The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

73
argument of halam (‘stroke’) (58b) clearly does not have such an interpretation, and
therefore it is natural to conclude that it is a [-c] argument. 37
What is less clear is the distinction between the unary clusters and the
corresponding fully specified ones (i.e. between [-c] and [-c-m]/[-c+m], or between
[-m] and [-c-m]/[+c-m]). In other words, why is the internal argument of ‘regret’, for
instance, claimed to realize a [-m] rather than a [-c-m] role?
Note that establishing the distinction between the unary clusters and the
corresponding fully specified ones is necessary in order to maintain the
Underspecification hypothesis (19) that underlies the phenomenon of PP-verbs (i.e.
the internal role of PP-verbs is underspecified). This is the matter I turn to next.
In the identification of the theta-roles, we use our linguistic intuition, which in
many cases is sufficient. Thus we distinguish easily between a [-c+m] (Experiencer)
and a [-c-m] (Theme) roles, as only the former entails a mental state in the bearer of
the role. However, the identification of the unary clusters, which are often consistent
with the interpretation of the corresponding fully specified ones, is not that obvious.
There are no ready available diagnostics which distinguish the unary [-c] cluster from
the corresponding fully specified ones [-c+m]/[-c-m] (the proto-Patient entailments in
Dowty (1991), which I will use, is a helpful exception). In what follows I will use
different strategies to show that the roles are indeed different. My main strategy is
based on the consistency of the unary clusters with additional interpretations (e.g. a
[-c] role is consistent with [-c+m] (Experiencer) interpretation, a [-m] role is
consistent with [+c-m] (Instrument) interpretation), as opposed to the nonflexible
interpretation of the fully specified clusters. 38
3.4.3 PP-verbs assigning a [-c] role
A sample of PP-verbs I have classified as assigning [-c] is given in (59) (the
verbs are divided into sub-groups, for convenience, as in 3.1.3): 39
37 As can be seen from the English glosses of the Hebrew PP-verbs in (58), the corresponding verbs in
English are not PP-verbs. I address the issue in section 3.5.
38 I use the term ‘strategies’ rather than ‘tests’, since although applicable to many PP-verbs, none of
them is applicable to all of them. An underspecified theta-role can have various interpretations (e.g.
[-c] can be interpreted as an Experiencer, Recipient, Benefactive, Possessor, spatial/non-spatial Goal).
Consequently, a test for an Experiencer interpretation, for instance, will be applicable only to verbs
whose [-c] theta-role has this interpretation (e.g. iyem ‘threatened’, but not halam ‘stroke’).
39 It appears that the majority of Hebrew PP-verbs on my list are [-c] PP-verbs rather than [-m] PPverbs.
Whether this, by itself, is a significant observation is not important for the present discussion.