The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
209<br />
(70) a. ha-sefer kal/kaše [ leNP li-kri’a ]<br />
the-book easy/difficult to-reading<br />
b. <strong>The</strong> book is easy/difficult [ PP Op to [ VP read t ]]<br />
.<br />
One of the well-known controversies associated with this construction is the<br />
thematic status of its subject position: Is it a thematic position or a non-thematic<br />
one? 48 In what follows I will address this issue focusing on the properties of the tough<br />
A in general, and on its function in the TC.<br />
5.5.1.1 <strong>The</strong> tough A: <strong>The</strong> non-thematic status of the subject position in the TC<br />
is primarily motivated by the existence of the expletive subject construction (71a),<br />
which is taken to indicate that the tough adjective does not have an external argument<br />
(71b). However, by itself, this cannot be considered as conclusive evidence, as there<br />
are predicates, Object Experiencer verbs and adjectives (e.g. worry, annoy), which<br />
also occur in expletive subject construction (72a), but nevertheless, do have an<br />
external argument (72b) (Pesetsky 1987, 1995, Reinhart 2001):<br />
(71) a. It is easy to clean this carpet.<br />
b. *<strong>The</strong> carpet is easy.<br />
(72) a. It is annoying that Sacha is late.<br />
b. Your cat is annoying.<br />
Note that the ungrammaticality of (71b) may have a different explanation. For<br />
instance, a sentence like His behavior is blue is infelicitous. However, we do not<br />
automatically conclude that blue does not have an external argument, but rather that<br />
blue is incompatible with an argument such as his behavior.<br />
Ordinary APs are modifiers of (nominal) arguments and inherent predicates<br />
(Rothstein 2001). As predicates, APs are assumed to have an open position that has to<br />
48 <strong>The</strong> thematic status of the subject position was crucial in the previously assumed framework (GB,<br />
Chomsky 1981), where lexical insertion, regulated by the Projection Principle and the <strong>The</strong>ta-Criterion,<br />
was assumed to result in a syntactic level of representation referred to as the D-Structure. In the<br />
Minimalist framework (Chomsky 1993, 1995) the mentioned controversy is less significant, as no such<br />
level is assumed to exist. Nevertheless, the nature of this position is still an intriguing issue.