The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

10
heads such as N, V, A do not. 10 Under her approach a functional head functions as an
extension of the appropriate lexical head projection (e.g. [DP-D’-D-NP-N’-N], [IP-I’-
I-VP-V’-V]). It is proposed that P extends the nominal projection (i.e. PP-P’-P-
DP…), similarly to C which is proposed to extend the verbal one. Since the principle
which restricts the formation of an extended projection is that all heads in the
extended projection are categorially identical, the categorial features of P in
Grimshaw’s theory are that of N, [+N-V], rather than the [-N-V] cluster assumed in
previous versions of the theory. The classification of P as a functional head (in the
extended nominal projection) entails that P is not a theta-assigner. 11
The first apparent obstacle to Grimshaw’s uniform and restrictive theory is
presented by semantically contentful Ps such as after, which can introduce clausal
categories, arguably CPs. Since P is assumed to be part of the nominal extended
projection, it cannot form an extended projection with a CP, which is verbal (i.e. part
of the extended verbal projection). Since Ps are claimed to be functional, they are not
supposed to either c(ategorially)- or s(emantically)-select their complement. To solve
this problem Grimshaw proposes a certain relaxation regarding P. As opposed to the
other functional heads, which do not s- or c-select, since their participation in the
extended projection is guided by the principles of projection, semantically contentful
Ps (referred to as ‘semantic’) are suggested to be allowed to s-select their
complement. In this respect, note that although Grimshaw does not deny that some Ps
are semantically contentful, she assumes that this does not necessarily preclude their
being a functional category syntactically (Grimshaw 1991:7).
However, even with the relaxation mentioned above, the wide distribution of
PPs presents some prominent problems for Grimshaw’s theory. Recall that Ps can
introduce not only argumental constituents, namely CPs and DPs, but also various
predicative ones ((6b) repeated as (15b) and (15a,c)). This is virtually impossible
under Grimshaw’s approach, as it is the basic premise of her theory that complements
of the functional categories are fixed (note that the Ps in (15) are not semantically
contentful, therefore s-selection cannot play any role here).
10 The same observation is made independently in Van Riemsdijk (1990).
11 See also Webelhuth (1992), where the claim that Ps function as affixes is taken to entail that P is not
a theta-assigner.