[Noam_Chomsky]_Lectures_on_government_and_binding(BookZZ.org) (1).pdf

8/18/2019 [Noam_Chomsky]_Lectures_on_government_and_binding(BookZZ.org) (1).pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/noamchomskylecturesongovernmentandbindingbookzzorg-1pdf 1/382

Noam Chomsky

L ectus o. .

Gvermt

and Biig·The Pisa Lecurs

1988

FORIS PUBLICATIONS

Dordrecht- Hollan/Providence Rl U.SA



Published by:Foris Publications Holland

P.O. Box 5093300 AM Dordrecht, The Nethelands

Sole distributor for te U.S . and Caada.Foris Pubications USA, Inc.P.O. Box 5904Providence Rl 02903U.S..

First edition 1981

Second revised editio 1982hird revised editio 1984Fourth editio 1986Fifth editio 1988

he editos would like to tha Reineke Bo-Beema for compiling the index.

ISBN 90 7076 28 9 (Cloth)

SBN 90 701 76 13 0 (Paper)

© 198 Foris Pubications Dordrecht

No part of this publicatio may be reproduced or transmitted in ay form or by ay

meas, electroic or mechaica icludig potocopy, recordig or ay iformation

storage ad retrieval system, without permissio from the copyright owner.

Prited i he Netherlads by ICG Pritig, Dordrecht.



LectursonGovemead BingThe Pi Lcr



Studies in Genrative rammar

The goal of this series is to publish those texts that are representativeof recent advances in the theory of formal grammar. Too many studiesdo not reach the public they deserve because of the depth and detail

that make them unsuitable for pubication in article formWe hopehate preent series wil make these studies availabe to aider audience than has hitherto been possible

Editrs:

Jan KosterHnk v Riemsdik

See for other books in this series page 373



Table of Cntnts

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

Chapter Outlne of the theory of core grammar . .Chapter 2 Subsystems of core grammar . 17

2 Levels of representation 1 7

22 F-represenation and 0-theory ( ) 3423 The ctegorial componen and the theories f case and

government 4824 Empty categories . 55

24Trace and PRO 55242Further properties of PRO 64243Control theory 74244Trace and bonding theory 79245The evolution of the notion "trace in transforma-

tiona generative grammar 85246Soe variants and alternatives 89

25 The base 9226 F-representation and 0-theory (2 ) 27 Some remarks on the passive construction 728 Configurational and non-configrationa anguages 27

29 Modules of grammar 35Notes 138

Chapter On government and bnding . 1533 The OB-framework 5332 The GB-framework 6

32� lThe concept of government 62322Case theory and 0-roes 7323The theory of binding 83

Notes 222

Chapter Speccaton of empty categores 234 NIC and RESNIC) 23142 Basic properties of RESNIC) 23343 The pro-dro parameter 24



v Table of Conens

44 he e cagry ricie (EC . . . 24845 h rdr araee 2 . . . . . . . . . 2534 Recvrabiiy ad ciics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Nes . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Cater S Sme reate t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2855. he hery idexig . . . . 28552 resiia hrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28953 Mdicais he EC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 Cex adjeciva csrucis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Nes . . . . . 344

Catr Emt ategre an te re Mve- . . . . . . . . . 32

Ba . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Inex Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

Genera Inex . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359



Prefac

The text that follows is based on lectures I gave at the GLOW conferenceand workshop hed at the cuola Normale Superore in Pisa in April l979

The matera was then reworked in the course of ectures at T in 197980, where! was fortunateto have the patcpaton of a number of vstorsfom ohr nstitutons n the US and uope Snce the Psa meetngs,thee has ben consideabe eseach by a numbe of lnguists thinmoe o less he famewok deveoped n the Pisa dscussons, o bengon this famewok of ideas and assumptions I wi not attempt a sys-tematc o compehensive revew of ths wok, much of whch seems to meextemely omising though thee ae some allusions to t and some isncopoated diectly n the main line of pesentation, as wl ·be in-

dicatedThe deay in the pepaation of these lectues fo pulication may eadto some confusion n iteatue ctatons Thee ae n current lteatuefeences to the Pisa ectues, often using ths teQ, eferng natuayto the actual mateial pesented and discussed at the Ap99 meetngsIn a apdy developng eld, in whch papes ae oen partly outdatedsmetmes y wok n pat ased on them y the time they appea, t snevtable that passage of ove a ea wll ead to changes and modica-tons, so hat this ook, though subttled "the Psa lectues, s actualy

dffeent n cetan espects fom the orgnal In an effot to help carfyctatons in othe woks I will occasonally add ootnote comment ondiffeences between this text and the Apr99 ectues

