The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
183 . Following Reinhart (2000) and Reinhart and Siloni (2003), in order to be realized syntactically, an Instrument requires the presence of either an explicit Agent or an implicit argument interpretable as an Agent. 15 As can be seen in (23), when the external argument is indeed not part of the argument structure (e.g. unaccusative verbs, Reinhart 2000), an Instrument cannot be added: (23) a. *The vase broke with the hammer. break: Theme ([-c-m]) Compare b. Bart broke the vase with the hammer. break: Cause ([+c]), Theme ([-c-m]) Given this, the grammaticality of (22) shows that the Agent is present in the thematic grid of the e-N introduced by le-. The question remains as to why it does not license the by-phrase. I will answer it in the next section (5.3). It is worth noting here that this state of affairs is reminiscent of middle constructions (Tali Siloni p.c.). A middle verb does not license a by-phrase (24a), but an Instrument is grammatical (24b) (Marelj 2002): 16 (24) a. ha-se’ar šel saša mistarek (le-amir)/*al-yedey amir be-koši 17 the-hair of Sacha combs to-Amir/by Amir in-difficulty b. ha-se’ar šel saša lo mistarek be-masrek ze the-hair of Sacha not combs in-comb this “Sacha’s hair does not comb with this comb.” In sum, an e-N introduced by le- has an Agent, but its syntactic status is not identical to the status of this argument in a “regular” e-N (i.e. one outside the object gap context). 15 In addition to the Agent theta-role ([+c+m]), theta-roles Cause ([+c]) or Mental ([+m]), which are unspecified for /m or /c, respectively, do not exclude a [+c+m] interpretation (see Reinhart 2000, and chapter 3). 16 Further comparison between middles and object gap nominals is beyond the scope of the study. 17 In Hebrew middles the implicit Agent can be introduced by le- (‘for’/‘to’) (Goldshlach and Hershman 2001).
184 . 5.2.5 Adverbial modification Modification by a manner adverbial is a typical property of e-Ns in Hebrew (25). 18 However, adverbial modification is ungrammatical in the Hebrew TC, and rather awkward in the OPC (26): 19 (25) nikuy ha-šati’ax be- yesodiyut haya me’ayef Cleaning the-carpet in-thoroughness was tiring “Cleaning the carpet thoroughly was tiring.” (26) a. *ha-šati’ax kaše le-nikuy be- yesodiyut the-carpet [is] difficult to-cleaning in-thoroughness “The carpet is difficult to clean thoroughly.” b. ??dan hevi et ha-šati’ax le-nikuy be-yesodiyut Dan brought Acc the-carpet to-cleaning in-thoroughness “Dan brought the carpet to clean thoroughly.” The following table summarizes the properties of the e-N introduced by le- in object gap constructions, as opposed to the properties of a regular e-N: (27) le + e-N e-N Function predicate argument Ext arg ? (not realized) + Int arg + (not realized) + Definiteness - + Manner AdvP - + 18 As observed in Siloni (1994), manner adverbials in Hebrew are mostly PPs. 19 See Engelhardt (1998) for different judgments of adverbial modification and by-phrases in the Hebrew TC. Note, however, that the illustration of the discussed phenomena in Engelhardt (1998) makes use of the Hebrew TC headed by the tough deverbal adjective nitan (‘possible’), rather than by the pure adjectives easy/tough.
- 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 and 188: 168 (A.2) VP Agent V’ V VP Goal i
- Page 189 and 190: 170 Consequently, they are predicte
- 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: 182 (19) a. the destruction of the
- 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-/*
- Page 239 and 240: 220 . Thus, it seems to be the case
- Page 241 and 242: 222 b. ha-oto i huva t i li-vdika [
- Page 243 and 244: 224 (105) a. dan [ VP [ V hevi] [ D
- Page 245 and 246: 226 . (111) dan [ VP hevi et ha-oto
- Page 247 and 248: 228 . In contrast, the adjectives i
- Page 249 and 250: 230 . The ECM/Raising SCs differ su
- Page 251 and 252: 232 . ‘found’) does not license
184<br />
.<br />
5.2.5 Adverbial modification<br />
Modification by a manner adverbial is a typical property of e-Ns in Hebrew<br />
(25). 18 However, adverbial modification is ungrammatical in the Hebrew TC, and<br />
rather awkward in the OPC (26): 19<br />
(25) nikuy ha-šati’ax be- yesodiyut haya me’ayef<br />
Cleaning the-carpet in-thoroughness was tiring<br />
“Cleaning the carpet thoroughly was tiring.”<br />
(26) a. *ha-šati’ax kaše le-nikuy be- yesodiyut<br />
the-carpet [is] difficult to-cleaning in-thoroughness<br />
“<strong>The</strong> carpet is difficult to clean thoroughly.”<br />
b. ??dan hevi et ha-šati’ax le-nikuy be-yesodiyut<br />
Dan brought Acc the-carpet to-cleaning in-thoroughness<br />
“Dan brought the carpet to clean thoroughly.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> following table summarizes the properties of the e-N introduced by le- in<br />
object gap constructions, as opposed to the properties of a regular e-N:<br />
(27)<br />
le + e-N<br />
e-N<br />
Function predicate argument<br />
Ext arg ? (not realized) +<br />
Int arg + (not realized) +<br />
Definiteness - +<br />
Manner AdvP - +<br />
18 As observed in Siloni (1994), manner adverbials in Hebrew are mostly PPs.<br />
19 See Engelhardt (1998) for different judgments of adverbial modification and by-phrases in the<br />
Hebrew TC. Note, however, that the illustration of the discussed phenomena in Engelhardt (1998)<br />
makes use of the Hebrew TC headed by the tough deverbal adjective nitan (‘possible’), rather than by<br />
the pure adjectives easy/tough.
Change language