The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

with As, Ns and Vs (cf. Jackendoff 1977); as a non-uniform ‘semi-lexical’ category
consisting of lexical and functional Ps (Emonds 1985, Van Riemsdijk 1990, 1998);
and as uniformly functional, similarly to D or C (Grimshaw 1991, Baker 2003). These
approaches (discussed in chapter 1) contributed enormously to the understanding of P.
However, none of them succeeds to capture the whole picture.
In light of the above, the main goal of the study is to develop a coherent theory
of P, which will explain the relations between the various manifestations of P in
syntax, based on their properties.
The research presented in this study is conducted in the general framework of
the Principles and Parameters (P&P) theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986, Chomsky and
Lasnik 1993). Accordingly, I view lexical categories as feature complexes, and
assume the standard functional categories D, T and C. Within the P&P approach, I
adopt the Minimalist perspective (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001), and hence do not have
recourse to the levels of representation D-structure and S-structure. The only levels of
representation I assume are the interfaces with the conceptual and articulatoryperceptual
systems, LF and PF, respectively.
The study follows the “Active lexicon” argued for in Siloni (2002). The central
claim advanced in Siloni (2002) is that the lexicon is an operative component (contra
Marantz 1997, 2000; Borer 2003, who reduce it to a list of entries), as there are
derivational processes which must be assumed to apply prior to the formation of the
syntactic structure. More specifically, I adopt the Theta System framework developed
in Reinhart (1996, 2000, 2001a,b, 2002) as a model for the mental lexicon.
Accordingly, I consider the external theta-role as part of the information predicates
bear in the lexicon (as argued in Reinhart and Siloni 2003), rather than is inserted in
syntax by a verbal head such as little v (Chomsky 1995, Kratzer 1996, among others).
2. The theory of P (chapter 2)
I believe that a well-founded classification of P along the functional/lexical
dimension is the key to explaining the differences between the PPs. Based on a
critical reexamination of the lexical/functional distinction, juxtaposed with the
properties of P, I put forward the hypothesis in (9):