The matea pesented hee boows extensvely fom ecent andcuent wok in ways that wil not be adequatey ndicated; speccay,fom the wok of lngusts of the GLOW ccle who have ceated eseachcees of such emakabe vtaty and poductivty n Fance, theNethelands, Italy and elsewhee The outstandng contibutons ofRcad Kayne, both n hs own wok and n stmuatng eseach ofothes, deserve specia mention

Pepaation of the lectues fo puication was geaty facitated bya tascpt of the lctues and dscusson pepaed by JeanYves PolockandHansGeog Obenaue, as wel as b citca notes by Jan oste l paticuay gatefu to the patcpans n the GLOW confeence and wosho fo thei suggestions and citcism and also to those who took



viii Prace

part in a seminar at the Scuola Normae Superiore in March 1979; eremuch of the material presented in the Apri ectures was deveoped Theseminar egan with study of an unpushed paper y Tarald Taradsen198b) Though he was not present, his ideas stimuated much of theinvestigation of inding theory and the nature of vaaes that wascarried out in the semnar I owe a specia det to Luigi zi for hsorigina ideas and incisive criticsm Students coeagues and visitors at are aso responsie for many improvements and modications ony partially indicated Among many others Henk van Riemsdijk has een particularly hepfu with many ideas and suggestions I am aso muchindeted to Joseph Aoun and Domnique Sportiche for vey hepfulcon the·iu n te xt� 'anergnafsome esenta ides

'

I woud ike to express my graitude to the Scuola Nrmle Superioe fohaving provied me with sh excellent conditions fo earc and mogeeray, for te kindness ad hospitaty accodd oth to me and myfamiy during our stay in Pisa in he spng of 199 m also gateft te Nationa Endwment for th Humaities (USA for hi spprduring ths peiod en most of ths research was competd:

he isa ectues wer highy teoy nenal, i that acerta eraltheoreica framewok was pesuposd and options ithn t ee nsdered and some deveoed with scant ttenion to alternave onts f view or the critica iterature deaing with the presuposed framerI have ept to•te sae fmat in peain hese ecues for puionMany ciicisms o the genl poin of iew I m adoptng are discsedin homsk 1980 an in eferences ited there to h the dsussin f rom eaustive See aso attePman 980 f cssio ndcommentary on te genra appoach ather than on tchc dvoents An interestin perspectie on the cgrounds f recent wo 's pent in Newmeer 1980 I hae aso

discssed ts p les

comprehensivey d om a moe person point of view, in nrodction to Cmsky 1955

he tex tha foos s dvied ito sx chaptes with susctins> emateria from the oina Pisa lecturs is cattered thoughut it s

con-

cenrad in chapters 3 and My paer t the LO conferece(homsky, 9a i a ief ouline f materil psetd in catr 3 �hgh again, this maerial has een suseqnty dedanddeeso hat efeences in tat pper to thgial Ps lctues d not inia -y refer accutey t hs text Soe of the materi in chapt 3 d 4 isoutied riey n msky{199) and some o he contens of chapr1and 2 is presented rather informaly in Chomsk (1980c. ·' . ;Examples are eaatly numered in each su secion I il rfr totem simply y numer witn the susecion n hc thy ap andy susection ad numer esewhere For example the notation "2 1 :Y' ·refers to examle (7) of chapter 2 sectin 4 suection ; the notaio"24 refs o tha susection Otherwis, notations coetions an



Pfac ix

terminoog are ai standard, except where indicated Specical, I wil oten presen sntactic structures in much educed orm so as o ocuson he question a hand

