The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
153<br />
4.4.2.1 Locative Small Clauses: <strong>The</strong> views what is the structure of a SC can be<br />
divided into two classes. According to Stowell (1981, 1983) and Rothstein (1983, 1995,<br />
2001), for instance, a SC is a ‘super-maximal’ projection of the head of the predicate<br />
expression (79a). 41 <strong>The</strong>re are researchers who assume that there is more to the structure<br />
of the SC than meets the eye (Hoekstra and Mulder 1990; Chomsky 1995:175, among<br />
others). In line with the functional structure of the clause, one may take SCs to contain a<br />
functional head F, resulting in the analysis in (79b). 42<br />
(79) a. [ SC= SC/XP DP [ XP [ X’ X DP]]]<br />
b. [ SC=FP DP [ F’ F [ XP [ X’ X DP]]]]<br />
Assuming that both structures are valid, in what follows I will show that (79a)<br />
corresponds to the Locative SC in existential constructions, whereas (79b) is the<br />
structure of the Locative SC in the locative construction. 43<br />
As mentioned in chapter 3 (3.3), the Case assigned by some Locative prepositions<br />
in Russian is either Locative (80a,b), or Accusative (80c), (81):<br />
(80) a. kniga na stol-e Existential constr.<br />
the-book [is] on [a/the] table-Loc<br />
b. on vide/zabil knig-u na stol-e Locative modifier<br />
he saw/forgot [a] book-Acc on [a/the] table-Loc<br />
c. on položil knig-u na stol Locative constr.<br />
he put [a/the] book-Acc on [a/the] table-Acc<br />
41 Stowell (1981, 1983) and Rothstein (1983, 1995, 2001) differ in that the former assumes that the<br />
projection predicated of the subject is X’, rather than XP (i). Given the Bare Phrase structure (Chomsky<br />
1995), there is no real difference between the two.<br />
(i) [ SC= XP DP ext [ X’ X DP int ]]<br />
42 <strong>The</strong> analysis in (79b) raises the question whether the subject is Merged in Spec-XP and attracted to<br />
Spec-FP by a formal feature on F (Chomsky 1995, 2000), or rather merged directly in Spec-FP. I will<br />
leave this question open here.<br />
43 On the plausible assumption that F is categorially non-distinct from the head of the SC (e.g. N, A, P),<br />
Stowell’s (1981) claim that a verb selects for a SC of a specific category, does not discriminate between<br />
the analyses in (79).