We propose that the well-known verb-framed/satellite-framed variation observed by Talmy ( 1975 , 1985 , 2000 ) is a true syntactic parameter of a well-understood type: a head movement parameter. We claim that it depends on an uninterpretable feature bundled with the particular v head used in change-of-state constructions that forces the head of the Res(ult)P complement of v to undergo head movement to v in Italian. The technical apparatus employed is a feature-driven head movement parameter, of the same kind that accounts for the familiar V-to-T or T-to-C movement variation crosslinguistically. We argue that in Talmy’s class of verb-framed languages, head movement of the embedded Res head to change-of-state v is mandatory, just as head movement of v to finite T is mandatory in V-to-T movement languages. Unlike previous proposals, this approach does not ascribe a deficiency to verb-framed languages, either in their semantic composition inventory or in their inventory of structural operations, both deficiencies being prima facie implausible from a biolinguistic/Minimalist perspective.

Pylkkänen ( 2002 , 2008 ) and Bruening (2010a) present several arguments against the ‘‘small clause’’ approach to the double object construction in English, building on the predictions that that proposal makes with respect to the transfer-of-possession entailment, Goal-oriented depictives, nominalizations, subextraction, quantifier scope, and idioms. We argue that the small clause analysis proposed by Harley ( 1995 , 2002 ) in fact makes correct predictions in all these cases. In addition, we point out the existence of previously overlooked parallels between double object structures and have -sentences with respect to depictives, eventive DP complements, and quantifier scope. This motivates an analysis that links these different behaviors to the properties of a single P HAVE element common to both.

As shown by Kayne (1975), Romance causatives with faire fall into two classes, faire infinitif (FI) and faire par (FP). We argue from Italian data that the properties of the two classes depend on the nature of the complement of fare :FI embeds a vP, FP a nominalized VP. The syntactic and semantic characteristics of these complements account straightforwardly for well-known differences between FI and FP, including the previously untreated “obligation” requirement in FI, absent in FP. Our analysis also accounts for another subtle restriction on the formation of FP: the existence of an animacy requirement on the subject of fare , absent in FI. Finally, we argue that only FP can undergo passivization; this accounts for a previously unobserved asymmetry in passivizability of causatives of unergative and unaccusative intransitive verbs.

This article takes up Fodor and Lepore's (1998) account of the meaning of [ want DP]structures, according to which the verb to have is introduced at interpretation. With certain DP complements a want to have DP paraphrase of want DP is ill formed; the correct paraphrase uses get or give. To allow for this, F&L would have to vary the introduced verb depending on the meaning of the DP, but this would make their proposal “co-compositional,” defeating its original purpose. If have, get , and give all contain the abstract preposition P HAVE (Harley 1995, Richards 2001), however, F&L's treatment may be appropriately revised: the element introduced by want is not have but P HAVE . F&L can avoid co-compositionality at the price of allowing lexical decomposition.