The minimalist program (Chomsky (1993, 1994, 1995), Chomsky and Lasnik (1993)) does not allow any overt operation of verbs and objects before Spell‐Out in languages like English. It is because covert movement at LF is more economical. However, there are interesting English data that avoid explanation by the covert verb/object movement approach. They are the cases of backward binding only observed in the dative construction, but not in the double object construction. This contrast is not well explained by Larson (1988) or Chomsky (1993). Fujita (1996)’s wellconstructed theory has theoretical weaknesses in its explanation as well. To explain the contrast between double object construction and dative construction, I assume an alternate Thematic hierarchy with Non‐Themes in the Spec of the second‐highest VP (Johnson (1991), Koizumi (1993), Lasnik (1997), and Stroik (1996)). In addition, I suggest a proliferated VP‐Shell structure which has maximally two functional maximal projections between vP1 and VP2. Under this framework I argue that in English all verbs and objects move overtly to have the actual surface word order(refer to Taguchi (2008) and Harley & Noyer (1997) among others for varied argumentation on different reasons for overt verb and object shift before Spell-Out). The binding theory as a global principle monitoring entire derivation from D1 to DN will be discussed.
I. Introduction
II. VP‐Shell Structure and Thematic Hierarchies
Ⅲ. Proliferated vP Structure and Overt Object Movement
IV. Conclusion
Works Cited