Let us consider first the derivation of a simple sentence whose verb is transitive.

In
order to derive the PF-structure John bought the books, generative theory
postulates the following process.
Merge of V and its arguments:

(1)
… VP

DP V´

John V DP

buy the books

Merge of TP on top of VP:

(2)
TP

T´

T VP

[+past] DP V´

John V DP

buy the books

1
  The T head (or I head) looks down the tree searching for a verbal root, and it
will get combined with the first one it encounters: that means that either T
moves down onto V or V moves up into T. In English, lexical verbs cannot
move, therefore, T moves down and gets combined with V.
 [Spec,T] (or, the same, [Spec,I]) looks down the tree searching for a nominal,
and the first nominal it encounters will become the ‘syntactic subject’. In
English, that nominal will move upwards into [Spec,T]. (By contrast, in a
language like Spanish or Italian, that nominal will also become the syntactic
subject, but it can move up into [Spec,T] or remain within the VP.)

(3)
TP

T´

T VP

[+past] DP V´

John V DP

buy the books

2
The final tree-diagram, with the corresponding traces is as in (4).

(4)
TP

DP T´

Johnh T VP

ti DP V´

th V DP

buy the books

[+past]i

The derivation of a sentence whose verb is unergative is exactly the same as

above, though no constituent will be projected in the position sister to V: that is, no
theme will be merged. Examples of unergative PF-sequences could be The kid sings
in the choir / The kids are singing / They have already eaten,…

The tree-diagram in (5) is the final configuration that corresponds to a PF-sequence

with an unaccusative verb like They arrived. As you can see, there is no agent

3
projected in [Spec,V], and the constituent that moves (or the same, merges
internally) in [Spec,T] is the theme (in this sentence, they). The steps that must be
taken in order to arrive at (5) are nevertheless the same as above. Try and figure
them out.

(5) TP

DP T´

Theyj T VP

tm V´

V DP

arrive tj
[+past]m
(As dealt with in class, many unaccusative verbs typically select a locative -e.g. They
arrived at the airport. Such a locative constituent is an argument proper rather than
an adjunct. However, a VP like the one above cannot treat that constituent as an
argument, given the binary branching condition. A vP-tree (or vP-shell tree) would
solve that problem. You will find examples of vP-trees below.)

As for a PF-structure like It rained, the derivation corresponding to this would be as

in tree-diagram (6). That is, rain is a weather verb, and therefore it selects
neither for an agent nor for a theme. (Incidentally, it can of course take adjuncts,
as in It rained so heavily, It is raining in the north, but these are not obligatory
arguments: any verb can take adjuncts, and therefore adjuncts do not determine
what type a verb belongs to in the Four-way typology.)
The crucial thing to note about (6) is that the nominal that figures in Spec,T has
merged there externally, that is, it has not been moved to that position from
within the VP. This is because the cited nominal is so-called dummy or expletive
or pleonastic it (a nominal with no semantics). That is why there is no index in the
position where it is, and no trace left by it.

4
(6) TP

DP T´

It T VP

tm V´

rain
[+past]m

And we turn now to the derivation of a passive structure.

The tree-diagram in (7) is the final configuration that corresponds to a PF-sequence
with a passive verb, as in The books were bought (by John). As you can see, there
is no agent projected in [Spec,V]: rather, the agent exists ‘semantically’, that is, from
an interpretive point of view but syntactically it is optional and occurs (if it does at all)
at the end, exactly in the position of an adjunct. It is important to emphasize that
passive sentences denote activities proper, just like active sentences, though the
action or activity is viewed from the point of view of the theme or object rather than
the agent.
In the passive structure, the first nominal that [Spec,T] will find when looking down
the tree is the theme, and it is therefore the theme (in this very example, the books)
that moves (or the same, merges internally) in [Spec,T]. The steps that must be
taken in order to arrive at (7) are actually as in the derivations above.

5
(7)
TP

DP T´

The booksi T VP

were V´

V´ PP

V DP by John

bought ti

6
The description immediately below is relative to the vP-shell configuration or tree-
diagram that was mentioned in class several days ago. This came to be postulated
at the end of the 1980´s, first in relation to ditransitive verbs, and then in connection
with a specific class of unaccusative verbs. And then it was generalized to any verb-
type. See below.

