Editing Lexical semantics (section)

=== Ditransitive verbs ===

==== Kayne's 1981 unambiguous path analysis ====
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| header =
| width = 110

| image1 = Unambiguouspathstree.png
|thumb
| caption1 = Tree diagram (8a)

| image2 = Unambiguouspathtree.png
|thumb
| caption2 = Tree diagram (8b)

}}
Richard Kayne proposed the idea of unambiguous paths as an alternative to c-commanding relationships, which is the type of structure seen in examples (8). The idea of unambiguous paths stated that an antecedent and an anaphor should be connected via an unambiguous path. This means that the line connecting an antecedent and an anaphor cannot be broken by another argument.<ref name="Kayne">Kayne, R. (1981). Unambiguous paths. In R. May & F. Koster (Eds.), Levels of syntactic representation (143-184). Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris Publications.</ref> When applied to ditransitive verbs, this hypothesis introduces the structure in diagram (8a). In this tree structure it can be seen that the same path can be traced from either DP to the verb. Tree diagram (7b) illustrates this structure with an example from English. This analysis was a step toward binary branching trees, which was a theoretical change that was furthered by Larson's VP-shell analysis.<ref name="Larson" />

==== Larson's 1988 "VP-shell" analysis ====
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| header =
| width = 170

| image1 = LexicalSemanticsDOCtree.png
|thumb
| caption1 = Tree diagram for (9a)

| image2 = Lexicalsemantics7btree.png
|thumb
| caption2 = Tree diagram for (9b)

}}
Larson posited his Single Complement Hypothesis in which he stated that every complement is introduced with one verb. The Double Object Construction presented in 1988 gave clear evidence of a hierarchical structure using asymmetrical binary branching.<ref name=Larson>{{cite journal|last1=Larson|first1=Richard|title=On the Double Object Construction|journal=Linguistic Inquiry|date=1988|volume=19|issue=3|pages=589–632|jstor=25164901}}</ref> Sentences with double objects occur with ditransitive verbs, as we can see in the following example:
[[File:Vpshelltree.png|thumb|Larson's proposed binary-branching VP-shell structure for (9)]]
{|
|
| 
 (9) a. ''John sent Mary a package.''<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Miyagawa|first1=Shigeru|last2=Tsujioka|first2=Takae|title=Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese|journal=Journal of East Asian Linguistics|date=2004|volume=13|issue=1|pages=1–38|doi=10.1023/b:jeal.0000007345.64336.84|citeseerx=10.1.1.207.6553|s2cid=122993837}}</ref>
     b. ''John sent a package to Mary.''
|}
It appears as if the verb ''send'' has two objects, or complements (arguments): both ''Mary'', the recipient and ''parcel'', the theme. The argument structure of ditransitive verb phrases is complex and has undergone different structural hypothesis.

The original structural hypothesis was that of ternary branching seen in (9a) and (9b), but following from Kayne's 1981 analysis, Larson maintained that each complement is introduced by a verb.<ref name="Kayne" /><ref name="Larson" />

Their hypothesis shows that there is a lower verb embedded within a VP shell that combines with an upper verb (can be invisible), thus creating a VP shell (as seen in the tree diagram to the right). Most current theories no longer allow the ternary tree structure of (9a) and (9b), so the theme and the goal/recipient are seen in a hierarchical relationship within a [[Branching (linguistics)#Binary vs. n-ary branching|binary branching]] structure.<ref name="Bruening">{{cite journal|last1=Bruening|first1=Benjamin|title=Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation|journal=Linguistic Inquiry|date=November 2010|volume=41|issue=4|pages=519–562|doi=10.1162/LING_a_00012|s2cid=57567192}}</ref>

Following are examples of Larson's tests to show that the hierarchical (superior) order of any two objects aligns with a linear order, so that the second is governed (c-commanded) by the first.<ref name="Larson"/> This is in keeping with X'Bar Theory of Phrase Structure Grammar, with Larson's tree structure using the empty Verb to which the V is raised.

