The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

97
The question arises what regulates the distribution of to in nominals? In order to
answer the question, we need to clarify further the nature of to in English.
to is undeniably a small P in English, and as such it performs various
grammatical functions. As already mentioned, to introduces the Goal argument of
ditransitive Dative verbs, marking it as Dative. Goal is usually interpreted as a
Recipient (or as a Possessor, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 2002). In addition, to
introduces the Goal argument of Directional verbs, which I label ‘spatial Goal’ (see
the immediately following discussion in 3.5.2.3). 64 This is stated in (109):
(109) The preposition to in English is appropriate to introduce phrases
interpreted either as a Recipient or as spatial Goal only.
Note, however, that Recipient and spatial Goal do not exhaust the interpretations
of the [-c] role. Benefactive/Malfactive, (spatial) Source, non-spatial Goal (e.g.
envied/betrayed John), Theme (e.g. bet on) and Experiencer (e.g. influenced)
interpretations are all compatible with the [-c] cluster.
We can now account for the puzzling distribution of to in the nominal forms
illustrated in (107) and (108). Given (106a), all the interpretations of [-c] can be
realized in the verbal domain as Dative Case (or as a PP, if an appropriate small
preposition exists). However, since in the nominal domain Dative Case is not
available, a small P occurs. It will be to only if the relevant [-c] argument is
interpreted as a Recipient or spatial Goal, since these are the only interpretations to is
compatible with (109).
From the fact that many [-c] verbs in English appear without a preposition, even
if the argument realizing [-c] is interpreted as a Recipient, and may, therefore, be
introduced by to, it is reasonable to conclude that the Dative Case realization of [-c] is
the default option in English. In other words, Dative to will occur only if the [-c]
argument cannot be adjacent to the verb. 65 Given this, it is unexpected that there
64 By ‘spatial Goal’ I mean the [-c] argument of either concrete or abstract directional verbs (e.g. send
is a concrete directional verb, whereas speak is an abstract one).
65 The question not addressed in this study is why a [-c] argument of some PP-verbs verbs is realized as
a Dative DP (e.g. support, threaten), whereas the same kind of argument assigned by other PP-verbs
has to be realized as a PP (e.g. bet on, look at). I find promising the direction outlined for [-c] PP-verbs
in Dutch in Ten Have, Schippers, Van Steenbergen and Vlasveld (2003).