English VP-preposing allows VP modifiers to remain on the right ( John said he would arrive on Tuesday, and arrive he did, on Tuesday ). The classic analysis of this invokes VP constituency, claiming that the modifiers are right-adjoined to VP and stranded by movement of a smaller VP ([ VP arrive] he did [ VP [ VP arrive] on Tuesday]). This article proposes a radically different view based on the copy theory of movement ( Chomsky 1993 ), wherein moved items leave a copy in their site of origin. I propose that VP-preposing always involves movement of the maximal VP with possible/impossible argument/ modifier “strandings” representing possible/impossible pronunciations of the original copy. This proposal allows a straightforward analysis of “paradox” examples in which VP-preposing constituency appears to clash with c-command requirements. It also raises the possibility of eliminating adjunction entirely in the analysis of modifiers.

Appeals to idiom data have played an important role in arguments about the relation between English prepositional datives ( Mary gave a present to John ) and double object forms ( Mary gave John a present ).The claimed existence of idioms in both types has led researchers to conclude that the two constructions are independent, with no derivational relation between them. This article shows that the factual claims are mistaken: no English dative idioms exist in either type. Forms like give ~ the creeps / show ~ the ropes are not double object idioms because they are not idioms—they are fully compositional. Forms like throw ~ to the wolves / send ~ to the showers are not dative idioms because they are not datives—they are caused-motion constructions. The former misanalysis arises from a confusion of idioms with collocations. The latter misanalysis arises from a simplistic view about the syntax-semantics mapping, namely, that oblique datives univocally express caused motion. Given that English dative idioms do not exist, arguments about the derivational relatedness of dative forms in English must appeal to other data.

A number of authors have claimed that indefinite pronoun constructions like everything red are formed by raising a noun (thing) over a higher prenominal adjective (red). We examine phenomena in English and other languages which appear to show that adjectives participating in the indefinite pronoun construction do not correspond to prenominal forms, but to postnominal ones. We evaluate the challenges these results present for the N-raising account, showing that while some can be met, others apparently cannot. This outcome calls for a reexamination of postnominal position with indefinite pronouns.