The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
131 4.3.1 The Dative-Directional distinction: A case study of ‘send’ The verb šalax (‘sent’) is lexically ambiguous. Roughly speaking, šalax (‘sent’) means either: (i) ‘cause x go via intermediary to a recipient’, or (ii) ‘cause x go to a location’. 25 The first meaning, in which the Goal argument is interpreted as a Recipient, gives rise to the Dative use of šalax (‘sent’) (35a). Its Directional use correlates with the second meaning, where the argument introduced by the Directional P is ‘spatial Goal’, rather than a Recipient (35b). (35) a. dan šalax praxim le-rina Dan sent flowers to-Rina “Dan sent flowers to Rina.” b. dan šalax et ha-yeled le-pariz Dan sent Acc the-boy to-Paris “Dan sent the boy to Paris.” Since both the Directional and the Dative uses occur with the same selecting verb and the same preposition le- (‘to’), the question is whether they should be analyzed differently. I have already established that the Dative P is P C and that it differs from both the Directional and the Locative Ps (see sections 4.1, 4.2). The following reinforces this distinction showing that the two uses of the preposition le- (‘to’) are syntactically distinct. (i) The omission of the (apparent) PP is possible only in the Dative use of šalax (‘sent’), as shown in (36a). Omission of the Directional PP with the Directional šalax results in ungrammaticality (36b): 26 25 I thank Julia Horvath (p.c.) for clarifying the relevant distinction between the two meanings of send. The term ‘via intermediary’ is a cover term for ‘some means of transportation’. 26 The possibility to omit the Goal argument of the Dative šalax (‘sent’) is surprising, as we know that omission of the Goal argument is not allowed with the typical Dative verb such as give: (i) dan natan sfarim *(le-rina) Dative Dan gave books (to-Rina) The noted contrast between the Dative give and the Dative šalax (‘sent’) regarding the omission of the Goal argument is intriguing. A full account of the facts is beyond the scope of the study. The direction which seems promising is the following. The Dative send has a more specified meaning than give. Unlike give (‘cause x go to a recipient’), send specifies the manner in which the Theme goes (‘cause x go via
132 (36) a. dan šalax praxim (le-rina) Dative Dan sent flowers (to-Rina) b. dan šalax et ha-yeladim *(le-pariz) Directional Dan sent Acc the-children (to-Paris) (ii) Similarly to the canonic Dative verb give, Dative shift is possible, if šalax (‘sent’) is used as Dative (i.e. the Goal argument precedes and c-commands Theme, see fn. 18 in 4.2.2). Thus (37a) can be shifted easily to (37b): (37) a. dan šalax praxim le-rina Dan sent flowers to-Rina b. dan šalax le-rina praxim Dan sent to-Rina flowers However, once šalax is clearly Directional, namely its Goal argument is interpreted as spatial Goal, rather than a Recipient, the shift is infelicitous, as shown in (38b): 27 ’ 28 (38) a. dan šalax et rina le-pariz Dan sent Acc Rina to-Paris intermediary to a recipient’). This additional manner specification arguably underlies the possibility not to realize the Goal argument of the Dative send (the sketched direction is similar in spirit to the theory outlined in Erteschik-Shir and Rapoport in preparation, to appear). 27 The shift is possible only with a specific intonation, a strong stress on the Theme argument, or if the Theme argument is heavy (i). Clearly, then, the shift in the Directional construction is not comparable to the Dative shift, but rather related to Focus constructions. (For a different view see Belletti and Shlonsky (1995)). (i) dan šalax la-pgiša be-london et ha-orexdin haxi tov šelo Dan sent to+the-meeting in-London Acc the-lawyer best his “Dan sent his best lawyer to the meeting in London.” 28 The fact that English does not have either the PP DP order or the shifted version (i.e. V DP Goal DP Theme ) when the verb is Directional (*Dan sent Paris Rina), can be accounted for on the assumption (implicit in the text) that Dative shift and Focus shift are different operations. Dative shift is arguably a Case-related phenomenon, whereas Focus shift is clearly not. Whatever mechanisms underlie the Dative shift and give rise to the Double Object construction in English (Kayne 1984, Larson 1988a, Den Dikken 1995, among others), they are not operative in the Directional construction. Thus the PP DP order in the Directional construction may, in principle, arise only from the Focus shift. However, permutation of DP PP arguments is not possible in English, as it violates the V-DP adjacency required for the Case assignment in English (Stowell 1981) (modulo Heavy NP-shift).
