The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
227 Appendix A: The Degree Construction (DegC) . The Degree construction (DegC) with degree phrases like miday (‘too’) seems similar to the TC. The embedded constituent (verbal in English, nominal in Hebrew) is dependent on the occurrence of the degree phrase (1a), similarly to the embedded constituent in the TC, which is dependent on the occurrence of the tough A (A.1b): 68 (A.1) a. ha-madafim *(miday) kcarim le-harkava e DegC The shelves [are] too short to install b. ha-madafim *kcarim/kalim le-harkava e TC The shelves [are] short/easy to install However, the DegC and the TC are different in some respects, all of which are probably connected to the relation between the adjective and the DP-subject in each of the discussed constructions (i.e. John and angry in (A.1a) and John and easy in (A.1b)). 69 As already discussed at length, the tough A does not have an external argument on its own, although it has, as any other A, an external slot, and therefore can act as a predicate (of an expletive subject). I have argued that in the TC the embedded adjunct ( le NP in Hebrew, PP in English) forms a complex predicate with the tough A, providing the tough A with the external argument. Thus it is only upon complex predicate formation that the subject position in the TC is thematic. 68 The clauses which appear with degree phrases like miday (‘too’) are sometimes referred to as ‘result clauses’. However, Browning (1987) notes that a more appropriate term would be ‘negative result clauses’. The property predicated of John in (i) is that he is angry to such a degree that it is impossible to talk to him: (i) John is too angry to talk to. 69 Some additional differences between the DegC and TC include the following: The constituent which contains the gap ( le NP in Hebrew, PP in English) is not obligatory (ia); it can be clausal (in Hebrew), and does not necessarily contain a gap (ib): (i) a. ha-madafim kcarim miday (le-harkava) the-shelves short too (to-installation) “The shelves are too short (to install).” b. ha-ši’ur meša’amem mixdey še-dan iša’er er the-class [is] boring too that-Dan will stay awake “The class is too boring for Dan to stay awake.”
228 . In contrast, the adjectives in the DegC are of the familiar kind (e.g. angry, stupid, stubborn, etc.), i.e. they have an external argument slot, and therefore are predicated of arguments only. In other words, there is no need for these adjectives to participate in complex predicate formation in order to be predicated of a referential subject. (This is what probably underlies the optionality of the embedded constituent in the DegC, see fn. 69.) Given the analysis of the TC developed in this chapter, and following Browning (1987), I believe that the difference between the constructions can be captured structurally. Browning (1987) argues that the AP in the DegC is the complement of the Deghead, which is a predicate by virtue of facilitating the assignment of the external role of the A (e.g. angry) to the subject. 70 In addition to the AP complement, DegP contains a secondary predicate, NP/PP with object gap (e.g. to install in (A.1a)), which is adjoined to it. The structures of the TC and the DegC are shown in (A.2): (A.2) TC IP DegC IP DP I’ DP I’ I (VP) I (VP) AP DegP A’ DegP PP/NP A’ PP/NP Deg AP tough-A A 70 Degree words are analyzed as specifiers of AP in Jackendoff (1977). Since Abney (1987) they are standardly treated as functional heads that take an AP complement.
- 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 and 242: 222 b. ha-oto i huva t i li-vdika [
- Page 243 and 244: 224 (105) a. dan [ VP [ V hevi] [ D
- Page 245: 226 . (111) dan [ VP hevi et ha-oto
- 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
228<br />
.<br />
In contrast, the adjectives in the DegC are of the familiar kind (e.g. angry,<br />
stupid, stubborn, etc.), i.e. they have an external argument slot, and therefore are<br />
predicated of arguments only. In other words, there is no need for these adjectives to<br />
participate in complex predicate formation in order to be predicated of a referential<br />
subject. (This is what probably underlies the optionality of the embedded constituent<br />
in the DegC, see fn. 69.)<br />
Given the analysis of the TC developed in this chapter, and following Browning<br />
(1987), I believe that the difference between the constructions can be captured<br />
structurally.<br />
Browning (1987) argues that the AP in the DegC is the complement of the Deghead,<br />
which is a predicate by virtue of facilitating the assignment of the external role<br />
of the A (e.g. angry) to the subject. 70 In addition to the AP complement, DegP<br />
contains a secondary predicate, NP/PP with object gap (e.g. to install in (A.1a)),<br />
which is adjoined to it. <strong>The</strong> structures of the TC and the DegC are shown in (A.2):<br />
(A.2)<br />
TC IP DegC IP<br />
DP I’ DP I’<br />
I (VP) I (VP)<br />
AP<br />
DegP<br />
A’ DegP PP/NP<br />
A’ PP/NP Deg AP<br />
tough-A<br />
A<br />
70 Degree words are analyzed as specifiers of AP in Jackendoff (1977). Since Abney (1987) they are<br />
standardly treated as functional heads that take an AP complement.
Change language