The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

176
.
Based on previous work, definiteness in the Hebrew nominal system is a
syntactic feature [+definite] of an N checked against the functional head D (Siloni
1994, 1997, Borer 1999, among others). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that an
obligatory indefinite nominal (5) does not combine with the functional head D,
projecting an NP, rather than a DP. 5
5.2.2 The function of e-N
In addition to their thematic arguments, e-Ns are assumed to have an external
e(vent) argument (Ev in Grimshaw 1990), on a par with R, the external argument of
simple nominals (Higginbotham 1985). Grimshaw (1990) observes that, unlike simple
nominals that function either as arguments or as predicates (6), e-Ns can function only
as arguments, never as predicates (7). This suggests that R and e are not identical. The
former can be either bound by the determiner DP-internally, or assigned to an
argument, but the latter (e) can only be bound by D (Grimshaw 1990, following
Higginbotham 1985).
(6) a. The teacher has left.
b. Dan is a teacher.
(7) a. The destruction of the city was beyond imagination.
b. *This was the/a destruction of the city.
Given this and the observation that the nominals of object gap constructions are
e-Ns, the question arises how come these nominals are predicative, rather than
argumental (see (2) in section 5.1).
There are two quite distinct approaches in the literature relevant for the issue at
hand: (i) A syntactic operation turns an argumental (nominal) projection into a
predicative one. (ii) There are two kinds of e-Ns; those which combine with D and
project arguments (DPs), and those which do not combine with D, and project
predicates (bare NPs). I review briefly each of these below.
5 See Danon (2002), where it is argued that any syntactically non-definite nominal in Hebrew, not
necessarily the obligatory indefinite ones, is an NP rather than a DP.