The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

67
(52) PP-V: θ θ θ 1 θ 2 [P C[–φ] ]
[+m+c] [-m]/[-c] [+m+c] [-m]/[-c]
(53) dan ma’amin be-rina
Dan believes in-Rina
Lexicon: ma’amin V : θ θ θ θ 2 [ Pc be- [–φ] ]
[+m-c] [-m] 29 [+m-c] [-m]
Numeration:
{T [EPP, [-φ] , ma’amin V θ [+m-c] θ 2 [-m] be- P[-φ] , dan N[Case ] , rina N[Case] }
CS:
[ TP [ DP dan] [ T’ T [ VP ma’amin [ PP be- [ DP rina]]]]]
θ [+m-c]
θ 2 [-m]
3.3.3 The P-morpheme and the PP-verb
The variety of prepositions realizing P C in PP-verb constructions may seem
inconsistent with the Case-checking function argued for P C in 3.3.1. In other words, if
the function of P is to check the Case feature of a DP, why is it done by a variety of
small prepositions, rather than by a single one? Moreover, given the variety, why is
the identity of the P-morpheme not fully predictable in a given language and across
languages? In what follows I will address both questions briefly.
On the Underspecification hypothesis (19), the existence of the preposition in a
numeration is triggered by the theta-structure of the (PP)-verb (i.e. by an
underspecified internal theta-role). Thus, it is not surprising that the verb selects the
most appropriate preposition for the theta-role assigned to the DP. For instance, a PPverb
like azar (‘helped’) selects the preposition le- (‘to’), which is canonically
associated with Recipient interpretation, rather than me- (‘from’), which is associated
with Source interpretation. 30 ’ 31
29 I will assume here without any discussion that the internal cluster of ma’amin (‘believe’) is [-m]
(rather than [-c]). I will discuss the interpretation of the theta-features and of the underspecified thetaclusters
in the next section (3.4).
30 Note that I do not view the P as the filler of the unspecified thematic feature in the underspecified
theta-cluster of a verb. See Ten Have, Schippers, Van Steenbergen and Vlasveld (2003) for a somewhat
different view of the relation between the P and the interpretation of the underspecified cluster.