24 Steven Franks
This diagram expresses the assumptions in Babby (2009) that the external argument
is not introduced within VP, but rather as the specifier of a higher functional head,
v, and that infinitives head functional phrases of type InfP. In (17), InfP is merged
as the direct object of the matrix verb, hence satisfies its need for a Theme, indicated
by “〈Theme=j〉”. The assumption that the external argument is the specifier of some
phrase above VP is crucial in distinguishing VPs whose subjects are V-bound from
those which are not, but Babby’s use of InfP introduces certain complications.
Consider now how Babby deals with the case of semipredicatives. For him, the
external argument of the semipredicative is also V-bound. In a simple finite clause,
such as (18a), all this means is that the Theme of sama is passed up the tree, unified
with the external role of gotovit ‘cooks’, and both are associated with the subject Nadja.
The only difference between this and an OC infinitival, such as (18b), is that here
the complex of theta roles ultimately to be associated with the subject NP is larger,
since Nadja is at once the external argument of ljubit ‘likes’, gotovit’ ‘to cook’, and sama
‘herself ’.
(18) a. Nadja gotovit sama.
Nadya.nom prepares self.nom
‘Nadya cooks on her own.’
b. Nadja ljubit [gotovit’ sama].
Nadya.nom likes prepare.inf self.nom
‘Nadya likes cooking on her own.’
The system works straightforwardly: the theta role of the semipredicative is V-bound,
as far up the tree as necessary, and matches its antecedent in case.
To handle the SD in this system, Babby assumes a PRODAT to which the V-bound
theta role is discharged and with which the semipredicative agrees. Schematically, for
an infinitival clause such as pojti odnomu ‘to go alone’ we have (19):
(19) InfP{〈Agent & Theme=PRO〉}PRODAT=Agent & Theme Inf′{Agent & Theme}pojti V{Agent}Inf′{Agent } odnomu{Theme}Inf VP{Agent}