198Note to Page 85This is expected if the embedded clause contains a pro argument. In the absence of the matrix object (Vc being unergative), pro is expected to be bound by the subject. Since the structural properties of the V-de construction are rather straightforward, examples like (i) cast doubt on Collins pro-/PRO-oriented structure of SVCs. If the embedded VP contains a pro/PRO argument as in his structure (29b), it becomes mysterious why Ewe does not have a resultative SVC corresponding to (i). On the other hand, Baker (1989) SVC structure without the embedded pro/PRO may be tailored into a Larsonian shell to account for both the Ewe resultative SVC and English resultatives. See Li 1999 for details. Also see note 5 above for other problems with Collins theory. Another point worth mentioning is this: though Chinese has V-V compounds corresponding to the resultative SVC, there are no V-V compounds matching the so-called instrumental SVC in (ii) (from Collins 1997, 461). (ii) Ko�tsO ati-E fo Yao. Ko�take stick-def hit Yao o�took the stick and hit Yao.�Within the P&P model, (ii) is assigned the same kind of structure as the resultative SVC, with the (probably correct) assumption that the shared internal argument is the Theme for take and the Instrument for hit (see Baker 1989; Collins 1997). The eort to unify all the SVCs could be misguided, though, considering that Chinese uses the same (surface) form as (ii) for instrumentals but uses compounds or a full biclausal V-de construction for resultatives. If instrumentals are essentially the same as resultatives, why would Chinese use totally dierent forms for the two I leave this question to future investigation. Chapter 2 1. When the verb root is transitive, native speakers�judgments seem to become controversial with some examples. (i) is adapted from Borer and Grodzinsky 1986. (i) Sara her la-tinoket t cma ba-re. Sara made.see (show) to-the.baby acc herself in-the.mirror ara showed the baby herself in the mirror.�Some informants believe that cma erself �is bound by tinoket he baby� but one thinks that the matrix subject Sara may also serve as a binder. A possibility is that her ade see�is regarded by some as a truly lexicalized verb and, despite its surface form, not as the product of active morphological processes. In other words, there may be a more fundamental reason why English has a monomorphemic verb show meaning ake see� but no monomorphemic verb meaning ake write� Another possibility is that Hebrew morphological causatives are type I causatives like those in Chichewa. When the verb root is transitive, its thematic subject is demoted and the thematic object raises into the matrix VP. From there, it can be locally bound by the matrix subject. (See section 1.1.4.) While the controversial status of (i) deserves careful investigation, causatives with an intransitive verb root like (4a) seem to behave consistently like a bi-
