82 ROBERT D. VAN VALIN, JR.
If the sentence being analyzed were (66c) (Maria presented Larry with
the spatula) instead of (66a), the linking would work the same way. The
only difference would be that in step 2c the result would be that the prepo
sition is non-locative, and therefore that NP should be linked to the second
argument position in the two-place state predicate, which is the correct
result. This same procedure works for "dative shift" verbs like give which
do not mark the non-undergoer theme with a preposition, since the lack of
a preposition imparts the same information as the occurrence of a non-loca
tive preposition, i.e. this argument does not link to the first (locative or
experiencer) argument position in the two-place state predicate in the LS of
the verb.
When a WH-question like (67a) is linked to its semantic representa
tion, the WH-word is linked last after all of the core-internal arguments and
the peripheral actor in a passive (if there is one) are dealt with. The WH-
question to be analyzed is What was presented to Larry by Maria?, which is
not included in (67). Step one is to determine the voice of the verb; it is pas
sive, and therefore the pivot is the undergoer. Steps 2b and 2c would be the
same as for (66a) above. Step 3 would involve associating actor with actor,
locative with locative. After this has been accomplished, there remains an
unlinked argument position in the LS oí present, even though all of the core
and peripheral arguments have been linked. The only possibility that would
avoid a violation of the CC is the existence of an argument in the PCS, and
accordingly step 4 is executed: the NP in the PCS is linked to the remaining
argument position in the LS. That argument, the theme, would be the
unmarked undergoer choice, and the voice of the verb specified that the
pivot was the undergoer; moreover, there was no pivot in the core, and