7 Agreement, case and A-movement

7.2 Agreement the probe [T BE] agrees in φ–features with the goal several prizes There were awarded several prizes T´ [T BE] searches for a nominal which T VP it c-commands to agree with BE V QP NOM awarded several prizes (probe) (goal) (3) Earliness Principle Operation must apply as early as possible in a derivation (4) CP C TP Ø PRN T´ there T VP were V QP NOM awarded several prizes

Agreement a systematic relationship between nominative case assignment and T-agreement Evidence: Icelandic (Sigurðsson 1996, 12) (5) a. Þad voru lesnar fjórar bœkur There were read fourNOM.PL booksNOM.PL Agreement b. Þad var skiað fjórum bókum There was returned fourDAT.PL booksDAT.PL (no agreement) Var (was) is a default form used as a fall-back when the auxiliary doesn’t agree with anything. Skiað (returned) assigns inherent dative case to its complement. DAT

7.3 Feature Valuation (6) A: What happened to the protestors? B: They were arrested T´ T VP BE V PRN [Past-Tns] arrested THEY [u-Pers] φ–features unvalued [3-Pers] φ–features valued [u-Num] φ–features unvalued [Pl-Num] φ–features valued [u-Case] Case–feature unvalued probe goal

(8) Agreement When a probe (like T) agrees with a goal in its local domain the unvalued (person/number) φ–features on the probe will be valued (i.e. assigned a value which is a copy of that on the goal) the unvalued case feature on the goal will be valued (i.e. assigned a value dependent on the nature of the probe—e.g. nominative if the probe is a finite T) (9) T´ T VP BE V PRN [Past-Tns] arrested THEY [3-Pers] [3-Pers] [Pl-Num] [Pl-Num] [Nom-Case] probe goal (10) [CP [C Ø] [TP they [T were ][VP [V arrested] they]]]

7.4 Uninterpretable features & Feature Deletion Chomsky (1998) valued vs. unvalued grammatical features: in relation to interpretable vs. uninterpretable features T´ T VP BE V PRN [Past-Tns] arrested THEY [u-Pers] φ–features unvalued [3-Pers] φ–features valued [u-Num] φ–features unvalued [Pl-Num] φ–features valued [u-Case] Case–feature unvalued (= Case-feature uninterpretable)

(13) Table of interpretable & uninterpretable features Type of constituent interpretable features uninterpretable features T-constituent tense, aspect, mood person, number noun expression or pronoun person, number, gender case Chomsky (2006, 13): If transferred to the interface unvalued, uninterpretable features will cause the derivation to crash. i.e., If we assume that unvalued features are illegible to (and hence cannot be processed by) the PF component, it follows that every unvalued feature in a derivation must be valued in the course of the derivation, or else the derivation will crash (i.e. fail) because the PF component is unable to spell out unvalued features.

Uninterpretable features are deleted in the course of the derivation, and thereby become invisible to the syntactic and semantic component (while remaining visible to the PF component). (Chomsky 2006) (14) Feature Deletion An uninterpretable feature is deleted immediately any operation it is involved in applies, and is thereafter invisible in the syntactic and semantic components (but visible in the PF component)

(15) a. They believe [John to be lying] (ECM) b (15) a. They believe [John to be lying] (ECM) b. They believe [John is lying] (EPP) (17) TP PRN T´ they [3-Pers] T VP [Pl-Num] were [Nom Case] [Past-Tns] V PRN [3-Pers] arrested they [Pl-Num] [EPP] T´ T VP BE V PRN [Past-Tns] arrested THEY [u-Pers] [3-Pers] [u-Num] [Pl-Num] [EPP] [u-Case] (18) Simultaneity Condition All syntactic operations involving a given probe P apply simultaneously

7.5 Expletive it subjects English has two expletive pronouns which carry no interpretable φ-features. (19) a. It is said that he has taken bribes b. It can be difficult to cope with long-term illness c. It’s a pity that she can’t come (24) TP an expletive can’t be a probe PRN T´ (Chomsky, p.c., Radford 249) it BE must be the probe in (24) and [3-Pers] T VP expletive it the goal. [Sg-Num] BE [Pres-Tns] V CP [u-Pers] said that he has taken bribes [u-Num]

7.6 Expletive there subjects (1) There were awarded several prizes. (30) TP PRN T´ there [3-Pers] T VP were there V´ [Past-Tns] V QP [3-Pers] arrested several prizes [Pl-Num] [3-Pers] [EPP] [Pl-Num] [Nom Case] (28) VP PRN V´ there V QP [3-Pers] arrested several prizes [3-Pers] [Pl-Num] [u-Case] Multiple agreement When T-BE probes, it locates there as the closest possible goal. However, since there cannot value its unvalued number feature, T-BE continues to probe and locates the QP several prizes as a second goal. Thus, T-BE locates two suitable goals: one is there; the other is the QP several prizes.

(32) Expletive Conditions External Argument Condition An expletive can only be merged as the highest argument of a verb with no external argument (ii) Indefiniteness Condition Expletive there can only be merged with a verb which has an indefinite nominal or pronominal internal argument (iii) Inactivity Condition Expletive it can only be merged with a constituent which does not contain a nominal or pronominal expression with active case- or φ-features (33) a. There was awarded only one prize b. *It was awarded only one prize (34) a. It is said that he has taken bribes b. *There is said that he has taken bribes (35) a. *There was impeached the president b.*It was impeached the president