TOPIC XIX

UNINTERPRETABLE FEATURES AND FEATURE

INHERITANCE
We have seen that a non-phasal head
like T (in finite clauses) enters the derivation
carrying an interpretable tense- feature as
well as uninterpretable agreement features.
They are valued via agreement with an
active noun or pronoun which is assigned
nominative case via agreement with T.
We
have
also
seen
that
the
uninterpretable agreement features work in
conjunction with the EPP feature to trigger
movement of the said active noun or
pronoun.
However, in recent work Chomsky has
argued that non-phasal heads enter the
derivation
carrying
only
interpretable
features and that they inherit their
uninterpretable features from the phasehead immediately above them. This means
for example, that the phase-head C is not
only the locus of certain interpretable
features
(e.g.
C
marks
declarative,
199

interrogative or imperative force), but it is

also the locus (the source) of the
uninterpretable agreement features carried
by T. Chomsky suggests that the locus of
nominative
case
and
subject-verb
agreement is C, not T. This is clear from the
fact that T carries a complete set of features only in a clause where T is selected
by C, not in defective (CP-less) clauses.
In this connection consider the contrast
between the two complement clauses in:
a)
It would seem [that he has left].
b)
He would seem [to have left].
In (a) the TP he has left is selected by
the C constituent that. As a result of this
the head T of TP (= has) carries a complete
set of -features:

(161) CP
C

TP

that PRN
he

T
T

AUXP

has PRN

AUX
200

he

AUX

vP

has

PRN
he

left+

left

By contrast, the TP in the raising

structure (b) is not selected by C, and its
head T-to is defective because it does not
carry a complete set of agreement features:

(162) CP
C

TP
PRN

he

VP

would

TP

seem PRN T
he

AUXP

to PRN
he

AUX
AUX

VP

201

have PRN
v
he v
V
left+

left

Chomsky
concludes
that
the
agreement features of T must originate on C
and subsequently be inherited by the T
constituent immediately beneath C. Further
evidence that agreement features originate
on C:
a)I would like very much [for him to win the
race].
b)I would like very much [PRO to win the
race].
In (a) the locus of case assignment is the
complementiser for introducing the clause.
This is clear from the fact that for requires
the subject of the TP to be assigned
accusative case (= him).

202

On the other hand in (b) the null

complementiser requires the PRO subject
of TP to be assigned null case.
Now, case-assignment works hand in
hand with agreement. This means that the
complementiser (for, null) must also carry
a complete set of -agreement features.
However, the case and agreement features
do not remain on the complementiser. The
complementiser is just the initial locus of
subject
case-assignment
and
subjectagreement
properties.
Eventually,
the
complementiser
hands
over
its
uninterpretable
case
and
agreement
features to the head T constituent of its TP
complement:

(163) CP
C
for

TP
T

vP
203

to

PRN

him

DP

win

the race

In consequence of this the infinitival probe

T-to agrees with and assigns accusative
case to the subject him of the light vP, and
moreover it attracts him to raise to spec-T:
(164) CP
C

TP

for

PRN
him

T
to

T
vP
PRN

him

v
win

DP
the race

Likewise, in a Control infinitive clause like

(b):

(165) CP
204

TP

PRN
PRO

T
T

vP

to PRN
PRO

v
v

DP

win

the race

So, the important thing here is that C hands

over its features to T. Now, just as C hands
over its features to T, so, too, a transitive
light v hands over its features to V. This can
be seen, for example, in ECM structures like:
The DA will prove the witness conclusively
to have lied. In ECM structures the subject
of the infinitive (= the witness) is in spec-TP
of the infinitive complement clause:
(Z)

TP
DP

the witness

T
to

AUXP
DP

AUX

the witness

AUX

have

V
lied
205

From spec-TP in the infinitive complement

clause the witness raises up to become the
object of the main clause. This operation is
called (subject-to-) Object Raising:
(166)

vP

DP
The DA

v
v

VP

prove+

DP

the witness ADV

conclusively V

V
TP

prove the witness to

have lied

The TP (Z) is merged with the verb

prove to form a V-bar projection. The
adverb conclusively is then adjoined to the
V-bar to form a larger V-bar. The DP the
witness raises from spec-TP into spec-VP in
the main clause. A transitive light verb
carries a set of agreement and (accusative)
case assignment features. The transitive
light verb hands these over to the head
206

immediately beneath it (=the head V of VP).

Now, after inheriting agreement features
from the phase head above it (=the
transitive light verb), the V (just like T) can
carry an EPP feature.
Given all this, the lexical verb prove will
agree (invisibly) with, and assign (invisible)
accusative case to, the DP the witness. By
virtue of its EPP feature the lexical verb will
attract the DP the witness to move to specVP. The verb prove is likewise attracted by
the affixal light verb to move from V to light
v. Merging the resulting light v-bar with the
DP the DA, we derive the light vP (166)
above.
The movement of the DP the witness
from spec-TP of the infinitive complement
clause to spec-VP of the main clause (where
it becomes object of prove) is A-Movement.
The light vP (166) above is subsequently
merged with the T auxiliary will. Will
attracts the DP the DA to move to spec-T,
so forming a TP. This TP is subsequently
merged
with
a
null
declarative

207

complementiser to form P-Marker

corresponding to the sentence:

(167)

The DA will prove the witness conclusively

to have lied.

(167)CP
C

TP
DP

The DA T

vP

will DP

the DA v

VP

prove+ DP

the witness ADV

conclusively V
TP

208

prove
witness to

the
have

lied
This analysis (167)
following phenomena:

accounts

for

the

1.It explains how the accusative subject of

the infinitive complement clause (= the
witness) comes to be positioned in front of
an adverb (= conclusively) modifying a
projection of the verb in the main clause (=
prove).
2. It accounts for how the accusative DP the
witness comes to be adjacent to the
transitive verb prove.
3. Most importantly, it shows that V inherits
its agreement features and its ability to
assign accusative case from the light verb v,
which heads the vP phase.
The following examples show as well that
the relevant case and agreement features
originate on the light verb:

209

a)The DA has proved the defendant

conclusively to have committed the murder.
b)The
defendant
has
been
proved
conclusively to have committed the murder.
The main clause VPs of (a) and (b) have
identical structure (prior to agreement, case
marking, and movement of the infinitive
subject [= the defendant]).
Here is the derivation of the active
structure (a):

(168)

vP

DP

TheDA

prove+

VP
DP

V
210

the defend. ADV

conclusively

V
V

TP
prove the
defenda
nt
to
have
committ
ed
the
murder
Here, prove will agree with, case mark and
attract the infinitive subject (= the
defendant) from spec-TP of the infinitive
complement clause to spec-VP of the main
clause (object raising). Accusative case is
assigned to the infinitive subject because
the light vP, being transitive, has a thematic
external argument (= the DA) in spec- light
vP.
But in the intransitive passive structure
(b) there is no external argument in speclight vP (there is no specifier). So, accusative
case is not assigned to the infinitive subject:

211

(169)

vP

VP

prove+

DP

the defendant ADV

conclusively

V
prove

TP
defendant to

the
hav

e
committ
ed
the
murder
Here, it is the matrix T (main clause T) (not
shown)
which agrees with, assigns
nominative case to, and attracts the
infinitive subject to spec-TP (The defendant
has been proved conclusively to have
committed the murder.)
Whether or not accusative case should
be assigned cannot depend on the VPs
because they have identical structure in
both (a) and (b) (P-markers (168) and (169)
above). So, whether or not the verb V agrees
212

with, case marks and attracts to spec-VP the

infinitive subject the defendant cannot be
determined by the internal structure of the
VP since it is the same in both (a) and (b).
Therefore, what determines that accusative
case be assigned to the infinitive subject in
the transitive ECM sentence (a) is that the
light vP has a thematic external argument
(= the DA). In the intransitive sentence (b)
there is no such argument, so accusative
case is not assigned. This is because a light
verb carries agreement features and has the
ability to assign accusative case only if it
has a thematic external argument.
However, since it is the lexical V (not the
light v) which agrees with, assigns
accusative case to, and attracts to spec-VP
the infinitive subject in ECM structures like
the one in (a), it is clear that the light v must
hand over its agreement features to the
lexical V, once the light vP phase is formed.
So, the light v hands over its case and
agreement features to the lexical V in ECM
structures like (1) The DA proved the
witness to have lied.
213

But in simple transitive structures like:

(2) They rolled the ball down the hill the
light verb does not hand over its case and
agreement features to the lexical V.
The reason why the light v hands over its
features to V in (1) but not in (2), in spite of
the fact that in both types of structure the
light verb has a thematic external argument
(= the DA in (1) and they in (2)) is ccommand.
In (1) the light v hands over its features
to V because the V=prove c-commands the
DP the witness, so that prove can agree
with and assign accusative case to it:

(170)(1)

vP

DP

The DA v

VP

DP
the DA V

V
TP

214

prove the witness to

have lied
But in (2) the V=roll does not c-command
the DP the ball and so it cannot agree with
or case-mark the ball:
(171)(2)

vP

PRN

They

VP

rolled + DP
the ball

V
V

PP
rolled

down

the hill
Moreover, UG prevents a transitive light verb
in an ECM structure (170)(1) from marking
any constituent in the c-command domain of
a lexical V. The lexical V itself is a case
assigner, and one case assigner cannot
case-mark a constituent within the domain
of another case-assigner. So, the light verb
cannot case-mark the DP the witness in (1)
because the latter falls within the domain of
(and so follows) the lexical V prove.
215

This means that a light v in a simple

transitive structure (171)(2) can case-mark a
goal only within its own immediate domain
(i.e. a goal which is c-commanded by a light
v but not by a lexical V). The light v directly
case-marks the DP the ball because it is in
the domain of the light v (and so follows it).
The ball is not in the domain of the lexical
V.
In other words, when a light verb finds no
accessible goal within its own immediate
domain, it (the light v) hands over its case
and agreement features to the lexical V. The
light v hands over its case/agreemenr
features to the lexical V in ECM structures
like (1), but not in simple transitive
structures like (2).
To summarise, phase-heads enter the
derivation carrying both interpretable and
uninterpretable features. Other heads enter
the derivation carrying only interpretable
features. A phase head can hand over its
uninterpretable features to the head
beneath it, so that e.g. T can inherit
agreement features from C in a finite clause,
216

and V can inherit agreement features from

light v in a transitive clause with an ECM
structure.
Phrase-marker
(172)
shows
the
derivation of an ECM sentence structure
corresponding to the sentence:
The DA has proved the defendant
conclusively to have committed the murder.

217

(172)CP
C

TP
DP

The DA T

vP

has DP

the DA v

VP

prove+ DP

the defend. ADV

conclusively V

V
TP

prove DP T
the def. T

AUXP

to DP
the

AUX
def.AUX

VP
have DP
V

218

the

def.

DP
com
mit/themurder

Here, the main clause T-has will agree with,

assign nominative case to, and attract the
DP the DA to move to spec-T. On the other
hand, the V-prove will inherit its features
from the light v (the structure being an ECM
one) and will assign accusative case to, and
attract the DP the defendant, to move to
spec-V.

TOPIC XX
INDEPENDENT PROBES
XX.1 Independent Probes
So far derivations were assumed to
proceed in a cyclic, bottom up fashion. In
consequence of the Earliness principle
(operations must apply as early as possible
in a derivation), T operations applied before
C operations.