- Page 99 and 100: 80 a [+animate] DP. Consequently, h
- Page 101 and 102: 82 The meaning of (78a) is somethin
- Page 103 and 104: 84 (85) a. he’emanti be-bart [I]
- Page 105 and 106: 86 asserted ‘belief’. In other
- Page 107 and 108: 88 3.5 PP-verbs cross-linguisticall
- Page 109 and 110: 90 But the non-identical realizatio
- Page 111 and 112: 92 P device involves the syntactic
- Page 113 and 114: 94 Note that the options in (103) d
- Page 115 and 116: 96 adjacency requirement between th
- Page 117 and 118: 98 would be [-c] PP-verbs in Englis
- Page 119 and 120: 100 Appendix A: Residual issues The
- Page 121 and 122: 102 (A.6) a. mabat-o nadad (motion)
- Page 123 and 124: 104 Given its theta-grid, hikša is
- Page 125 and 126: 106 Appendix B Table 1. 70 Hebrew P
- Page 127 and 128: 108 Table 2. Some properties of the
- Page 129 and 130: 110 67. serev (le-) [+c+m] [-c] - +
- Page 131 and 132: 112 4. Locative, Directional and Da
- Page 133 and 134: 114 is distinct from both the Dativ
- Page 135 and 136: 116 Let me illustrate briefly the e
- Page 137 and 138: 118 inability of the Dative PP to d
- Page 139 and 140: 120 In principle, (16) can have eit
- Page 141 and 142: 122 from natan, but from the embedd
- Page 143 and 144: 124 Both (22a) and (22b) are possib
- Page 145 and 146: 126 (ii) Binding In the Hebrew Dati
- Page 147 and 148: 128 Let us assume that in (29a) the
- Page 149: 130 4.3 The Directional P Zwarts an
- Page 153 and 154: 134 The incompatibility of Dative p
- Page 155 and 156: 136 (45) ha-tiyul le-hodu haya me
- Page 157 and 158: 138 rather an (elided) NP modified
- Page 159 and 160: 140 Consider now the English and Ru
- Page 161 and 162: 142 the Accusative Case in (56) is
- Page 163 and 164: 144 Modification by possessive dati
- Page 165 and 166: 146 use (63c), me- (‘from’) def
- Page 167 and 168: 148 combination with a path denotin
- Page 169 and 170: 150 4.4.1 Evidence for the Small Cl
- Page 171 and 172: 152 4.4.2 Projections of a Locative
- Page 173 and 174: 154 (81) a. on pologayets y a na Sa
- Page 175 and 176: 156 4.4.3 Modification by Locative
- Page 177 and 178: 158 c. *ha-sefer še-/ašer al ahav
- Page 179 and 180: V. 48 The remaining alternatives, (
- Page 181 and 182: 162 b. ha-ec (še-) ba-ya’ar kara
- Page 183 and 184: 164 (99) a. ha-sefer (??/*hu) al ha
- Page 185 and 186: 166 Appendix: On some differences b
- Page 187 and 188: 168 (A.2) VP Agent V’ V VP Goal i
- Page 189 and 190: 170 Consequently, they are predicte
- Page 191 and 192: 172 5. P pred in object gap constru
- Page 193 and 194: 174 . Extending the proposal to Eng
- Page 195 and 196: 176 . Based on previous work, defin
- Page 197 and 198: 178 . specifier of an NP is the pos
- Page 199 and 200: 180 . possibility that in principle
131<br />
4.3.1 <strong>The</strong> Dative-Directional distinction: A case study of ‘send’<br />
<strong>The</strong> verb šalax (‘sent’) is lexically ambiguous. Roughly speaking, šalax (‘sent’)<br />
means either: (i) ‘cause x go via intermediary to a recipient’, or (ii) ‘cause x go to a<br />
location’. 25 <strong>The</strong> first meaning, in which the Goal argument is interpreted as a Recipient,<br />
gives rise to the Dative use of šalax (‘sent’) (35a). Its Directional use correlates with the<br />
second meaning, where the argument introduced by the Directional P is ‘spatial Goal’,<br />
rather than a Recipient (35b).<br />
(35) a. dan šalax praxim le-rina<br />
Dan sent flowers to-Rina<br />
“Dan sent flowers to Rina.”<br />
b. dan šalax et ha-yeled le-pariz<br />
Dan sent Acc the-boy to-Paris<br />
“Dan sent the boy to Paris.”<br />
Since both the Directional and the Dative uses occur with the same selecting verb<br />
and the same preposition le- (‘to’), the question is whether they should be analyzed<br />
differently. I have already established that the Dative P is P C and that it differs from<br />
both the Directional and the Locative Ps (see sections 4.1, 4.2). <strong>The</strong> following<br />
reinforces this distinction showing that the two uses of the preposition le- (‘to’) are<br />
syntactically distinct.<br />
(i) <strong>The</strong> omission of the (apparent) PP is possible only in the Dative use of šalax<br />
(‘sent’), as shown in (36a). Omission of the Directional PP with the Directional šalax<br />
results in ungrammaticality (36b): 26<br />
25 I thank Julia Horvath (p.c.) for clarifying the relevant distinction between the two meanings of send.<br />
<strong>The</strong> term ‘via intermediary’ is a cover term for ‘some means of transportation’.<br />
26 <strong>The</strong> possibility to omit the Goal argument of the Dative šalax (‘sent’) is surprising, as we know that<br />
omission of the Goal argument is not allowed with the typical Dative verb such as give:<br />
(i) dan natan sfarim *(le-rina) Dative<br />
Dan gave books (to-Rina)<br />
<strong>The</strong> noted contrast between the Dative give and the Dative šalax (‘sent’) regarding the omission of the<br />
Goal argument is intriguing. A full account of the facts is beyond the scope of the study. <strong>The</strong> direction<br />
which seems promising is the following. <strong>The</strong> Dative send has a more specified meaning than give. Unlike<br />
give (‘cause x go to a recipient’), send specifies the manner in which the <strong>The</strong>me goes (‘cause x go via
Change language