The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
21 functional head D can take any complement which is not tensed. Rothstein (1995), in her analysis of copular constructions, assumes that in languages such as Hebrew or Russian, the functional head T takes, in addition to VP, also NP, PP or AP complements. Even the uniqueness of the complement of C, namely TP, might be questioned in light of Hebrew examples such as ha-xatulim še ba-xacer yafim (‘the cats that in the garden [are] beautiful’) (for further discussion see chapter 4). To conclude, permitting more than just one specific complement does not seem to be unique to the lexical categories, and therefore cannot help us decide whether an element is lexical or functional. (b) Head-complement relation: Complements of lexical heads are standardly assumed to be theta-related to the selecting head. Accordingly, complementation to a lexical head is not obligatory, but rather depends on the lexical properties of the head. In contrast, functional heads, which are standardly assumed to subcategorize for their complement, perform some function on their complement. Thus, in rough lines, D turns its nominal complement into a referential expression, T anchors the VP in time, C determines the force of its complement. The mere existence of a functional head is dependent on the availability of something to operate on. Consequently, the complement of a functional head is obligatory. 4 (d) Movement: The complement of a functional head cannot be moved stranding the functional head. More specifically, there are no instances of TP being moved stranding the C, or NP being moved stranding the D. 5 In clear contrast, complements to lexical heads can, of course, be moved stranding the lexical head. 6 The above discussion is summarized in the table in (2). As the meaning and function criterion as well as variety of complements do not seem to be distinctive enough, they are omitted from the table. 7 4 Note, however, that pronouns are often argued to realize D and project a DP with no (lexical) complement (Abney 1987, but see Ritter 1991). 5 The behavior of T (e.g. in VP-preposing) seems to be exceptional in this respect (see Chomsky 2001). 6 This is widely attested for verbs, but less so for nouns and adjectives, for independent and language specific reasons. 7 Anticipating the following discussion, the criterion head-complement relation is broken into two separate criteria in table (2): head-complement relation and syntactic realization of complement.
22 (2) Criterion Functional categories Lexical categories i. Class type Small, closed Large, open ii. Morphological properties Non-flexional, affixal, null Flexional, full iii. Syntactic properties: Head-complement relation Subcategorized Theta-related Syntactic realization of complement Obligatory Non-Obligatory Movement Impossible Possible In what follows I will show that P clearly patterns with the functional categories. 2.1.2 The functional properties of P According to the criteria in (2), most properties of P are functional. 8 I will start with these and discuss the remaining unclear property of P in 2.1.3. (i) Type of class A well-known observation regarding P is that it is a non-productive, closed category, consisting of a rather small group of items, 20-30, and not hundreds (Emonds 1985). Therefore the category P is referred to as a minor category, similarly to the core functional categories. 9 (ii) Morphological properties ((non)flexional, full/affixal/null) Ps are non-flexional. As opposed to the lexical categories and on a par with the functional ones, Ps are neither inputs nor outputs of systematic derivational processes. They do, however, show a wide range of etymological sources: verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, etc. (Van Riemsdijk 1978, Bierwisch 1988, Fries 1991, Vincent 8 I refer to the properties of the functional categories as functional properties, and those of the lexical categories as lexical properties. 9 For some productivity within the group of complex Ps in Dutch such as pending, concerning, with regard to, etc., see Zwarts 1997, Van Riemsdijk 1998.
- Page 1 and 2: Tel-Aviv University The Lester & Sa
- Page 3 and 4: Acknowledgements It has been a long
- Page 5 and 6: Abstract 1. Introduction (chapter 1
- Page 7 and 8: c. *Dan i talked about him i d. *Da
- Page 9 and 10: (9) The main hypothesis P is unifor
- Page 11 and 12: In the Theta System theta-roles are
- Page 13 and 14: The (semantically limited) distribu
- Page 15 and 16: of the main verb, along lines propo
- Page 17 and 18: 3.2.2 The theta-features (Reinhart
- Page 19 and 20: 5.4.2.1 The status and function of
- Page 21 and 22: 2 1.1 Previous approaches to P 1.1.