219

However, we saw that T inherits its

agreement features from C. So, it turns out
that C operations must be carried out before
T operations.
And indeed, in recent work Chomsky
maintains that C operations are carried out
before T operations. In fact he claims that
agreement operations can apply only after a
complete phase structure is built up. The
different heads within a phase can probe
independently and in any order.
In this connection there are two
constraints which play an important role:
1.The Invisibility Condition: the specifier
of a complete (non-defective) TP is invisible
to any higher probe. E.g.:
a)They believe [ John is innocent].
b)*John is believed [is innocent]
In (a) we have a complete (non-defective)
TP. The subject/specifier (=John) of this TP
cannot passivise (it cannot undergo AMovement), because it is invisible to the
higher probe is.
220

By contrast, the subject/specifier of a

defective ECM TP can passivise (can undergo
A-Movement):
c)They believe [ John to be innocent].
d)John is believed [to be innocent].
In addition to this, A-bar Movement is
possible out of the subject of a defective TP:
a)Of which party do you believe [the leader
to have committed suicide]?
But A-bar Movement is not possible out of
the subject of a non-defective (complete) TP:
*Of which party do you believe [the leader
has committed suicide]?
It is clear then that A-Movement and Abar Movement are barred, out of the
specifier of a complete (non-defective) TP.
This is due to the fact that the specifier of a
complete (non-defective) TP is invisible to
any higher probe which might attract it.
2.The second constraint Chomsky calls the
Specifier Condition: no subextraction is
possible out of a constituent which is a
specifier of a phase head. E.g.:
221

It is unclear [which driver of which car they

arrested]
*Of which car is it unclear [which driver they
arrested]?
Since the DP which driver of which car
occupies spec-C, the Specifier Condition
prevents the PP of which car from being
subextracted out of it.
So, bearing in mind these two conditions,
we can see how T and C probe
independently on a given phase. Compare:
a)*Of which car has the driver caused a
scandal?
b)Of which car was the driver arrested?
A bottom up analysis will predict wrongly
that
(a)
is
grammatical
and
(b)
ungrammatical. However, it is the other way
around.
(173)

vP
DP

The driver of which car

cause+

VP
V

QP
222

cause

scandal
Here, cause raises to attach to the light
verb and the QP a scandal is assigned
accusative case by the V, which inherits
case/agreement features from the light v.
Further on, the light vP (173) merges
with the present tense T-auxiliary have
which agrees with, case-marks, and triggers
movement of, the DP the driver of which
car to spec-T: see (174) below. It also
determines that cause is spelled out as
caused.
(174) CP
C

TP
DP

The driver of which car T

has

vP

caused a scandal

The resulting TP is merged with a null

interrogative C. The interrogative C carries a
tense feature triggering movement of has
from T to C. It also carries an edge feature
223

triggering
movement
of
a
maximal
projection containing a wh-word to spec-C:

(175)

CP

PP

Of which car C
has

TP
DP

the driver of which car T

vP
has

caused a

scandal
However, the resulting sentence (a) is
ungrammatical, because movement of the
PP of which car from spec-TP to spec-CP
violates the Invisibility Condition (the
specifier of a complete, non-defective TP is
invisible to any higher probe). Since the DP
the driver of which car is the specifier of a
non-defective TP headed by T-has, the
224

whole DP is invisible to the higher probe C,

and hence C cannot attract the PP of which
car to move to spec-C.
Now, lets consider sentence (b):
Of which car was the driver arrested?
(176) vP
V

VP

arrest +

V
arrest

DP
the driver of which car

The light verb is participial in nature so

arrest is ultimately spelled out as
arrested. The light vP (176) is merged with
the past tense T-auxiliary BE which agrees
with, case-marks, and triggers movement of,
the DP the driver of which car to spec-T.
Merging the resulting TP with a null
interrogative C generates:
(177)

TP
DP

The driver of which car

T
T

vP
225

was

VP

arrested V

DP

arrest

the

driver of
which
car
Since this is a main clause (non-echoic)
question, C carries a tense feature triggering
movement of was from T to C. C carries
also an edge feature triggering movement of
a wh-expression to spec-C. So, C attracts the
PP of which car to move to spec-C:

(178)

CP

PP

Of which car C
was

TP
DP

the driver of which car T

T
vP

226

was
arrested
However, subextraction of the PP of
which car is blocked by the Invisibility
Condition (the specifier of a complete TP is
invisible
to
any
higher
probe).
Consequently, the sentence is wrongly
predicted to be ungrammatical. So, what has
gone wrong here?
According to Chomsky, the answer lies in
the traditional bottom-up assumption that
operations involving lower (subordinate)
probes must necessarily apply before
operations involving higher (superordinate)
probes. Chomsky argues that different heads
can probe in a random fashion either one
before another, or simultaneously, in
parallel.
Lets see how the parallel probes
assumption helps us to account for the
contrast between (a) and (b) above.
First, the derivation of (b):

(179) CP
227

TP

vP

BE

VP

arrest+

arrest

DP
the driver of

which car
Consider what happens if T and C probe
simultaneously:

(180) CP
PP

Of which car C
be+

TP
DP

the driver T

vP

of which car be v

VP

arrest+ V
DP
arrest

the

driver

228

of which
car

Here, at the same time as T-be agrees

with the DP the driver of which car and
attracts a copy of the DP to move to spec-T,
the null interrogative C (with an [EF] and a
[TF]

edge
and
tense
features)
simultaneously attracts a copy of the PP of
which car to move to spec-C, and be to
move from T to C.
In (180) above the movement of the DP
the driver of which car from complement
position after arrest to specifier position of
T is A-Movement, while the outer arrow
showing the movement of the PP of which
car to spec-CP is an instance of A-bar
movement. There is no violation of the
Invisibility Condition because the PP of
which car is being extracted out of a DP
which is a complement of the verb arrest
(not out of a specifier of a non-defective TP
as in (178) above).

229

The dual movement in (180) results in a

structure containing three copies of the PP
of which car. In cases where there is more
than one copy of the same constituent in the
structure, it is only the highest copy that is
overtly spelled out. BE is ultimately spelled
out as is and arrest as arrested. So, in
the PF component we get: Of which car was
the driver arrested?
Now consider the
ungrammatical (a):

derivation

of

the

*Of which car has the driver caused a

scandal?
(181) CP
C

TP
T
has

vP
DP

the driver of which car

VP
cause+

QP

230

cause

scandal
We start with the light vP (173) above. Then
this light vP is merged with the T-auxiliary
have to form a TP which is in turn merged
with an interrogative C constituent to form
the CP (181). Given Chomskys assumption
that C and T can probe simultaneously, T
agrees with, and case-marks the DP the
driver of which car, and attracts a copy of it
to move to spec-T. In addition to this, C
simultaneously attracts a copy of the PP of
which car to move to spec-C. Also C attracts
a copy of have to move to C:

(182)
PP

CP
C

Of which car C

TP
231

has

DP

the driver T

vP

of which car have DP

the driver

v
caused
a

scandal
of which car
Since have and cause are spelled out as
has and caused in the PF component, and
since only the highest copy of each
constituent is overtly spelled out, the
resulting structure will ultimately be spelled
out as *Of which car has the driver caused a
scandal? (182), which is ungrammatical.
Why should this be?
The answer is that subextraction of the
PP of which car out of the DP the driver of
which car violates the Specifier Condition
(this condition bars subextraction out of the
specifier of a phase). Since the light vP in
(182) is a phase (by virtue of the light verb
having a thematic external argument (= the
driver of which car)), and since the driver
of which car is the specifier of the transitive
232

light vP phase, the Wh-Movement (A-bar

Movement) operation indicated by the outer
arrow leads to a violation of the Specifier
Condition.
So far we have outlined Chomskys
account of why subextraction is possible out
of the subject of a passive clause (b) Of
which car was the driver arrested? but not
possible out of the subject of a transitive
clause (a) *Of which car has the driver
caused a scandal?
A crucial theoretical assumption is that C
and T can probe independently and
simultaneously.
However, C and T do not always probe
simultaneously. There is such evidence from
simple transitive sentences like:
What have they done?

233

(183) CP
C

TP
T

vP

have PRN
what

v
PRN
they

v
v

do+

VP
V
DO

PRN
WHAT

Here, what has moved to spec-light vP on

the light v cycle. Also, the VP has undergone
transfer at the end of the light vP phase. At
this point T needs to be able to attract they
to move to spec-T. C needs to be able to
attract the wh-object what (in spec-light
vP) to move to spec-C.
234

Before we go on, we have to consider

two other constraints which play a part in
the derivation. One is the Visibility
Condition: only the highest copy in a
movement chain is visible in the syntax
(other copies being inert).
A (movement) chain
is a set of
constituents comprising an expression and
any trace copies associated with it. The
Visibility Condition means that only the
highest copy (or link) in a movement chain
is visible to a superordinate probe in the
syntax.
The Intervention Condition: a probe
cannot target a goal if there is some other
visible goal of the same kind intervening
between the two, and if the intervening goal
is inactive for the probe.
In the light of the Intervention Condition
lets see what happens next in the derivation
of (183) above.
No matter whether T probes first and C
afterwards, or the two probe simultaneously,
the Intervention Condition will prevent
235

T-have from targeting the subject they

because the highest occurrence of what
intervenes between the two (and what is a
goal of the same kind, namely PRN).
Besides, what cannot be targeted by
T-have, too, because its case feature was
deleted on the light vP phase, so that what
has become inactive for A-operations.
An A-operation
is one involving a
probe which is an A-head like T. An A-head
is one which allows an argument expression
as specifier but not an adjunct expression. In
other words, an A-operation is one involving
a probe (like T) which allows an argument
specifier but not an adjunct specifier. So,
what cannot be attracted by T to become
its specifier (because its case feature was
deleted on the vP phase).
But if C probes before T, C will attract
what to move to spec-C:
184) CP
PRN
What

C
C

TP
T

vP
236

have PRN

what
they

PRN

VP

done

PRN

DONE WHAT

Here, the middle arrow shows the

movement of what to spec-light vP on the
light v cycle. As we have seen before, (in
(157)), what is here an outer specifier,
being attracted by the wh-attracting edgefeature of the light verb. (Just as C has an
edge-feature causing movement of a whexpression, so, too, a transitive light verb
has a wh-attracting edge-feature, because a
transitive light v is a phase head like C is).
Do is ultimately spelled out as done in the
PF component.
Subsequently, the T-auxiliary have can
probe separately and attract the subject
they to move to spec-T. The intervening
PRN what is inactive but is not the highest
237

copy of what, so it is no hindrance to

moving they to spec-T:
(185) CP
PRN

What C

PRN
they

T
vP

have PRN

what PRN

they v
done

VP
V

PRN

DONE WHAT

Subsequently,
auxiliary
inversion
together with deletion of all but the highest
copies will derive Phrase-Marker (186)
below, corresponding to the sentence: What
have they done?
(186) CP
PRN

C
238

What

TP

have PRN

they T
have

Vp
PRN

what

PRN
they

v
v

done

VP
V

PRN
DONE WHAT
Thus only if
C probes before T in an
object question like the above will the
derivation yield a successful outcome (will
the derivation converge).
Since C and T sometimes probe
simultaneously and sometimes sequentially,
Chomsky concludes that all options are
open, so that C and T probe in either order,
or simultaneously, with only certain choices
converging (i.e. resulting in a well-formed
sentence). More simply, sometimes C probes
before T, sometimes T probes before C, and
sometimes the two probe at the same time.
239

XX.2. Subject Questions

The assumption that T and C function as
independent
probes
has
interesting
implications for the syntax of subject
questions like: Who died?, Who killed the
president?. Lets consider the derivation of
the sentence Who died?:
(187) C
C

TP
T
Af

vP
v

VP
V
die

PRN
who

Die is an unaccusative predicate which

merges with who to form the VP die who.
This VP is then merged with a null light verb
thereby forming the light vP die who. This
light vP is then merged with a T constituent
containing a past tense affix [Af], so forming
a TP which is in turn merged with an
interrogative C to form the CP (187) above.

