You have an example of how to do (1), that shouldn’t be a particularly great challenge.
For (2), you only know how to do this one if you followed very closely the last couple of minutes of class last time, or can deduce from the last couple of slides what I mean.
So, let me walk through the idea of those last two slides, since there’s nothing really in Adger’s book to refer to on this point.
There are two kinds of sentences that a ditransitive verb (such as give) can find itself in. In one type of sentence you have a subject and then a NP (the Theme) and a PP (the Goal). For example, Pat gave a book to Chris. In the other kind of sentence, you have a subject and then two NPs, for example, Pat gave Chris a book. What’s troublesome about this second type is that the relative order of the the thing being given and the recipient of the giving changes. And this causes a problem for UTAH. The structure in the lower right corner of page 6 on the handout illustrates what we might have hypothesized was the structure for this sentence. But that hypothesis would be wrong.
So, the question is: How can we keep the UTAH and still have an analysis of Pat gave Chris a book?
To work our way toward an answer, consider first that there is actually a subtle difference in meaning between the ditransitive verbs with an NP and a PP, and the ditransitive verbs with two NPs. It’s quite hard to detect between Pat gave Chris a book and Pat gave a book to Chris. But, it’s clear that it’s much more likely that Pat gave Chris a headache than it is that *Pat gave a headache to Chris.
Earlier, we had hypothesized that give is something akin to cause+go, but if you try to paraphrase the headache sentence, you’ll notice that a reasonable paraphrase seems to one with have instead: Pat caused Chris to have a headache.
Ah-ha. Perhaps, then, there are actually two different kinds of give (and likewise for other ditransitive verbs as well, send, teach, …). One is like cause+go as before, the other is like cause+have. This would explain why it’s so weird to say Pat gave a headache to Chris (we don’t generally think of headaches traveling from point A to point B), as well as why it’s fine to say Pat sent a letter to Chicago but weird to say Pat sent Chicago a letter (causing a letter to go to Chicago is reasonable enough, but causing Chicago to possess a letter is anomalous).
Consider, then, the structure of have, by itself (last slide of the handout). It’s not agentive, so there’s no Agent in the specifier of vP. In Pat has a book, it appears that Pat is in SpecVP and a book is in the complement of V, just from the word order. Our existing UTAH does not specify a θ-role for an NP daughter of V′ either. So, let’s suppose the following: The NP, daughter of V′ gets a “Possessee” θ-role. It is the thing possessed. According to our existing UTAH, the possessor itself (for have anyway) has to be considered to be the Theme.
Finally, the idea is really just that Pat gave Chris a book is structurally just like Chris has a book except with a causative v above it, introducing an Agent.
The tree on the last slide shows you how we can think of the structure of Pat gave Chris a book more concretely.
Incidentally, if you know the source from which the sentences in (1-3) are drawn (loosely speaking, anyway), you’ll probably also have realized that they are backwards. It was really Oliver (Babish) that gave Claudia (Jean Cregg) the mustard (at least, I presume), not the other way around. The sentences were concocted too late at night. But, nevertheless: Don’t let the mismatch between these sentences and “reality” confuse you.