Az Eszterházy Károly Tanárképző Főiskola Tudományos Közleményei. 1996. Vol. 1. Eger Journal of English Studies.(Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Agriensis : Nova series ; Tom. 24)

Péter Antonyi: Phrasal verbs: an attempt at a syntactic account

exhibit since commutability is not always possible. To illustrate this, we can provide the following examples (Larson 1988:337): (8) The psychologist showed Mary herself. VP V NP, NP? BUT I AAA Show Maryj herselfj (9) John sent Mary a letter. VP V NPi NP? I AAA BUT CVP Send Mary a letter V NP

2 NP, I A Show herselfi Maryj :VP V NP

2 NP! I AAA Send a letter Mary Similarly, the other model (7b), proposed by Chomsky (cited in Larson 1988:337)), fails abominably on phrases involving anaphors. NP, I A Show Johnj himselfj The structure presented above violates the Binding Principle on two accounts. NP, ('John') is an R-expression, which must be free everywhere, but it is bound. On the other hand, NP

2 ('himself) is an anaphor (reflexive pronoun), which must be bound in its governing category, but it is free. Similarly, this model may be debunked essentially along the same lines but with the argumentation going in the opposite direction. One might claim that this representation is wrong because it generates structures that should be well-formed because they comply with the Binding Principle but, in fact, they are ungrammatical. 97