The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

25
d. ha-mayim kan zormim me’al Ø j ve-mitaxat Ø j
the-water here runs above and-below
It is worth noting that the observed optionality is very limited, arguably
indicating that the null complement is syntactically realized as an empty category,
which needs to be licensed (cf. Rizzi 1986). Russian locative prepositions, for
instance, do not allow optional realization of their complement at all. Even in
languages such as Hebrew or English, where optionality is attested, only a subset of
the set of locative prepositions allows it (4), (5): 17
(4) a. hem avru mitaxat (la-bayit)/taxat *(ha-bayit)
they passed under to+the-house/under the-house
b. hu hityašev me’al (ha-šulxan)/al *(ha-šulxan)
he sat above the-table/on the-table
(5) He parked the bicycle under *(the stairs)/below (the stairs)
Following Zribi-Hertz (1984) and Gulligan (1988), I will assume that the null
complement of these Ps is realized as a locative pro. This will suffice to conclude that
the behavior of P regarding the discussed criterion is functional: regardless of its
phonetic realization, the complement of P is syntactically realized. 18
Movement: The fact that I view the behavior of P with respect to this criterion as
functional, thereby assuming that the complement of P cannot be moved without it,
may seem surprising, as P-stranding is a well-known phenomenon. However, despite
its familiarity, it is a rare and arguably exceptional phenomenon, attested to various
extents in a few Germanic languages such as English, Dutch and Danish (Van
Riemsdijk 1978). In a wide variety of languages (e.g. Russian, Spanish, Hebrew,
French, etc.) Ps cannot be stranded, on a par with the core functional heads. Thus, in
17 It seems that in Hebrew only locative Ps prefixed with the directional P-morphemes me- (‘from’) or
le- (‘to’) can realize their complement optionally (the relevant example with le- is le-yad (lit. ‘to-hand’
meaning ‘near’).
18 Emonds (1985) classifies particles, which are beyond the scope of this study, as the archetypical
intransitive Ps. Even if true, this should not affect the classification of P as functional. Recall that
pronouns, which are functional, are arguably intransitive too (see fn. 4). For a different view of
particles see Den Dikken (1995).