The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

14
by the corresponding lexical head. It is carried out by small Ps only (e.g. in, at),
as only these are associated with an uninterpretable set of φ-features, which
enables them to check the Case feature of a DP (chapters 2, 3). 15 P pred , realized
by particular small Ps (e.g. to), integrates property denoting constituents (e.g.
NP, VP) into the syntactic structure (chapters 2, 5).
Support for the proposal is drawn from three detailed case studies that are
presented in chapters 3-5. The apparent differences exhibited by PPs are shown to
follow from the specific lexical representations of the Ps themselves and from their
interaction with the corresponding lexical heads.
Chapter 3 is a study of the P C function. The empirical array of the chapter is
verbs whose internal argument is realized obligatorily as a PP (PP-verbs, henceforth),
rather than a DP (e.g. rely on, depend on). In the very few existing analyses of the
phenomenon of PP-verbs, the function of P is claimed to be either Case-related (cf.
Hestvik 1991), or theta-related (Neeleman 1997). These proposals prove
unsatisfactory as they provide only partial explanations of the phenomenon, and do
not answer the most intriguing question, namely why the phenomenon exists in the
first place. Assuming the framework of The Theta System (Reinhart 2000, 2001,
2002), I argue that PP-verbs are two-place verbs with an underspecified internal thetarole.
Such verbs do not have the syntactic ability to check and delete the Case feature
of their nominal argument. Therefore they lexically select for a semantically
appropriate small P, which checks the Case feature of their internal nominal
argument. Viewed this way, the occurrence of small Ps in the context of PP-verbs is
thematically motivated, but their function is purely syntactic, to check the Case of the
nominal.
The proposed analysis not only defines the group of PP-verbs, but also provides
an account of the cross-linguistic variation they show, based on Hebrew, English and
Russian.
Chapter 4 offers a systematic comparison between Locative, Directional and
Dative constructions and a detailed analysis of the corresponding Ps.
The Dative P is shown to be a particular case of P C . Focusing on Hebrew, I
argue that the Dative P C differs from the P C in PP-verb constructions (chapter 3) in its
15 As will be explained in chapter 2, a DP complement of P R carries inherent Case (which will be
redefined); inherent Case does not involve feature checking.