The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

200
.
Experiencer, and (ii) there is no subject position in the embedded constituent in the
TC:
(53) a. It is easy for the rich [for the poor to do the hard work].
b. *Hard work is easy for the rich [for the poor to do].
In light of the above, the embedded constituent of object gap constructions (to-
VP) is not on a par with an infinitival CP. The morpheme to is not T, and the
constituent lacks subject position. In what follows, I will show that to-VP in English
is on a par with the le NP in Hebrew.
5.4.2 The analysis
Since to is not T, classifying it as P is natural. After all, to is a preposition. 37 It
occurs in the Directional and Dative constructions as a Case-related P (P C ). The
function of P-to in object gap constructions is clearly not P C , as its complement is
verbal. Thus, like the Hebrew le-, the preposition to in object gap constructions lacks
uninterpretable φ-features, namely it is P pred . As seen with regard to Hebrew P pred
(le-), to realizing P pred is expected to remove the Case of its complement. This is
strongly supported by the following observation (Cinque 1990).
In English object gap constructions, both direct and indirect objects can be
gapped (54). The latter, however, involves obligatory P-stranding (54b), which is
indicative of Case-related movement (55a) (compare with (55b,c)) (cf. Chomsky
1981): 38
(54) a. John is easy to please
b. John is easy to rely *(on).
(55) a. John was relied *(on).
b On whom did you rely?
c. Whom did you rely on?
37 Williams (1984, fn. 2) views to as the only tenseless modal.
38 It is worth noting that by mentioning this, I do not mean to imply that object gap constructions
involve A-movement. I present the phenomenon at this stage only to support the claim that to removes
Accusative Case. I will discuss the consequences of the removal of Accusative in subsection 5.4.2.4.