ways the arguments of
a predicative noun can be realized in the surface structure. Three behaviours can be distinguished.
We take therefore three examples of nouns (interruption, description, mépris), which illustrate
each one of these three behaviours. Each of the mentioned nouns subcategorize for two arguments :
the agent (or the cause) and the topic (or theme). Let us see how these arguments are represented :
Interruption
Interruption gives rise to the following paradigm :

(65) l’interruption du match par la pluie.

(The interruption of the match by the rain)
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 373

(66) l’interruption du match.

(67) l’interruption de la pluie. (where de la pluie represents the cause of the interruption)
(68) son interruption du match.

This means that the cause cannot appear as a genitive (see the forbidden co-occurrence of the
possessive son and the object introduced by de). It can appear only as a “by-object”. Therefore,
we will say that interruption has only a passive reading.
Mépris
Mépris has a rather opposite behaviour :

(69) le mépris de Paul pour l’argent.

(Paul’s contempt for money)
(70) le mépris de Paul.
(71) son mépris pour l’argent.
(72) son mépris de l’argent.
(73) le mépris de l’argent.
(74) le mépris de l’argent par Paul.

Here, the préposition de can be used to introduce either the agent, or the object. Genitive con-
struction is thus allowed. On the other hand, the realization of the agent by means of a “by-object”
leads to an ungrammatical sentence. Therefore, we say that mépris has only an active reading.
Description
The predicative noun description can realize its arguments both like mépris and interruption :

(75) la description du suspect par Luc.

(the description of the suspect by Luc)
(76) la description du suspect. (= object)
(77) la description de Luc. (= agent)
(78) la description de Luc du suspect.
(79) sa description du suspect.

We say in this case that description is a passivizable predicative noun : the agent is represented
either as a genitive, or as a “by-object”.

8.3 Background Discussion

In this section we give an outline of different approaches to SVCs. We set aside LADL-work,
which has been done in descriptive, transformation-based linguistics, and aimed at producing a
systematic description of the French language by recording not only the lexical forms, but also the
basic syntactic structures in which the form can occur. Their results have largely contributed to a
coherent definition of SVCs (see Namer (1994b)). We are going to examine two other approaches:
First the Clas & Mel’čuk (1984) (totally semantic) theory, and then the HPSG-based approach,
which exposes some problems from a semantic point of view (see Namer (1994b)).
374 Fiammetta Namer

8.3.1 RESTRICTED LEXICAL CO-OCCURRENCE (CRL)

This approach, developed in Clas & Mel’čuk (1984), is purely semantic. It is inspired from the
notion of collocation, introduced among others by R. Firth (1951) and referred to by Hausmann
(1985) to indicate the co-occurrence constraints existing between two lexical units: both are not
associated in a completely free way, but one of them determines the occurrence of the other one.
The definition of Clas & Mel’čuk (1984) is slightly different from that of Hausmann (1985), as it
is rather a reformulation of the non-compositionality criterion:

“Lexical co-occurrence refers to the ability of lexemes to combine into phrases to

express a given meaning. Restricted lexical co-occurrence refers to the fact if a lexeme
A whose meaning is ’A’, and a lexeme B whose meaning is ’B’ cannot combine to
express the compound meaning ’A + B’, though there are no syntactic constriants
preventing this.

In Clas & Mel’čuk (1984), CRLs are described in terms of lexical functions. A lexical function
takes a lexeme as argument (word which is associated to a meaning) and maps it onto one or
several lexemes which reflect the meaning indicated by the lexical function. An example is that
of Supp, which takes a predicative noun as argument, and returns the support verb as value:
Supp(décision) = prendre [ une décision ].
The limits of such an approach are evident. Though the information recorded under each lexical
entry is very rich, it does not correspond to any syntactic criteria, but rather reflect semantic
intuitions and thus the work in Clas & Mel’čuk (1984) is hardly reusable in any NLP-directed
formalism.

8.3.2 HPSG

HPSG in itself (Pollard & Sag (1994)) does not foresee at all a noun to be predicative. Trying
to extend the theory - and especially the semantic principle - one sees very quickly that it is
not suitable for other predications than the verbal one. There is semantic type incompatibility,
together with problems with quantifier scope (what is the scope of quantification if the noun is
predicative? This situation cannot be handled by the Scope Principle).
Now, let us examine the approach which is proposed in Erbach & Krenn (1994), which aims,
among others, at proposing an HPSG solution to SVCs. First, one can notice that semantics is set
aside. The content is mentioned, but the authors simply assume that nouns are psoas, and thus
ignore the noun specifiers’ problem.
The approach, from a syntactic point of view, follows the same philosophy as ours, which consists
in making use of the “argument inheritance” concept (see other sections).
The problem lies ‘in the direction’ the selection is made. When a semantic unit is compound, one
has to decide which component selects the other one. Logically, the direction should correspond to
the minimal cost. Now, in Erbach & Krenn (1994), the authors chose the verb as selectional head,
which means that a support verb lists all the predicative nouns which it can combine with. The
(German) example below depicts the lexical entry of haben, such as in Angst/Vertrauen haben:
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 375
2 2 33
(80)
66 66HEAD *VERB 2 3+ 77777
66CAT 66 7
66 4COMPS NP acc;Angst_:::V ertrauen 4
CAT j COMPS 2
5  2 75777
66 [ ]
CONT 3 77
4 5
CONT 3

