The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
59 b. dan sam/maca et ha-sefer *al/be-megira Dan put/found Acc the-book on/in-drawer (28) a. dan ma’amin *al/be-šulxanot Dan believes on/in-tables b. dan somex al/*be-megirot Dan relies on/in-drawers Since the bottom-up dependency is associated with the locative relation, the fact that PP-verbs do not show it indicates that no such relation exists in the discussed constructions, thereby supporting the proposal that the function of P is P C , rather than P R . (iii) A locative PP can be replaced by a locative pronoun such as here/there (29a) or by a locative wh-phrase such as where (29b). Neither of these options is grammatical in (30) where the same P-morpheme (in) occurs with a PP-verb: (29) a. Dan sleeps in the garden/here. b. Where does Dan sleep? (30) a. Dan believes in love/*here. b.*Where does Dan believe? (iv) PP-verb constructions (31a) contrast sharply with locative constructions (31b) with respect to binding (Hestvik 1991, Reinhart and Reuland 1993). In the latter a pronoun coindexed with the subject is grammatical, whereas in the former a reflexive must be used; using a pronoun results in ungrammaticality. (31) a. dan i somex *al-av i /al acmo i Dan i relies on-him/on himself b. dan i sam et ha-kova al-av i /??al acmo i Dan put Acc the-hat on-him/on himself Under the approach to Binding developed in Reinhart and Reuland 1993 (“Reflexivity”, henceforth), the obligatoriness of the reflexive and the impossibility of the pronoun in (31a) indicate that the preposition of PP-verbs is not a predicate. In the
60 theory of P developed in chapter 2 this amounts to identifying this P as P C , rather than as P R (see chapter 4 for a more extensive discussion of the notion predicate under “Reflexivity” framework). To recapitulate, the preposition in PP-verb constructions does not denote the locative relation (or any relation, for that matter), indicating that it is P C rather than P R . The function of P C is to check the Case feature of the nominal. Thus, P C does not contribute to the meaning of a verb, but rather is consistent with (one of) its meaning(s). In this respect, recall that there are few PP-verbs such as ba’at (‘kicked’), which realize their internal argument either as a DP or as a PP ((17) repeated below as (32)). (32) a. dan ba’at et ha-kadur Dan kicked Acc the-ball b. dan ba’at ba-kadur Dan kicked in+the-ball The view of P C argued for above implies that such verbs are listed twice, that is ba’at (‘kicked’) in (32a) and ba’at (‘kicked in’) in (32b) are separate lexical entries. The double listing might seem not very elegant, or even counter-explanatory, as it implies that there is no systematic connection between the verbal entries. In fact, this is indeed the case. Although both entries share the core lexical meaning, the relation between them is not systematic, at least not in the relevant sense (e.g. active-passive; transitive-unaccusative/middle/reflexive). Furthermore, since the number of the ambiguous verbs that give rise to the DP/PP alternation is very small (I know of 5 altogether), the double listing cannot be argued to enlarge the lexicon in any problematic way. 3.3.2 P C is a syntactic head Until now I have been assuming, without any support, that the prepositions in PP-verb constructions are syntactic heads that combine with the following DP and project a PP, as schematicized in (33): 25 25 Based on its classification as a functional head (see 2.1), I assume that P merges its complement in the same fashion as the other functional heads (C, T, D). For another view, see Kayne (1994, 2001, 2002).
