The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

7
The classification of P as a major lexical category is far from being
uncontroversial. One obvious objection is the fact that P, as opposed to N, V or A, is a
small, closed category, namely it has relatively few members (tens, rather than
hundreds), and it does not admit easily any new ones (cf. Emonds 1985). Thus, given
the above (i.e. (i)-(v)) and the unproductive and small-class nature of P, it seems
plausible that the failure of the (uniform) lexical approach to result in a coherent
picture is due primarily to the classification of P as lexical.
With the extension of the X-bar theory to the functional categories, such as
T(ense) or I(nflection) projecting a TP/IP, or C projecting a CP (Chomsky 1986),
there arose a real opportunity to reevaluate the categorial classification of P. 6
1.1.2 Departures from the lexical view
Emonds (1985), Van Riemsdijk (1990, 1998), Grimshaw (1991) (and most
recently Baker 2003) are the most prominent representatives of what may be called
‘the non-lexical approaches to P’. All of them share the assumption that P is not a
major lexical category. The assumption is based primarily on the observation that P,
unlike N, V or A, is a small, closed class category. Apart from the shared assumption,
the aforementioned approaches are quite distinct. While Grimshaw (1991) and Baker
(2003) treat P as uniformly functional, the approach to P in Emonds (1985) and Van
Riemsdijk (1990, 1998) is non-uniform. 7 In what follows I will examine to what
extent these approaches contribute to the clarification of the complex picture
presented by P.
1.1.2.1 The non-uniform approach: Emonds (1985) and Van Riemsdijk (1990,
1998) view P as a ‘grammatical’ category, labeled ‘semi-lexical’ in Van Riemsdijk
1998. Despite the different terminology, it can be argued that under these approaches
P is still considered lexical to some extent, since (some) members of P are assumed to
be theta-assigners. That the lexical view of P is not entirely abandoned is also
suggested by the categorial specification of P as [-N-V] in Van Riemsdijk’s proposal. 8
6 Throughout the study I refer to the clausal functional head as T, rather than I/T.
7 See also Radford (1997), Zwarts (1997), Koopman (2000).
8 The specification of P as [-N-V] plays an important role in Van Riemsdijk’s proposal. It is argued to
underlie the ability of P to introduce a large variety of complements. In addition to its categorial feature
specification [-N-V], P is specified as [-F(unctional) +G(rammatical)]. (For more details see Van
Riemsdijk 1998).