This paper develops within HPSG a model of grammar with two syntactic levels, valence lists and argument structure, at which sentences may have different representations: syntactically ergative and Western Austronesian languages are distinctive by allowing different prominence orderings between the valence lists and argument structure, while forms like passives and causatives have nested argument structure lists. While binding theory and related phenomena have traditionally been described in terms of surface grammatical relations or configurations, we demonstrate that binding theory is actually correctly described in terms of argument structure configurations. Such an approach generalizes nicely over accusative and ergative constructions, correctly predicts binding patterns with causative and passive verbs, and supports the lexicality-preserving account of passives and causatives advocated within HPSG.

In this article, the traditional analysis of grammatical case in Finnish - in which the form of the object depends on the presence of an overt subject — is reworked within a formal syntactic framework. Within the Case competition model adopted here, the role of argument structure in case assignment, captured by Burzio's Generalization, plays a vital role in the underlying mechanisms of the case system: only when a verb governs two arguments, one of them Caseless, may it also license accusative case. This dependency is subsumed under universal syntactic relations, including government, binding and the ECP. It is also argued that Finnish incorporates active case subsystems within a main nominative-accusative system. These facts receive a natural account within the adopted framework.

An indirect object can be interpreted as a Provider or as a Recipient. The evidence considered in this article suggests that the two interpretations can be morphologically analytic in Chinese and typologically parametrized for certain natural classes of verbs in English and Chinese. Two VP projections are proposed for the ditransitive construction. The head of the lower VP can be phonologically realized or null. The content of the null verb is parametrized across languages. The contrasts in indirect object interpretations in these languages are explained in terms of the lexical meanings of the null verb. The contrasts in verb occurrence restrictions in these languages are accounted for by the interpretable feature compatibilities in head adjunction from the lower to the higher VP.