The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

120
In principle, (16) can have either a Control structure (i.e. le-rina is the object of the verb
natati), or an ECM structure (le-rina is the subject of lenace’ax). This is shown in (17a)
and (17b), respectively:
(17) a. natati [le-rina i ] [[PRO i lenace’ax]] Control
b. natati [le-rina lenace’ax] ECM
In the ECM structure rina receives the external theta-role (Agent) from the
embedded verb lenace’ax, rather than the internal Goal role of the main verb. Thus, if
(16) indeed has an ECM structure, it will show conclusively that the relation between
the DP rina and the P-morpheme le- is not semantic, supporting the claim that the
Dative le- is best analyzed as a Case-related element (P C ). The following two tests
(suggested to me by Idan Landau p.c.) show that sentences like (16) can be analyzed
both as Control and as ECM constructions.
The first test exploits the observation that in Hebrew Control structures, arbitrary
Dative controllers can be omitted (see Landau (2000) and references cited therein). This
is exemplified in (18a):
(18) a. dan hici’a (le-ovdav) lifto’ax bi-švita
Dan suggested to-employees-his to+open in-strike
“Dan suggested to his employees to start a strike.”
Note further that noten (‘lets’) is actually lexically ambiguous between ‘allow’
(synonymous with ifšer) and ‘let’. 10 When it means ‘allow’, it is an Object Control
predicate, whereas when it means ‘let’, it is an ECM predicate. Landau (2000) argues
that Object Control verbs in Hebrew take a [+human] DP. Thus, the Control/ECM
distinction can be highlighted by using a [-human] Dative DP. More specifically, since
the internal theta-role of ‘allow’ can be realized by a [+human] DP only, a [-human] DP
will force the ECM reading of natan (‘let’). This is shown in (18b) and (18c),
respectively:
10 Ifšer (‘allowed’), unlike natan, is unambiguously Object Control verb.