70. VP-shells and agreement projections.

VP SHELLS

VPs have a complex structure comprising an inner VP and outer vp-shell. Agents originate in the vp while others like theme originate in VP. This happens because of UTAH principle. The structure assigns theta-roles in certain positions and arguments which have a particular theta-role in a sentence have to originate in fixed positions. We assume that v pi headed by a covert causative verb which i nature is affixal and strong so that the main verb raises to adjoin it.

1. We rolled the ball down the hill.

VP-adverbs adverbs like gently which are attached to either v-bar or V-bar. They’re adjuncts and when they merge with a category they form expanded category of the same type.

Ergative predicates can be used either as 3-place or 2-place predicates.

1. We rolled the ball down the hill

2. The ball rolled down the hill

In the first sentence the ball is a complement of the verb while in the second one it is a subject. Still, it is assigned the same theta-role of theme and therefore, in both cases, has to originate in the same spec-VP position.

Resultative predicates predicates which have an adjectival argument.

1. They painted the house pink

Objective-control predicates predicates which take infinitival arguments in which PRO is controlled by an object of the verb.

1. What decided you to take syntax?

Unergative predicates they have agentive subjects but appear to have no complements.

1. They are lunching.

We assume that in such cases the verb originates as a nominal complement of VP and is raised to adjoin the light verb in vp because such sentences may be paraphrased with an overt light verb like

1. They’re having lunch.

Unaccusative predicates their complements occupy the position of complements, but behave like subjects. Those arguments agree with the preceding verb. They also carry nominative case like subjects. Such subjects do not originate as subjects of the verbs by rather as their complements.

1. There stands a statue in front of the house.

AGREEMENT PROJECTIONS

Split INFL hypothesis

Finite clauses contain separate tense and agreement heads with separate projections for each of them – tense phrases TP and subject agreement phrase AgrSP. Auxiliaries originate in tense position and subjects are raised from spec-vp to the specifier position of AgrSP to check their case features. AgrSP projects higher in the structure than TP.

Split VP hypothesis

There are two agreement projections for arguments of a verb 0 direct object agreement AgrDOP and indirect object agreement AgrIOP. Both arguments move to check their case features. The hypothesis provide an unitary way of checking the case feature. Object agreements are not obligatory in the structure.