Noam ChomskCambidge Massecl980



Capte 1

Outline of the theory of core grammar

I would like to egin with a fe oservations aout some proems thatarise in the study o anguage, and then to turn to an approach to thesequestions that has een graduly emerging rom work o the past ew

years an that seems to me to how considerae promise I wi assumethe genera ramework presentd in Chomsky 195 9a, 1980) andwok cited there A moe extensive discussion of certain ohe moe technic notions appeas in my paper "On Binding Chomsky 980ahenceot h, OB) The discussio hee is considealy moe comprehensivein· scope and ocuses on soewhat dierent proems t is asedon cetain prncipes that wer in part impicit in tis eaier wok utthat wee not given in the om that I deveop hee n the course otis discussion W conside a numer o conceptua and empirical

proems that arise in a heoy the 0B type andsuggest a somewhatdierent appoach that assigns moe cental roe to the notion o govement et us call the alternative appoach tht e deveoped here a"government-inding GB) theoy o expositoy purposes wi thenassume that the B theory is coect in essence and wi exploe some oits poperties moe careuly, examning seveal possile vaiants andconsiderg thei advantages and deects The ideas deveope and expoed in various orms in chapters 25 wl e reormuated om a somewhat moe astact point o view in chapter 6.

n pusuing tis couse it is worthwie to make a istinction etweencertin eading ideas and the execution o these ideas Existng anguagesare a smal and n pat accidental sampe o possie human anguages,and o tis sampe, ony a ew have een extensivey investigated n waysthat ear drectly on the quetions that cocen me here On a moepesoa note, thee are ony pats o tis work that am sufcientyaiiar wth so as to e ae to daw upon it Furthemore, theoeticalinnovations commony suggest new ways o ooking at compaatveywel-studied ngages that pesent them n a dieent ight o that rng

out phenomena that wee peviosly unexamined or oserved ut unexplained n appyng these eading ideas, it is always necessay to makea numer o emprica assumptions that are ony patiay motivated atest The eadng deas dmit o qute a range possiities o executonTh discussn that olows s ased on certain leadng deas some o whchae only eginning to e investgated serousy in a theoetic amework



2 Lectures on govement and bindng: the Pa lectures

of the sort considered here: notions of government, abstract Cse, 1 bnding and others. Often I w make some decision for concreteness inorde o proceed, ogh eading deas may no e ccaly at s scdecisions The dsinction beween eading deas and mode of execion sa rogh b nevertheess sef one In work sbseqn o the lecreson which ts ext is based, other ariants of the same or related leadingideas have been prsed, or sgnican modcatons proposed anexamined, in mportan work n progress ha I w not be able to dscssadeuae here.2

The poin is, I tnk, importan, sufcienly so that I wold ke o repeasome remarks pbished esewhere on he topc Chomsky, 1977a, p 207):

"The pure study o langage, based soley on evidence of he sortreviewed here, can carry us ony o he undersandng of astraccondons on grammatical systems. No partuar reazaion o thesecondiions as any priveged sas From a more absrc pon of

vew, if can be atained, we may see in retrospect ha we oed owards the undersanding of the absrac genera condions on lngus�tc srcures by he deted investigaion of one or anoer 'concreereazaion: for exampe, ransfrmatona grammar, a pacua n-stance of a system wth the gnera properes. The bsrac conismay rele o transformatonal grammar raher in the way that modenagebra reas o he number sysem.

We shoud be concerne o abstract from successfu graars asuccessful teories hose more genera properties tat accon forter success, ad o deveop [universa rar] as a heory of eseabsrac properies, which mig be reaized n a vrey f dfre ways. To coose amng sch rezatons, wile necessao moveto a much broader doan f eence. Wha ngistics shold ry oprovide s an absract characrizaon of paricuar ad uversagrammar hawserve as a ude and framewok for s mre geerainquiry Ts is no to sy tha he sudy o hig specic mech�ms(e.g., phonologca res, condiions on ransformaons, ec sou be abandoned On he conrary, only rough he detaled ves- igaion of these paticar syses ha we have an hope o avang owards a grasp of e absrat srctus, condons and rorte ha shod, some dy, onsiue he subjec maer of gnera n-gusc hoy. The ga may e remoe, is e o keep i mnd as we evelp nricae secc heories and ty o rene and

sarpen em n eted empial nuiry.

I is s poin o view ha es be the rough dsincion betweeneadng deas and exeion an tha motivae much of wha foows. I

hink ha we are, n ac beginig o approach a grasp of cerain bascprincipes of grammar at wha ay be he approprae evel of absracton.



