The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
151 (75) dat Jan het boek (op de plank) zette (*op de plank) that Jan the book (on the shelf) put (on the shelf) (Den Dikken 1995, (20)) In (74) op zoveel mensen (‘on so-many people’), op zondagochtend (‘on Sundaymorning’) and aan Marie (‘to Mary’) are PPs. As expected, they can be moved. In (75) op de plank (‘on the shelf’) is P’ according to the analysis in (72a), and a PP according to (72b). The fact that op de plank (‘on the shelf’) in (75) cannot be extraposed can be accounted for, if the structure is as in (72a); we do not expect a P’ constituent to move. If the structure is as in (72b), we expect the Locative PP to be able to extrapose exactly as in (74), contrary to facts. Thus, as noted in Den Dikken 1995 (attributed to Hoekstra 1984), failure to undergo extraposition is an unambiguous indication that the prepositional constituent in question is a SC predicate. 40 In sum, on the basis of binding phenomena and extraposition in Dutch, I conclude that locative verbs such as put are two-place predicates, whose internal argument is a prepositional SC (SC PP ). In the following section I will further discuss the structure of the Locative SC, but before that, the following clarification is necessary. On the fairly accepted assumption, which can be traced back to Stowell 1981, 1983; Rothstein 1983; Kayne 1984; Hoekstra 1984, among others), SC is viewed as an (additional) syntactic realization of an argument (or an adjunct), projected from a lexical head such as A, N or V (Williams 1980, Rothstein 1983, 1995). As I assume that P is a functional category, the claim that it can head a SC may seem surprising. Note, however, that P R (realized by a variety of prepositions, among them the locative ones) is assumed to have an internal and external argument slot, namely it is interpreted as a two-place predicate-argument relation (see chapter 2). Therefore, P R can head a SC. . 40 The fact that extraposition is possible in the Dative construction in Dutch (74c) argues against Den Dikken’s (1995) proposal that Dative constructions involve a SC as in (i). Under his proposal, the Goal PP is predicted not to extrapose, contrary to facts. Given that only PPs undergo extraposition, it also indicates that the Goal argument in Dutch is a PP, rather than a DP as in Hebrew (4.2). (i) … V [ PP=SC DP Theme P PP Goal ]
152 4.4.2 Projections of a Locative P It is well known that the distribution of the Locative PPs is rather wide. Thus in addition to the locative construction (headed by verbs such as put), Locative PPs occur as nominal and verbal modifiers (76) (labeled here as ‘Locative modifier’), and as predicates in existential (locative) constructions (77): (76) a. The fruits in the basket are rotten. Locative modifier b. Dan ate in the garden. (77) ha-xatul ba-gina Existential constr. the-cat in+the-garden “The cat is in the garden.” Given this, and the previous discussion regarding the status of the Locative P in the locative construction as a predicate of a SC, one may wonder whether it is the case that a Locative PP is always a predicate of a SC. Obviously, the Locative PPs occurring as nominal or verbal modifiers (76) are not small clauses. A small clause is a closed, saturated constituent, which serves as an argument, whereas modifiers, by definition, are open constituents. Therefore a Locative PP occurring as a modifier cannot be a SC. The next question is what is the status of the Locative PP in existential constructions (77). It is widely assumed that existential (locative) constructions are, in fact, raising out of a Locative SC PP constructions, as illustrated in (78) (Milsark 1974, Stowell 1978, Chomsky 1982): (78) ha-xatul i [ SC=PP t i ba-gina] the-cat in+the-garden “The cat is in the garden.” Is the structure of the SC PP in (78) identical to the SC PP in the locative construction? In what follows I will argue that the SC PP of the locative construction is not identical to that of the existential construction. I will return to modification by Locative PPs in 4.4.3.
- 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 and 150: 130 4.3 The Directional P Zwarts an
- Page 151 and 152: 132 (36) a. dan šalax praxim (le-r
- 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: 150 4.4.1 Evidence for the Small Cl
- 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
- Page 201 and 202: 182 (19) a. the destruction of the
- Page 203 and 204: 184 . 5.2.5 Adverbial modification
- Page 205 and 206: 186 b. ha-yeled kal havana the-boy
- Page 207 and 208: 188 . Before I discuss the lexical
- Page 209 and 210: 190 . Passivization is taken to inv
- Page 211 and 212: 192 . already ΘSat ARB (see (37)).
- Page 213 and 214: 194 . The strongest empirical suppo
- Page 215 and 216: 196 . (i) Aspectual have: Jones (19
- Page 217 and 218: 198 . (iv) Adverbial placement: Fin
- Page 219 and 220: 200 . Experiencer, and (ii) there i
152<br />
4.4.2 <strong>Projections</strong> of a Locative P<br />
It is well known that the distribution of the Locative PPs is rather wide. Thus in<br />
addition to the locative construction (headed by verbs such as put), Locative PPs occur<br />
as nominal and verbal modifiers (76) (labeled here as ‘Locative modifier’), and as<br />
predicates in existential (locative) constructions (77):<br />
(76) a. <strong>The</strong> fruits in the basket are rotten. Locative modifier<br />
b. Dan ate in the garden.<br />
(77) ha-xatul ba-gina Existential constr.<br />
the-cat in+the-garden<br />
“<strong>The</strong> cat is in the garden.”<br />
Given this, and the previous discussion regarding the status of the Locative P in<br />
the locative construction as a predicate of a SC, one may wonder whether it is the case<br />
that a Locative PP is always a predicate of a SC. Obviously, the Locative PPs occurring<br />
as nominal or verbal modifiers (76) are not small clauses. A small clause is a closed,<br />
saturated constituent, which serves as an argument, whereas modifiers, by definition,<br />
are open constituents. <strong>The</strong>refore a Locative PP occurring as a modifier cannot be a SC.<br />
<strong>The</strong> next question is what is the status of the Locative PP in existential<br />
constructions (77). It is widely assumed that existential (locative) constructions are, in<br />
fact, raising out of a Locative SC PP constructions, as illustrated in (78) (Milsark 1974,<br />
Stowell 1978, Chomsky 1982):<br />
(78) ha-xatul i [ SC=PP t i ba-gina]<br />
the-cat in+the-garden<br />
“<strong>The</strong> cat is in the garden.”<br />
Is the structure of the SC PP in (78) identical to the SC PP in the locative<br />
construction? In what follows I will argue that the SC PP of the locative construction is<br />
not identical to that of the existential construction. I will return to modification by<br />
Locative PPs in 4.4.3.
Change language