The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

202
.
Consequently, the arguments of the verb cannot be realized in their theta-positions. It
is reasonable to conclude that the external argument of the verb embedded in the PP is
suppressed, namely it is saturated by existential (possibly arbitrary) closure. 39 This
might be construed as falling under Burzio’s (1986) generalization, and is fully
consistent with the observation that this argument is never phonetically realized in
object gap constructions (see 5.4.1.2).
Note that on the assumption that the external argument of the verb is suppressed
by to (P pred ), it is predicted that the embedded verb in object gap constructions cannot
be passive (54). More specifically, if both passivization and externalization involve
saturation of the external argument of the verb, they are mutually exclusive. In object
gap constructions externalization is obligatory (without it there will be no object gap),
therefore in these constructions the verb embedded in the PP cannot be passivized (for
brevity, I exemplify this only for the TC, see Jones 1991 for this effect in the OPC):
(56) *Dan is easy to be pleased
Before I turn to the internal argument, a brief clarification is in place. Reinhart
and Siloni (2003) suggest that arity operations which result in non-canonical thetaassignment
have a morphological marking (e.g. passive morphology; se/si). Noncanonical
theta-assignment includes saturation. However, there is no characteristic
morphology (other than the uninflected verbal form) in object gap constructions.
What is characteristic of this context is the absence of T and the presence of P-to
instead. Thus, it can be argued that the role of characteristic morphology is played
here by characteristic syntactic configuration. More specifically, the external
argument of the verb can be and is saturated, since the VP is the complement of P pred
(to), rather than of T.
39 In this respect I depart from Jones (1991), who assums that the external argument is not necessarily
suppressed, but rather becomes hierarchically equal to the internal one. Consequently, either the
external or the internal one can be externalized. The former gives rise to (obligatory) subject-gap PC
(SPC in Jones 1991), whereas the latter to the OPC and TC. Note, however, that since Jones (1991)
assumes the approach in Williams (1981), there is no need for a special mechanism (hierarchical
equation) in order to externalize the external theta-role of a VP. Furthermore, if suppression equates the
external and internal arguments, it is not clear why in object gap constructions only externalization of
the internal argument is witnessed.