240

Then C, T, and the light v, probe

independently of each other. The light verb
attracts die to adjoin to it. Since C and T
locate the same goal who they probe
simultaneously. The T-affix [Af] picks out
who as a goal which is active by virtue of
its unvalued case feature and agrees with,
assigns nominative case to, and attracts a
copy of who to move to spec-T.
C probes simultaneously and identifies
who as the closest (and only) interrogative
goal in its search domain, attracting a
separate copy of who to spec-C:
(188)

CP

PRN
Who

C
C

TP
PRN
who

T
T
Af

vP
v

VP

die+

V
die

PRN
who

241

Here, we can see that one copy of who is

created in spec-T via A-Movement and a
second separate copy of who is created in
spec-C via A-bar Movement. The highest
copy of who (the one in spec-C) is given an
overt spellout.
In subject questions there is no T-to-C
Movement (and hence no do support). This
is because C does not attract T. C attracts a
wh-constituent, which is itself attracted by T
(i.e. the wh-constituent is attracted by T). So
that who is attracted by both C and T.
Consequently, the past tense affix [Af]
remains in T in the syntax and is lowered
from T onto V in the PF component. As a
result of this die is spelled out as died.
The sentence: Who killed the president?
is derived in a similar fashion, only, the verb
is transitive:
(189)

CP

PRN
Who

C
C

TP
PRN

T
242

who T
Af

vP
PRN

who

v
kill+ V

VP
DP
kill the

president
Here, kill merges with the president to
form the VP kill the president. This VP is
then merged with a null light verb (which
attracts the verb kill) to form a light v-bar,
which is itself merged with the PRN who to
form a light vP. This light vP is then merged
with a T-constituent containing a past tense
affix [Af], so forming a TP. The resulting TP is
merged with an interrogative C, forming a
CP. The agreement features on T probe and
pick out who as their goal. T is marked now
as [3P Sg]. The movement features of the
two heads (C and T) then probe
simultaneously (in parallel), each attracting
a copy of who to move into its own
specifier position. More precisely, the edge
and tense features on C, and the EPP feature
on T probe simultaneously each attracting a
243

copy of who to move into spec-C and specT respectively.

As before, only the highest copy of who
(=the one in spec-C) is overtly spelled out in
the PF component. There is no T-to-C
Movement and no do support (i.e. there is
no inversion). The past tense affix on T
lowers onto the light verb v via Affix
Hopping with the result that the verb kill is
ultimately spelled out as the past tense form
killed, so deriving Who killed the
president?
To summarise Chomskys
based theory of syntax:

phase-

The computational component of the

Language Faculty can hold only limited
amounts of syntactic structure in its working
memory at any one time. So, clause
structure is built up in phases (which include
CP and transitive light vP). At the end of
each
phase
the
domain
(i.e.
the
complement) of the phase head undergoes
transfer to the phonological and semantic
components with the result that neither the
domain nor any constituent it contains are
244

accessible to further syntactic operations

from that point on.
The End

APPENDIX I.
A
BRIEF
SUMMARY
OF
PRINCIPLES,
PARAMETERS,
OPERATIONS, HYPOTHESES,
AND KEY NOTIONS
TOPIC I
1.
Competence. The native speakers
tacit knowledge of his grammar.
2.
Performance. What people actually
say or understand on a given occasion.
3.
I-language. A cognitive system
internalised within the brain/mind of the
native speaker.
4.
The Innateness Hypothesis. The
claim that language acquisition is
determined by an innate language
faculty.
5.
The
Locality
Principle.
Grammatical operations are local.

245

6.
The Null Subject Parameter. In
some languages finite verbs can have
either overt or covert (null, pro) subjects,
while in other languages finite verbs may
have only overt subjects. The former
languages are known as null subject, and
the latter, as non-null subject languages
(like English).
7.
The Wh-Parameter. A word order
parameter which determines whether
wh-expressions are fronted or not.
8.
The Head Position Parameter. A
word order parameter which determines
the relative position of heads with
respect to their complements.
TOPIC II
1.
The Headedness Principle. Every
non-terminal node in a syntactic
structure is a projection of a head word.
2.
The Binarity Principle. Every nonterminal node in a syntactic structure is
binary-branching.
3.
The
Extended
Projection
Principle
(EPP).
English
tense
auxiliaries carry an EPP feature which
246

requires them to have an extended

projection into a TP containing a subject.
4.
The Coordination Condition. Only
constituents of the same kind can be
coordinated.
5.
The Substitution Test. A string of
words is a constituent if it can be
substituted by a single word (proform).
6.
The Preposing Test. Only a string
of words forming a constituent can be
preposed. Only a maximal projection can
be preposed.
7.
C-command. A constituent X ccommands its sister constituent Y and
any constituent Z which is contained
within Y. (A constituent c-commands its
sisters and their descendents.).
8.
The Polarity Condition. A polarity
item must be c-commanded by an
affective constituent.
9.
The Binding Condition. A bound
constituent must be c-commanded by an
appropriate antecedent.
TOPIC III
1.
The
Adjacency
cliticizing word (=

Constraint.
The
have) must be
247

immediately adjacent to its host (= she)

and must be c-commanded by it.
2.
Affix Hopping. When some constituent
T contains an unattached affix Af, in the PF
component Af is lowered onto the head H of
the complement of T, provided H is an
appropriate host for the affix to attach to.
3.The Categorial Uniformity
Principle. All expressions of the same type
belong to the same category.
4. The Impenetrability Condition. A
constituent in the domain of (i.e. ccommanded by) a complementiser is
impenetrable to (and cannot be attracted
by) a higher head c-commanding the
complementiser.
5. Chomskys Interpretability
Principle. All heads must be interpretable
at the semantic interface.
TOPIC IV
1. The Head Movement Constraint.
Head movement is possible only
between a given head and the head of
its complement.
2. The Head Strength Parameter.
There is a parametric variation with
respect to the relative strength of a
248

given type of head. The parameter may

have different settings for different
types of head in a given language. (E.g.
in present-day English a finite T is weak
but a finite C is strong in interrogative
main clauses).
TOPIC V
1.
The Earliness Principle. Operations
must apply as early as possible in a
derivation.
2.
The Strict Cyclicity Principle. At a
stage of derivation where a given
projection HP is being cycled / processed,
only operations involving the head H of
HP and some other constituent ccommanded by H can apply.
3.
Do-support.
The
operation
of
spelling out a stranded affix as an
appropriately inflected form of do.
4.
Affix Attachment. An operation
including the two complementing PF
operations Do-support and Affix Hopping,
which provide two different ways of
spelling out an affix.
TOPIC VI
249

1.
External Merge. An operation which
involves taking an item out of the lexical
array and merging it with some other
constituent.
2.
Internal
Merge.
A
movement
operation by which an item contained
within an already existing structure is
moved to a new position within the same
structure.
3.
Adjunction. An operation by which
one head is adjoined to another.
4.
Chomskys
Copy
Theory
of
Movement. A moved constituent leaves
behind a full copy of itself and not just a
pronominal copy t (= trace) (as in the
earlier theory).
5.
The Interrogative Condition. A
clause is interpreted as a (non-echoic)
question if (and only if) it is a CP with an
interrogative specifier (i.e. a specifier
containing an interrogative word).
6.
Movement
Chain.
A
set
of
constituents comprising an expression
and any full copies of itself.
7.
The Chain Uniformity Condition.
A chain is uniform with regard to phrase
structure status.
250

8.
The Attract Smallest Condition. A
head which attracts a particular type of
item attracts the smallest constituent
containing such an item which will not
lead to violation of some UG principle.
9.
The
Economy
Condition.
Derivations and representations are
required to be minimal with no
superfluous steps in derivations and no
superfluous symbols in representations.
10.The Left Branch Condition. In
languages like English, the leftmost
constituent of a nominal expression cannot
be extracted out of the expression
containing it.
TOPIC VII
1.
A-Movement. An operation whereby
an argument is moved to an A position.
2.
A-position. A position that can be
occupied only by arguments.
3.
The
VP-internal
Subject
Hypothesis. This is the claim that
subjects originate internally within VP
and from there move to spec-T.

251

4.
The
Theta-Criterion.
Each
argument bears one and only one theta
role, and each theta role is assigned to
one and only one argument.
5.
The Predicate Internal Theta
Marking Hypothesis. An argument is
theta marked (i.e. assigned a theta-role)
via merger with a predicate.
TOPIC VIII
1.
The Constraint on Extraction
Domain.
Only complements
allow
material to be extracted out of them, not
specifiers or adjuncts.
2.
Passivisation. A particular instance
of A-Movement which serves to create
structural subjects by moving arguments
to spec-T in order to satisfy the EPP
feature on T. Usually, an argument is
moved from being the thematic object of
a verb to becoming the structural subject
of BE. Passivisation can move not only
complements but also subjects.
3.
The Uniform Theta-Assignment
Hypothesis (UTAH). Constituents which
fulfil the same thematic role with respect
252

to a given predicate occupy the same

initial (i.e. original) position in the syntax
(i.e. they originate in the same place).
4.
The Attract Closest Condition. A
head which attracts a given kind of
constituent
attracts
the
closest
constituent of the relevant kind.
TOPIC IX
1.
Subject Raising. With Raising
Predicates
this
is
the
movement
operation by which a nominal expression
moves from being the specifier of a lower
TP to becoming the specifier of a higher
TP. It is yet another instance of AMovement operation by which T attracts
the closest nominal it c-commands to
become its specifier in spec-T of the
higher TP.
2.
The
Relativised
Minimality
Condition. A constituent X can only be
affected (e.g. agree or be attracted) by
the minimal constituent of the relevant
type above it (i.e. c-commanding X). This
condition
requires
a
constituent
undergoing A-Movement to become the
253

specifier of the closest T constituent

above it each time it moves.
TOPIC X
1.
Agreement. When a probe (like T)
agrees with a goal in its local domain: (1)
the unvalued -features of the probe will
be valued (i.e. will be assigned a value
which is a copy of that of the goal); (2)
the unvalued case feature of the goal will
be valued (i.e. will be assigned a value
dependent on the nature of the probe,
e.g. nominative if the probe is a finite
T).
2.
-features person and number.
3.
Feature Deletion. An operation
whereby an uninterpretable feature is
deleted immediately any operation it is
involved in applies, and is therefore
invisible in the syntactic and semantic
components (but is visible in the PF
component).
4.
The Simultaneity Condition. All
syntactic operations involving a given
probe P apply simultaneously.
TOPIC XI ---

