The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

29
2.1.4 Additional evidence
The following phenomena support the claim that P is a functional category.
(i) Giorgi (1991:198) notes that Ps, regardless of their function, cannot be
dropped in coordinate structures, as opposed to all the other major lexical heads (8).
This argues strongly against the classification of P as lexical:
(8) a. John drank beer and Mary ___ water.
b. I consider John a friend of mine and Mary ____ of yours.
c. I believed Teresa happy with us and Luisa ___ with you.
d. *I put the book under the table and the pen _____ the notebook.
e. *I believed Teresa in good shape and Luisa ____ excellent shape.
(ii) In some languages (e.g. Hebrew, English) certain (functional) morphemes
can realize two distinct functional categories. This is illustrated in (9) for the English
morpheme that:
(9) a. I know [ CP [ C that] Sacha is a girl].
b. I know [ DP [ D that] girl].
On the assumption that P is a functional category, the fact that certain
prepositions (e.g. to, for) can realize additional functional heads, such as C and T
(10), is fully expected:
(10) [ C For] Bart [ T to] be on time is unbearable.
(iii) Based on the observation that functional words can be stressed or unstressed
(as they do not necessarily constitute prosodic words), whereas lexical ones have to be
stressed, Selkirk (1995) identifies prepositions as words of the functional category
((11a is adapted from Selkirk’s (16), and (11b) is (11) in Selkirk (1995):
(11) a. …a portrait of Tímothy at hóme (unstressed Ps)
b. She spoke AT the microphone, not WITH it (focused and therefore
stressed Ps)