The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

69
3.3.3.1 The licensing of the PP at LF: Full Interpretation (FI) requires that every
XP must have an interpretation at LF (C-I interface) in order to be licensed (Chomsky
2000, 2001). The question arises how the PP C is licensed? 32
Recall first, that this PP is not an argument of the verb, rather the DP is. Thus,
arguably, it is not licensed thematically. Second, the function of P C is not semantic,
but rather formal, Case-related. Thus the PP seems to have a status of an Agr(eement)
projection, which arguably is not present at LF (Chomsky 2001). To reconcile the
noted discrepancy, I propose the following. Although P C is not a semantic function,
this does not necessarily mean that the P-morphemes realizing P C have no semantic
content (see the above discussion). After all, the variation within the group of P-
morphemes (e.g. depend on vs. believe in vs. look at) cannot be based on anything but
their semantic content (or its residue). This suffices to license the PP at LF.
To summarize this section: A two-place verb with an underspecified internal
cluster is not marked with [Acc]. Therefore the verb itself cannot check the Case
feature of its DP argument. The verb is associated with P C realized by a (semantically
appropriate) small P. Such P has an uninterpretable set of φ-features which enter
Agree with the φ-set of the DP, checking and deleting the Case feature of the DP.
Thus, the occurrence of P in PP-verb constructions, though eventually Case-related, is
thematically motivated. The semantic content of the prepositions realizing P C licenses
its projection at LF.
This concludes the analysis of PP-verb constructions. In what follows I will
discuss the distinction between the underspecified theta-clusters and the
corresponding fully specified ones, thereby establishing the Underspecification
hypothesis (19). I will also specify which PP-verbs assign a [-m] role and which a [-c]
role. As already mentioned, whether a certain verb has a [-m] cluster or a [-c] one has
no direct bearing on the proposed analysis. Both are predicted to be PP-verbs.
However, the distinction between [-m] PP-verbs and [-c] PP-verbs, apart from being
interesting on its own, will turn out to be significant for an additional aspect of the
diversity among members of the PP-verb group across languages.
32 The same question is raised in Neeleman (1997), where P is viewed as a lexical category. Neeleman
assumes that the PP, although a projection of a lexical category, is not licensed by theta-assignment or
syntactic selection (selection for an XP). Consequently, he introduces idiomatic selection (selection for
a particular P-morpheme), and argues that this kind of selection, in addition to the traditional syntactic
selection, prevents violation of Full Interpretation (FI) by the PP in PP-verb constructions.