Im Che-Gong. 1996. The Sbructure of Small Clause and Control. Studies in Modern Grammatical Theories 8: 153-180. There are various proposals regarding the proper analysis of the structure of small clauses(SCs): Chomsky(1981)`s dichotomy depends on his θ-Theory, Stowell(1983)`s analysis rests on X`-scheme and Government Principle and Rothstein(1983)`s proposal is based on Predication Theory. But none of them are without problems. I shall try to show in this article that SCs have the same structure with Double Object Constructions and some Control Structures. I assume Binary Branching suggested in Kayne(1984), VP Internal Subject Hypothesis suggested by many linguists, Larson(1988)`s VP-Shell Structure and his version of Minimal Distance Principle originally suggested in Rosenbaum(1970). I also adopt the structure for SCs suggested in Bowers(1993) and modify it to develop a general theory of Transitive Verb Structure. My suggestions are the following: 1) SCs are contained in the VP-Shell Structure like [vp NP [v` V(e) [vp NP(e) [v` V (NP)]]]] at D-level 2) TV(transitive verb) + C(complement) is compositionally predicated of an SS (secondary subject(object)) and TVC + SS is predicated of a PS(primary subject) 3) An SS (object/theme) can be passivized, but a complement(goal, source/dative) can`t unless it is raised to SS position by Dative Shift 4) There is no structural difference between Complement SCs and Adjunct SCs except the position of the maximal projection of secondary predicate, which depends on the position of its subject 5) Secondary predicate has PRO as its subject, which is controlled by revised version of MDP 6) The structure suggested here observes the Thematic Hierarchy (Agent > Theme > Goal(Source)) and Binding Principle.

• 임채경 | Im Che Gyong