Outne of the theory of cor grammar 3

At the same time, it is necessary to inestigate them and determine theiremprca adeqacy by deeoping quite specic mechanisms We shoud,then, try to distngush as ceary as we can between discusson that bearson eading ideas and dicussion that bears on the choice o specicreaizations of them. Muh of the debate in the ed is, in my opinion,seading and perhaps en pointess, in that it concerns the choie amongspecic mechansms but uses eidence that ony bears on eading ideas which the aternatie reizatons being considered may al share Thesearc for the appropriat ee of abstraction is a dicut one It is onyquite recently that questions o tis nature can een be raised in a serious way. My own suspicion i that as research progresses, it w show thatmany o the most productie ideas are in fact shared by what appear to bequite diferent approachs Some of the subsequent discussion relates

rectly to this qetion, as does much current wor, or example, Burzio(198), Marantz (1981)

In wor o the past seral years, quite a broad range of emiricaphnomena that appear to hae a direct bearing on the theories of goern-et an binding considered here hae been exaned in a few com-paratiey westudied languages. Seera theories hae been proposedthat are fairy intricate n their interna structure, so that when a smachange is introduced there are oen consequences throughout tis rangeo phenomena, not to speak of others. Tis property of the theories I

inestigate s a desirble one; there is good reason to suppse that thecorrect theory of uniersa grammar in the sense of this dicussion (hence- orth U) wil be o this sort. O course, it raises dicuties in research,in that consequences are often unforeseen and what appear to be im-proements in one ea may turn out to raise probems elsewhere. Thepath tat I wil tentatiey select through the maze of possibilities sometimes ather arbitrariy, is likey to proe the ong one, in which case I

w try to unra the effects and take a dierent turing as we proceedI wil be concerned here primarily to expore a number of possiilities

witin a certan system o leading ideas, rather than to present a specicreaization o hem in a sstematic manner as an explicit theory of U

et u recal the basic character of the probem we ace The theory ofU must meet two obious conditions On the one hand, it must be compatibe with he diersity of existing (indeed, possible) grammars At thesame time, U must be sufciently constrained and restrictie in theoptions it permts so as to account or the fact that each of these grammarsdeops in the mind on the basis of quite ited edence In many casesthat hae been carefully studied in recent work, it is a near certainty that

undamenta properties of the attained grammars are radicay underdterned by eidence aaiae to th anguage learner and must there fore be attriuted to U itse.

These are the basic conditions of the probem. What we expect tond, then, is a ighy structured theory of U based on a number of fundamental prinipes that sharply restrict the cass o attainabe gram



4 Lectues on govement and bndng the Psa lectues

mar an narrowly contrain their orm, ut wih parameter that have te xe y experience hee parameter are emee a heory oU tha i ucienly rich in tructure, hen the language ha areeermne y xing their vaue one way or anoher appear to equie ivere, ince he conequence o one e o choice may e erierent rom the conequence o another et yet a the ae imemite evience, ju ucien to x he parameter o U �ee a grammar tha may e very intricate an w in genera lack grouning in experience in he ene o an inuctive ai Each uch gra wil unerlie jugmen an uneraning an wil ener ino ehavorBu the gr ar a certain yem o nowege i ony inirecyreate to preene experience, the reation eing meiae y U

What eem to me particuarly exciing aou he preen perio inlnguiic reearch i tha we can egin to ee the glimmering o whatuch a theory migh e like For he rt time, there are evera theorieo U tha eem to have the righ genera properie over an interetingomain o airy complex nguiic phenomena ha i expaning ainquiry into hee yem procee Tha i omehing reative new anquie importan, even though urey no one expect that any o thee current popoal are correct a they tan or perhap even in genera conception

The approache to U hat eem o me mo proming within hegenera ramework o the ocale "Extene Sanar Theory Eachuch approach aume tha the ynactic componen o the gr argenerae an innie et o atrac trucure cal them "S-ructurehat are aigne a repreentation in phonetic orm PF an in LF rea"ogica orm, ut with amia provio3 The theory o U muhereore peciy the properie o a eat hree yem o repreenaion S-tructure, PF, LF an o three ytem rue he rule ohe ynacic compnen generaing S-trucure, the rue o he Fcomponen mapping Srucure o PF, an he rue o he LF-componenmapping S-trucure o LF Each expreion o the anguage eterney the grammar i aigne repreenaion a hee hree evel amongother

Noe that he central concept throughout i "grammar no "anguageThe ater i erivaive, a a higher leve o atraction rom actual neuralmechanim correponingy, i raie new proem I i no cear howimportant thee are, or whether i i worthwhile to ry to ete hem in omeprincipe way4

