The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

5
same P (in) seems to be both semantically contentful (functioning as a two-place
predicate) and ‘grammaticalized’ ((7a) vs. (7d)). The question which was not
addressed at this stage is whether such a preposition should be still considered as
lexical.
(iv) PPs do not behave uniformly with respect to binding (8). A pronoun
coindexed with the subject is grammatical when embedded in a locative PP (8a,b), but
not in other PPs (8c,d,e). This behavior was taken to suggest that only a locative PP
constitutes a binding domain (cf. Hestvik 1991), as it is a (two-place) predicate. Based
on (7), this can account for the ungrammaticality of (8c,e), but it leaves (8d)
unaccounted for. In the former the PPs are arguably not predicates (see (7d,e)), which
is not the case in the latter (see (7b)). 4
(8) a. Dan i put the book behind him i
b. Dan i saw a snake behind him i
c. *Dan i believed in him i
d. *Dan i talked about him i
e. *Dan i gave a prize to him i
(v) Under the lexical approach, there are two assumptions which characterize
Case-assignment by prepositions. First, Ps are assumed to be canonical Caseassigners,
similarly to Vs (reflected by the shared [-N] feature). Second, prepositional
Case is identified as inherent, Case assigned necessarily to the theta-argument of the
assigning P-head, rather than as structural, assigned independently of theta-marking.
However, both assumptions appear to be imprecise.
In various languages, including English and Hebrew, there are Ps which are not
able to assign Case (9): 5
(9) a. Dan left because *(of) Mary. English
4 The observed split between the locative PPs and those sometimes referred to as ‘governed’ PPs (e.g.
Dan relied on Mary) emerges in psycholinguistic studies as well (cf. Friederici 1982, Grodzinsky
1988).
5 See Dimitriadis 1999, Terzi 2001, for the inability of some locative Ps in Modern Greek to license
bare Genitive DPs.