The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

45
Neeleman (1997) has a different explanation for the occurrence of P in PP-verb
constructions (‘PP-complements’, in his terminology). In Neeleman’s account the
function of P is thematic. As already mentioned in 3.1.1, P and V jointly theta-mark
the DP at LF. 6
Neeleman bases his proposal on the following observation. There are verbs such
as believe which alternate between PP and DP complements:
(5) a. We believe in Dan.
b. We believe Dan.
Neeleman notes that (5a) and (5b) have rather different interpretations. To
sharpen the observation we may assume that Dan is a politician, and a liar. We can
say (5a) without sounding like complete idiots, meaning that we believe that Dan can
do the job. However, given the same scenario, (5b) is totally inappropriate. We can
even conjoin (5a) and (5b), while negating one of the conjuncts as in: ‘We don’t
believe Dan, but we believe in him’. The resulting utterance is not a contradiction,
meaning that (5a) and (5b) do not have the same truth conditions. Based on this
Neeleman concludes that the P of PP-verbs has a semantic contribution and therefore
it is a theta-assigner.
Neeleman’s observation is neither verb- nor language-specific. Consider the
following Hebrew examples (adapted from Rubinstein 1971):
(6) a. dan ba’at et ha-even/*ha-kir (le-yosi)
dan kicked Acc the-stone/*wall to-Yosi
b. dan ba’at ba- even/kir (*le-yosi)
dan kicked in+the-stone/wall to-Yosi
In (6a) the DP has to be moveable, and a Goal argument can be added, whereas
in (6b) any DP is fine, but a Goal argument cannot be added. Thus it is clear that (6a)
and (6b) have different meanings.
6 Recall that under the approach to P developed in chapter 2, P is a functional category not involved in
theta-assignment. The claim that in certain contexts Ps are semantic amounts to identifying their
function as P R .