Arguments for VP

[George Aaron Broadwell]

Hi,

I've recently been rethinking some of assumptions and attempting to recast
a few of my old GB analyses of Choctaw in LFG.  Several parts of the
analysis keep coming back to the question of whether there is a VP node.

If you'll indulge me, here are four arguments in GB for a VP in Choctaw.
I'd like to see which translate to valid arguments in LFG.

a.) subject -object asymmetries in binding.  These suggest asymmetric
c-command in GB, but this is not a valid argument in LFG, since binding
relationships are defined over f-structures.

b.) a variety of evidence that SOV is more basic than OSV or SVO.  Objects
in these non-canonical positions show morphological and intonational
evidence of being displaced.
I am unsure about the validity of these arguments in LFG -- it seems that a
flat structure for S and a structure with a VP are both compatible with the
evidence. 

c.)  Some adverbials appear only before the V or before the OBJ but nowhere
else.  It's possible, then, to say that they must be daughters of VP, but
not daughters of S.  This argument seems valid to me.

d.) Some proforms (approximately equal to "do so" in English) seem to refer
to the V + OBJ as a constituent.  I am unsure whether LFG wants to assume
that proforms refer to constituents.

Thanks for your indulgence!  
Aaron Broadwell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Aaron Broadwell,  g.broadwell at albany.edu
Anthropology; Linguistics and Cognitive Science,
University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY 12222 | 518-442-4711
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to
examine the laws of heat" -- John Morley