The overgeneration problem and the case of semipredicatives in Russian 23
Babby (2009) updates this framework to reflect innovations such as functional catego-
ries. VP and S are now two different kinds of InfP – his “s-predicate” is an InfP without
PRODAT in SpecInfP and his “s-clause” is an InfP with a PRODAT in [SpecInfP].^10 Only
s-predicates exploit VB. Consider the infinitive in a simple subject control sentence
such as (16), where the finite verb xočet ‘wants’ has an external Experiencer role to
assign and an internal Theme role, while the infinitive pisat’ ‘to write’ has an Agent
and a Theme.
(16) Ivan xočet [pisat’ pismo].
Ivan wants write.inf letter
‘Ivan wants to write a letter.’
The s-predicate pisat’ pismo is treated as an open predicate in need of a subject. Infor-
mally, its Agent role is identified with the similar need of the dominating node to dis-
charge its own external theta role. This information is then passed up the tree until it
can be appropriately assigned, by merger with a subject NP that will bear the complex
of external theta roles. This can be represented as in (17), where external theta roles are
underlined and saturated roles are placed within angled brackets:
(17) vP{〈Experiencer & Agent= i〉, 〈Theme=j〉}
NPi=Experiencer & Agent v′{Experiencer & A gent, 〈Theme=j〉}Ivan xočet pi sat’ pi smo
Ivan want s write . letterv VP{Experiencer & Agent, 〈Theme=j〉}V{Experiencer, Theme} InfPj=Theme, {Agent}Inf VP{Agent, 〈Theme=k〉}V{Agent, Theme} NPk=Theme- The abbreviations are somewhat unfortunate: “s” in s-predicate stands for “secondary”
but in s-clause for “small.”