7 Agreement, case and A-movement

1

7.2 Agreement(1) There were awarded several prizes

(2) T´ BE serves as a probe

T VP which searches for a

BE c-commanded nominal

V QP goal to agree

with

(3) CP awarded several prizes

C TP

Ø PRN T´

there T VP

were

V QP

awarded several prizes 2

7.3 Feature ValuationCase is systematically related to agreement

(6) A: What happened to the protestors?

B: They were arrested

(7) T´

T VP

BE

[past-Tns] V PRN

[u-Pers] arrested THEY

[u-Num] [3-Pers]

[Pl-Num]

[u-Case]

(8) Agreement When a probe (like T) agrees with a goal in its local domain(i) The unvalued (person/number) φ-features on the probe will be valued(ii) The unvalued case feature on the goal will be valued

7.3 Feature Valuationthe EPP feature of T

The EPP feature of T (not shown below in (9) will subsquently trigger

A-movement of they to become the structural subject of were.

(9) T´

T VP

BE

[past-Tns] V PRN

[3-Pers] arrested THEY

[Pl-Num] [3-Pers]

[Pl-Num]

[Nom-Case]

(10) [CP [C Ø] [TP They [T were] [VP [V arrested] they]]]

7.4 Uninterpretable features and Feature Deletion

(13) Table of interpretable and uninterpretable features

Type of constituent interpretable features uninterpretable

features

T-constituent tense, aspect and mood person, number

noun/pronoun person, number, gender case

If we assume that unvalued features are illegible to (and hence cannot be processed by) the PF component, it follows that every unvalued feature in a derivation must be valued in the course of the derivation, or else the derivation will crash (i.e., fail) because the PF component is unable to spell out unvalued feature: in the words of Chomsky (2006, p. 13) ‘If transferred to the interface unvalued, uninterpretable features will cause the derivation to crash.’

5

7.5 Expletive it subjects

(14) Feature Deletion

An uninterpretable feature is deleted immediately any operation it is involved in applies, and is thereafter invisible in the syntactic and semantic components (but visible in the PF component)

(15) a. They believe [John to be lying] b. They believe [John is lying]

(18) Simutaneity Condition

All syntactic operations involving a given probe P apply simultaneously

(7=16) T´ (17) TP

T VP PRN T´

BE they T VP

[past-Tns] V PRN [3-Pers] were

[u-Pers] arrested THEY [Pl-Num] [Past-Tns] V they

[u-Num] [3-Pers] [Nom-Case] [3-Pers]

[Pl-Num] [Pl-Num]

[u-Case] [EPP]

6

7.5 Expletive itcannot be replaced by a referential pronoun like this or that, and

cannot be questioned by what

(19) a. It is said that he has taken bribes b. It can be difficult to cope with long-term illness c. It’s a pity that she can’t come

(20-24) TP PRN T´ it [3-Pers] T VP [Sg-Num] BE [Pres-Tns] V CP [u-Pers] said that he has taken bribes

[u-Num] we have [u-Pers] [u-Num] [u-Case]

An expletive ‘can’t be a probe’ (Chomsky, p.c., 2005);BE must be the probe in (24) and expletive it the goal.

7.5 Feature Valuation VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis

(25) a. They had said that he has taken bribes

b. I won’t have it said that he has taken bribes

(26) T´

T VP

BE PRN V´ [Pres-Tns] it [u-Pers] [3-Pers] V CP [u-Num] [Sg-Num] said that he has taken bribes [EPP]

(27) TP (Agreement & EPP applies;)

PRN T´ (BE attracts the goal it to move to Spec-T.) it [3-Pers] T VP

[Sg-Num] BE PRN V´

[Pres-Tns] it V CP [u-Pers] said that he has taken bribes [u-Num] [EPP] 8

7.6 Expletive there subjects

(1) There were awarded several prizes

i) expletive there is an uninterpretable person feature

ii) there is intrinsically third person (like the th-words, e.g., this, that, these, those and the)

‘NO’ pobe-goal agreement relation between there and several prizes:

i) there is not the head of a phrase, and hence cannot serve as a probe

ii) there is a specifier , and hence can only serve as a goal

iii) agreement typically involves a relation between a valued feature and a matching unvalued feature

(29) T´ (30) TP

T VP PRN T´

BE PRN V´ there T VP

[Past-Tns] there V QP [3-Pers] were

[u-Pers] [3-Pers] awarded several prizes [Past-Tns] there V ´

[u-Num] [3-Pers] [3-Pers]

[EPP] [Pl-Num] [Pl-Num] V QP

[u-Case] [EPP] awarded several prizes

[3-Pers]

T-BE: multiple agreement with all active goals (there & several prizes) accessible to it. [Pl-Num]

(The EPP feature on T attracts the closest goal, and so triggers mvnt of there to Spec-T.) [Nom-Case]

7.6 Expletive Conditions

(33) a. There was awarded only one prize

b. *It was awarded only one prize

(34) a. It is said that he has taken bribes

b. *There is said that he has taken bribes

(35) a. *There was impeached the president

b. *It was impeached the president

(32) Expletive Conditions

(i) External Argument condition: An expletive can only be merged as the highest argument of a verb with no external argument

(ii) Indefiniteness Condition: Expletive there can only be merged with a verb which has an indefinite nominal or pronominal internal argument

(iii)Inactivity Condition: Expletive it can only be merged with a constituent which does not contain a nominal or pronominal expression with active case-or φ-features

10

7.8 EPP and agreement in control infinitives

(47) a. They don’t want [to see you]

b. They don’t want [CP [C Ø ] [TP PRO [T to] [VP PRO [V see] you]]]

(48) Null Case Assignment

An unvalued case feature on a pronoun goal is valued as null via agreement

with a T-probe carrying null (non-finite) tense

(49) They have decided [PRO to help you]

(51) TP

PRN T´ PRO [3-Pers] T VP [Pl-Num] to PRO help you [Null Case] [Nf-Tns] [3-Pers] [Pl-Num] [EPP]

11