The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

223
b. dan hevi et ha-oto
dan brough Acc the-car
“Dan brought the car.”
.
(103) a. Dan wiped the table i [ AP clean i ]
b. Dan wiped the table.
Given the similarity of the le NP/PP in the OPC to the resultative secondary
predicate, I will assume that the le NP/PP in the OPC is a secondary predicate.
Following Rothstein (1983, 2001) this means that it is predicated of a thematic
argument of the main clause predicate.
5.5.2.2 The syntax of secondary predicates: The syntactic issue concerning
secondary predicates revolves around the question whether a secondary predicate is a
daughter of a SC node (predicated of a PRO subject) (Chomsky 1981, Stowell 1983,
among others), as in (104a), or rather an adjunct, generated without a subject as a
daughter of some projection of the V, and predicated directly of the relevant argument
of the main predicate (Williams 1980, 1983, 1994, Rothstein 1983, 1995, 2001,
among others), as in (104b):
(104) a. John [ VP wiped the table] [PRO clean]
b. John [ VP [ V wiped] [ DP the table] [ AP clean]]
As pointed out by Williams, the structure in (104a), at least for object-oriented
secondary predicates, is problematic. PRO contained in the SC appears to be
governed, as the SC has to be contained inside the VP. 66 Rothstein argues that SCs
must be licensed by theta-marking, which is impossible in (104a).
In what follows I will adopt the structure in (104b) for resultative and purpose
secondary predicates ( le NP/PP). The syntactic representations of the Hebrew and
English OPC are given in (105):
66 Chomsky (1981) raises the possibility that while theta-marked SCs (complements of ECM verbs) are
transparent for government, non-theta-marked SCs (i.e. object-oriented depictives and resultatives) are
opaque for government, thus allowing PRO.