The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

96
adjacency requirement between the Dative DP and the verb is trivially respected,
since the [-c] verbs under discussion are monotransitive (e.g. supported, threatened,
ordered). 63
The Dative Case realization of the [-c] cluster in English is supported by the
deverbal nominals in (107), which occur with the Dative preposition to. On a
reasonable assumption that Dative Case in English is available in the verbal domain
only, and given (106c), the occurrence of to is fully expected.
(107) a. His threats to Mary were unnoticed.
b. His order to the soldiers was well known.
c. His help to the elderly was appreciated.
In this respect, note that while some nominals derived from [-c] verbs occur
with to, other occur with of or on, as shown in (108):
(108) a. John’s betrayal of his family caused him no regret.
b. Lisa’s influence on Bart was minimal.
Believe (someone, rather than in someone), is a [-c] assigning verb. This is indicated clearly in Hebrew
by the Dative P-morpheme le- (‘to’) and in Russian by Dative Case on the argument realizing this
cluster. Since this argument is not realized as a PP in French, my proposal predicts that it should be
realized as a Dative DP, similarly to its English counterpart. However, the clitic in (ib) is Accusative
rather than Dative, apparently indicating that the DP is Accusative, thus falsifying the prediction. This
matter certainly deserves more research in the future. At this stage I can propose only a speculative
account. Note first that unlike in English, a full DP realizing a Goal argument is invariably introduced
by the P-morpheme à (‘to’) in French. Second, it is well-known that French has pro-PP clitics (e.g. en,
de, y) (Kayne 1975). It is then not implausible to analyze lui as a pro-PP clitic (i.e. a clitic replacing the
PP headed by à in the Dative construction), rather than as a Dative clitic. Since in (ia) the complement
of the verb is not a PP but rather a Dative DP, it is not surprising that it is not replaced by lui, but rather
by le, which is a pro-DP clitic.
63 It is worth noting that there is a distinction between the arguably Dative [-c] arguments of the typical
ditransitive Dative verbs such as give in the Double Object (DO) construction, and the Dative [-c]
arguments of the monotransitive verbs such as support. Descriptively speaking, the adjacency between
the verb and the [-c] argument seems to be stricter in the DO construction. Thus the [-c] DP in the DO
construction cannot be removed from its V-adjacent position even by Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) (i),
whereas this is not the case for the [-c] argument of support (ii) (I thank Julia Horvath for pointing out
the difference):
(i) *I gave the book [every man who entered the room] [-c] .
(ii) I supported in the struggle [every man who showed any strength of character] [-c] .
On a fairly accepted assumption that the V-DP adjacency in the DO construction is derived, rather than
base-generated (cf. Den Dikken 1995), it is plausible that this is what blocks the HNPS in DO
construction. In contrast, the V-adjacent position of the [-c] argument of a monotransitive verb such as
support is arguably its base-generated position. Consequently, HNPS of this argument is possible.