Advances in the Syntax of DPs - Structure, agreement, and case

The overgeneration problem and the case of semipredicatives in Russian 53

6.3 Brief thoughts on variation

Since C values dative on the semipredicative, the SD implies a CP. Similarly, since
agreement is a local relation, under the MTC agreement in case generally implies
movement. Variation in judgments then is expected to result from whether or not
movement is available (or VB, in Babby’s system). This in turn should be the conse-
quence of there being two competing structures. Here I speculate on some possibilities.
Variation under object control is perhaps the most mysterious, since a movement
account of agreement is faced with differentiating (62) from (63). Consider first the SD.
One possible structure adapts Landau’s (2008: 902) use of an Applicative Phrase (ApP):

(64)

v VP

vP

V ApP

IvanaACC Ap′

Ap CP

C VP

V odnomuDAT

When the semipredicative is accusative like the direct object, CP must be missing,
perhaps as in (65):

(65)

v VP

vP

V ApP

IvanaACC Ap′

Ap TP

T VP

V odnogoACC