- Page 27 and 28: 8 These approaches do depart from t
- Page 29 and 30: 10 heads such as N, V, A do not. 10
- Page 31 and 32: 12 To summarize, as it stands, Grim
- Page 33 and 34: 14 by the corresponding lexical hea
- Page 35 and 36: 16 In the Object Purpose Clause con
- Page 37 and 38: 18 2. The theory of P The main goal
- Page 39 and 40: 20 yes/no questions).This is comple
- Page 41 and 42: 22 (2) Criterion Functional categor
- Page 43 and 44: 24 In various languages some Ps are
- Page 45 and 46: 26 sharp contrast to the core lexic
- Page 47 and 48: 28 lexical, of course) (see the dis
- Page 49 and 50: 30 (iv) Froud 2001 is a psycholingu
- Page 51 and 52: 32 perspective, I will assume that
- Page 53 and 54: 34 Dutch provides an additional arg
- Page 55 and 56: 36 the study). Thus, taking the not
- Page 57 and 58: 38 On my proposal (section 2.2.1) m
- Page 59 and 60: 40 In this respect, let me note a p
- Page 61 and 62: 42 The phenomenon of PP-verbs, alth
- Page 63 and 64: 44 inability to agree with its DP-o
- Page 65 and 66: 46 The question which arises at thi
- Page 67 and 68: 48 (13) Internal argument-taking hi
- Page 69 and 70: 50 Grimshaw 1990; Baker 1988, 1997;
- Page 71 and 72: 52 suitable for the problem at hand
- Page 73 and 74: 54 3.2.3 The mapping generalization
- Page 75 and 76: 56 (iii) Assignment of [Acc] depend
- Page 77: 58 (25) a. on našol konfet-u v kar
- Page 81 and 82: 62 (37) a. What did he eat in the m
- Page 83 and 84: 64 Thus, whatever the exact restric
- Page 85 and 86: (46). 28 Summarizing the above, P C
- Page 87 and 88: 68 As for the alleged arbitrariness
- Page 89 and 90: 70 3.4 The [-m]/[-c] distinction Th
- Page 91 and 92: 72 viewed as necessary conditions f
- Page 93 and 94: 74 (59) [-c] PP-verbs Physical cont
- Page 95 and 96: 76 interpreted only as undergoing a
- Page 97 and 98: 78 b. dan [he’if mabat] be-rina D
- Page 99 and 100: 80 a [+animate] DP. Consequently, h
- Page 101 and 102: 82 The meaning of (78a) is somethin
- Page 103 and 104: 84 (85) a. he’emanti be-bart [I]
- Page 105 and 106: 86 asserted ‘belief’. In other
- Page 107 and 108: 88 3.5 PP-verbs cross-linguisticall
- Page 109 and 110: 90 But the non-identical realizatio
- Page 111 and 112: 92 P device involves the syntactic
- Page 113 and 114: 94 Note that the options in (103) d
- Page 115 and 116: 96 adjacency requirement between th
- Page 117 and 118: 98 would be [-c] PP-verbs in Englis
- Page 119 and 120: 100 Appendix A: Residual issues The
- Page 121 and 122: 102 (A.6) a. mabat-o nadad (motion)
- Page 123 and 124: 104 Given its theta-grid, hikša is
- Page 125 and 126: 106 Appendix B Table 1. 70 Hebrew P
- Page 127 and 128: 108 Table 2. Some properties of the
60<br />
theory of P developed in chapter 2 this amounts to identifying this P as P C , rather than<br />
as P R (see chapter 4 for a more extensive discussion of the notion predicate under<br />
“Reflexivity” framework).<br />
To recapitulate, the preposition in PP-verb constructions does not denote the<br />
locative relation (or any relation, for that matter), indicating that it is P C rather than<br />
P R . <strong>The</strong> function of P C is to check the Case feature of the nominal. Thus, P C does not<br />
contribute to the meaning of a verb, but rather is consistent with (one of) its<br />
meaning(s). In this respect, recall that there are few PP-verbs such as ba’at (‘kicked’),<br />
which realize their internal argument either as a DP or as a PP ((17) repeated below as<br />
(32)).<br />
(32) a. dan ba’at et ha-kadur<br />
Dan kicked Acc the-ball<br />
b. dan ba’at ba-kadur<br />
Dan kicked in+the-ball<br />
<strong>The</strong> view of P C argued for above implies that such verbs are listed twice, that is<br />
ba’at (‘kicked’) in (32a) and ba’at (‘kicked in’) in (32b) are separate lexical entries.<br />
<strong>The</strong> double listing might seem not very elegant, or even counter-explanatory, as it<br />
implies that there is no systematic connection between the verbal entries. In fact, this<br />
is indeed the case. Although both entries share the core lexical meaning, the relation<br />
between them is not systematic, at least not in the relevant sense (e.g. active-passive;<br />
transitive-unaccusative/middle/reflexive). Furthermore, since the number of the<br />
ambiguous verbs that give rise to the DP/PP alternation is very small (I know of 5<br />
altogether), the double listing cannot be argued to enlarge the lexicon in any<br />
problematic way.<br />
3.3.2 P C is a syntactic head<br />
Until now I have been assuming, without any support, that the prepositions in<br />
PP-verb constructions are syntactic heads that combine with the following DP and<br />
project a PP, as schematicized in (33): 25<br />
25 Based on its classification as a functional head (see 2.1), I assume that P merges its complement in<br />
the same fashion as the other functional heads (C, T, D). For another view, see Kayne (1994, 2001,<br />
2002).
Change language