The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

171
syntactically its external theta-role). The question which consequently arises is the
following: Why is it the Goal DP which is affected by passivization of the verb in the
English DOC (A.7a), but the Theme DP in Hebrew (A.8a)?
Given the status of the Dative P in Hebrew as a lexical D-affix, the Hebrew facts
are fully expected. More specifically, since the Dative le- in Hebrew (whether a Casemarker
or P C ) is lexically associated with D, it is not affected by the passive
morphology on the verb. Consequently, the passive morphology on the verb has no
effect on the Goal DP.
Unlike in Hebrew, the Dative P in English is an independent syntactic head. When
it is absent (i.e. in the DOC), the Dative feature [Dat], which is needed in order to check
the Case of the nominal, can only be associated with the verb (BE). Further, I propose to
view the association of the feature [Dat] with the verb in the spirit of Di Sciullo and
Williams 1987. More specifically, upon its addition, [Dat] becomes the head Casefeature
of the verb, instead of the original [Acc] feature, as schematicized in (A.9). It is
fully expected, then, that it is [Dat], rather than [Acc], which is affected by the passive
morphology. Consequently, only the Goal argument undergoes passivization in the
DOC in English. 55
(A.9) V [Acc] V [Dat] ( no P [Dat])
[Acc] + [Dat] [Acc] [Dat]
55 In this respect the proposal is similar in spirit to Larson (1988a), where [Dat] is referred to as structural
Accusative, as opposed to inherent Accusative assigned to the Theme DP in the DOC.