This paper considers the traditional idea about English that syntactic operations targeting Verb Phrase (VP), including do so-anaphora, do what-pseudoclefting and VP-fronting, can separate adjuncts but not arguments from the VP. I argue that, in each case, the argument/adjunct distinction (A/AD) makes incorrect predictions and that the behavior of verbal dependents is more accurately explained without reference to the A/AD. With do so-anaphora and do what-pseudoclefting, I show that the behavior of a variety of Prepositional Phrase (PP) dependents is better explained by the lexical properties of the verb do: a PP’s ability to occur with do so-anaphora/do what-pseudoclefting depends on the PP’s independent compatibility with the lexical verb do. On VP-fronting, I show that apparent stranding of arguments and adjuncts poses major problems for A/AD-based analyses and suggest apparent stranding is better analyzed as extraposition. These results weaken an important motivation for the idea that adjuncts attach to a higher projection in the VP than arguments do.