The empirica conieraion hat ener ino the choice o a theoy oPF an LF a into wo categore grammar-inernal an gr ar-exernal In he r caegory, we ak how particuar aumption aouFan LF reae to the rue an principe o grammar in the econ, we akhow uch aumption ear on he proem o eermning phyical om,perceptual interpretaion, truh coniion, an oher properie outerance through interacion o PF, LF an other cogniive yem



Oute of the theory of ore gramar 5

wll ave lle o ay aot F ee. Ame o e ome adad fom of oec eeato w laelled ackeg, wa wllefe o a "face ce adog oe of te eveal e of t

em e a of Sce ad F ad e le of gamma dee-mg ad elag hem, wll e he ce foc of m coce heeUG c of ieracg yem wc ca coidered fom

vao oit of vew Fom o oi of view ee e te varo co of te le ytem of gammar. Fro aoter o of view, wc a ecome creaigly imorta ece year, we ca iolateyem of ricie I w ame tat e comoe of ter tem ae te followig:

(1) () lexico(i) ytax(a) categral comoet() tafomaoal comoe

ii) Fcomoet (v) Fcooet

e lexico ecie e atract moooological rcte of eac lecal tem ad it ytacic feare cldig t caegoral featre ad

it cotexal feate. e rl of te categoral cmoe mee omeaiety of Xa teor Sytem () ad (a) cotite te ae aerle geerate Dtrctre (de trctre) trog ero of lexicalite to rcte geeraed y (ia) accordace w tei featretce ·ee are maed to Strctre e le Move, leavgtace codexed t teir atecedet; rle cotte te tra- fomtoal comoe (i) ad may alo aea te PF ad LF-comoet te tax geerate trctre wc are aigedPF ad Lreeetao y comoet (i) ad (v) of (1) e-

eively Some oertie o ee ytem d me aleatve a roace wll e codeed elow t a good deal will e reoed fom te lied lierare

e ytem of icile iclde te followg:

(2) . (i) odg teory(ii) goverme teoy

(ii) Heoy() dg eory

(v Cae teoy(vi) cotol teory

Bodig teory oe locaity codtio o cera ocee ad relaedm. e ce oo of goveme eoy he eao eweete ead of a cotrctio ad categore deede o it Heoy icocered wit te aigme of tematic role c a agetofactio



6 Lectues on govement and binding: the Pisa lectues

etc. (heceforth: 0-roes ). Bg theoy s cocere wth reatos ofaaps poous ames a varabe to possbe ateceets Casetheory eas wth asset of abstact ase a ts morphologcal eal

zat Cotl theoy etemes the potetal fo efeece of heabstact poomal eemt PR Proprtes of tese systems beeveoe as we pcee

se ubstes are cosely eate a vrety of ways l sugestthat g a Cas theoy ca b evelope wth the framewok ofgoere theoy a that Case a 0theoy ae closel tecoecteCerta otos such as ccomma seem to be ceral to seveal of thesetheors. Fthemoe he subsytem of (1) a 2 teact: eg.boug theoy hols of the ule Move- (e of ateceettace

eatos) bt ot of other ateceet-aaphor elatos of bg acotol theoy Each of the systems of () a 2 s bae o pcpleswth ceta possbltes of paametrc vaato Tough the teactoof these systems may popertes of partcula lagage ca e accoutefo We wll see that tee e cet complexes of propetes typcal ofpatcula types of laguage such colectos of propertes sho beexplae terms of the choce ofparameters oe or aother bsystem.I a tghtly tegrate theoy wth farly rch teral structure chage a sgle paate ay have complex ffcts wth poerag c

qeces vaous pats of the gamma ely we pe t ha

complexs o poperte ffeetatg otherwse sa laguage aerecble to a sge parameter xe oe or aothe way Fr aalouscoseratos coce laguage chage se Lhtfoo 979) ·