---

--254

TOPIC XII
1.
Accusative Case Assignment. An
unvalued case feature on a goal is
valued as accusative via agreement with
a transitive probe.
2.
Null
Case
Assignment.
An
unvalued case feature on a pronoun goal
is valued as null via agreement with a Tprobe carrying null (non-finite) tense.
TOPIC XIII
1.
The Split CP Hypothesis. The
analysis splitting CP into a number of
different projections.
2.
A-bar Movement. An operation
whereby
a
moved
constituent
is
attracted into an A-bar specifier position
(i.e. the kind of specifier position which
can be occupied by arguments and
adjuncts alike).
TOPIC XIV
1.
VP-shell
Analysis
(Split
VP
Analysis). The analysis which splits VP
into two projections an outer vP shell
and an inner VP core.
255

TOPIC XV
1.
The Merger Condition. Where V
has a clausal internal argument and
some other type of internal argument,
the clausal argument is the first to be
merged with V; where V has a
(pro)nominal internal argument and
some other type(s) of internal argument,
the (pro)nominal argument is the last
one merged with V.
TOPIC XVI
1.
The Expletive External Argument
Condition. An expletive can be merged
only as the last / highest argument of a
light verb with no external argument (i.e.
in spec-v).
TOPIC XVII
1.
The
Phase
Impenetrability
Condition. The c-command domain of a
phase head is impenetrable to any
external probe (i.e. a goal which is ccommanded by the head of a phase is
impenetrable
to
any
probe
ccommanding the phase). This condition
256

is a modification of of the Impenetrability

Condition discussed in Topic III.
2.
Transfer. Once a complete phase
has been formed, the domain of the
phase undergoes a transfer operation by
which the relevant (domain) structure is
simultaneously sent to the phonological
component
to
be
assigned
an
appropriate phonological representation,
and to the semantic component to be
assigned
an
appropriate
semantic
representation. From this point on the
relevant domain is no longer accessible
to the syntax.
3.
Transfer Rules. Transfer Rule I: At
the end of each phase, the domain (i.e.
the complement) of the phase head
undergoes transfer.
Transfer Rule II: At the end of the
overall
derivation
all
remaining
constituents undergo transfer.
TOPIC XVIII
1.
The Inactivation Condition. A goal
with a case feature becomes inactive for
agreement with (or attraction by) an A257

head like T, once its case feature has

been valued and deleted.
2.
An A-head. A probe like T, or a
transitive light v, which enters the
derivation carrying one or more unvalued
agreement features, and which acts as a
case assigner, if it has a complete set of
agreement features.
3.
The Mixed Chains Constraint.
Movement cannot give rise to a mixed
chain containing one copy of a
constituent which has moved to the edge
of a phase, and another copy which has
moved to the edge of a non-phasal
projection.
TOPIC XIX
1.
Subject-to-Object
Raising.
An
operation whereby the subject of the
infinitive in ECM structures is positioned
in spec-TP of the infinitive complement
clause from where it raises up to become
the object of the main clause.
TOPIC XX

258

1.
The Invisibility Condition. The
specifier of a complete (non-defective)
TP is invisible to any higher probe.
2.
The
Specifier
Condition.
No
subextraction is possible out of a
constituent which is a specifier of a
phase head.
3.
The Visibility Condition. Only the
highest copy in a movement chain is
visible in the syntax (other copies being
inert).
4.
The Intervention Condition. A
probe cannot target a goal if there is
some other visible goal of the same kind
intervening between the two, and if the
intervening goal is inactive for the probe.

The End

APPENDIX II.
A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE PHRASEMARKERS
259

(Given in bold type are the terminal

strings of the P-Markers)
I.THE PPT
I.2. Universal grammar
(1)The
organization
Grammar.

of

the

I.3. The language Faculty

(2)The acquisition process.
II. STRUCTURE
II.2. Phrases
(3) Help you VP: generating a phrase via
merger.
(4) To help you TP: generating a phrase
via merger.
(5)Trying to help you VP: generating a
phrase via merger.
II.3 Clauses
(6)We are trying
to help you TP:
generating clauses via merger.
(7) He must go straight to bed TP:
specifiers.
260

II.4. Clauses containing complementisers

(8) That we are trying to help you CP:
generating clauses with a complementiser.
II.5. Testing Structure
(z) [Straight to bed] he must go PP:
preposing a maximal projection.
II.6. Structural relations and the syntax of
Polarity Items
(9)ABCDEFGHJ: containment relations.
(10) The fact that he hasnt resigned
wont / *will change anything TP: The
Polarity condition.
II.7. C-command condition on Binding
(11)The President may blame himself
TP: The Binding Condition.
(12)*Supporters of the President may
blame himself TP: Breach of the Binding
Condition.
III. NULL CONSTITUENTS
III.1. Null Subjects

261

(13) We would like PRO / you to stay

TP: Infinitive complement clause with a PRO
subject = Control Clause.
III.2. Null Auxiliaries
(14) she could have helped him TP:
This is the TP of the bracketed clause in He
could have helped her or [she have helped
him]. It has a Null auxiliary [she could have
helped him].
III.3. Null T in Finite clauses
(15) He enjoys syntax. He enjoyed
syntax TPs: auxiliariless clauses. T
contains only a tense affix.
(16) He Af3SgPr enjoy syntax. He
do+Af3SgPr enjoy syntax TPs: These
are the TPs of He enjoys syntax and He
does enjoy
syntax.
T contains an
unattached affix.
(17) He Af 3SgPr enjoy syntax TP: This
is the TP prior to and after Affix Hopping
(lowering of [Af 3SgPr] from T onto V).
III.4. Null T in Infinitive clauses

262

(18) Tom to criticize anyone TP: This

is the TP of the bracketed clause in I have
never known [Tom criticise anyone]. Null T
in infinitive clauses is symbolised as to.
III.5. Null C in finite clauses
(19) if / that / that he has resigned
CP: This is the bracketed complement CP of
We dont know [if / that / that he has
resigned]. Null C in finite clauses is
symbolysed by that.
(20) I am feeling thirsty CP: This is
the CP of I am feeling thirsty, a declarative
clause.
III.6. Null C in Infinitive clauses
(21) for him to see a specialist CP: This
is the CP of the bracketed complement
clause in I will arrange [for him to see a
specialist]. The C of an infinitive complement
clause can be for.
(22) for him to apologize CP: This is the
CP of the bracketed complement clause in
She wanted [him to apologise]. The C of an
infinitive complement clause can be null
( symbolysed asfor ).
263

(23) for him to see a specialist. PRO

to see a specialist CPs: For clauses and
Control clauses have a parallel structure.
Control clauses are headed by a C and
have a PRO subject.
III. 7. Defective clauses
(24)
they Af believe him to be
innocent CP: This is the CP of the main
clause in They believe him to be innocent.
The complement clause [him to be
innocent] is a defective ECM clause because
it lacks the CP layer.
(25) * You werent intended for you to
hurt anyone CP : The subject of the
complement clause you is unable to
passivise because there is a breach of the
Impenetrability Condition.
III. 8. Null determiners and Quantifiers
(26) John admires Mary CP: This
is the CP of John admires Mary. Here we
have nouns headed by a null definite
determiner. The C and T are also null .
(27) Eggs / Toast QP: null indefinite
quantifier.
264

III. 9. Attributive Adjectives Functional head

F
(z)
a new F chair DP: A DP a new
chair containing an Attributive prepositive
adjective a specifier of a Functional Head F.
IV. HEAD MOVEMENT
IV. 1. T-to-C Movement
(28) if you will marry me CP: This is the
bracketed complement CP projection in I
want to ask [if you will marry me] which is
headed by a complementiser if.
(29) C you will marry me CP: The Pmarker shows that will is in the head C
position because it moves from the head T
position of TP into the head C position of CP.
(30) [Tns] You will marry me CP: C is a
strong head carrying a tense feature [Tns]
which requires to be attached to a tensed
host.
(31) Will [Tns] you will marry me?- CP:
This is the CP of Will you marry me?. The
strong null interrogative complementiser C

265

attracts will to adjoint to the tense affix in

C. Afterwards [Tns] is deleted.
IV. 2. Movement as Copying and Deletion
(32) Will+ you marry me CP: When
will moves out of T it leaves a null copy in
T. It doesnt vanish without a trace because
this will be a violation of the Headedness
Principle and the Binarity Principle.
(33) Can+ its wheels can spin? CP:
This is the CP of *Can its wheels can spin.
The child has mastered the copying
component of inversion, but not yet the
deletion one.
(34) *Should+ they should
have
called the police? CP:This is the CP of
*Should theyve called the police? Have
cliticisation is blocked by the null copy of
should.
(35) Can+ you can swim? CP: The
derivation of a general question of this type
(Can you swim?)
IV. 3. V-to-T Movement

266

(36) She shall not see me CP: Such

clauses were negated by positioning the
ADV not between the auxiliary and the
main verb. Not is specifier of V-bar see
me.
(37) Have+ I have not heard the sea
rage like an angry boar?-CP: This is the
CP of Have I not heard the sea rage like an
angry boar? In questions containing
auxiliaries, too, not is before the main verb
because it is specifier of V-bar. Have
undergoes T-to-C Movement.
(38) I care not care for her CP: This is
the CP of I care not for her. In auxiliariless
negative clauses not is after the main verb
(although still specifier of the VP) because
the main verb moves from V to T.
In
Elizabethan English T is strong and must be
filled.
(39) I care+ Af1SgPr not care for her
CP: T contains a strong tense affix which
requires a host. V-to-T Movement of the main
verb provides such a host [care+Af1SgPr].
IV. 4. Successive Cyclicity
267

(40) Know you know not know the

cause? CP: This is the CP of Know you not
the cause?In Elizabethan English, in
auxiliariless interrogative clauses main verbs
moved from V-to-T and then from T-to-C (two
different instances of a general Head
Movement).
V. AUXILIARY
SUPPORT

RAISING.

NEGATION.

DO-

V. 1. Auxiliary Raising
(41) She is not is suitable CP: This is
the CP of She is not suitable. Is moves
into the head T position of TP.
(42) She is not is enjoying syntax
CP:This is the CP of She is not enjoying
syntax. Is originates as the head AUX of
AUXP and moves up to T.
(43) She has not has done it CP: This
is the CP of She has not done it. Have
moves from AUX of AUXP into T of TP.
(44) You need not need do that CP:
This is the CP of You need not do that.
Need originates as the head AUX of AUXP
and raises into T.
268

V.2. Negation
(45) * I Af not NEG care for her CP:
This is the CP of *I care not for her. There is
no way of lowering Af onto the verb. Direct
lowering violates the Head Movement
constraint.
Successive
Cyclic
lowering
violates the Strict Cyclicity principle.
(46) *I Af not NEG careAf for her TP:
Direct lowering of Af.
(47) *I Af not NEGAf careAf for her
TP: Successive Cyclic lowering of Af.
V. 3. Do-support
(48) I do not NEG care for her CP:
This is the CP of I do not care for her. A
stranded tense affix is spelled out as an
appropriately inflected form of do.
(49) He Af win the race CP: This is the
CP of He won the race.
(50) Af+ Did he Af win the race? CP:
Do-support. The interrogative C contains a
strong null affix with a tense feature which
attracts the tense affix in T to adjoin to C.