The ’...’ are put for all the possible disjunctive NP lemmas possibly associated with the support
verb. The reader can easily imagine how long the disjunctive chain should be with verbs such as
faire (make) or prendre (make). Moreover, in any non purely theoretical study, one sees that the
solution is totally inefficient as disjunctions - generalized disjunctions - are very expensive from
a computational point of view.

8.3.3 OUR SOLUTION

Our solution, originally proposed by J örgensen & Samvelian (1993), and then by Namer &
Schmidt (1993), is also based on the argument inheritance principle, which is the condition for the
predicative noun constituents to allow for multiple extractions. However, opposite to section 8.3.2,
we do not consider the verb as selecting the predicative nouns, for the reasons exposed above,
but exactly the other way round. Our model, described below, has the following properties:

 It is easily adaptable to the mainstream recommendations given in 2 (Formal Assumptions)

and chapter 6 (Predicate-Argument-Structure),

 It is compatible with the extraction, double analysis properties mentioned in section 8.2,

 It is easily extensible in that the semantics of the SVC could be seen as some kind of
combination of the semantics of the noun and the semantics of the verb (provided that this
“kind of combination” is known),

 It requires no further kind of knowledge for the processing of cross-discontinuities.

 It is not in contradiction with the possibility of alternation.

Its description includes the following parts:

 Representation of a valent noun, including the semantic structure proposed in chapter 6

(Predicate-Argument-Structure), and thus integratable into the corresponding type system.
An additional feature characterizes the predicative noun/support verb relation.

 Representation of a support verb

 Representation of the extraction/multiple attachements

376 Fiammetta Namer

8.3.3.1 Predicative Nouns

8.3.3.1.1 Semantic Content

The semantic content of a predicative noun, be it deadjectival, deverbal or non derivational, has a
dynamic reading. From that the formal representation proposed in chapter 6 (Predicate-Argument-
Structure), and illustrated by the example administration follows:
2 2 3 3
(81)
66INDEX 0 4 PERS 3RD
5 77
66 NUM SING 77
66 ind index2 2 3 7773
66 66 ADMINISTRATION 77
66 66REL 77777
66 66 66ARG-EVENT 0 eve 777777
66RESTR 6 6 PAS
64ARG1 757777
66 66 1
777
66 66 ARG2 2 7777
4 4 n o 575
SEM ADJ

Monovalent “relational” abstract nouns, denoting a property, a part-of, etc. get the semantic
structure exemplified by size:
2 2 3 3
(82)
66INDEX 0 4 PERS 3RD
5 77
66 NUM SING 77
66 ind index 2 2 3 77
3
66 SIZE 7
66 777777
REL
66 66
66 66PAS 4ARG1 0
577777
66 RESTR 6
66 ARG2 777
7577
1
64 4 psoa
n o 5
SEM ADJ

Together with this structure, the predicative noun, which we assume selecting the lemma of the
support verb(s) it combines with, must encode the following general syntactic information:

 the characterization of the support verbs, and their aspect,

 the constraints on the extractability of its arguments in a SVC.

8.3.3.1.2 Light Verbs Alternative Selection

The value of the light verb which can be associated with the predicative noun can be considered
as an intrinsic property of the noun. However, there is not only one, but there are several variants
of the light verb which combine with a given noun. The first idea is to propose a disjunction
of values, with the corresponding aspect or stylistic characteristics. As this solution would be
compiled out into as many lexical entries as there are verb variants, this is not very desirable.
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 377

An alternative consists in applying the solution proposed by Rieder, P. & A. (1995a) to handle
the alternance in the syntactic realizations of arguments of a predicate.
The approach makes use of a feature, called COHEAD, which, for each argument, instantiates a
set of features reflecting the possible/forbidden syntactic realizations of this argument. Besides,
each lexical entry indicates in the same feature COHEAD its maximal projection (the other slots
remaining unspecified, in order to allow structure unification) which is structure-shared with its
HEAD feature. So, the syntactic structure of an N is schematically as in (83):
2 3
(83) 64HEAD h
1
i75
COHEAD N HEAD 1

