The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

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.