This thesis shows that the mapping of semantics to syntax can be more complex than is generally assumed. In general, the mapping of semantics to syntax is thought to be many-to-one; for instance, many types of external argument roles are mapped to a subject position, and a theme or patient role is mapped to an object position. Contrary to this view, I show, by studying the syntax and semantics of external arguments, that one-to-one mapping between syntax and semantics is possible. External arguments are generally assumed to be introduced by a functional head, called Voice or v, regardless of the semantics of the argument, rather than being actual arguments of the verbs. A high Appl head similar to Voice has recently been argued to introduce external arguments as well as arguments of other semantic types. At present, no theories propose how these heads are distinguished in argument structure. This thesis articulates the differences between the external argument introducing heads and explores the consequences of these differences. Moreover, this thesis proposes a new type of event-related applicative, namely peripheral Appl. Like Voice and high Appl, peripheral Appl introduces an argument external to the verb phrase. The key differences among the external argument introducing heads are in their semantics as well as their syntactic position. Semantically, Voice is specified for agentivity, but high and peripheral Appls are specified for non-agentivity. Syntactically, high Appl merges below Voice, not above, while peripheral Appl can merge above Voice. An important result emerging from this thesis is that not all external arguments are treated in the same way in syntax: not only are agent and non-agent external argument roles mapped into different positions, but different types of non-agent roles are also mapped into different positions.

This thesis shows that the mapping of semantics to syntax can be more complex than is generally assumed. In general, the mapping of semantics to syntax is thought to be many-to-one; for instance, many types of external argument roles are mapped to a subject position, and a theme or patient role is mapped to an object position. Contrary to this view, I show, by studying the syntax and semantics of external arguments, that one-to-one mapping between syntax and semantics is possible. External arguments are generally assumed to be introduced by a functional head, called Voice or v, regardless of the semantics of the argument, rather than being actual arguments of the verbs. A high Appl head similar to Voice has recently been argued to introduce external arguments as well as arguments of other semantic types. At present, no theories propose how these heads are distinguished in argument structure. This thesis articulates the differences between the external argument introducing heads and explores the consequences of these differences. Moreover, this thesis proposes a new type of event-related applicative, namely peripheral Appl. Like Voice and high Appl, peripheral Appl introduces an argument external to the verb phrase. The key differences among the external argument introducing heads are in their semantics as well as their syntactic position. Semantically, Voice is specified for agentivity, but high and peripheral Appls are specified for non-agentivity. Syntactically, high Appl merges below Voice, not above, while peripheral Appl can merge above Voice. An important result emerging from this thesis is that not all external arguments are treated in the same way in syntax: not only are agent and non-agent external argument roles mapped into different positions, but different types of non-agent roles are also mapped into different positions.

The aim of this thesis is to define the essential syntactic-semantic properties of three types of objectless sentences in present-day Swedish. The three types of objectless sentences are labeled descriptively as follows: Implicit Object Read type (IOR) with pseudo-transitive verbs like läsa ‘read’; Implicit Object Open type (IOO), which involves various sets of transitive verbs like öppna ‘open’ and bära ‘carry’; and Implicit Object Kill type (IOK), which typically involves destruction verbs like döda ‘kill’. The study is framed within Ramchand’s (2008) syntactic model with a three-partite decomposed verb phrase, which distinguishes between two types of objects: RHEMES, which are inserted into a complement position in the verb phrase, and UNDERGOERS, which are inserted into a specifier position. In this work, IOR is argued to be an objectless version of pseudo-transitive verbs with optional RHEMES, whereas IOO and IOK are argued to involve ‘true’ transitive verbs with omitted UNDERGOER objects. As a consequence, the IOR verbs are analyzed as sharing their structure with some verbs usually regarded as intransitive, such as springa ‘run’ and arbeta ‘work’, which can also marginally take RHEME objects. This opens up for a discussion on the transitive- intransitive distinction and the object status of RHEMES, as well as a discussion of lexical knowledge versus encyclopedic knowledge. The distinction of optional RHEMES and syntactically obligatory UNDERGOER objects is argued to arise from event structural differences among sets of verbs, as well as from different verb-object relations that are made possible within the three-partite verb phrase. The structural verb-object relations are argued to be influenced further by encyclopedic associations of particular verbs and by knowledge about the world. In contrast to IOR, IOO and IOK are both argued to involve the omission of an UNDERGOER object of a true transitive verb. In the case of IOO, the object referent is salient and specific, whereas for IOK, the object referent is non-specific. Thus, the restriction on IOO as well as on IOK can be informally phrased in terms of the object only being omissible if it is interpretable, or somewhat more formally, if the free variable can be bound. However, the variable binding is assumed to occur in two distinct ways, further motivating the distinction of IOO and IOK. Whereas the free variable of an IOO object is pragmatically bound, the variable of an IOK object is instead bound by an existential operator above the VP.

Pronominal complex predicates in colloquial Persian are periphrastic constructions with an idiosyncratic syntactic pattern. They show a peculiar behavior compared to the regular agreement system in Persian, and they are the only construction in Persian which requires the obligatory presence of a pronominal enclitic. This work is an attempt to analyze this construction in order to find its function. For this purpose, a lexical semantic classification of them was proposed, which helped in presenting a new analysis. It was found out that this construction is used to express a particular diathesis in which the topic of the sentence (determined according to Givón’s topicality hierarchy) is an indirect participant. I proposed a hybrid dual-layer agreement system which includes a morphosyntactic and a semantic layer. The pronominal enclitic was analyzed as a phrasal affix and agreement marker by reference to Givón’s (1976) and Anderson’s (2005) arguments. The construction was analyzed to be an instance of the external possessor construction proposed by Haig (2008), which is observed in Iranian languages. The classification of the data clarified the mapping of semantics onto syntax. The proposed analysis could be added to and unified with the current analysis of Persian complex predicates (Bonami and Samvelian, 2009).