The COMPS list structure of verbs which e.g. respectively (a) can subcatergorize for an NP and (b)
exclusively subcategorize for a VP are:
(a) "  h i# (b) 2 2 33
COHEAD N HEAD ... 66 66 N HEAD NO 7
h i77
66COHEAD 64VP HEAD ... 77577
4 5
S HEAD NO

In (a), the COHEAD value of the verb COMPS list unifies with that of the noun projection COHEAD
given in (83), whereas the unification fails in (b), because there the N HEAD value is no.
We adopt this approach to represent the syntactic realization of the support verb:

 In the lexical entry of the verb, the head feature LIGHTV encodes the lemma of the verb and
its aspect, if it is a support verb (whose overall structure wrt full verbs is explained below).
If it is a full verb the value is no. Another head feature, COLIGHTV is instantiated with a
structure whose elements are the possible aspectual/stylistic variants of the light verb:
2 3
(84)
66
COLIGHTV NEUTER <ATOM>7
66INCHO <ATOM>777
66DUR
66TERM
<ATOM>777
4 <ATOM>75
ITER <ATOM>
For instance, the COLIGHTV value is a disjunction for prendre, which is either a NEUTER
support verb (prendre une décision/ take a decision) or an INCHO one (prendre espoir/
gain hope). (85) is a simplified representation of the HEAD value of the support verb
prendre, in which distributed disjunction (which allows for an elegant co-variation of the
LIGHTVjASPECT and COLIGHTV values) is represented by “$1”:
2 2 33
(85)
66LIGHTV 4VAL 1 PRENDRE
577
66 ASPECT $1:(NEUTER _ INCHO) 7
7
64 h i h i 75
COLIGHTV $1: NEUTER 1 _ INCHO 1
378 Fiammetta Namer

 On the predicative noun, the head feature COLIGHTV encodes the complete paradigm of
the possible SVC associated to the noun. So, show (1) the (simplified) head structure of
decision, and (2) that of espoir, wrt to the support verb construction:
2 2 33 (2) 2 2 33
66 66NEUTER PRENDRE 7
777 66 66NEUTER AVOIR
7777
66 66INCHO 777 7 66 66INCHO PRENDRE77
777
NO
6
(1) 6COLIGHTV 66DUR 7777 66COLIGHTV 66DUR GARDER 7
66 66
NO
7
777 66 66 7777
64 7 64 PERDRE 77
4TERM NO
55 4TERM 575
ITER NO ITER NO

The unification process between the predicative noun and the support verb (which ensures
the resulting structure to be a SVC) is the same as with the COHEAD feature described above.

8.3.3.1.3 Summary

The general structure of a valent noun, which can be part of an SVC, is the following:
2 2  h i3 3
(86)
66 66HEAD COLIGHTV ... 7 77
66 66 predn headhi  77 77
66CAT 6SUBJ 77 77
66 66 :1 77 77
66 4COMPLS D...E 5 77
66 2 3777
66 7
66 66INDEX 2
0 EVE
37777
66 6 77
66CONT j RESTIND 666 777777
...
66REL
66 66RESTR j PAS 66ARG-EVE 0 eve77777777
64 64 64ARG1 7577
55
1

...

8.3.3.2 Light Verb Structure

If we assume the hypothesis under which the support verb does not carry any informative content,
but only marks tense and aspect, then two representations, taken from traditional approaches on
argument inheritance can be examined:

 The verb as the copula,

 The verb as a tense auxiliary, under the Jörgensen & Samvelian (1993) and Abeill é &
Godard (1994b) hypotheses.

The first hypothesis implies the predicative noun to have combined with all its complement, so
the light verb is divalent, subcategorizing a predicative NP with an unsaturated subject list, and a
subject, whose content is token-identical to that of the PredN’s unrealized subject. The drawback
of this solution is that it assumes a minimal structure for the predicative noun (no complements
are described) which makes argument extraction impossible.
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 379

Let us examine the second solution. It consists in considering the subcategorized for PredN as
completely unsaturated for its SUBJ and COMPLS lists. So, the verb inherites from it its whole
complementation, including the subject.
In other words, a light verb has a parametric COMPLS list. Its syntactic structure is the following:
2 2 3 3
(87) LIGHTV j VAL
66 64
1
D E 75 77
66HEAD 77
66 COLIGHTV ASPECT
77
4 1

66SUBJ D E 77
66 NP: 2 77
66 2 3 77
66 * 66 DET +
77 +777
66 66HEAD j COLIGHTV D4
66COMPLS NPPRED 6 E777j 3 7
7
64 64SUBJ NP: 2 7 77
5 5
COMPLS 3