269

Now the affix is stranded. Do-support has to

apply.
(51) he Af+nt nt NEG win the
race? CP: This is the CP of He didnt win
the race. Do-support. Nt attaches to the
stranded tense affix.
(52) Af+nt+ he Af+nt NEG win the
race CP: This is the CP of Didnt he win
the race? The strong null Af in C, with a
tense feature, attracts the material from T
(Af+nt). The stranded affix is spelled out as
did.
VI. WH-MOVEMENT
VI.1. Wh-questions
(53) Who was+ he was dating who?
CP: This is the CP of Who was he dating?
Who is generated as complement of V and
is moved to spec-CP (Wh-Movement). By
Head Movement was moves from T to C
(null affixal interrogative C ).
VI.2. Wh-Movement as Copying and Deletion
(54) Joe wonders which picture of
himself Jim bought which picture of
270

himself CP: This is the CP of Joe wonders

which picture of himself Jim bought.
Chomskys Copy Theory of Movement. The
ambiguous interpretation of the reflexive
anaphor: at the extraction site himself is ccommanded by Jim but at the landing site
it is c-commanded by Joe. In this way
himself can refer to both Jim and Joe.
VI. 3. Driving Wh-Movement and Auxiliary
Inversion
(55) you are going where C: This is
the C of the bracketed complement clause
in He wants to know [where you are going].
Its C constituent contains an edge feature
[EF[.
(56) where you are going where CP:
This is the CP of the complement clause
where you are going. The [EF] on C enables
it to attract where to move to spec-C. C
does not carry a tense feature, so there is no
inversion, as the clause is a complement
clause.

271

(57) You were phoning who C:This

is the C of Who were you phoning?, which
is a main clause wh-question.
(58) Who were+ you were phoning
who? CP: This is the CP of Who were you
phoning? The tense feature on C attracts
were. The edge feature on C triggers
movement of who to spec-CP.
(59) whether Is+ it is raining? CP: A
yes / no question with an interrogative
specifier whether: Is it raining?
VI. 4. Pied-piping of material in the domain
of a wh-word
(60)
You
have
done
which
assignment? C:This is the C of You
have done which assignment? The C of this
echo question contains a tense feature [Tns]
and an edge feature [EF].
(61) Which have+ you have done
which assignment? CP:This is the CP of
*Which have you done assignment? The
tense feature on C attracts have to C. The
edge feature on C attracts which to spec-C.
The resultant sentence is ungrammatical
272

because of violation of the Chain Uniformity

Condition: which cannot move on its own.
(62) Which assignment have+ you
have done which assignment? CP: This
is the CP of Which assignment have you
done? According to the Attract Closest
Condition we have to move the whole QP
which assignment because the Chain
Uniformity Condition bars movement of
which on its own.
(63) You have borrowed whose car?
C:This is the C of Whose car have you
borrowed? Here it is the Left Branching
Condition that prevents pied-piping of
whose on its own.
(64) Whose car have you have
borrowed whose car? CP: This is the CP
of Whose car have you borrowed? The
tense feature on C triggers movement of
have from T to C. The edge feature on C
attracts the smallest possible minimal
projection containing whose. The Left
Branch Condition prevents whose from
being extracted out of the DP whose car.
Therefore, in accordance with the Economy
273

Condition we prepose the next smallest

maximal projection containing whose,
namely, the DP whose car.
VII.
A-MOVEMENT
STRUCTURE

AND

ARGUMENT

VII.1 A-Movement
(65) Should some students get

distinctions T: This is the T projection of

Some students should get distinctions.
(66) Some students should some
students get distinctions CP:This is
the CP projection of Some students should
get distinctions. The EPP feature on T
triggers movement of the QP some
students into spec-TP. The movement of the
QP is A-Movement.
(67) Everyone has not NEG everyone
finished the assignment CP: This is the
CP of Everyone has not finished the
assignment. A-Movement involves copying
and deletion. Evidence: scope ambiguity.
Before A-Movement not c-commands
everyone (= Not everyone has finished the
assignment). After A-Movement everyone
274

c-commands not (= Everyone has not

finished the assignment).
(68) All hell will all hell break loose
TP: This is the TP of All hell will break
loose. With clausal idioms the choice of
subject, verb and complement is fixed.
However, auxiliaries can freely be inserted
between the subject and the verb. The VPInternal Subject Hypothesis explains this by
assuming that clausal idioms are VP idioms
with a fixed choice of head, complement and
specifier. Thus any auxiliary can function as
the head of TP. All hell originates in spec-VP
and is raised via A-Movement into spec-TP.
(69) The police arrested the suspect
VP: This is the VP projection of The police
arrested the suspect.The Predicate Internal
Theta-Marking Hypothesis: the suspect is
assigned the theta-role THEME argument of
arrested via merger with the verb. The
police is assigned the theta-role AGENT via
merger with the V-bar.
(70) The police have the police
arrested the suspect CP:This is the CP
of The police have arrested the suspect.
275

The
verb
is
first-merged
with
the
complement and second-merged with its
subject.
VIII.
UNACCUSATIVE
PREDICATES

AND

RAISING

VIII.1 Unaccusative Predicates

(71) Have arisen several complications
T: This is the T of There have arisen
several complications. T-have carries an
EPP feature requiring it to have a nominal
specifier.
(72) There have arisen several
complications CP:This is the CP of There
have arisen several complications. The
requirement of the EPP feature on T-have
for a nominal specifier is satisfied by
merging there in spec-T.
(73) Several complications have arisen
several complications TP: An alternative
way of satisfying the EPP feature on T-have
(in accordance with the Attract Closest
Condition) through A-Movement of the QP
several complications which originates as
complement of arisen.
276

VIII.2. A-Movement as Copying and Deletion

(74) All hope of finding survivors has
gone all hope of finding survivors CP:
This is the CP of All hope of finding survivors
has gone. The QP all hope of finding
survivors
is
generated
in
the
VP
complement position. It is attracted by the
EPP feature on T-has and is spelled out in
spec-T while its original copy in the VP
complement position is entirely deleted.
(75) All hope of finding survivors has
gone all hope of finding survivors CP:
This is the CP of All hope has gone of finding
survivors. Only the head all hope is spelled
out in spec-T, while the PP of finding
survivors is spelled out in the VP
complement position.
VIII.3. Unaccusative vs. Transitive Verbs
-No P-Markers
VIII.4. Passive Predicates
(76) There was found no evidence of
any corruption CP: This is the CP of
There was found no evidence of any
corruption. Was carries an EPP feature
277

requiring it to have a specifier. This

requirement is satisfied by merging there in
spec-T.
(77) No evidence of any corruption
was
found
no
evidence
of
any
corruption CP: This is the CP of No
evidence of any corruption was found. An
alternative way of satisfying the EPP feature
on T-was. The subject QP no evidence of
any corruption passivises. The movement
itself is called passivisation.
VIII. 5. Long Distance Passivisation
(78) There are believed there to
have occurred several riots CP:This is
the CP of There are believed to have
occurred several riots. The QP several
riots is the thematic complement of
occurred. T-to has an EPP feature which is
satisfied by merging there in spec-T-to.
The T-are has an EPP feature, so according
to the Attract Closest Condition it attracts
there to spec-T-are.
(79)
Several riots are believed
several riots to have occurred several
278

riots CP: This is the CP of Several riots are

believed to have occurred. Now the EPP on
T-to is satisfied by moving the complement
QP several riots to spec-T-to. From there,
according to the Attract Closest Condition, it
goes to spec-T-are. This successive cyclic
movement of the QP, one T at a time, is
Long Distance Passivisation.
(80) All hell is said all hell to all hell
have broken loose CP:This is the CP of
All hell is said to have broken loose. Here
Long Distance Passivization moves the
subject all hell by two separate AMovement operations. All hell becomes
first the specifier of the lower T-to and
then of the higher T-is. In each case, in
Conformity
with
the
Attract
Closest
Condition, T attracts the closest nominal it ccommands to move to spec-T.
IX.
RAISING.
COMPARING
RAISING
PREDICATES AND CONTROL PREDICATES
IX. 1. Raising
(81) There does seem there to remain
some hope of peace CP:This is the CP of
279

There does seem to remain some hope of

peace. Verbs like seem / appear can be
used with a clausal complement. T-to has
an EPP feature which is satisfied by merging
there in spec-T-to. T-does likewise has an
EPP feature so it attracts there forming the
higher TP.
(82) Some hope of peace does seem
some hope of peace to remain some
hope of peace CP: This is the CP of Some
hope of peace does seem to remain. Verbs
like seem / appear can take for a subject an
argument raised out of the complement
clause (raising verbs). Owing to the EPP
features on both Ts (to and does) the
nominal QP some hope of peace ultimately
moves successive cyclically to spec-T-does
in accordance with the Attract Closest
Condition (the movement of the QP from
spec-T-to to spec-T-does is Subject
Raising).
IX.2.
Comparing
Predicates

Raising

and

Control

(83) He does seem he to he scare

them CP: This is the CP of He does seem
280

to scare them. With Raising structures an

argument is raised out of the complement
clause to become the subject of the main
clause. Here the subject PRN he which is
generated in spec-VP is raised successivecyclically owing to the EPP features on T-to
and
T-does.
The
successive
cyclic
application of A-Movement satisfies the
Relativised Minimality Condition.
(84) He does he want PRO to PRO
scare them CP:This is the CP of He does
want to scare them. The V-bar scare them
merges with PRO to form a VP (according to
the VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis). The EPP
feature on T-to attracts PRO to become its
subject so forming a TP. Control infinitives
are CPs. The EPP feature on T-does attracts
he which is generated in spec-VP headed
by want to spec-T-does, so forming a TP.
X. AGREEMENT AND CASE
X.1. Agreement and Case
(85) be awarded several prizes T: This
is the T-bar of There were awarded several
prizes.
281

(86) There were awarded several

prizes CP:This is the CP of There were
awarded several prizes. Because of the
Earliness Principle the probe T-be doesnt
agree with there which is introduced later.
As a result be is spelled out as 3pPl form
were.
X.2. Feature Valuation
(87) Be arrested they T: This is the Tbar of They were arrested. At this point the
probe be locates the goal they. The
unvalued features of be will be valued
(=determined) by the goal they and the
unvalued case feature on the goal they will
be valued by be as nominative.
(88) Be arrested they T: Here, following
feature valuation the values of the
features of they are copied onto be
[3pPlNum]. At the same time following casevaluation, the unvalued case feature of
they is valued as nominative by the finite
probe T-be.
(89) They were arrested they CP:
This is the CP of They were arrested. Since
282

all the features are now valued, the probe

can be spelled out as were and the goal
can be spelled out as they. Subsequently
the EPP feature on T-be triggers AMovement of they to become the subject of
were.
X.3. Uninterpretable Features and Feature
Deletion
(90) Be arrested they T: This is the T
of They were arrested prior to feature
valuation (the difference with (87) is the EPP
on be).
(91) They were arrested they TP:
Feature valuation, Feature deletion and
movement of the goal they to spec-T. By
means of suboperation (1) the agreement
features of the probe be are valued as
[3pPl]. By means of suboperation (2) the
case feature of the goal they is valued as
nominative (because the probe is a finite T).
The EPP feature on T triggers movement of
the goal they to spec-T. At the same time
as the agreement suboperations apply, the
Feature Deletion operation also applies. It
deletes the uninterpretable and EPP
283

features on the probe be as well as the

uninterpretable case feature on the goal
they.
XI EXPLETIVE SUBJECTS
XI.1. Expletive it subject
(92) Be said that he had taken bribes
TP: This is the TP of It is said that he had
taken bribes prior to agreement which has
to apply at this point. The probe be is
active (it has uninterpretable -features).
The CP that he had taken bribes cannot
serve as goal (it has no number or case
properties).
(93) Be it said that he had taken bribes
T: This is the T of It is said that he had
taken bribes. It originates in spec-V. It has
to be used in order to value the -features
and satisfy the EPP feature on T-be. It has
-features
[3pSg]
but
they
are
uninterpretable because it is a meaningless
expletive PRN. Be locates the goal it,
which values the -features of be via
agreement.