Reflexives and reciprocals (anaphors) show this relationship in which they must be c-commanded by their antecedents, such that the (10a) is grammatical but (10b) is not:
{|
|-
| 
 (10) a. ''I showed Mary herself.''<ref name="Larson"/>
     b. ''*I showed herself Mary.''
|}
A pronoun must have a quantifier as its antecedent:
{|
|-
| 
 (11) a. '' I gave every worker his paycheck.''<ref name="Larson"/>
      b. ''*I gave its owner every paycheck.''
|}
Question words follow this order:
{|
|-
| 
 (12) a. ''Who did you give which paycheck?''<ref name="Larson"/>
      b. ''*Which paycheck did you give who?''
|}

The effect of negative polarity means that "any" must have a negative quantifier as an antecedent:
[[File:Larsoncausative.png|thumb|General tree diagram for Larson's proposed underlying structure of a sentence with causative meaning]]
{|
|-
| 
 (13) a. ''I showed no one anything.''<ref name="Larson"/>
      b. ''*I showed anyone nothing.''
|}
These tests with ditransitive verbs that confirm c-command also confirm the presence of underlying or invisible causative verbs. In ditransitive verbs such as ''give someone something'', ''send someone something'', ''show someone something'' etc. there is an underlying causative meaning that is represented in the underlying structure. As seen in example in (9a) above, ''John sent Mary a package'', there is the underlying meaning that 'John "caused" Mary to have a package'.

Larson proposed that both sentences in (9a) and (9b) share the same underlying structure and the difference on the surface lies in that the double object construction "John sent Mary a package" is derived by transformation from a NP plus PP construction "John sent a package to Mary".

==== Beck & Johnson's 2004 double object construction ====

Beck and Johnson, however, give evidence that the two underlying structures are not the same.<ref name=beck>{{cite journal|last1=Sigrid|first1=Beck|last2=Johnson|first2=Kyle|title=Double Objects Again|journal=Linguistic Inquiry|date=2004|volume=35|issue=1|pages=97–124|url=http://people.umass.edu/partee/docs/Beck_and_Johnson_2004.pdf|doi=10.1162/002438904322793356|s2cid=18749803}}</ref> In so doing, they also give further evidence of the presence of two VPs where the verb attaches to a causative verb. In examples (14a) and (b), each of the double object constructions are alternated with NP + PP constructions.
{|
|-
| 
 (14) a. ''Satoshi sent Tubingen the Damron Guide.''<ref name="beck" />
      b. ''Satoshi sent the Damron Guide to Tübingen''.
|}
Beck and Johnson show that the object in (15a) has a different relation to the motion verb as it is not able to carry the meaning of HAVING which the possessor (9a) and (15a) can. In (15a), Satoshi is an animate possessor and so is caused to HAVE kisimen. The PP ''for Satoshi'' in (15b) is of a benefactive nature and does not necessarily carry this meaning of HAVE either.
{|
|-
| 
 (15) a. ''Thilo cooked Satoshi kisimen.''<ref name="beck" />
      b. ''Thilo cooked kisimen for Satoshi''.
|}
The underlying structures are therefore not the same. The differences lie in the semantics and the syntax of the sentences, in contrast to the transformational theory of Larson. Further evidence for the structural existence of VP shells with an invisible verbal unit is given in the application of the adjunct or modifier "again". Sentence (16) is ambiguous and looking into the two different meanings reveals a difference in structure.
{|
|-
| 
 (16) ''Sally opened the door again''.<ref name="beck" />
|}
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| header =
| width = 150

| image1 = Larson3.png
|thumb
| caption1 = Underlying tree structure for (17a)

| image2 = Larson1.png
|thumb
| caption2 = Underlying tree structure for (17b)

}}
However, in (17a), it is clear that it was Sally who repeated the action of opening the door. In (17b), the event is in the door being opened and Sally may or may not have opened it previously. To render these two different meanings, "again" attaches to VPs in two different places, and thus describes two events with a purely structural change.
{|
|-
| 
 (17) a. ''Sally was so kind that she went out of her way to open the door''
         ''once again.''<ref name="beck" />
      b. ''The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened''
         ''the door again''.
|}