From a semantic point of view, the light verb inherits from the PredN its content, to which it
associates its own semantic properties.
2 2 2 333
(88)
66 66HEAD j LIGHTV 4 VAL * LEMMA *57777
66CAT 66 ASPECT 4 7777
66 4 D E 577
66 COMPS NPPRED: 2 j 77
66 2 3 77
66 66 77
377
INDEX 0 eve
66 2 77
6 4 7
66CONT 66 6
REL
7 7 77
66 66RESTR j PAS 64ARG-EVENT 0 75777 77
4 4 ARG1 2
5 5
arg1
rd cont

Figure (88) suggests that the predicative relation of the support verb provides the aspectual feature
the verb gives to the sentence. This information, of course, could be represented as index value
(tag 0 ), so that two alternative representations could be proposed for the support verb:

1. The same architecture as above is kept, except that (a) the aspect ( 1 ) goes into the
CONTjRESTINDjPASjINDEX value, and (b) the CONTjRESTINDjPASjREL attribute receives the
actual semantic contribution of the verb, if any (see section8.2, example (15)) (but how
could it be formulated?), and otherwise, an arbitrary null value,

2. The architecture in (88) is replaced by the (simpler) following one, where the PAS feature
is made up only of the predicative noun content:
2 h i3
(89)
64INDEX 0 eve
h
ASPECT 1
i75
RESTR j PAS 2 ARG-EVENT 0
380 Fiammetta Namer

The drawback of the second solution is that it does not enable the formulation of the
semantic contribution of the verb in the SVC meaning.

In the following, we will keep the hypothesis illustrated by figure (88).

8.3.3.3 Frame Alternations

8.3.3.3.1 Optionality, Permutations

Predicative noun complements are all optional. This optionality is transferred to the verb.
As far as the verb COMPLS list permutation is concerned, things are not so clear. In fact, the answer
does not depend on the predicative noun, but it is rather a (language-specific) matter which has
to do with complement reordering constraints, in general. So, roughly, we observe in French that
the NP[mark] < NP reordering is possible (among others) when the NP is undefined or modified
by an adjunct :

(90) Max a présenté Luc à Marie.

)
Max a présenté à Marie Luc.
Max a présenté à Marie un beau garçon.

The same occurs with a support verb: when it combines with an undefined predicative noun, the
permutation of the complements is straightforward:

(91) Max a commis une agression contre Marie.

Max a commis contre Marie une agression (e + ignoble).

On the other hand, complement permutation is sometimes forbidden:

(92) Max a pris la décision d’épouser Clara.

 Max a pris d’épouser Clara la décision.

8.3.3.3.2 Passivization

Passivization and Unbounded Dependencies are two cases in which “double analysis” can be
observed. As for passivization, only two projections of the predicative noun can behave as
passive subject:

(1) The totally unsaturated predicative NP

(2) The NP whose COMPS list is saturated and whose subject is unrealized.

Case (1) is the “ordinary” transitive verb passivization rule.

 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 381

2 2 2 333 7! 2 2 2 333
66 66HEAD 4MOOD ACT 7
5777 66 66HEAD 4MOOD PAS 7
5777
66 66 YES 77 66 66 PASSIVIZABLE NO 77
66CAT 66 D
PASSIVIZABLE
E 7777 66CAT 66 D E 7777
(93) 66 64SUBJ 7777 66 64SUBJ 7777
577 E 577
NP: 1 2
66 D E 66 D
64 COMPS 2 j 3 77 64 COMPS NP[PAR]: 1 j 3 77
5 5
CONT 4 CONT 4

Case (2) describes the fact that, whereas the input includes a list of 2 constituents, the unsaturated
PredNP and its COMPS list, the output is the passive construction in which the PredNP becomes
the subject AND becomes completely saturated in its complement position. The lexical rule which
builds such a representation applies only to support verb constructions, as shown by the non-null
LIGHTV value.

(94)
2 2 2 3 3 3 7! 2 2 2 3 33
66 6 LIGHTV :NONE
77 77 66 66HEAD 4MOOD 5 7777
66 66HEAD 664MOOD 77 PAS
ACT 5 77 77 66 66 7777
66 66
PASSIVIZABLE NO
77 66 66 7
66 66 D
PASSIVIZABLE YES
E
77
77 77 66CAT 66 *NP 2SUBJ DNP: 1 E3: 2 +77777
64 7
66CAT 66SUBJ NP: 1 77 77 66 66SUBJ D E 75 77777
66 66 2 3 77 66 66 7777
66 66 *NP D E
: j +777 77 66 4 D
COMPS
E 577
66 64COMPS 64SUBJ NP: 1 7
5
2 3
75 77 66 COMPS NP[PAR]: 1 77
66 COMPS 3 77 4 5
4 5 CONT 4
CONT 4