A val obsevao that has fequetly be ma (a oe atoally ee) s tt a great eal ca be leare abo G m thsty a sgl\aguge f suc ty acheves scet epth to tfot ules o cps that have expaatoy foc b re ueetre y evce avlabl to the laguage earer. Then'its r so�bl

to attrbute to G thse aspets of tese rls clestha

�

ufoly te but eeterme by eec Slly sty oflosely elte guas at fe some clusterg o oeres spatclarly valable for the opportutes t afs to ety a larpaameters o G that permt a age of varao te roposeprcples Work of the past several years o the Romace laguages some owhch be scusse beow has expote these pssbltes queefectvely ltmately oe hopes of couse hat t wll be possble tosbect poposals coceg UG to a mch broae tet o as to ete

me both the valty a the age of paametc vato sofa asthey ae val Sce these poposals coce poprts of gammars apart fom empcal geeazatos whch shoul be egare as acts tobe explae athe tha pat of a system of explaatory prcples ofUGt s pssle t pu tem to the tes oy to the extet that we have gratcal escrptos ha are rasoably compelg sme oma a poto ogc tha some stasteful so e lteatue cates



Outne of the theo of core grmmr

In eary wok in generative grammar it was assumed, as in traditionalgammar that there are rules such as passive," relativization,"question-formation," etc. These rules were consideed to be decomposable into more fundamental elements elementary transformations that

can compound in various ways, and stctural conditions (in the technicasense of transformational grammar) that are themselves formed frommore elementary constituents. n subsequent work, in accordance withte sound methodological principle of reducing the range and variety of

pssile grammars to the minimumthese possibilities of compounding were gradually reduced, approacng the ule Move as a limit. But heiea of decomposing rules such as passive," etc, remained, though nowintepreted in a rather different way These rues" are decomposed intothe more fundamental eements of the subsystems of rles and pinciples

(1) and 2 Ts develoment, largely in work of the past ten years,represents a substantial break from earlier generative grammar, or fromthe traditional grammar on which it was in part modelled. It is remniscentof the move from phonemes to features in the phonology of the Pagueschool, though in the present case the features" (e.g., the principesof Case, government and binding theory) are consierably more abstractand their properties and interaction much more intricate. The notionspassive," reativization," etc., can be reconstructed as processes of amore general nature, with a functional roe in grammar, but they are not

rules of grammar."We need not expect, in general, to nd a close coreation between the functional roe of such genera processes and their forma properties,thogh there wil naturay be some corelation Languages ay seect frm among the device� of UG setting e parameters in oe or another way, to proide for such general processes as those that were considered tobe specic rues in earlier work. At the same time, phenomena thatapea to be related may prove to arise from the interaction of severalcomponents, some shared, accounting for the similarity. The full range

o properties of some construction may often result from interaction ofseverl components, its apparent complexity reducible to simpe priniplesof separate subsystems. This modular character of grammar wil be re

peatedly ilustrated as we proceed.hen the parameters of UG are xed in one of the permitted ways, a

paticular grammar is determined, what wl cal a core grammar."In a gy idealzed picture of anguage acquisition, UG is taken to be achraceizaion of the chid's prelingistic initia state Experience in

part, a construct based on internal state given or already attained servesto x the parametes of

UG providing a core grammar, guided perhaps by

a structure of preferences and impicational relations among the parameters of the core theory. f so, then considerations of markedness enterinto he theory of core gammar.

But it is hardly to be expected that what are caled angages ordialects" or even idiolects" will conform precisely or perhaps even



8 Letues on govement and binding: the Pisa lectues

vey cosey to the systems detemned y xg the paametes of UGs cod ony hapen nde ideaed condiions ha ae neve eiedin fact in the ea wod of heteogeneos speech commnities Fthe

moe each acta angage" w incopoae a peipey of oowingshisoica esides inventions and so on wch we can hady expec toan indeed wod not want to incopoate within a pinciped heoyof UG o sch easons as these i is easonae to spposeat UGdetemnes a se of coe gammas and that wha is actay epesened nthe mnd of an individa evn nde the ideaiation to a homogeneosspeech omnity wod e a coe gamma with a pephey of makedeements and constucions6

Viewed agans e eay of wha a patica peson may have insde

his head coe gamma is an ideaation om anothe poin of view wha a patica peson has inside his head is an atfac esting fom heinepay of mny idiosyncaic factos as conasted wh the moe signican eay of UG (an eemen of shaed ioogica endowment) ancoe gamma (one of the sysms deived y xng he paamees of UGin one of the pemied ways)

