The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

The (semantically limited) distribution of the directional PP headed by P such as
le-/el (‘to’) (19a), and its behavior with respect to binding (19b) are taken to indicate
that the directional P in Hebrew is P R , but not a fully-fledged one.
(19) a. bart *axal/rac la-gina
Bart ate/ran to+the-garden
b. be-ta’ut, ha- pakid i salax et lisa el-av i /??el-acmo i
By-mistake, the-clerk sent Acc Lisa to-him/himself
It is proposed that the external slot of the directional P triggers complex
predicate formation at LF with a path denoting predicate (i.e. a verb like send, or a
semantically appropriate noun like a trip (to London) or a train (to India), but not a
noun like a child (*to India)).
The comparison of the relevant binding facts in Hebrew with those in Russian
and English shows that the directional P in the latter is not a predicate (not P R ), but
rather an instance of P C . This accounts for the fact that the complement of P in the
directional construction in Russian is Accusative.
Locative prepositions, unlike any other preposition, are shown to be independent
(two-place) predicates (P R ). Based on their ability to modify individuals or events,
their lexical representation can include an e(vent) variable, similarly to adverbial
modifiers (Higginbotham 1985, Parsons 1990), and verbs (Davidson 1967).
Accordingly, Locative PPs can be Small Clause predicates (20) or modifiers (21).
(20) a. Dan put [ SC the book [ PP P dir [ PP on the shelf]]]
b. The book i is [ SC t i [ PP on the shelf]]
(21) a. Dan found the book in the garden.
b. The book on the table belongs to my aunt.
The observation that locative verbs such as put (20a) denote change of location
underlies the proposal that the structure of the locative SC in locative constructions
(20a) is different from its structure in existential (locative) constructions (20b). The
former is argued to include a phonetically null directional P above the locative PP.