8.3.3.3.3 Unbounded Dependencies

Let us now turn to the UDC, for which we adopt the general “lean” strategy depicted in 4 (Phrase
Structure) . Our problem is to constrain constituent extraction, according to the observations
which are made in section (8.2).
Recall that we assume the following extractions to be licit:

DETPREDN NPA DET PREDN NPA NPB

1 det-undef PredN det-undef PredN
(95) 2 det PredN NPa det PredN NPa NPb
3 NPa NPa
4 NPb

Here again, cases (1), (3) and (4) are accounted for in complement extraction lexical rules as they
are described in Pollard & Sag (1994), chapter 9 and mentioned in 4, (Phrase Structure).
In addition, we have to define a rule which handles case (2), i.e. which performs the same “frame
transformation” as the lexical rule (94) does for passivization:
 382 Fiammetta Namer

(96)
2 2 2 333 7! 2 2  D E3 3
66 6 6HEADDj LIGHTV :none
7777777 66 6CAT COMPS 7 77
66 66 66SUBJ NP: 1 E 777777 66LOC 4 5 77
66 66 66 2 3 7 66 77
+777777
CONT 4
66LOC 66CAT 66 *NP D E 66 2 3
66 66 64COMPS 64SUBJ NP: 1 75: 2 j 3 77777 66 *NP 2SUBJ DNP: 1 E3: 2 j 5 + 777
66 6 6 57777 66
66 64 D E 75
777
777 6IN 7777
66 64 66NONLOC 66
COMPS 3
577 4
COMPS 7577
66 CONT 4 77 4 5
66 2 3 77 OUT 5
64NONLOC 4IN 5 5 75
OUT 5

8.4 Examples

In this last section we give 3 examples to illustrate various aspects of support verb constructions.
The examples start with lexical entries. The phrase structure rules are inspired by HPSG.
First we are going to examine an active monoclausal sentence (97). Then, a passive monoclausal
sentence where the “fully saturated” predicative NP is in the passive subject position (98).
Finally, we give an example of a relative clause whose relative pronoun refers to the fully
saturated predicative noun (99):

(97) L’Opposition r éitère ses critiques au gouvernement.

(The opposition repeates their criticism to the government.)
(98) La décision de voter la motion de censure a été prise par la majorité des députés.
(The decision of introducing a vote of censure has been taken by the majority of the
representatives.)
(99) [les bombardements contre Sarajevo] que les Serbes ont effectu és [...]
The bombing of Sarajevo which the Serbs carried out [ ... ].

8.4.1 EXAMPLE (1)

In (97), the support verb (réitérer) is the iterative aspectual variant of the verb faire which combines
with critiques to produce the neutral SVC faire une/des critiques. The use of the possessive ses
must be understood in the restrictive meaning mentioned in section (8.2), example (63).

8.4.1.1 Lexical Entries

The predicative noun critique selects a subject and a complement, which are respectively the
author and the target of the criticism.
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 383
2 2 2 333
(100)
66 66 66NEUTRAL FAIRE 777777
66 66 66ITER RÉITÉRER777
66 66HEAD j COLIGHTV 66DUR 777777
66 66 66
NONE 777777
66CAT 66 4TERM 757777
7777
NONE
66 66
66 66 D
INCHO
E
NONE 7777
66 66SUBJ 7777
66 4 D
NP[DE]: 1
E 7577
66 NP[À]: 2 77
66 2
COMPS
3 77
66 77
66 66INDEX 2
0 eve
37 7 77
66 CRITIQUE 7 77
66 66 66 REL
7777 77
66CONT 66RESTR j 66ARG-EVE 0 7777 77
66 64
PAS
64ARG1 7577 75
5
1
4
ARG2 2

critique

The verb’s COLIGHTV value shows that it indicates an iterative aspect.

2 2 2 2 33 33
(101)
66 66 66LIGHTV 4 VAL 1 RÉITÉRER
577 7777
66 66HEAD 66 ASPECT 6 77 7777
66 66 4 h i 5 7777
66 66 COLIGHTV 4 ITER 1 7777
66 66 D E 7777
66 66SUBJ NP: 2 7777
66CAT 66 2 3 7777
66 66 + 7777
66 66 * 66DET 77 + 7777
66 66COMPS 6HEAD j COLIGHTV D
4 7
E77: 5 j 3 7777
NPPRED 666SUBJ
66 66 NP: 2 7 7777
66 4 4 5 577
66 COMPS 3
77
66 2 3 77
66 66INDEX eve 77
377
0
66 2 77
66 6 7
66CONT 777 77
REL
66RESTR j 66
64 0 77 75
4 PAS 4ARG-EVENT 55
ARG1 5

réitérer

8.4.1.2 Phrase Structure Rules

Assuming the HPSG standard for the phrase structure rules, we have:

