The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

34
Dutch provides an additional argument which strongly supports the claim that
the three functions I have argued for are performed by the same category (namely, P).
In Dutch [-human] pronominal complements of Ps, regardless of the function of the
corresponding prepositions, are systematically replaced with special pronouns
preceding the P (19). These pronouns are usually called r-pronouns (following Van
Riemsdijk 1978), as they have the r-sound in their phonological form (e.g. er/daar,
‘there’):
(19) a. Ik had *op het/ er op gerekend P C
I had on it /there on counted
b. Hij gaat *voor het/er voor altijd golfen P R
He goes before it/there before always play-golf
c. Hij zat *achter het/daar achter P R
He sat behind that/there behind
The occurrence of r-pronouns with Ps lead Van Riemsdijk to the following
statement:
“…PPs, whatever their functional status, but no other categories are the
conditioning factor for the occurrence of r-pronouns…Therefore no further evidence
will be adduced here to establish the syntactic unity of the category PP.” (Van
Riemsdijk 1978:25)
In sum, there is strong evidence that the proposed types of P are indeed subtypes
of a single syntactic category. To sharpen the view of P argued for here, I now turn to
the instantiation of the subtypes by the P-morphemes.
2.2.2 Realization of the subtypes
I have already mentioned (in 2.2.1) that some prepositions can realize more than
one particular type of P (16), (17). Not surprisingly, this is not true for all
prepositions. The question arises whether the realization of the functions of P by the
prepositions shows any significant regularities. Consider (20) and (21) vs. (22): 26
26 These examples are not meant to exhaust all prepositions, but rather to represent the realization of the
types of P.