The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

68
As for the alleged arbitrariness of the preposition (within a language and across
languages), consider the following. Recall that the set of prepositions which realize P C
is limited and consists of prepositions referred to descriptively as small Ps. Only these
can be associated with uninterpretable φ-features enabling them to check the Case
feature of a DP (see 2.3.1). Given this, the particular preposition selected by the verb
(in a given language) will be at best the most suitable one. Since the preposition is
only ‘the most suitable’, it is not fully predictable.
In addition, the group of small Ps varies from language to language in several
ways which are mentioned below. These differences are the main source for the
attested variation across languages.
(i) A particular P-morpheme is small in one language, but big in another. In
Russian, for instance, u (locative ‘with’ /‘at’) is small. The meanings of u are divided
in Hebrew between a small P le- (‘to’/‘at’) and a big P ecel (‘with’/‘at’). The latter
does not participate in the Hebrew PP-verb constructions.
(ii) A certain P-morpheme does not exist in a given language, and therefore
another, less appropriate small P is used. The English preposition at does not exist in
Hebrew, French or Russian. It is replaced in Hebrew by be- (‘in’) or al (‘on’), in
Russian by v (‘in’) or na (‘on’), and in French by à (‘to’/’at’) or sur (‘on’).
(iii) A single P-morpheme in one language covers several semantic fields, each
of which is covered by a separate P-morpheme in another language. For instance,
French à is both Dative/Directional (‘to’), and Locative (‘at’/‘in’).
Given the above, the attested degree of arbitrariness regarding the choice of a P-
morpheme across languages is not surprising, and actually it is smaller than is usually
assumed.
The selection of the verb for the semantically appropriate small preposition is
directly relevant for the licensing of the PP at LF.
31 I draw a distinction between the prepositions occurring in PP-verb constructions and Ps such as of in
English or šel in Hebrew (‘of’), which occur in nominal contexts like the destruction of the city
(Chomsky 1986). The occurrence of the latter is not triggered by the thematic properties of the nominal
head.