 First, the ID2 schema applied, which successively combines together the verb and the pred-
icative noun, and then the resulting structure to the nominal phrase object au gouvernement:
384 Fiammetta Namer
2 2 h i33
(102) LIGHTV j VAL
66 66HEAD D E
RÉITÉRER 77
7777
66CAT 66SUBJ NP: 2 7577
66 4 77
66 COMPS hi 77
66 2 3 77
66 66INDEX eve
377 77
0
66 2
66 6 7 77
66CONT 777
REL
66RESTR j 66 77
64 0 77
4 PAS 4ARG-EVENT 55 5
ARG1 5

réitérer ses critiques au gouvernement

 The resulting VP then combines with the subject L’Opposition. The content value of the
sentence is given in detail in figure (103):
2 3
(103)
66INDEX 0 eve 2 377
66 7
66 66REL ITER 7777
66ARG-EVENT 0 7
66
66 2 377777
66 77
66IND 37777777
eve
66 66 1
2
66RESTR j PAS 66 66 77
66 66ARG1 j CONT j 66 66REL CRITIQUE 77777777
66 66 RESTIND
66PAS 66ARG-EVENT 1 77777777
64 64 64 64ARG1 *OPPOSITION* 75777777
5575
ARG2 *GOUVERNEMENT*

8.4.2 EXAMPLE (2)

In this second example, we show how the approach chosen is compatible with passivization. In
(98), the passive transformation implies the extraction of the PredNP + its complement. So, it is
the lexical rule (94) that is activated (see section (8.3), subsection 8.3.3.3.2).

8.4.2.1 Lexical Entries

The lexical entry of the neutral verb prendre has been partially given in the previous section
(section 8.3.3.1.2, (85)). Here is its complete description, including its frame and its content:
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 385
2 2 2 2 33 33
(104)
66 66 66LIGHTV 4VAL 1 PRENDRE 7
57 7777
66 66HEAD 66 ASPECT 6 77 7777
66 66 4 h i 5 7777
66 66 COLIGHTV 4 NEUTRAL 1 7777
66 66 D E 7777
66 66SUBJ NP: 2 7777
66CAT 66 2 3 7777
66 66 + 7777
66 66 * 66DET 77 + 777
66 66COMPS 6HEAD j COLIGHTV D E777: 5 j 3 77777
4
NPPRED 666SUBJ
66 66 NP: 2 7 7777
66 4 4 5 577
66 COMPS 3
77
66 2 3 77
66 66INDEX eve 77
377
0
66 2 77
66 6 7
66CONT 777 77
REL
66RESTR j 66
64 0 77 75
4 PAS 4ARG-EVENT 55
ARG1 5

prendre

The divalent noun décision subcategorizes for an NP subject and a VP complement:

2 2 2 333
(105)
66 66 66NEUTRAL PRENDRE 777777
66 66 66ITER NONE 777777
66 66HEAD j COLIGHTV 6DUR 777777
66 66 6
66
NONE
777777
66 66 4 TERM ABANDONNER
57777
66CAT 66 INCHO NONE 7777
66 66 D E 7777
66 66SUBJ NP[DE]: 1 7777
66 66 *  D +
E 77777
66 4COMPS VP[DE] SUBJ NP: 1 : 2 57
66 77
66 2 3 77
66 66 77
377
INDEX 0 eve
66 2 77
66 DECISION 7 7
66 66 6 REL
66ARG-EVE 0 7
7777 77
66CONT j RESTIND 66RESTR j PAS 6 7777 77
66 64 6 77
4 4ARG1 1
575 5
ARG2 2

décision

8.4.2.2 Phrase Structure Rules

First, the verb undergoes the lexical rule (94) whose output is the new lexical item:
386 Fiammetta Namer
2 2 2 2 33 33
(106)
66 66 66LIGHTV 4VAL 1 PRENDRE 7 77
57 777
66 66 66 77 777
66 ASPECT
77 7777
6
66 66
66 66HEAD 66PASSIVIZABLE NO 77 7777
66 66 66DIATH 77 7777
66 66 4
PASS
h i 5 7777
66 66 COLIGHTV 4 NEUTRAL 1 7777
66CAT 66 D E 7777
66 66COMPS NP[PAR]: 2 7777
66 66 2 3 777
66 7
66
66
* 66DET +
77 +77777
66 6HEAD j COLIGHTV 77
66 NPPRED 6 D E777: 5 7777
4
66SUBJ 66SUBJ 7
66 66 64 NP: 2 7 75 77777
66 4 DE 57
66 COMPS 77
66 2 3 77
66 eve 77
66 66INDEX 0
2 377 77
66CONT 66 6 7 77
777
REL
66 66RESTR j 66 77
0 77
4 4 PAS 4ARG-EVENT 55 5
ARG1 5

prendre (passive)