284

(94) It is it said that he had taken

bribes TP: The uninterpretable features
on both probe and goal are deleted together
with the EPP feature on the probe be which
attracts it to spec- TP.
XI.2. Expletive there subject
(95) There awarded several prizes VP:
The VP of There were awarded several
prizes. There is generated in spec-VP and
has only the uninterpretable [3p] feature.
(96) Be there awarded several prizes
T: The T of There were awarded several
prizes. The VP (95) above is merged with a
past tense T containing the passive auxiliary
be. Agreement and case assignment apply
at this point. We have multiple agreement:
be locates there, which has only a person
feature. Further on be locates several
prizes. Be agrees in person with both goals
[3p]. In number it agrees with several
prizes[Pl]. The case feature of several
prizes is valued by T-be as nominative.
(97) There were there awarded several
prizes TP:This is the TP of There were
285

awarded several prizes. The EPP on T-be

attracts there to spec-T. Deleted are: the features and EPP feature on be, and the
case-feature on several prizes.
XII. AGREEMENT AND A-MOVEMENT
XII.1. Agreement and A-Movement
(98) Have he arrested them T: This is
the T of He has arrested them. At this
point T-have serves as a probe because it
has to value and delete its unvalued features. It agrees with the goal he and is
spelled out as has.
XII. 2. EPP
Infinitives

and

Agreement

in

Control

(99) They dont want [PRO to PRO see

you] TP: This is the TP of the bracketed
Control clause: to has an EPP feature,
which attracts PRO to spec-T-to. T-to
contains
a non-finite tense feature and
abstract -features. T-to c-commands PRO
and agrees with it thus assigning to it null
case according to the principle of Null Case
Assignment.
286

(100) They have decided [to PRO help

you] T:This is the T of the bracketed
Control clause. T-to carries an interpretable
[NfTns] feature (irrealis ). It serves as a
probe because of its uninterpretable features and because it c-commands PRO.
PRO is a goal (active because of its
uninterpretable case-feature).
(101) PRO to PRO help you TP: This is
the TP of the Control clause. The EPP feature
on T-to is deleted by movement of PRO to
spec-T. By agreement the unvalued features
on the probe T-to are assigned the same
[3pPl] values as those of the goal PRO and
are then deleted by Feature Deletion. The
unvalued case feature of PRO is assigned
the value [Null Case] by Null Case
Assignment and is then deleted.
XII.3. EPP and
Defective clauses

Person

Agreement

in

(102) There do seem there to there

remain several problems TP: This is the
TP of There do seem to remain several
problems. A Raising Predicate. Raising T-to
carries an EPP feature (just like Control
287

T-to) and only a person feature. Owing to

the EPP feature, there raises from spec-VP
to move to spec-TP becoming the subject of
to. The EPP feature on a T triggers
movement to spec-T of an active goal (=
there) with which T agrees in respect of
some (one or more) -features. T-to is a
probe which agrees in person with the goal
there. It follows that to has a person
feature but no number. So, there raises in a
successive cyclic fashion to become the
subject of do because T-do, too, triggers
movement of there from spec-T-to to specT-do (the higher TP).
(103) There are thought there to there
remain several problems TP: This is the
TP of There are thought to remain several
problems. An Expletive sentence with LongDistance Passivisation. What applies to
Raising to (102) above, holds good for
Passive to in such sentences. Passive to
carries only person, because if it carried
both features it would need a PRO
subject. There is attracted to become the
specifier of to. Since there has person it
288

follows that Passive to also carries a person

feature but no number (just like Raising to).
Then the EPP feature on T-are triggers
movement of there from spec - T-to into
spec-T-are.
(104) Several prizes are thought likely
several prizes to be awarded several
prizes TP: This is the TP of Several prizes
are thought likely to be awarded. Here the
bracketed clause is defective (it is the
complement of the raising adjective likely).
The T-to of the defective clause carries
uninterpretable EPP and person features
(but no number feature). T-to is a probe
attracting the goal QP several prizes to
spec-TP. The EPP feature on the T-be
triggers movement of this QP from specT-to to spec-T-are. The result of this
successive cyclic movement of the QP
several prizes is that it winds up as the
subject of the main clause.
XIII. SPLIT PROJECTIONS
XIII.1. Force, Topic, and Focus Projections

289

(105) that no other colleague would he

would he turn to no other colleague
Force P: This is the ForceP projection of the
bracketed complement clause in I am
absolutely convinced [that
no other
colleague
would
he
turn
to].
Complementisers are analysed as heads of
ForceP. The head Foc of FocP carries an [EF]
and a [Tns] feature. [EF] attracts a focused
element (one carrying new information) into
spec-FocP. [Tns] attracts the auxiliary
from T into Foc. The subject is generated
in spec-VP and moves to spec-TP (the VPInternal Subject Hypothesis).
(106) that atrocities like those
never again would he would he never
again witness atrocities like those
ForceP: This is the ForceP projection of the
bracketed complement clause in He prayed
[that atrocities like those never again would
he witness]. The topicalised element
atrocities like those occupies spec-Top. It
moves from being the complement of
witness to becoming the specifier of TopP.
Never again is a focused constituent which
290

moves from the spec-V position to specFocP, being attracted by the [EF] on Foc. The
subject he moves from spec-V into spec-TP
(VP-Internal
Subject
Hypothesis).
The
auxiliary would is attracted into Foc by the
[Tns] on Foc. The complementiser that
occupies the head position of ForceP.
(107) in which that kind of behaviour
we cannot tolerate [that kind of
behaviour][in which] ForceP: This is the
ForceP of the relative clause in A university
is the kind of place [in which that kind of
behaviour we cannot tolerate]. The TP of
the bracketed relative clause is represented
as: We cannot tolerate [that kind of
behaviour][in which]. The PP in which is
moved to spec-Force (via Wh-Movement).
The topic that kind of behaviour moves into
spec-TopP (the head Top of TopP carries an
edge feature).
(108) which only very rarely will
students will enjoy [which][only very
rarely] ForceP: This is the ForceP
projection of the bracketed relative clause
in Syntax is the kind of subject [which only
291

very rarely will students enjoy]. The whexpression moves to spec-Force (via whmovement). The focused expression only
very rarely moves to spec-Foc, attracted by
the [EF] on Foc. The auxiliary will is
attracted into Foc by the [Tns] feature on
Foc.
(109) No other colleague would he
would he turn to no other colleague
ForceP: A main clause headed by Force.
The derivation is along the same lines as
that of (105), only Force here is (not
that). The DP no other colleague is
focused by being attracted to spec-FocP by
the [EF] on Foc. Foc also attracts would
from T by its [Tns] feature. The subject he
is generated in spec-VP and goes to spec-TP
(the VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis).
XIII.2 Aspect and Tense projections
(110) She may not NEG she be she
telling the truth CP: This is the CP of
She may not be telling the truth. The
aspectual auxiliaries be / have are
positioned below T and in negative clauses
they are positioned below not. The subject
292

she is generated in spec-VP and moves to

spec-AUX and then to spec-TP.
XIV. SPLIT VP:
STRUCTURES

TRANSITIVE

ERGATIVE

XIV.1. Transitive Ergative Structures

(111) rolled the ball down the hill V: a
ternary-branching V-bar in contradiction with
the binary merger operation a violation of
the Binarity Principle.
(112) He roll+ the ball roll down the
hill vP: This is the vP in He rolled the ball
down the hill. The VP the ball down the hill
is a remnant of the VP headed by the null
copy of roll: the ball roll down the hill.
The ball down the hill serves as a VP
complement of a null causative verb v which
is a strong affix and attracts roll, forming a
v. The subject he is generated in spec-v,
forming a vP.
(113) the ball rolled down the hill VP:
With Ergative Predicates this is the same VP
core for both the transitive structure (He
rolled the ball down the hill) and its
293

intransitive counterpart (The ball rolled

down the hill).
(114) They will they roll the ball roll
down the hill CP: This is the CP of the
transitive structure (They will roll the ball
down the hill). The VP (113) above merges
with v which attracts roll, forming a v.
They is merged in spec-v thus forming the
vP. This vP consists of a VP core and a vP
shell. The vP merges with T-will forming a Tbar. They is attracted by the EPP feature on
will to move to spec-TP. The TP merges with
a null declarative C to form the overall CP.
XIV. 2. The Position of Adverbs in the Clause
(115) They will they gently roll+ the
ball roll down the hill CP: This is the CP
of They will gently roll the ball down the
hill. Adverbs like gently can be positioned
to the left of v. They extend the v into a
larger v.
(116) They will they roll+ the ball
gently roll down the hill CP: This is the
CP of They will roll the ball gently down the

294

hill. Now the adverb is positioned to the left

of V. It extends the V into a larger V.
(117) They will they roll+ the ball
down the hill roll gently CP: Now the
adverb is positioned to the right of V.
Gently is generated in the complement
position after roll, while the PP down the
hill occupies spec-V, extending the V into a
larger V.
XV.
SPLIT
STRUCTURES

VP:

OTHER

TRANSITIVE

XV.1. Two-complement transitive

without intransitive counterparts.

verbs

(118) They will they load+ the truck

load with hay CP:This is the CP of They
will load the truck with hay. The DP the
truck is generated in spec-VP (the VPInternal Subject Hypothesis).
XV.2. Verb+particle Structures
(119) She was she taking the rubbish
taking out CP: This is the CP of She was
taking the rubbish out. Taking originates
as the head V of VP of which rubbish is the
295

specifier. Subsequently, taking raises into

the head v position of vP.
XV.3. Resultative Predicates
(120) The acid will turn+ the litmus
paper turn red CP: This is the CP of
The acid will turn the litmus paper red.The
object DP the litmus paper is generated in
spec-VP.
XV.4. Object Control Predicates.
(121) Duncan persuaded Dougal that
he should be less frugal / PRO to be
less frugal VP: This is the VP of the main
clause in Duncan persuaded Dougal that he
should be less frugal/to be less frugal which
is incompatible with the Binarity Principle:
the V-bars are ternary-branching.
(122) Duncan persuaded+ Dougal
persuade that he should be less
frugal/to be less frugal vP: This is the
vP of the main clause in Duncan persuaded
Dougal that he should be less frugal/to be
less frugal. A Split VP analysis. According to
the Merger Condition the clausal argument
(CP) is the first to be merged with the V (as a
296

complement). The (pro)nominal argument is

the last to be merged with V (as specifier).
XV.5. Simple Two-place Transitive Predicates
(123) He read+
read the book
vP:This is the vP in He read the book.
Read originates as the head V of VP. The VP
itself is the complement of v. Read is raised
to adjoin to v. He is generated in spec-vP.
XV. 6. Unergative Verb Phrases
(124)(a) He resign+ resign from the
club vP:This is the vP in He resigned from
the club. Resigned is the head of the VP
resigned from the club. This VP is a
complement of v. The v attracts resign. He
is generated in spec-vP.
(b)He protest+ protest vP: This is the
vP in He protested.The light v is the head
of a vP whose specifier is he. The light v
attracts protest to move from V to v,
forming a v-bar.
(125) He might he protest+ protest
CP:This is the CP of He might protest. The
light v is the head of a vP whose specifier is
he. The light v attracts protest from V into
297

