Conclusion(186) a vP
DP v'
Harry v' S
v VP to fire the security guard
e DP V'
Freda V
hire
b vP
DP v'
Harry v VP
e DP V'
Freda V' S
V to fire the security guard
hire
The two structures relate to the two possible meanings. When the purpose clause is
adjoined to the v', as in (186a), then the agent can control the missing subject, and
when it is adjoined to the V', as in (186b), then the theme can control the missing
subject. For some reason, when fire is the head of the VP, the purpose clause can only
be adjoined to the v' and hence only the agent can be the controller. Hence there will
be no ambiguity. Note that the facts as such demonstrate that the purpose clauses must
be able to attach within the VP so that objects can act as controllers. If this were never
the case, we would only be able to get subject control.
5 Conclusion
In this chapter we have taken a detailed look into various aspects of the structure of the
VP. We have seen how the semantics of the verb, particularly in its argument and
event structures, influence the way the VP is built. The argument structure to a large
extent determines the complementation of the verb and the event structure plays a role
in determining the extension of the VP into various vPs built on top of it.
In numerous places we have mentioned the sentence, which the VP is a major part,
but have so far refrained from discussing, using the symbol āSā to stand instead of a
proper analysis. One important aspect of clausal structure for the VP is the position of