Then, (106) combines with the predicative noun agent la majorité des députés (ID2 schema)
to produce a VP. The VP in turn combines with the predicative NP to produce a well-formed
sentence (ID1 schema) the content value of which is given in (107):
2 3
(107)
66INDEX 0 eve2 377
66 7
66 66REL NEUTER 7777
66ARG-EVENT 0 7
66
66 2 377777
66 77
66 66 66IND 1 eve 2 37777777
66RESTR j PAS 66 66 77
66 6 6 6
6
REL DECISION
77777777
66ARG1 j CONT j RESTIND 66 6ARG-EVENT 1 77777777
66 66 66RESTR j PAS 66ARG1 *MAJORITÉ DES DÉPUTÉS* 75777777
64 4 4 4 5575
ARG2 *VOTER LA MOTION DE CENSURE*

8.4.3 EXAMPLE (3)

This is an example of cross-discontinuity: there is an interaction between the support verb con-
struction (effectuer des bombardements) and the relative construction. As the extracted constituent
is the predicative NP with a fully saturated COMPS list, this means that the lexical rule for the
complement extraction applying to the light verb is the one which is given in figure (96) (see
section 8.3, subsection 8.3.3.3.3).
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 387

8.4.3.1 Lexical Entries

bombardement is a divalent predicative noun, with an agent subject (introduced by de, and a goal
object, introduced by a variable direction preposition (sur, contre, ...):
2 2 2 33 3
(108)
66 66 66NEUTRAL EFFECTUER7777 77
66 66 66ITER NONE 7777 77
66 66HEAD j COLIGHTV 66DUR 7777 77
66 66 66
NONE
77 77
66CAT ARRÊTER 77
66 4 TERM
577 77
66 66 INCHO NONE 77 77
66 66 D E 77 77
66 66SUBJ NP[DE]: 1 77 77
66 4 D E 5 77
66 PP[CLASS DIR]: 2 7
3777
COMPS
66 2
66 66INDEX 7
37777
0 eve
66 2
66 BOMBARDEMENT 7
66 66 66REL 7777777
66CONT j RESTIND 66RESTR j 66ARG-EVE 0 777777
66 64
PAS
64ARG1 757777
55
1
4
ARG-DIR 2

bombardement

The verb effectuer is basically represented as follows:

2 2 2 2 33 33
(109)
66 66 66LIGHTV 4VAL 1 EFFECTUER 7
57 7777
66 66HEAD 66 ASPECT 6 77 7777
66 66 4 h i 5 7777
66 66 COLIGHTV 4 NEUTRAL 1 7777
66 66 D E 7777
66 66SUBJ NP: 2 7777
66CAT 66 2 3 7777
66 66 + 7777
66 66 * 66DET 77 + 777
66 66COMPS 6HEAD j COLIGHTV D E777: 5 j 3 77777
4
NPPRED 666SUBJ
66 66 NP: 2 7 7777
66 4 4 5 577
66 COMPS 3
77
66 2 3 77
66 66INDEX eve 77
377
0
66 2 77
66 6 7
66CONT 777 77
REL
66RESTR j 66
64 0 77 75
4 PAS 4ARG-EVENT 55
ARG1 5

effectuer
388 Fiammetta Namer

8.4.3.2 Phrase Structure Rules

The verb in (109) undergoes the application of the complement extraction rule (96) which moves
the PredNP plus its complement to the non-local position . The rule output is thus:
2 2 3
2 2 2 3333
(110) 66 66 66 1 EFFECTUER 777
66 66
66LIGHTV 4VAL 57777777
66 66HEAD 66 ASPECT
6 7777777
66 66 4 h i 5777777
66 66CAT 66 777777
66 66 66 D
COLIGHTV 4 NEUTRAL 1
E 777777
66 66 66SUBJ NP: 2 777777
66 66 4 D E 57777
66LOC 66 COMPS 777
66 66 2 3 7777
66 66 eve 7777
66INDEX 377
0
66 66 2 7777
66 66 6 7
7777
66CONT 66RESTR j PAS 66ARG-EVENT 0 77777
REL
66 64 4 55 7577
66 4 77
66 ARG1 5
77
66 2 2 3 3 77
66 66 77
66 * 66 DET +
77 +77 77
66 66HEAD j COLIGHTV D4 77 77
66 66IN E 77
66NON-LOC NPPRED 6
66SUBJ NP: 2 7
7: 5 77 77
66 7
66 66 4 D E 75 77 77
66 66 COMPS 77 77
64 4 DE 75 75
OUT

effectuer (+ Comps extraction)

