The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

174
.
Extending the proposal to English (section 5.4), I establish that the morpheme to
in object gap constructions is a syntactic P-head, rather than T. It will be argued that
P-to externalizes the internal role of its complement (i.e. it is P pred ), creating a
predicative phrase (PP) with an external argument slot.
In object gap constructions the predicative PP in English and NP in Hebrew
function on a par. It will be shown that the PP/NP is a secondary predicate in the
OPC, along lines of Rothstein (2003). In the TC this constituent (PP/NP) is proposed
to form a complex AP predicate with the tough A (section 5.5).
The outcome of the analysis is that the cluster of properties attested in object
gap constructions in English vs. Hebrew follows from the ‘Lex/Syn (Lexicon/Syntax)
parameter’ (Siloni 2002). Siloni (2002) argues that certain operations such as
reflexivization and reciprocalization occur in some languages in the lexicon (e.g.
Hebrew, Russian), whereas in other in syntax (e.g. French, Italian), from which the
particular cluster of properties in these languages follows. Specifically, I will show
that the externalization by P pred manifests the lexicon/syntax variation, namely it is
another instance of the same parameter; in Hebrew externalization of the theta-role
takes place in the lexicon, in English the same happens in syntax. This will
immediately explain why in English, but not in Hebrew, externalization involves Op
(null operator)-movement. Furthermore, it will provide a promising direction to derive
the fact, previously unaccounted for, that the constructions are nominal in Hebrew but
verbal in English.
5.2 The properties of the nominal
As noted in Engelhardt (1998), the nominal introduced by le- in the object gap
contexts is an event denoting nominal (e-N), rather than a result nominal, following
the classification in Grimshaw (1990). 3 This is shown in (3a). (3b) illustrates one of
3 These nominals are labeled complex event nominals (CEN), and are distinguished from simple event
nominals (e.g. a trip) in Grimshaw (1990). The former are argued to have an argument structure and
an e argument (Ev in Grimshaw 1990), whereas the latter are a subgroup of result nominals (e.g. a
book), with no argument structure. Note, however, that even from the semantic perspective, referring to
nominals such as a trip as event nominals is misleading. These nominals do not denote an event, but
rather an object with durative meaning, and therefore are simple result nominals. From the syntactic
perspective, there is no justification for this subdivision, as only CENs have an argument structure.