The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

16
In the Object Purpose Clause construction, this predicative phrase (NP in
Hebrew, PP in English) is analyzed as a secondary predicate of the internal argument
of the main verb, along lines proposed by Rothstein (2000, 2003) for resultative
constructions (e.g. Dan wiped the table clean). In the Tough Construction, the NP/PP
and the tough adjective are argued to form a complex AP predicate. The complex
tough predicate, unlike the tough adjective itself, has an external argument slot (the
externalized theta-role of the N/V). Viewed this way, the proposed analysis of the
Tough Construction explains and settles the long-standing controversy associated with
the thematic status of the subject position in the Tough Construction (cf. Chomsky
1981, 1986).
The outcome of the analysis is that the cluster of properties attested in object gap
constructions in English vs. Hebrew follows from the ‘Lex/Syn (Lexicon/Syntax)
parameter’ (Siloni 2002). More specifically, in Hebrew externalization of the thetarole
by P pred takes place in the lexicon, in English the same happens in syntax. This
immediately explains why in English, but not in Hebrew, externalization involves Op
(null operator)-movement. Even more importantly, it provides a promising direction
to derive the fact, previously unaccounted for, that the constructions are nominal in
Hebrew but verbal in English.
Before I conclude, a word on the theoretical background assumed throughout the
study is in order. I postpone the presentation and discussion of additional, more
specific, theoretical notions until they become relevant.
The research presented in this study is conducted in the general framework of
the Principles and Parameters (P&P henceforth) approach (Chomsky 1981, 1986,
Chomsky and Lasnik 1993). I view lexical categories as feature complexes, and
assume the standard functional categories D, T and C. Within the P&P approach, I
assume the Minimalist perspective (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001), and hence do not
have recourse to the levels of representation D-structure and S-structure. The only
levels of representation I assume are the interfaces with the conceptual and
articulatory-perceptual systems, LF and PF, respectively.
For convenience, the study uses the standard notation of X-bar theory. But the
proposals are equally compatible with the Bare Phrase Structure approach (Chomsky
1995).
I follow the “Active lexicon” approach argued for in Siloni (2002). The central
claim advanced in Siloni (2002) is that the lexicon must be an operative component of