The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

126
(ii) Binding
In the Hebrew Dative construction the Goal argument can bind the Theme
anaphor, if it precedes it (27a) (Borer and Grodzinsky 1986). This kind of binding is
impossible in the non-Dative construction (27c):
(27) a. dan her’a la-tinoket et acma Dative
Dan showed to+the-baby Acc herself
b. dan her’a et ha-tinoket le-acma
Dan showed Acc the-baby to-herself
c.*ha-pakid hifna el dan i et acmo i Directional
the-clerk directed to Dan Acc himself
d. ha-pakid hifna et dan i el acmo i
the-clerk directed Acc Dan to himself
On the familiar assumption that an anaphor requires c-command by an antecedent,
the grammaticality of (27a) indicates that the Goal DP c-commands the Theme
anaphor. 18 This conclusion is consistent with the assumption that there is no PP above
the Goal DP. Note, however, that it is equally consistent with the familiar assumption
that there is a PP, but it does not block c-command (see chapter 3, fn. 28). Therefore
this argument, by itself, cannot be taken as conclusive evidence for the absence of a PP
in the Dative construction, but it may be viewed as an additional support.
18 Landau (1994) argues that the fact that Hebrew has both options shown in (i) is not due to the fact that
Hebrew has relatively free word order, but rather that Hebrew has Dative shift, similarly to English.
(Another possibility to account for the binding of the Theme by the Goal in (ib) would be to assume two
distinct base-generations, which underlie the two orders, rather than movement.)
(i)
a. dan natan et ha-sefer le-rina
Dan gave Acc the-book to-Rina
b. dan natan le-rina et ha-sefer
Dan gave to-Rina Acc the-book
Landau (1994) shows that what underlies the contrast in properties between the Dative and the non-
Dative (locative, directional) constructions featuring le- is the categorial status of the le-DP sequence. It is
a DP in the Dative construction, but PP otherwise. For a different view based on a different set of
assumptions regarding the attested orders, not necessarily in the Dative construction, see Belletti and
Shlonsky 1995. Note that the question whether Hebrew has or does not have Dative shift is orthogonal to
the present inquiry, for some further discussion of this matter see the Appendix.