v forming a v-bar. The vP merges with

T-might forming a T-bar. He moves from
spec-vP to spec-TP. The TP merges with C.
XVI. SPLIT VP: UNACCUSATIVE, PASSIVE, AND
RAISING STRUCTURES
XVI. 1. Unaccusative Structures
(126) Go you to school VP:This is the VP
of the Belfast English Imperative Go you to
school! A ternary branching structure
incompatible with the binary syntactic
framework.
(127) You go to school VP:This is the VP
in Go you to school! Unaccusative subjects
can be analysed as specifiers of the verb.
The analysis is in conformity with the binarybranching syntactic framework and the
Merger Condition.
(128) Go+ you go to school vP: This is
the vP in Go you to school! - a VP-shell
analysis. The unaccusative VP is the
complement of v and the unaccusative verb
raises to v. The subject originates in spec-VP.
(129) You read+ read that book vP:
This is the vP of You read that book! With
298

transitive verbs the AGENT subject you

originates in spec-v (not in spec-VP) and that
is why it is positioned before the verb.
(130) You protest+ protest vP:This is
the vP of You protest! With unergative
verbs the AGENT subject you originates in
spec-v, too, and is likewise positioned before
the verb.
(131) The ball will roll+ the ball roll
down the hill CP: This is the CP of The
ball will roll down the hill. With intransitive
ergative structures the verb originates (just
like with transitive, unaccusative, and
unergative verbs) as head of a VP which
itself is a complement of a null light v. The
subject originates in spec-VP and moves to
spec-TP (it is only unaccusative subjects
which remain in situ). The head V moves to
v.
(132) Come+
a loud scream come
from inside the house vP: This is the vP
of A loud scream came from inside the
house. The light vP is generated as (128)
above. This vP is merged with a T containing
an
abstract
affix
which
carries
an
299

interpretable
past
tense
uninterpretable
-features,
uninterpretable EPP feature.

feature,
and
an

(133) A loud scream Af come+ a loud

scream come from inside the house
CP: This is the CP of A loud scream came
from inside the house. Come moves from
V to v. T-Af agrees in -features with the QP
a loud scream and triggers movement of
this QP to spec-T. A TP is generated which
merges
with
a
null
declarative
complementiser,
forming
the
CP
corresponding to the above sentence.
(134) From inside the house come+
a loud scream come from inside the
house. CP:This is the CP of From inside
the house came a loud scream. Here it is
the PP from inside the house which moves
to spec-T in order to satisfy the EPP feature
on T. Come moves from V to v.
(135) There come+ a loud scream
come from inside the house vP: This is
the vP of There came a loud scream from
inside the house. There originates in specvP (according to the External Argument
300

Condition). The QP a
generated in spec-VP.

loud

scream

is

(136) There Af there come+ a loud

scream come from inside the house
CP: This is the CP of There came a loud
scream from inside the house.The vP (135)
above is merged with a finite T containing
[Af] carrying an interpretable past tense
feature, uninterpretable -features, and an
uninterpretable EPP feature. The T [Af]
triggers movement of there to spec-T. T [Af]
also agrees in -features with the QP a loud
scream and assigns nominative case to it.
Merging the TP with a declarative null C
generates the CP. The past tense affix in T is
lowered onto v (and come is spelled out as
came).
XVI.2. Split VP: Passive Structures
(137) Jump+ the horse perfectly jump
over the fence vP: This is the vP of The
horse was jumped perfectly over the fence.
The DP the horse is generated in spec-VP.
The VP itself is the complement of v. V
moves to v.
301

(138) The horse was jump +ed the

horse perfectly jump over the fence
CP:This is the CP of The horse was jumped
perfectly over the fence. BE is a probe
locating the goal DP the horse. BE attracts
the horse to spec-T and assigns nominative
case to it. The resulting TP is merged with a
null C. Jump moves from V to v.
XVI.3. Split VP: Raising Structures
(139) The president upset+ upset
several people vP: This is the vP of The
president does seem to me to have upset
several people. The DP the president is
generated in spec-vP.
(140) The president to have the
prseident upset several people TP:
This is the TP of The president does seem to
me to have upset several people. Raising
T-to has an EPP feature and an unvalued
person feature. So, the president is
attracted to spec-T (A-Movement).
(141) to me seem the president to have
upset several people VP:

302

This is the VP of The president does seem

to me to have upset several people. The
formed TP is merged with seem forming a
V-bar. This V is merged with its specifier PP
to me, which is an EXPERIENCER argument
of seem.
(142) do seem+ to me seem
the
president to have upset several people
T: This is the T of The president does
seem to me to have upset everal people.
The VP (141) above merges with v triggering
raising of seem to adjoin to v. The resulting
vP is merged with the finite T-do.
(143) The president does seem to me
seem
the president to have upset
several people TP: do serves as a
probe locating the president as goal (this is
the only nominal having an unvalued case
feature). Do assigns nominative case to
the president (and agrees with it). As a
result do is spelled out as does. The EPP
feature on do and its uninterpretable features ensure that the president moves
into spec-T.
XVII. PHASES
303

XVII.1. Phases
(144) Ruritania withdraw+ troops
withdraw from Utopia vP: This is the
vP of Will Ruritania withdraw troops from
Utopia. A VP is generated in which the PP
from Utopia is the complement of
withdraw and troops is its specifier. This
VP is merged with a v forming a v whose
specifier is the external AGENT argument
the DP Ruritania. The v (being affixal in
nature) triggers movement of withdraw
from V to v.
(145) Will Ruritania withdraw+
TROOPS FROM UTOPIA - T:This is the
T of Will Ruritania withdraw troops from
Utopia? A transitive vP is a phase the
complement of its head will undergo
transfer, i.e. the VP. After the transfer the VP
ceases to be accessible to further syntactic
operations. (the transferred VP is written in
strikethrough CAPITALS, and so are the
transferred complements of all phaseheads). T-will Is merged with the vP,
forming a T-bar.

304

(146) Ruritania will

Ruritania
withdraw + TROOPS FROM UTOPIA
TP: The EPP feature on T-will attracts the
DP Ruritania to move to spec-TP. Will is a
probe (it has unvalued features). But neither
troops nor Utopia are accessible as
goals because the VP in which they are
contained has undergone transfer.
(147)whether
Will+

Ruritania
withdraw+ TROOPS FROM UTOPIACP:This is the CP of Will Ruritania withdraw
troops from Utopia? Only the DP Ruritania
is accessible to the probe will (the DP is
active by virtue of its uninterpretable case
feature). T-will has an EPP feature
attracting the DP Ruritania from spec-v to
spec-T. Spec-C contains a particle (null
counterpart of whether). C also has a tense
feature which attracts will from T to C
heading the CP. The CP is a phase.
Therefore, the TP being the complement of C
(or the domain of the CP) will undergo
transfer.
XVII.2. Intransitive and Defective Clauses

305

(148) There remain + some problems

remain
in Utopia vP: This and the
following P-markers (148-152) represent the
derivation of the sentence There are
thought by many to remain some problems
in Utopia.The VP is formed by merging
remain with the PP in Utopia and then
with some problems in spec-VP. The VP
merges with v which triggers movement of
remain from V to v. There is generated in
spec-vP. The VP does not undergo transfer
because the vP is intransitive (not a phase).
(149) There to there remain +some
problems remain in Utopia TP:The vP
merges with T-to which has an EPP feature
and a person feature in Defective clauses.
T-to attracts there to spec-T.
(150) By many thought there to there
remain some problems remain in Utopia
VP: The passive participle thought
merges with the TP (149) to form a V-bar.
This V merges with the PP by many to form
the VP.
(151) Be thought by many thought
there
to
there
remain+
some
306

problems remain in Utopia T: The VP

(150) is merged with a v, which attracts
thought. Merging with be the vP derived
in this way, derives the T above.
(152) There are thought by many
thought there to there remain some
problems remain in Utopia CP: The
EPP feature on T-be is deleted by moving
there from spec-T-to into spec-T-be.
Merging the resultant TP with a declarative
C derives the CP above.
XVIII. PHASES AND A-BAR MOVEMENT
XVIII.1. Phases and A-bar Movement
(153) go+ he go where vP: Phrase
-Markers (153) (156) represent the
derivation of the sentence: Where is it
thought that he will go? Go merges with
where to form a V, which merges with he
to form a VP. The VP is merged with v which
triggers raising of go from V to v. A vP is
formed. It is intransitive (not a phase).
(154) that he will go+ he go where
CP: T-will merges with vP. The EPP feature
on T-will triggers raising of he from spec V
307

to spec-T. The resulting TP is merged with

the complementiser that. The resulting CP
is a phase and so the TP will undergo
transfer. The TP becomes inaccessible to any
further syntactic operations. A problem: how
can the wh-expression move to spec-C in
sentences consisting of more than one
clause like Where is it thought that he will
go?
(155) where that he will go+ he go
where CP: the above problem is
overcome by positing that wh-movement
applies in a successive cyclic fashion (one
clause at a time), and also that the
complementiser has an edge feature which
triggers movement of the closest whexpression. So, where moves to become
the specifier of the complement clause CP
headed by that, and then it moves to
become the specifier of the main clause C
(156) below. At this point the domain of C
(=TP) will undergo transfer.
(156) Where is + it is thought+ think
that HE WILL GO WHERE CP: The CP is
merged as the complement of think and
308

the resulting VP is in turn merged as the

complement of v. Think raises to adjoin to
v. Expletive it is merged as specifier of vP.
The light vP merges with T-be (passive
auxiliary). The EPP feature on T-be attracts
the expletive pronoun it to spec-T. the
resultant TP merges with an interrogative C,
which triggers raising of is from T to C. The
interrogative C has an edge feature which
attracts where from spec-C of the
complement clause into spec-C in the main
clause.
XVIII.2. A-bar Movement in Transitive clauses
(157) What they done+ DONE WHAT
vP: The vP of What have they done? (PMarkers [157 160] represent the derivation
of the same transitive question). Done
merges with what forming a VP. This VP
merges with a transitive v whose external
argument is they. The light v triggers
raising of done from V to v. The light v has
a wh-attracting edge feature (because it is a
phase head just like C is). That is why what
is moved to become a second (outer)
specifier. They is an inner specifier. Since a
309

transitive light vP is a phase the VP domain

DONE WHAT will undergo transfer.
(158) have what they done+ DONE
WHAT T: The T of What have they
done?
T-have is merged with the vP
forming a T. The T-bar probe is active (it has
uninterpretable -features). What cannot
agree with have because of the Inactivation
Condition. The Mixed Chain Constraint
prevents what from moving to spec-T.
(159) they have what they done+
DONE WHAT TP: they is active. Have
agrees with they and attracts it to spec-T.
(160) What have+ they have what
they done + DONE WHAT CP: The
TP(159) is merged with a null C having a
tense feature which triggers movement of
have from T to C. C has an edge feature
which triggers movement of what from
spec-vP to spec-CP. In this way the transitive
question What have they done ? is
generated.
XIX. UNINTERPRETABLE
FEATURE INHERITANCE

