The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

37
Borer 1999, among others), and also a relativizer, realizing D [+mod] (in Hebrew semirelatives,
Siloni 1997).
It seems that the notion small P says nothing more than the generalization in
(24). For languages where the phonological distinction between the various P-
morphemes is sharp (e.g. Hebrew, English, Russian), small P is a convenient
descriptive label and I will be using it as such.
To summarize, I proposed that the category P fulfils three distinct roles in
syntax: P R , P C and P pred . P C and P pred are usually realized by a subset of phonologically
small P-morphemes, whereas P R can be instantiated by almost any preposition. This
suggests that almost any preposition, regardless of its size, can have a meaningful
realization. Before I conclude, let me state explicitly what I will be assuming
regarding the lexical information of Ps.
2.3 Lexical information
The specific aspects of the lexical representation of Ps to be discussed below are
those directly relevant for the lexicon-syntax interface. In other words, I will not be
concerned with the lexical semantics of individual prepositions, but rather with basic
notions such as categorial specification, subcategorization and formal lexical features.
2.3.1 Categorial specification
Recall that I assume the traditional view of the lexicon (chapter 1) (Chomsky
1970, Grimshaw 1990, Reinhart 2000, Siloni 2002), where both the lexical and the
functional categories are categorially specified in the lexicon (e.g. cat [+N -V];
whether [C]). Accordingly, I assume that the categorial specification is included in the
lexical representation of members of P (25): 30
(25) a. from [P]
b. because [P]
c. at [P]
30 Under recent views of the lexicon (Marantz 1997, 2000; Borer 2003) only the functional categories
are assumed to be categorially specified.