- Page 23 and 24: 4 (5) a. dan higi’a axarey ha-mes
- Page 25 and 26: 6 b. misaviv *(le)-ec Hebrew around
- Page 27 and 28: 8 These approaches do depart from t
- Page 29 and 30: 10 heads such as N, V, A do not. 10
- Page 31 and 32: 12 To summarize, as it stands, Grim
- Page 33 and 34: 14 by the corresponding lexical hea
- Page 35 and 36: 16 In the Object Purpose Clause con
- Page 37 and 38: 18 2. The theory of P The main goal
- Page 39: 20 yes/no questions).This is comple
- Page 43 and 44: 24 In various languages some Ps are
- Page 45 and 46: 26 sharp contrast to the core lexic
- Page 47 and 48: 28 lexical, of course) (see the dis
- Page 49 and 50: 30 (iv) Froud 2001 is a psycholingu
- Page 51 and 52: 32 perspective, I will assume that
- Page 53 and 54: 34 Dutch provides an additional arg
- Page 55 and 56: 36 the study). Thus, taking the not
- Page 57 and 58: 38 On my proposal (section 2.2.1) m
- Page 59 and 60: 40 In this respect, let me note a p
- Page 61 and 62: 42 The phenomenon of PP-verbs, alth
- Page 63 and 64: 44 inability to agree with its DP-o
- Page 65 and 66: 46 The question which arises at thi
- Page 67 and 68: 48 (13) Internal argument-taking hi
- Page 69 and 70: 50 Grimshaw 1990; Baker 1988, 1997;
- Page 71 and 72: 52 suitable for the problem at hand
- Page 73 and 74: 54 3.2.3 The mapping generalization
- Page 75 and 76: 56 (iii) Assignment of [Acc] depend
- Page 77 and 78: 58 (25) a. on našol konfet-u v kar
- Page 79 and 80: 60 theory of P developed in chapter
- Page 81 and 82: 62 (37) a. What did he eat in the m
- Page 83 and 84: 64 Thus, whatever the exact restric
- Page 85 and 86: (46). 28 Summarizing the above, P C
- Page 87 and 88: 68 As for the alleged arbitrariness
- Page 89 and 90: 70 3.4 The [-m]/[-c] distinction Th
21<br />
functional head D can take any complement which is not tensed. Rothstein (1995), in<br />
her analysis of copular constructions, assumes that in languages such as Hebrew or<br />
Russian, the functional head T takes, in addition to VP, also NP, PP or AP<br />
complements. Even the uniqueness of the complement of C, namely TP, might be<br />
questioned in light of Hebrew examples such as ha-xatulim še ba-xacer yafim (‘the<br />
cats that in the garden [are] beautiful’) (for further discussion see chapter 4). To<br />
conclude, permitting more than just one specific complement does not seem to be<br />
unique to the lexical categories, and therefore cannot help us decide whether an<br />
element is lexical or functional.<br />
(b) Head-complement relation: Complements of lexical heads are standardly<br />
assumed to be theta-related to the selecting head. Accordingly, complementation to a<br />
lexical head is not obligatory, but rather depends on the lexical properties of the head.<br />
In contrast, functional heads, which are standardly assumed to subcategorize for their<br />
complement, perform some function on their complement. Thus, in rough lines, D<br />
turns its nominal complement into a referential expression, T anchors the VP in time,<br />
C determines the force of its complement. <strong>The</strong> mere existence of a functional head is<br />
dependent on the availability of something to operate on. Consequently, the<br />
complement of a functional head is obligatory. 4<br />
(d) Movement: <strong>The</strong> complement of a functional head cannot be moved stranding<br />
the functional head. More specifically, there are no instances of TP being moved<br />
stranding the C, or NP being moved stranding the D. 5 In clear contrast, complements<br />
to lexical heads can, of course, be moved stranding the lexical head. 6<br />
<strong>The</strong> above discussion is summarized in the table in (2). As the meaning and<br />
function criterion as well as variety of complements do not seem to be distinctive<br />
enough, they are omitted from the table. 7<br />
4 Note, however, that pronouns are often argued to realize D and project a DP with no (lexical)<br />
complement (Abney 1987, but see Ritter 1991).<br />
5 <strong>The</strong> behavior of T (e.g. in VP-preposing) seems to be exceptional in this respect (see Chomsky 2001).<br />
6 This is widely attested for verbs, but less so for nouns and adjectives, for independent and language<br />
specific reasons.<br />
7 Anticipating the following discussion, the criterion head-complement relation is broken into two<br />
separate criteria in table (2): head-complement relation and syntactic realization of complement.
Change language