12.09.2014 Views

The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!