On the Syntax of Prepositional Phrases

Abstract

The standard view about the uniformity of Case assignment by verbs and prepositions is challenged with data from German and an analysis according to which P has a feature structure which involves a Case feature that may not only participate in Case checking but may supply the Case that is missing in the complement of P.Adopting a probe/goal relation of agreement a fair number of peculiarities of the syntax of PPs can be explained such as obligatory pied piping, semantic selection, copy movement, operator scope and the role of adverbial proforms in pronominal PPs. Finally, the asymmetry in Case assignment between V and P is supported by novel data from sentence processing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OverviewStandard assumptions about prepositions (P) and prepositional phrases (PP) are that (i) P is a lexical head on a par with V, A, N, and that (ii) PPs are on a par with VP, AP, NP. In particular, (iii) P is thought to assign Case to its complement just like V and A. We summarize some of the evidence indicating that these assumptions meet with a number of problems. Some of these problems have been noticed elsewhere, perhaps most lucidly in Grimshaw (1991).1 InGrimshaw's system of projection extension, PP is the highest extension of N such that N projects to N' and NP, then via D to D' and DP, and finally via P to P' and PP. The idea behind projection extension is that P shares with D and N the categorial feature (in Grimshaw's system [+N, −V]), a proposal that has been made in a more elaborate form by van Riemsdijk (1990;. In section 2 we will point out some of the notorious asymmetries between P/PP and other X/XP. These will encompass pied piping and selection as already discussed by Ross (1987) and Grimshaw (1991), but also novel evidence stemming from findings about copy movement, pronominal PPs, bare indefinites and quantifier binding. Taking up the idea that P is not only a lexical but also a functional head, a theoretical proposal will be made in section 3 which will in section 4 be applied to some of the cases which create a problem for the standard view about P as a lexical head and Case assigner. Evidence from sentence processing in 1 An earlier source is Ross (1967). Ross suggested that PPs undergo pied piping because they are simply a spe- Späth. Berlin, de Gruyter, 2 favor of the theoretical conclusions will be presented in section 5. The results are summarized in section 6.2. Distinctive Properties of P and PP Pied PipingThe data in (1) through (3) show that, in German, as in many other languages, wh-movement must not pied-pipe verbs or adjectives etc. while pied-piping of P is obligatory.( If P were a lexical head with Case assignment functions just like V and A, why should pied piping of PP be forced while pied piping of VP and AP is hardly ever possible? In Grimshaw's (1991) system "the PP is just as much a wh phrase as the DP" because PP is an extension of DP and as such representative of the wh featur...

Inverse Case attraction: experimental evidence for a syntactically guided process

“…The reason for this is that quantifier and negation features, etc., are part of the D-and therefore also of the K-system. See for discussion Bayer and Bader (2007) and references therein.…”

That-trace effects and resumption – How Improper Movement can be repaired

“…But the impossibility of movement is surprising if the embedded C involves an EPP-feature. Since long-distance extraction is obviously not an option Bader & Bayer (2007) for a treatment of prepositions as exponents of oblique Case; thereby one is no longer forced to say that Case-assignment by prepositions can be suppressed in the context of R-pronouns. movement (since V2-clauses are root clauses, the attracted wh-phrase reaches a scope position and is therefore frozen for further A'-movement).…”

Nominal negative quantifiers as adjuncts

“…Bayer, Bader and Meng (2001) as well as Bayer and Bader (2007). 22 Of course, it is equally impossible to associate nothing in this case with a referential adjunct in the sense of Davidsonian event semantics.…”