The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
157 Kratzer 1988, 1994). Thus, some syntactic similarities between VPs and Locative PPs are expected. Clausal PP-modification is one of these, to be discussed directly. As already mentioned, Locative PPs can combine with almost any DP (87). This is not specific to Locative PPs. Similarly, other kinds of PPs can combine with DPs (88): (87) a. ha-ec ba-ya’ar karas the-tree in+the-forest fell down b. ha-tiyul ba-ya’ar haya na’im the-trip in+the-forest was pleasant (88) a. ha-tiyul la-ya’ar nidxa the-trip to+the-forest [was] postponed b. ha-sefer al ahava azal the-book about love [was] sold out c. ha-sixa im rina nifseka the conversation with Rina stopped What seems to be specific to Locative PPs is that the combination with a DP can be either as in (87), or via the complementizer še-/ašer (‘that’), as in (89a), which is completely ungrammatical for other kinds of PPs (89b,c,d): 45 (89) a. ha-ec še-/ašer ba-ya’ar karas the-tree that in+the-forest fell down b. *ha-tiyul še-/ašer la-ya’ar nidxa the-trip that to+the-forest [was] postponed 45 The complementizer ašer is specific to relative clauses in Hebrew.
158 c. *ha-sefer še-/ašer al ahava azal the-book that about love [was] sold out d. *ha-sixa še-/ašer im rina nifseka 46 the-conversation that with Rina stopped e. ha-iš še-/ašer rakad nafal the-man that danced fell Under the null hypothesis, the occurrence of še-/ašer (‘that’) indicates that the structure involves C (projecting a relative CP). Thus, Locative PPs seem to pattern with VPs (89e), rather than with non-Locative PPs. Given this, two questions arise: 1. What is the structure of the clausal PP-modifier (89a)? 2. Why is clausal modification (89a) possible only with Locative PPs? I will address each question in turn. 4.4.3.1 The structure of clausal PP-modifiers: A head like T combines with a VP projecting a TP (but see ahead). The latter is assumed to be the unique complement of C (cf. Grimshaw 1991). Under these assumptions, the syntactic analysis of clausal PPmodification (e.g. (89a)) will have to include an abstract T and a phonetically empty V taking the Locative PP as its complement, as in (90): (90) ha-ec [ CP še- [ TP T [ VP V [ PP ba-ya’ar]]] the-tree that- in+the-forest Alternatively, clausal PP-modifiers (89a) may involve a reduced (impoverished) structure. Keeping the presence of C and the Locative PP constant, there are three possibilities to consider: 46 Apparently, the only exception to the claim that CP-like modification is possible only with Locative PPs is presented by PPs headed by im (‘with’) (i). The interpretation of im (‘with’) in (i) is different from its interpretation in the example in the text. It has been noted in the literature that the preposition with in certain contexts is, in fact, a locative preposition (cf. Kayne 1984:158). I leave the matter for future research. (i) ha-yalda (še-) im yosi hi axot-i the-girl that- with Yosi she sister-my “The girl who is with Yosi is my sister.”
- 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 and 170: 150 4.4.1 Evidence for the Small Cl
- Page 171 and 172: 152 4.4.2 Projections of a Locative
- Page 173 and 174: 154 (81) a. on pologayets y a na Sa
- Page 175: 156 4.4.3 Modification by Locative
- 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
- Page 221 and 222: 202 . Consequently, the arguments o
- Page 223 and 224: 204 . phonetically unrealized inter
- Page 225 and 226: 206 . stranded. As already mentione
157<br />
Kratzer 1988, 1994). Thus, some syntactic similarities between VPs and Locative PPs<br />
are expected. Clausal PP-modification is one of these, to be discussed directly.<br />
As already mentioned, Locative PPs can combine with almost any DP (87). This<br />
is not specific to Locative PPs. Similarly, other kinds of PPs can combine with DPs<br />
(88):<br />
(87) a. ha-ec ba-ya’ar karas<br />
the-tree in+the-forest fell down<br />
b. ha-tiyul ba-ya’ar haya na’im<br />
the-trip in+the-forest was pleasant<br />
(88) a. ha-tiyul la-ya’ar nidxa<br />
the-trip to+the-forest [was] postponed<br />
b. ha-sefer al ahava azal<br />
the-book about love [was] sold out<br />
c. ha-sixa im rina nifseka<br />
the conversation with Rina stopped<br />
What seems to be specific to Locative PPs is that the combination with a DP can<br />
be either as in (87), or via the complementizer še-/ašer (‘that’), as in (89a), which is<br />
completely ungrammatical for other kinds of PPs (89b,c,d): 45<br />
(89) a. ha-ec še-/ašer ba-ya’ar karas<br />
the-tree that in+the-forest fell down<br />
b. *ha-tiyul še-/ašer la-ya’ar nidxa<br />
the-trip that to+the-forest [was] postponed<br />
45 <strong>The</strong> complementizer ašer is specific to relative clauses in Hebrew.
Change language