The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

205
.
The specifier of a TP is another position that qualifies as A-position, due to it
being L-related (Chomsky 1993). However, to in object gap constructions has been
shown to be P (P pred ), rather than T. It is not associated with tense and does not have
any set of (uninterpretable) φ-features. Clearly then, its specifier is not L-related, and
therefore not an A-position.
In sum, the specifier position of the PP in object gap constructions is not an A-
position, as the P is neither lexical nor tense-related. Therefore it is an A’-position,
appropriate to host an Op. 43
5.4.2.4 The consequences: It is a well-known property of an A’-chain that its tail
position is associated with both theta-role and Case:
(62) a. The man [whom i /Op i you met t i ] is my uncle
b. Whom i did you meet t i ?
Recall, however, that to functioning as P pred removes Accusative (5.4.2.1). 44 I
repeat the relevant examples below:
(63) a. John is easy to rely *(on).
b. John was relied *(on).
c. On whom did you rely?
d. Whom did you rely on?
According to the analysis developed so far, (63a) shows that Op-movement in
the PP of object gap constructions in English is applicable to indirect objects, if P is
43 Note that P-to in the discussed context is, in some sense, parallel to C, the latter too is neither lexical
nor (directly) tense-related. See Kayne 2003, where infinitival to is taken to be a subtype of a
complementizer.
44 Kayne (1984), following Hornstein and Weinberg (1981) argues that verbal and prepositional Case
in English is identical (it is labeled Objective in Haegeman (1991)). This arguably underlies the fact
that to functioning as P pred can remove the Case of the verb or of the preposition in English, and to the
phenomenon of P-stranding. The incorporation of this property of English (i.e. the identity of verbal
and prepositional Case) in the analysis of P C developed in chapter 3 is left for future research.