The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
197 b. ??My son John is easy [to be proud of ] c. *I bought it [to be proud of ] (Jones 1991) . Since proud of is a non-intentional predicate, be which precedes it is an auxiliary moving into T. The marginality of (43b) and the ungrammaticality of (43c) are accounted for on the assumption that there is no T in the embedded constituent of the latter. (iii) VP-ellipsis: It is a familiar property of English that in many cases a VP can be elided leaving the infinitival to behind (44). However, this is completely impossible in the English TC (45). According to Williams (1984), the VP cannot be deleted if it is not a sister of T (Aux in his terms): 35 (44) a. John is eager to please his teachers, but Mary is reluctant to. b. John wanted to dance, but Mary didn’t want to. (45) *Your paper is easy to read, but your book is difficult to. Note that the impossibility to elide the VP leaving to in the TC is arguably a specific case of the more general impossibility to elide any part of the sequence [A to VP] (46). This suggests that the relation between the tough adjective and the following constituent (to-VP) is not the same as in (44a) (for further discussion see 5.5): (46) a. ??The goat is easy to milk, but the cow is tough. b. *?The goat is easy to milk, and the dog is to feed. c. The goat is easy to milk, but the cow is not. 35 See Jones (1991:92, 115) for a different view on what restricts VP deletion in English, and why VP deletion is felicitous in the OPC: (i) John bought “Bambi” [to read] and Mary bought it [to ]as well.
198 . (iv) Adverbial placement: Finally, notice that the placement possibilities of the so-called quantificational adverbs (e.g. seldom, often, etc.) in the embedded constituent of object gap constructions (47b,c) are not identical to those in the embedded infinitivals elsewhere (47a): (47) a. Bart decided [ CP to (often) watch avant-guard films (often)] b. Avant-guard films are difficult [to (*often) watch (often)] c. I bought “Metropolis” [to (*often) watch (often)] On a reasonable assumption that these adverbs are interpreted in relation to an event, i.e. they need an event variable to quantify over, they can occur either VPinternally, or immediately above the VP, if the VP occurs with the tense operator (T). That the latter is ungrammatical in object gap constructions supports the claim that to in these constructions is not T. 5.4.1.2 No subject position: It has been noted (Fiengo and Lasnik 1974, Jones 1991), that the verbal constituent of object gap constructions resists there-insertion (48). In contrast, there-insertion is possible in the infinitival clause of the expletive subject construction headed by a tough A, or in an IR, as shown in (49): (48) a. *Bart is tough for there to be pictures of all over. b. *I chose Bart for there to be pictures of all over. (49) a. It is tough for there to be pictures of Bart all over. b. Bart is a guy for there to be pictures of all over. (Adapted from Jones 1991) As standardly assumed, expletive there occurs in the subject position. If there is no such position in the embedded constituent of object gap constructions, the ungrammaticality of (48) follows. Note, that given the grammatical (49a), the ungrammaticality of (48a) cannot be attributed to some property of the tough A.
- 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 and 202: 182 (19) a. the destruction of the
- Page 203 and 204: 184 . 5.2.5 Adverbial modification
- 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: 196 . (i) Aspectual have: Jones (19
- 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
- Page 253 and 254: 234 Boškovič, Ž. 1994. “D-Stru
- Page 255 and 256: 236 Froud, K. 2001. “Prepositions
- Page 257 and 258: 238 Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist Ana
- Page 259 and 260: 240 Riemsdijk van, H. C. 1990. “F
- Page 261: 242 Williams, E. 1987. “Implicit
197<br />
b. ??My son John is easy [to be proud of ]<br />
c. *I bought it [to be proud of ]<br />
(Jones 1991)<br />
.<br />
Since proud of is a non-intentional predicate, be which precedes it is an auxiliary<br />
moving into T. <strong>The</strong> marginality of (43b) and the ungrammaticality of (43c) are<br />
accounted for on the assumption that there is no T in the embedded constituent of the<br />
latter.<br />
(iii) VP-ellipsis:<br />
It is a familiar property of English that in many cases a VP can be elided leaving<br />
the infinitival to behind (44). However, this is completely impossible in the English<br />
TC (45). According to Williams (1984), the VP cannot be deleted if it is not a sister of<br />
T (Aux in his terms): 35<br />
(44) a. John is eager to please his teachers, but Mary is reluctant to.<br />
b. John wanted to dance, but Mary didn’t want to.<br />
(45) *Your paper is easy to read, but your book is difficult to.<br />
Note that the impossibility to elide the VP leaving to in the TC is arguably a<br />
specific case of the more general impossibility to elide any part of the sequence [A to<br />
VP] (46). This suggests that the relation between the tough adjective and the<br />
following constituent (to-VP) is not the same as in (44a) (for further discussion see<br />
5.5):<br />
(46) a. ??<strong>The</strong> goat is easy to milk, but the cow is tough.<br />
b. *?<strong>The</strong> goat is easy to milk, and the dog is to feed.<br />
c. <strong>The</strong> goat is easy to milk, but the cow is not.<br />
35 See Jones (1991:92, 115) for a different view on what restricts VP deletion in English, and why VP<br />
deletion is felicitous in the OPC:<br />
(i) John bought “Bambi” [to read] and Mary bought it [to ]as well.
Change language