The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

149
Belletti and Shlonsky 1995), or a flat trinary structure, as in (70b):
(70) a. ….V put [ SC=VP DP [ V’ V PP] ]
b. …V put DP PP
We can, however, posit a Small Clause (SC) structure for P, proposed
independently of the binding facts (Hoekstra and Mulder 1990; Rothstein 1995, 2001;
Den Dikken 1995; Moro 1997), with xefec the subject of the prepositional SC (SC PP ).
The following preliminary schema depicts the relevant chunk of the Locative
construction:
(71) …V put [ SC= PP DP ext [ P’ P Loc DP int ]]
Both the SC PP in (71) and the Larsonian VP-shell in (70a) adhere to the binary
branching requirement. It has become standard practice to assume binary structures
(originally due to Kayne 1984, but also Kayne 1994, among others). Therefore I discard
option (70b).
The structures relevant for the following discussion are repeated in (72). In (72a) P
is analyzed as a predicate of a SC PP argument, introducing both DPs. In (72b) the
predicate of the verbal SC (SC VP ) is the verb, and the Locative PP is analyzed as its
(internal) argument:
(72) a. ….V put [ SC= PP DP ext [ P’ P Loc DP int ]]
b. ….V [ SC=VP DP [ V’ V put PP]]
Based on the binding facts alone, the conclusion that the Locative PP has a subject
(72a) is not a necessary one. In “Reflexivity”, for instance, Locative Ps are argued to be
two-place predicates, but not to have a subject. The external argument of a Locative P is
proposed to be saturated in the lexicon, and not assigned in syntax. The occurrence of
the anaphor in examples such as (69) is attributed to control of the lexically saturated
argument of P by the direct object of the locative verb (Reinhart & Reuland 1993).
Therefore, in what follows I provide additional evidence for the SC analysis in
(72a).