This output combines with the subject to produce a sentence which is well-formed from the
subcategorization point of view. As the NONLOC lists are not empty, we apply the FILLER-HEAD
rule, as it is depicted in chapter 4 (Phrase Structure, 4.4.2). We just focus on the UDC issue,
leaving the relativization problem aside (i.e. the relationship between the relative pronoun and
the referred to noun phrase) which is not specific to SVCs. For a discussion about the possible
formalization of relativization, see the proposals e.g. in 4 (Phrase Structure) and Heyd et al.
(1995).
The content of the result is:
 Chapter 8. Support Verb Constructions 389
2 3
(111)
66INDEX 0
2
eve
377
66 7
66 66REL NEUTER
7777
66ARG-EVENT 7
66 2 377777
0

66 66 77
66IND 37777777
eve
66 66 1
2
66RESTR j 66 66 BOMBARDEMENT 7 7
777777777
PAS
66 66ARG1 j CONT j RESTIND 66 66REL
66 66 66PAS 66ARG-EVENT 1 7777777
64ARG1 *LES SERBES* 7 777
64 64 64 57575775
ARG2 *SUR NP*

8.5 Conclusion

This chapter has shown how support verb constructions can be recognized and how they can be
handled by a TFS-based formalism.
We have shown that the approach we have chosen to depict SVCs is compatible with the main
properties of this construction, but also with the basic, syntactic, structural and semantic assump-
tions provided respectively by chapter 2 (Formal Assumptions), chapter 4 (Phrase Structure) and
chapter 6 (Predicate-Argument-Structure).
We have proposed a structure for SVC which is the maximal projection of the verb, but its
semantic content is that of the predicative noun. Actually, the semantic specifications presented
here have taken the idea of totally meaningless verbs (e.g. faire) as a basis. We have shown that
this is suitable for light verbs, provided that a compositional semantics is assumed.
However, some problems, which were adressed in (see Namer (1994b)) still remain unsolved.
Recall in fact what the conclusion in Namer (1994b) was describing, in terms of tasks to be done:

1. combine the noun modifiers with the verbal adjuncts, in the generated complex verbal unit.

2. insert tense and aspect (according to the relevant legislation).

3. represent the SupV as being likely to have a proper semantic content (e.g. in Max donne
un livre et un baiser à Eva), and thus, represent the content of the head of a SVC as the
combination of the SubV semantic information and the PredN semantic information

4. consider the light verb which is selected by the PredN not as a single possibility, but as the
disjunction of several (possibly structured) variants (stylistic or aspectual).

Points 2, 3 and 4 are solved. Point 1 remains a very complex issue. Observe, for instance the two
following examples:

(112) Chirac prend des décisions condamnables à propos du nucléaire.

(Chirac takes objectionable decisions concerning nuclear policy.)
(113) Chirac prend des décisions à propos du nucléaire qui indignent l’opinion mondiale.
(Chirac takes decisions concerning nuclear policy which digust international opinion.)
390 Fiammetta Namer

We are going to see that, whereas (112) can perfectly be accounted for in our approach, thanks
to the current decisions concerning semantics providing a parallel structuring for nouns and
predicates, example (113) raises a new discontinuity for which we can only propose provisional
ways of resolution.
First, example (112) can be processed within our approach, as we assume the predicative noun
phrase to be totally unsaturated from the subcategorization point of view when it is involved in a
support verb construction. Nevertheless, nothing is said about its behaviour wrt adjuncts: actually
any adjunct placed directly after the predicative noun combines with it before the resulting N’
combines with its specifier. As nouns and verbs have compatible semantic content, such a noun
adjunct becomes a verb adjunct without problem. As far as example (112) is concerned the
following semantic content can be predicted:
2 3
(114) eve
66INDEX 0
2 377
66 7
66 66
REL NEUTER
7777
66ARG-EVENT 7
66 377777
0
66 2
66 77
66 66 66IND 1 eve 2 2 3 37777777
66 66 66 77777
66 6REL 7
77 777777777
7
DECISION
66 66 66
66RESTR j PAS 66 66 66PAS 666ARG-EVENT 1 77 77777777
66 66 6ARG1
66 66ARG1 j CONT j RESTIND 4 *CHIRAC* 5 777777777
66 66 66RESTR 66 *LE NUCLÉAIRE* 7 7
66 66 66 ARG2
8 9 777777777
66 66 >2 3>777777
66 66 66 < =7 7
64 64 64 64SEM ADJ 4REL CONDAMNABLE
5 7577577577
>
: ARG1 1 > 5
;

Now, let us turn to the second example. Here, the PredN modifying relative clause is not part of
the same sequence as the predicative noun, as the noun complement (à propos du nucléaire) is
interleaved with them. This is common in free order languages such as French. The only way to
handle the relative clause is thus as a verb modifier. But this may be the source of overgeneration
if the required constraints (which still have to be defined) are not set.