-2

explain why it is necessary to assume that English sentences containing a double-object verb project a VP-shell

closed as unclear what you're asking by bytebuster, curiousdannii, Alex B., jknappen, lemontree Jan 14 at 1:01

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Larson, Richard (1988). On the Double Object Construction – vectory Jan 13 at 7:43
  • 2
    Perhaps you should learn about basic punctuation and capitalising the first word of a sentence before moving on to more advanced topics! – BillJ Jan 13 at 8:19
  • 2
    This is a highly theory-internal question, so you probably need to tell us which theory you're working in. For example, Larson's original argument only works in GB, not MP. There's a really simple argument in MP if you assume UTAH and strict binary branching, but (a) it gives us a different structure than Larson had (IO ends up higher, not DO) and (b) are those assumptions you want to make, or do you want an argument that works without them? – abarnert Jan 13 at 15:44
  • The VP-shell protects the double objects from being contaminated by unwanted non-terminal nodes, which swarm in the empty spaces between logical structures, and are known to attack double objects because of their fragility and mass. This feature was introduced in GB 0.4, and is standard for all conforming synods. – jlawler Jan 14 at 20:08
  • Add more to that first. First, why would you want to explain that it's necessary. – zixuan Jan 15 at 23:17

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.