Editing Lexical semantics (section)

==== 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".