The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation 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.
224 (105) a. dan [ VP [ V hevi] [ DP et ha-oto] i [ leNP le-tikun] [Exti] ] b. Dan [ VP [ V brought] [ DP the car] i [ PP Op i to repair t i ] [Exti] ] . (105) correctly implies that the DP the car is the argument of the matrix verb, and that the le NP/PP is a VP-internal adjunct of some kind. Faraci (1974) presents five arguments to support the claim that the embedded constituent in the OPC (‘purpose clause’ in his terminology) is indeed a VP-internal adjunct, rather than a clausal one. I will mention here two of his arguments. Following Chomsky (1965), only phrases outside the VP could be preposed to the beginning of the sentence. Given this, the ungrammaticality of (106b) indicates that to practice on in (106a) is inside the VP: (106) a. John bought the piano to practice on b. *To practice on, John bought the piano (Faraci 1974, (7b), (8b)) The embedded constituent in the OPC can be part of a VP in focus position in pseudo-cleft sentences: (107) a. Marc bought Fido to play with b. What Marc did was to buy Fido to play with (Faraci 1974, (31a,b)) In sum, the le NP/PP in the OPC is a VP-internal adjunct. Its external slot (Ext) is discharged by assignment to the internal argument of the matrix verb (e.g. the car in (105)). 67 As already mentioned in 5.5.1.6, the saturated argument of the le NP/PP (x ARB ) is usually interpreted in the OPC as (quasi) existential (by default) (Dan brought the car to repair). Note, however, that following the discussion in 5.5.1.6, the saturated argument of the le NP/PP (x ARB ) in the OPC should, in principle, be able to be interpreted as arbitrary (universally-bound), if the appropriate licensing is provided. This is indeed the case, as shown in (108): 67 Williams (1983) argues that the correct way to capture the independence of a secondary predicate from the primary one is to revise the Theta-Criterion in such a way that it states that no argument can be theta-marked more than once by the same head.
- Page 191 and 192: 172 5. P pred in object gap constru
- Page 193 and 194: 174 . Extending the proposal to Eng
- Page 195 and 196: 176 . Based on previous work, defin
- Page 197 and 198: 178 . specifier of an NP is the pos
- Page 199 and 200: 180 . possibility that in principle
- Page 201 and 202: 182 (19) a. the destruction of the
- Page 203 and 204: 184 . 5.2.5 Adverbial modification
- Page 205 and 206: 186 b. ha-yeled kal havana the-boy
- Page 207 and 208: 188 . Before I discuss the lexical
- Page 209 and 210: 190 . Passivization is taken to inv
- Page 211 and 212: 192 . already ΘSat ARB (see (37)).
- Page 213 and 214: 194 . The strongest empirical suppo
- Page 215 and 216: 196 . (i) Aspectual have: Jones (19
- Page 217 and 218: 198 . (iv) Adverbial placement: Fin
- Page 219 and 220: 200 . Experiencer, and (ii) there i
- Page 221 and 222: 202 . Consequently, the arguments o
- Page 223 and 224: 204 . phonetically unrealized inter
- Page 225 and 226: 206 . stranded. As already mentione
- Page 227 and 228: 208 5.5 The role of the le NP/PP in
- Page 229 and 230: 210 . be closed (or satisfied) synt
- Page 231 and 232: 212 b. *There is hard to believe [t
- Page 233 and 234: 214 . Following Higginbotham (1985)
- Page 235 and 236: 216 (85) a. ma’axal nora ze (lo)
- Page 237 and 238: 218 c. basar adom hu mazon (*ha-/*
- Page 239 and 240: 220 . Thus, it seems to be the case
- Page 241: 222 b. ha-oto i huva t i li-vdika [
- Page 245 and 246: 226 . (111) dan [ VP hevi et ha-oto
- Page 247 and 248: 228 . In contrast, the adjectives i
- Page 249 and 250: 230 . The ECM/Raising SCs differ su
- Page 251 and 252: 232 . ‘found’) does not license
- Page 253 and 254: 234 Boškovič, Ž. 1994. “D-Stru
- Page 255 and 256: 236 Froud, K. 2001. “Prepositions
- Page 257 and 258: 238 Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist Ana
- Page 259 and 260: 240 Riemsdijk van, H. C. 1990. “F
- Page 261: 242 Williams, E. 1987. “Implicit
224<br />
(105) a. dan [ VP [ V hevi] [ DP et ha-oto] i [ leNP le-tikun] [Exti] ]<br />
b. Dan [ VP [ V brought] [ DP the car] i [ PP Op i to repair t i ] [Exti] ]<br />
.<br />
(105) correctly implies that the DP the car is the argument of the matrix verb,<br />
and that the le NP/PP is a VP-internal adjunct of some kind. Faraci (1974) presents five<br />
arguments to support the claim that the embedded constituent in the OPC (‘purpose<br />
clause’ in his terminology) is indeed a VP-internal adjunct, rather than a clausal one. I<br />
will mention here two of his arguments.<br />
Following Chomsky (1965), only phrases outside the VP could be preposed to<br />
the beginning of the sentence. Given this, the ungrammaticality of (106b) indicates<br />
that to practice on in (106a) is inside the VP:<br />
(106) a. John bought the piano to practice on<br />
b. *To practice on, John bought the piano<br />
(Faraci 1974, (7b), (8b))<br />
<strong>The</strong> embedded constituent in the OPC can be part of a VP in focus position in<br />
pseudo-cleft sentences:<br />
(107) a. Marc bought Fido to play with<br />
b. What Marc did was to buy Fido to play with<br />
(Faraci 1974, (31a,b))<br />
In sum, the le NP/PP in the OPC is a VP-internal adjunct. Its external slot (Ext) is<br />
discharged by assignment to the internal argument of the matrix verb (e.g. the car in<br />
(105)). 67 As already mentioned in 5.5.1.6, the saturated argument of the le NP/PP<br />
(x ARB ) is usually interpreted in the OPC as (quasi) existential (by default) (Dan<br />
brought the car to repair). Note, however, that following the discussion in 5.5.1.6, the<br />
saturated argument of the le NP/PP (x ARB ) in the OPC should, in principle, be able to<br />
be interpreted as arbitrary (universally-bound), if the appropriate licensing is<br />
provided. This is indeed the case, as shown in (108):<br />
67 Williams (1983) argues that the correct way to capture the independence of a secondary predicate<br />
from the primary one is to revise the <strong>The</strong>ta-Criterion in such a way that it states that no argument can<br />
be theta-marked more than once by the same head.