The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

39
2.3.2 Subcategorization
In fact, given the three types of P, there is no need to specify a subcategorization
frame for a given P in its lexical entry.
The complement of P C is invariably a DP, as only DPs need Case (Chomsky
1981). Since the category of the complement of P C is fully determined by its function,
this information in the particular prepositional entry is redundant.
The same seems to be correct with respect to P realizing P pred . As will be shown
by study of object gap constructions in chapter 5, the category of the complement of
P pred in a given language is fixed (e.g. it is nominal in Hebrew and verbal in
English). 33
The complement of P R has to be an argumental constituent, namely a CP or a
DP. 34 If the relation specified by a given P is locative (as in (27b)), the complement of
this P will be a DP, rather than a CP, as the latter being propositional cannot denote a
location. Otherwise, the choice of CP or DP is free:
(29) a. dan azav biglal ha-milxama/še-dina hayta me’acbenet
Dan left because the war/that-Dina was annoying
b. dan azav axarey ha-milxama/še-dina ne’elma
Dan left after the-war/that-Dina disappeared
33 In order to establish that the subcategorization of this type of P is indeed predictable from its
function (not only in object gap constructions), further research is necessary.
34 Whether clause-introducing Ps such as because take a CP or an IP is not crystal clear. The argument
standardly proposed in support of an IP-complementation is the absence of that in English (i) (Emonds
1985, Webelhuth 1992). However, note first that in Hebrew (ii) (and also in Russian, for instance) the
complementizer še- (‘that’) is obligatory:
(i)
(ii)
Because/after (*that) Dan left, I became sad.
biglal/axarey *(še-) dan azav, na’aseti acuv
because/after (that-) Dan left, [I] became sad
Second, if one assumes that tensed clauses are always CPs, it seems unreasonable to analyze the
complement of P in (i) or (ii) as IP. Finally, some Ps such as bišvil (‘in order’) introduce infinitival
clauses (iii), whose subject is presumably an arbitrary PRO. Consequently, postulating an IPcomplement
in these cases is obviously rather problematic.
(iii) bišvil [PRO arb lehacli’ax], carix lehitmaked
in order to+succeed, [one] has to+focus