The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

144
Modification by possessive datives is used as a reliable test to detect internal
arguments in Hebrew. Borer and Grodzinsky (1986) observe that possessive datives can
only modify internal arguments. Hence, they can serve as possessors to subjects of
unaccusatives (61a), but not to subjects of unergatives (61b).
(61) a. ha-sfarim naflu le-rina
the-books fell to-Rina
b. *ha-kelev šaxav le-rina
the-dog lay to-Rina
The verb rac (‘ran’) indeed patterns with unaccusatives when it occurs with a
Directional PP (62a), but with unergatives when it is not (62b). In (62a) the possessive
dative le-mi (‘to whom’, ‘whose’) modifies the subject (the dog, i.e. whose dog),
indicating that it is the internal argument of rac (‘ran’). In (62b) this reading is
unavailable, showing clearly that the subject is the external argument of rac (le-mi (‘to
whom’) can only modify the locative adjunct in the garden, i.e. whose garden):
(62) a. le-mi ha-kelev rac la-gina
to-whom the-dog ran to+the-garden
b. le-mi ha-kelev rac ba-gina
to-whom the-dog ran in+the-garden
Given this, the fact that the same verb is both unergative (60a), (62b) and
unaccusative (59a), (62a) is puzzling.
Let me sketch briefly how the puzzle can be accounted for, based on the mapping
generalizations in Reinhart (2000, 2001) (Tali Siloni p.c.).
Let us assume that a verb like run (and arguably also verbs like sleep, stand or sit)
does not assign an Agent theta-role, but rather it assigns a Theme. This is supported by
the fact that this theta-role can be realized by non-human DPs (The program runs
smoothly; The time runs quickly).
Further, it is reasonable to assume that run has two lexical entries:
(i) run: Theme ([-c-m])
(ii) run: Theme ([-c-m]), Goal ([-c])