Home Linguistics & Semiotics Object gap constructions
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Object gap constructions

Externalization and operator movement
  • Irena Botwinik-Rotem
View more publications by John Benjamins Publishing Company

Abstract

The embedded constituent of Hebrew object gap constructions (e.g., the Tough Construction) is nominal rather than verbal, introduced obligatorily by the prepositional element le- (to). I show that the gap in Hebrew is unlikely to be created by Op-movement. Rather, based on the properties of the nominal, I propose that the object gap nominal in Hebrew is formed by Externalization of the internal argument. Departing from the familiar analysis of the English Tough Construction, I argue that to of the English object gap constituent is not a T(ense) head, and that this constituent does not have a subject position. Consequently, I suggest that the English object gap constituent is a projection of to, whose specifier is the landing site for Op-movement.

Abstract

The embedded constituent of Hebrew object gap constructions (e.g., the Tough Construction) is nominal rather than verbal, introduced obligatorily by the prepositional element le- (to). I show that the gap in Hebrew is unlikely to be created by Op-movement. Rather, based on the properties of the nominal, I propose that the object gap nominal in Hebrew is formed by Externalization of the internal argument. Departing from the familiar analysis of the English Tough Construction, I argue that to of the English object gap constituent is not a T(ense) head, and that this constituent does not have a subject position. Consequently, I suggest that the English object gap constituent is a projection of to, whose specifier is the landing site for Op-movement.

Downloaded on 14.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/la.134.04obj/html
Scroll to top button