FEATURES

AND

310

(161) that he has he has he left+ left

- CP: This is the CP of the bracketed clause
in It would seem [that he has left]. C is the
locus of nominative case and subject-verb
agreement. If T is selected by C it carries a
complete set of -feature. T-has carries a
complete set of -features because it is
selected by C.
(162) He would seem he to he have he
left+ left CP: This is the CP of the
sentence He would seem to have left. Here,
T-to does not carry a complete set of
agreement features because the TP is not
selected by C.
(163 ) for to him win the race CP: This
is the CP of the bracketed complement
clause in I would like very much [for him to
win the race], prior to agreement.
(164) for him to him win the
race CP: This is the CP of the bracketed
complement clause (163) after agreement.
The locus of case assignment and
agreement is the complementiser, which is
clear from the fact that for requires the
subject of the TP to be assigned accusative
311

case (him). For also carries a complete set

of

agreement
features.
The
complementiser
hands
over
its
uninterpretable
case
and
agreement
features to the head T of its TP complement.
The infinitival T-to probe agrees with, and
assigns accusative case to the subject him
of vP, and attracts him to raise to spec-T.
(165) PRO to PRO win the race CP:
This is the CP of the bracketed Control
clause in I would like very much [PRO to win
the race]. Likewise, the null complementiser
hands over its features to T.
(Z) the witness to the witness have lied
TP: This is the TP of the bracketed ECM
clause in The DA will prove [the witness
conclusively to have lied]. Here, a transitive
v hands over its features to V. The subject
of the infinitive (= the witness) is in specTP.
(166) The DA prove+ the witness
conclusively prove the witness to have
lied vP: This is the vP of the main clause
in The DA will prove conclusively the
witness to have lied. From spec-TP the
312

witness raises up to become the object of

the main clause (subject-to-object raising).
The TP (Z) above merges with prove
forming a V. This V merges with
conclusively to form a larger V. The
witness raises from spec-TP to spec-VP in
the main clause (A-Movement), forming the
VP. This VP merges with a transitive v which
hands over its features onto V. After
inheriting agreement features from v, V can
carry an EPP feature and it attracts the
witness to spec-VP. Prove is attracted by v
to move from V to v. Merging the resulting v
with the DP the DA, we derive the vP
above.
(167) the DA will the DA prove+ the
witness conclusively prove the witness
to have lied CP: This is the CP of The DA
will prove the witness conclusively to have
lied. The above vP(166) is merged with
T-will. T-will attracts the DP the DA to
spec-T, so forming a TP. This TP is merged
with a null C to form the CP above.
(168) The DA conclusively prove the
defendant to have committed the
313

murder vP: This is the main clause vP of

The DA has proved the defendant
conclusively to have committed the murder.
The VP of the main clause of this active
sentence has a structure identical with that
of the
main clause VP of its passive
counterpart: The defendant has been
proved conclusively to have committed the
murder. The main clause VPs have identical
structure prior to agreement, case marking,
and movement of the infinitive subject the
defendant. The derivation of the active
sentence vP: prove merges with TP (=the
defendant to have committed the murder).
Prove will agree with, case-mark, and
attract the infinitive subject (= the
defendant) from spec-TP of the infinitive to
spec-VP of the main clause (object raising) .
The defendant is assigned accusative case.
A V is formed which merges with
conclusively to form a larger V. The DP
the defendant moves into spec-VP to form
the VP itself. This VP is a complement to v,
the merger between the two resulting in a
v. This v merges with the thematic external
argument the DP the DA forming a vP,
314

which is transitive because it has a thematic

external argument.
(169)

conclusively
prove
the
defendant to have committed the
murder vP: This is the main clause vP of
The
defendant
has
been
proved
conclusively to have committed the murder.
This vP is intransitive (there is no external
argument in spec-vP, i.e. no specifier). So,
accusative case is not assigned to the DP
the defendant. Here, it is the main clause T
which agrees with, assigns nominative case
to, and attracts the defendant. (The
defendant has been proved conclusively to
have committed the murder).
(170) The DA the DA prove the
witness to have lied vP: This is the main
clause vP of The DA proved the witness to
have lied. The VP is formed by merging
prove first with the TP the witness to have
lied, and second with the DP the DA (the
TP is a complement and the DP is a
specifier). The v hands over its case and
agreement features to V in transitive ECM

315

structures because the vP has a thematic

external argument (=the DP The DA)
(171) They rolled+ the ball rolled down
the hill vP: This is the vP of They rolled
the ball down the hill. In simple transitive
structures v does not hand over to V its case
and agreement features in spite of the fact
that the v has a thematic external argument.
The reason is c-command. In (170) above,
prove c- commands the DP the witness, so
that prove can agree with and assign
accusative case to the witness. Here, roll
does not c-command the ball so it cannot
agree with or case- mark the ball.
(172) The DA has the DA prove+ the
defendant
conclusively
prove
the
defendant to the defendant have the
defendant commit the murder CP: This
is the CP of the overall sentence The DA has
proved the defendant conclusively to have
committed the murder. Here, the main
clause T agrees with, assigns nominative
case to, and attracts the DP the DA to
move to spec-T. On the other hand, the V
prove inherits its features from v (the
316

structure being an ECM one) and assigns

accusative case to, and attracts the DP the
defendant to move to spec-T.
(173) The driver of which car cause+
cause a scandal vP:This is the vP of *Of
which car has the driver caused a scandal.
Cause raises to attach to v and the DP the
scandal is assigned accusative case by the
V, which inherits case / agreement features
from v.
(174) the driver of which car has
caused a scandal CP: This is the CP of
*Of which car has the driver caused a
scandal. The vP (173) above merges with
T-have, which agrees with, case-marks, and
triggers movement of, the DP the driver of
which car to spec-T. The resulting TP merges
with a null C to form a CP.
(175) Of which car has the driver of
which car has caused a scandal CP:
This is the CP of *Of which car has the driver
caused a scandal. The interrogative C
carries a tense feature triggering movement
of has from T to C. It also carries an edge
feature triggering movement of a maximal
317

projection containing a wh-word to spec-C.

The result is an ungrammatical sentence
because there is a violation of the Invisibility
Condition.
(176) arrest+ arrest the driver of
which car vP: This is the vP of Of which
car was the driver arrested. Arrest merges
with the DP the driver of which car forming
a VP. The VP merges with a v forming a vP.
(177) the driver of which car was
arrested arrest the driver of which car
C:This is the C of Of which car was the
driver arrested? The vP (176) above
merges with T-be which agrees with, casemarks, and triggers movement of the DP
the driver of which car to spec-T. The
resulting TP is merged with a null C
generating a C.
(178) Of which car was the driver of
which car was arrested CP:This is the
CP of Of which car was the driver arrested?
Since this is a main clause, C carries a tense
feature triggering movement of was from T
to C. C carries also an edge feature
triggering movement of a wh-expression to
318

spec-C. But subextraction of the PP of which

car is blocked by the Invisibility Condition.
Hence, the sentence is wrongly predicted to
be ungrammatical but it is perfectly
grammatical. The traditional bottom-up
assumption is to blame.
(179) be arrest+ arrest the driver of
which car CP: This is the CP of Of which
car was the driver arrested? the parallel
probes assumption, before probing.
(180) Of which car be+ the driver of
which car be arrest arrest the driver of
which car CP: This is the CP of Of which
car was the driver arrested? T and C probe
simultaneously. T-be attracts the DP the
driver of which car to spec-TP. The C with
an [EF] attracts the PP of which car to specCP. Also, C carries a tense feature attracting
be from T to C. Arrest goes from V to v.
(181) have the driver of which car
cause+ cause a scandal CP:This is the
CP of *Of which car has the driver caused a
scandal?' before probing and movement.
The vP (173) above is merged with T-have
319

to form a TP which is in turn merged with an

interrogative null C to form the CP.
(182) Of which car has the driver of
which car have the driver of which car
caused a scandal CP: This is the CP of
*Of which car has the driver caused a
scandal? Probing and movement: C and T
probe simultaneously. So T agrees with,
case-marks, and attracts to spec-T the DP
the driver of which car. C simultaneously
attracts a copy of the PP of which car to
spec-C. C also attracts a copy of have to C.
Here, we have a violation of the Specifier
Condition.
(183) have what they do+ DO WHAT CP: This is the CP of What have they done?
Do meges with the PRN what to form a VP.
The VP merges with a v forming a v. Do
moves from V to v because v is affixal in
nature, thus forming a v. This v merges
with the PRN they forming a second v
(they is an inner specifier). What is
attracted to spec-v as an outer specifier by
the wh-attracting edge-feature of v (which is
transitive, and hence a phase head), thus
320

forming a vP. At the end of the light vP phase

the VP undergoes transfer. The vP merges
with T-have forming a TP. The TP merges
with a null C forming a CP.
Now, if T probes first and C afterwards,
or the two probe simultaneously, the
Intervention Condition will prevent T-have
from targeting the subject they because
what intervenes between the two. T-have
cannot target what either, because its case
feature was deleted on the vP phase, so that
what has become inactive for A operations,
i. e. operations involving a probe with an A
head (one which allows an argument
specfier). In other words, what cannot
become the specifier of T-have (cannot be
attracted by T).
(184) What have what they done
DONE WHAT CP:This is the CP of What
have they done? If C probes before T, C will
attract what to move to spec-C. On the vP
cycle another copy of what is attracted to
spec-vP by the wh-attracting edge-feature of
transitive v. Done goes from V to v.

321

(185) What they have what they done

DONE WHAT CP: Subsequently, T-have
can probe separately and attract they to
spec-T. The intervening what is inactive but
is not the highest copy of what, so it is no
hindrance to moving they to spec-T.
(186) What have they have what they
done DONE WHAT CP: Have moves
from T into C (auxiliary inversion).
XX.2. Subject Questions
(187) Af die who CP: This is the CP of
Who died? The unaccusative verb die
merges with who to form the VP die who.
The VP is merged with a v forming the vP
die who. The vP is merged with T[Af]
forming a TP, which is merged with an
interrogative null C to form the CP.
(188) Who who Af die die who CP.
This is the CP of Who died? Probing: C, T,
and v probe independently. The light v
attracts die from V to v. C and T both locate
who simultaneously. T[Af] picks out who
as a goal (which is active because of its
unvalued case-feature) and attracts a copy
322

of who to spec-T. C identifies who as the

closest interrogative goal and attracts a
copy of it to spec-C. So, one copy of who is
created in spec-T via A-Movement, and a
second copy is created in spec-C via A-bar
Movement. There is no T-to-C movement (no
inversion and no do-support) because who
is attracted by both C and T.
(189) Who who Af who kill+ kill the
president CP: This is the CP of Who
killed the president? Kill merges with the
president to form the VP kill the president.
This VP is merged with v, which attracts kill
to form a v. The v is merged with who to
form a vP. This vP is merged with T[Af] to
form a T. Who moves to spec-T forming a
TP (T has an EPP feature). The TP is merged
with an interrogative null C forming a CP. C
attracts to spec-C a copy of who
simultaneously. More precisely, The edgeand tense-features on C, and the EPP feature
on T probe simultaneously, each attracting a
copy of who to move into their own
specifier positions (spec-T and spec-C,
respectively).
323

The End

324