The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

195
.
Rather, it is a syntactic P-head that combines with a VP and externalizes the internal
theta-role of the verb (i.e. it functions as P pred ), forming in syntax a predicative PP.
Since P, as opposed to T, is not associated with a tense operator, the e variable of the
verb embedded in the PP is not existentially bound and is available for modification.
Thus, the PP is on a par with the le NP in Hebrew. Because the PP, unlike the le NP, is
formed in syntax, externalization of the internal theta-role of the verb will be shown
to result from OP-movement, as in (41):
(41) [ PP Op i [ P’ to [ VP read t i ]]]
In what follows, I will first establish the non-clausal nature of the to-VP
sequence of object gap constructions. I will then discuss the details of externalization
in English.
5.4.1 ‘to’-VP is not clausal
As already mentioned, the clausal analysis of the to-VP sequence in object gap
constructions stems from the identification of to as the infinitival tense marker
realizing the functional syntactic head T, projecting a TP. The specifier of the TP, the
canonical subject position, is assumed to be always projected and realized (regulated
by the EPP in Chomsky 1981; predication in Chomsky 1995). Thus, the necessary
result of the clausal analysis is that the embedded constituent has a subject position. In
what follows I will argue that the morpheme to introducing the embedded constituent
of object gap constructions does not behave as an infinitival tense marker (T), and that
this constituent does not have a subject position. 31
5.4.1.1 to is not T: The following examination will show that the properties of to
in Infinitival Relatives and expletive subject constructions are different from those in
object gap constructions. Under the view that to is invariably T, this is not expected.
31 Kayne (2003) assumes that to in English is a preposition in any context, including the infinitival one.
This assumption is viewed in Kayne (2003) as consistent with, or actually supported by, the fact that
infinitival to allows stranding under movement, as typical of English Ps:
(i)
They predicted that John would have to resign, and resign he’ll have to.
(Kayne 2003)
I believe that although (i) shows that to has prepositional properties, this does not mean that every
instance of to should be analyzed as P.