Teunissen 1

Mirjam Teunissen
s1364936
MLA
709 Words (excluding examples)
VP-Shell Analysis: An Explanation
This essay is about what the VP-shell analysis is, and why it was necessary to split the Verb
Phrase into a layered analysis model. Ditransitive verbs cause major issues for the binary
branching that is applied in linguistics, because the direct object and the indirect object must
both maintain in close relation to the verb, since they receive their theta-role from it, but the
[Spec, VP] is already occupied by the subject due to the VP internal subject hypothesis. A new
position should be created to adhere to all the principles that exist in syntax today. In the
following paragraphs, I will set out the structure that is referred to as VP-shell analysis, and
the reasons this particular analysis accounts for all the elements of sentences containing a
ditransitive verb.
First, consider the following sentence:
(1) John gave money to a beggar.
This example implies that the VP consists of three elements; the verb, the direct object and the
indirect object. However, such an analysis is not in line with the economical principle of
binary branching. The following tree diagram would be the analysis should the VP stay a
basic VP structure:
*(2)

This analysis is ungrammatical, because the direct object money would precede the verb in
the sentence, and there is no room for the subject in the VP, which would indicate that the
subject-internal hypothesis (that prescribes that the subject moves from that position to the
[Spec, IP] position) is not maintained in ditransitive sentences.

Teunissen 2
Because an extra place is needed for the three arguments in ditransitive sentences, the
VP-shell analysis was coined, first by Larsson in 1988 (Poole 276). He simply split the VP
into two V nodes. To illustrate, here is the tree model for sentence (1):
(3)

The layered VPs caused the name of this analysis: The VP-shell analysis. It was extended by
Chomsky (among others) in 1995, who labelled the topmost VP as a light verb phrase, the vP
(Poole 276). The tree model than evolves as follows:
(4)

T1 refers to the subject moving from [Spec, vP] to [Spec, IP], t2 refers to the movement of the
verb from V to v.
From the tree in (4), a number of reasons for splitting the VP into vP and VP become
evident. First of all, it allows for the subject to be VP internal without causing any problems
for the position of the direct object. As one could see in tree (2), this was not possible before
the split. Whats more, the vP apparently assigns the theta-role to the subject, because it is a
causative layer. The following sentences serve as an example of this:

Teunissen 3
(5) John gave money to a beggar.
(6) John caused money to go to a beggar.
Sentence (6) shows that John as the agent causes money to go to a beggar. This could only
be possible if there were two projections within the VP, because the result of the action is also
described by V, namely the beggar receiving the money. These two opposing elements of the
action grant the two V positions in the VP.
Another argument for the VP-shell analysis is given by Stroik. The form of the verb
that occurs in the sentence should be checked by a projection, and within the VP no such
projection exists. So far, it has been assumed that the form of the verb was checked in IP, but
when a sentence contains an auxiliary, this seems illogical (even though it is the infinitive
which occurs in such sentences). Stroik then argues that vP may be the likely checking
position, since it is within the VP (close to V) and otherwise it would be unnecessary to move
the V to little v (Stroik 365).
The VP-shell analysis thus means that the VP is split into two projections: vP and VP.
The benefits from the analysis is that it is a binary branching method (which syntax annalists
use most frequently), and it allows the subject to remain VP internal in origin. The theta-role
is also given to the subject by the vP, because when the verb is moved to little v it obtains a
causative feature, while the resulting feature is left behind at V. Stroik also mentions that vP
checks the form of the verb.
References
Poole, G. Syntactic Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Stroik, Thomas. On The Light Verb Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry Vol 32.2. Massachusetts:
MIT Press, 2001. pp. 362-369.