(8)
… TP
…
vP

DP v´

Mary v VP

DP V´

John V DP

give the books

The tree in (8) is the verbal phrase that would correspond to a so-called vP-shell
structure. As you can see, one verbal phrase (the VP) appears now in the
complement or sister position of another verbal phrase (the vP). Incidentally, the low-
case letter and the italics (v) are used for one of the two projections in order to
differentiate clearly one from the other.
Specifically, the tree in (8) is the place where a ditransitive verb like give is merged:
as shown, the theme (the books) merges in the [V,DP] position, that is the position of
sister or theme or semantic object of V; the beneficiary or goal (John) merges in
[Spec,V] position; and the agent (Mary) merges in the top-most position of the overall
verbal phrase, that is, [Spec,v]. The verb (give) merges externally in V and then
moves (or the same, merges internally) in v.

7
As mentioned immediately above, vP-shells were actualy initially postulated for
ditransitive sequences, that is sequences with transitive verbs taking two DP
arguments, aside from the agent DP argument.
They proved also to be absolutely necessary for unaccusative verbs of the
locative type, that is for verbs like those illustrated in (9) below. Why should it
have been so? As explained in class, constituents like at the airport, to the
supermarket or to his left in (9) are not just adjuncts, that is they are not dispensable
elements. By contrast, since these constituents co-occur in (9) with verbs of
movement or position, they are central participants in the situation, and should
therefore be analyzed as arguments proper (not as adjuncts). Actually, in many
cases the constituent is fully obligatory (therefore an argument proper): consider (9c)
below, which is ungrammatical without the locative (*Mary stands).
Since the position of agent in the former tree (the simple VP-tree) cannot be used
with these verbs (given that they are not agentive, that is they do not select for an
agent, or the same, they are neither transitive nor unergative!), this means that the
VP-tree would only have one position for an argument. With the vP-shell structure,
these verbs can rely on two positions, as shown in (10). (Note again that the position
of the agent, that is [Spec,v] does not project with these verbs, since they do not
select for any agent at all.)

(9)a.John arrived at the airport

b,They went to the supermarke
c. Mary stands to his left

8
(10)
TP

DP T´

Johns T vP

tx v´

v VP

arrivev DP V´
[+past]x
ts V PP

tv at the airport

So-called locative-inversion structures are ones with unaccusative verbs like the
ones above, but whose nominal cannot be a pronominal. In these structures, the
locative appears in initial position, and the current generalized analysis for these is
one where the constituent moving into [Spec,TP] is precisely the locative, rather than
the nominal! Do consider (11) below, whose PF is actually At the airport arrived
John.

9
(11)
TP

PP T´

[at the T vP
airp.]m
tx v´

v VP

arrivev DP V´
[+past]xc
John V PP

tv tm

10
Derivation of the Spanish PF-structure Participarán los niños

(12) TP-analysis

TP

pro OR empty T´
position
T vP

[fut.] DP v´
[participx-a]v
los niños v VP

tv V´

tx

11
(13) CP-analysis

C´

C TP

[ [fut.] DP T´
[participx-a]v ]s
los niñosi T vP

ts DP v´

ti v VP

tv V´

tx

12
Derivation of the control PF-structure John wants to call his boss
(14)
TP

DP T´

Johnm T VP

ti DP V`

tm V TP

want DP T´
[-past]i
PROh T VP

to DP V`

th V DP

call his boss

13
Derivation of the control PF-structure To call his boss would be a good idea
(15)
TP

[ TP T`

DP T´ T VP

PROi T VP would V`

to DP V` V SC/DP

ti V DP be TP DP

call D` tm D`

D NP D NP

his boss ]m a N`

AP N`

good N

idea

14
Some observations:

 The verb be, and predicative verbs in general, select as a theme a constituent
that is referred to as small clause (SC). The small clause is a type of
predication that has a ‘subject (of predication)’ and a ‘predicate’. In [TP __ was
[SC John brilliant]], John is the ‘subject of the small clause’ and brilliant the
‘predicate’. Instead of using the notation SC, the very category of the
‘predicate of the small clause’ can be used. In the structure immediately
above such a category would be AP, and in the structure in the tree-diagram it
would be DP.
 The structure in (15) illustrates a sequence-type where it is not a nominal that
goes up into [Spec,T] but a clause (more specifically, a TP). Incidentally, while
it is true that there is a DP in the VP of this structure ( a good idea), such a DP
is not an entity, but a predicative DP.

15
Derivation of the raising PF-structure Those athletes seemed to train every day
(16)
TP

[ DP T`

D` T VP

D NP tj V`

those athletes]h V TP

seem DP T`
[+past] j
th T VP

to DP V`

th V´ DP

V D`

train D NP

every day

16