The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

150
4.4.1 Evidence for the Small Clause analysis
As it seems to be the case that the lower VP in the Larsonian VP-shell corresponds
to the V’ constituent in the flat trinary structure (70b), we do not expect to find much
difference between the analyses in (72) (repeated in (73) for convenience). In other
words, under both analyses the verb, the following DP and the PP form an inseparable
constituent.
(73) a. ….V put [ SC= PP DP ext [ P’ P Loc DP int ]]
b. ….V [ SC=VP DP [ V’ V put PP]]
The analyses are, nevertheless, differentiated in that in the SC analysis (72a) P and
its complement (e.g. on the table) form a P’ constituent, whereas in the VP-shell
analysis (72b) it is a PP constituent. Thus, everything else being equal, under (72a), this
sequence is expected not to be movable, whereas under (72b), it is predicted to move
freely. Now, consider PP-extraposition in Dutch.
Dutch PPs, unlike DPs, extrapose freely and may occur pre- or post-verbally (Den
Dikken 1995, Van Riemsdijk 1998). This is exemplified below ((74a) is the Dutch PPverb
construction, (74c) is the Dative construction, and in (74b) the PP is a temporal
adjunct): 39
(74) a. Ik had niet (op zoveel mensen) gerekend (op zoveel mensen)
I had not (on so-many people) counted (on so-many people)
b. Hij gaat (op zondagochtend) altijd golfen (op zondagochtend)
he goes (on Sunday-morning) always play-golf (on Sunday-morning)
(Van Riemsdijk 1998, (60), (61))
c. dat Jan het boek (aan Marie) gaf (aan Marie)
that Jan the book (to Mary) gave (to Mary)
In the Locative construction (75), PP-extraposition is ungrammatical (Den Dikken
1995; Henk van Riemsdijk p.c):
39 In linguistic literature the phenomenon is often referred to as PP-over-V.