The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
169 (A.4) DP D’ D NP le- [Pc] /le- D When le- is P C , it checks the Case-feature of the nominal (in a head-head configuration, within the DP) (A.4). When le- is the realization of the Dative Case, the Dative-marked Goal DP has to check its Dative Case in an appropriate structural position. This is achieved upon movement of the Goal DP into the spec of VP headed by BE: (A.5) VP Agent V’ V VP [le-DP] i (Goal) V’ BE VP Theme V’ V t i The account of the Hebrew DS has the following prediction. On the assumption that Hebrew Dative (and Accusative) pronouns are picked out from the lexicon Casemarked (Tali Siloni p.c.) (e.g. lanu is ‘us’-Dative), their Dative Case has to be checked.
170 Consequently, they are predicted to undergo obligatory DS and surface adjacent to the verb (unless Focus shift takes place, Nomi Shir p.c.). As shown in (A.6), this prediction is born out: (A.6) a. *dan natan et ha-sefer/oto lanu Dan gave Acc the-book/him us-Dat b. dan natan lanu et ha-sefer/oto Dan gave us-Dat Acc the-book/him I turn now to the other distinction attested in the English and Hebrew shifted constructions, the passivization of the Goal argument. V. Passivization of the Goal argument in English vs. Hebrew As already mentioned, it is possible to passivize the Goal argument in the English shifted construction (DOC), but in Hebrew the only argument which can undergo passivization is the Theme argument, regardless of the shift. 54 Passivization in the shifted constructions in English and Hebrew is illustrated in (A.7) and (A.8), respectively: (A.7) a. Dan was given t the book b.*The book was given Dan t (A.8) a. ha-sefer nitan le-dan the-book was+given to-Dan b.*le-dan nitan et ha-sefer to-Dan was+given Acc the-book It is standardly assumed that passive morphology absorbs the ability of the verb to check the (Accusative/structural) Case feature of the nominal (as well as to assign 54 In the non-shifted construction in English, the passivization facts are identical to those in Hebrew, only the Theme argument can undergo passivization: (i) a. The book was given to John. b. *John was given the book to.
- 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 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: 168 (A.2) VP Agent V’ V VP Goal i
- 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
- Page 227 and 228: 208 5.5 The role of the le NP/PP in
- Page 229 and 230: 210 . be closed (or satisfied) synt
- Page 231 and 232: 212 b. *There is hard to believe [t
- Page 233 and 234: 214 . Following Higginbotham (1985)
- Page 235 and 236: 216 (85) a. ma’axal nora ze (lo)
- Page 237 and 238: 218 c. basar adom hu mazon (*ha-/*
169<br />
(A.4)<br />
DP<br />
D’<br />
D<br />
NP<br />
le- [Pc] /le-<br />
D<br />
When le- is P C , it checks the Case-feature of the nominal (in a head-head<br />
configuration, within the DP) (A.4). When le- is the realization of the Dative Case, the<br />
Dative-marked Goal DP has to check its Dative Case in an appropriate structural<br />
position. This is achieved upon movement of the Goal DP into the spec of VP headed<br />
by BE:<br />
(A.5)<br />
VP<br />
Agent V’<br />
V<br />
VP<br />
[le-DP] i (Goal) V’<br />
BE<br />
VP<br />
<strong>The</strong>me V’<br />
V<br />
t i<br />
<strong>The</strong> account of the Hebrew DS has the following prediction. On the assumption<br />
that Hebrew Dative (and Accusative) pronouns are picked out from the lexicon Casemarked<br />
(Tali Siloni p.c.) (e.g. lanu is ‘us’-Dative), their Dative Case has to be checked.
Change language