We wod expec he individay-epesened atfact to depat fomcoe gamma in wo asic espects: (1) ecase of the heteogeneoschaacte of aca expeience in ea speech commnities; 2 ecase of

the distinction etween coe and peipey he two especs ae eaedt distingishae utting aside the st facto ie assming the ideiation o a homogeneos speech commniy7 oside the doman ofcoe gamma we do no expect to nd chaos Maked stuces have to e eaned on the asis of sende evidence oo so hee shod e fhestcte to the system otsie of coe gamma We mght expect hathe stcte of these fthe systems eates o he theoy of coe gammay sch devices as eaxng ceain condiions of coe gamma ocesses of anaogy in some sense to e made ecise and so on thogh

hee w pesmay e independen stucte as we: eachies ofaccessiiy etc Some exampes discsse eow; see aso heefeences of noe 6 and mch aditiona wok hese shod e itfaeas of eseach inceasingy so as teoes of coe gamma ae enedand eaoated

Retning o o ideaed not eaistic eoy of angageacqisition we assme that the chd appoaches the task eqippe wihUG and an associaed theo of makedness that seves two fnctions:

t mposes a pefeence stce on e paametes of UG, and t pemts

the extension of coe gamma to a maked pephey Expeience isnecessay to f he vaes of paamees of coe gamma In the asenceof evidence to te contay nmaked opions ae seeced Evidee othe contay o evidence to f paametes may in pincpe e f teeypes: (1) positve evidence (SVO ode xing a paamete of coegamma; iega ves adding a maked peiphey); 2 diect negativeevidence (coecions y the speech commniy); 3) indiect negaive



Outne of the theo of coe gamma 9

evidence a not unreasonabe acquisition syste can be devised withthe operative principe that ceran structures or rues a to be exeped in reaivey sipe expressions, where they would be expectedto be ound, then a (possibly arked) option is selected excludin the inthe raar, so that a kind o neative evidence can be avaabe even

without corrections, adverse reactions, etc ere is ood reason to beievethat direct neative evidence is not necessary or lanuae acquisition,8 but indirect neative evidence ay be reevant9 We would expectthe order o appearance o structures in lanuae acquisition to reect thestructure o arkedness in soe respects, but there are any copcatinactors: e, processes o aturation ay be such to pert certain unarked structures to be anested only relatively late in lanuaeacquisition, requency eects ay intervene, etc

I is necessary to exercise soe care in interpretin order o appearnceFor exaple, it has been observed that chdren acquire such structuresas John wants to o" before John wants Bil to o, and that they donot ake such errors as *John tres Bil to win" (cf John tres to

win") It has soeties been arued that such facts support the conclusionthat there is a ultiple lexica cateorization for such verbs as want,naely, as takin either a or a clausal copleent, the latter subcateorization perhaps ore arked In act, there is evidence that the V-VP alternative is the unarked case or surface structure, but this doesnot bear on the question of utiple sucateorization Rather, it relatesto a ery dferent question: naely, the correct anaysis o the suracestructure VP at Dstructure, Sstructure and LF I arue ater tatthis is a structure of the for Vclause at D- and Sstructure and at LF, where the lause is invariably of the for NP-VP, with NP = PRO (theepty pronona eleent) as an unarked option in these cases Iso,then the order of acquisition is quite copatible with the preferable assuption that there is only a sine cateorization: clause10

How do we deiit the doain of core raar as distinct fro arked

periphery? In principle, one would hope that evidence fro anuaeacqusition would be useful with reard to deterinin the nature of theboundary or the propriety of the distinction in the rst place, since it is

predicted that the systes develop in quite derent ways. Silarly, suchevdence, aon wh evdence derived ro psychonuistic experenaton, the study of lanuae use (e., processin), anuae decit, andother sources shoud be relevant, in prnciple, to deterinin the pro perties o UG and of particular raars But such evidence is, for thetie bein, insufcient to provide uch insiht concernin these probles

We are therefore copeled to rely heavy on raarinterna considerations and coparative evidence, that is, on the possibities forconsrucin a reasonabe theory of UG and considern is expanatory

power in a variety of anuae types, wit an eye open to he eventual possbity of adducin evidence of other kinds

Any theory in paricuar, a theory of UG ay be rearded ideally



Lectures on govement nd binding: the Pis lectue

as a set of concepts and a set of theorems,

at d in terms of these con-cepts We may s�lect a ritie basis of

c

nc pts

in trms'f hthothers are denable, and an axiom system from whch the teores arederivable . Wile it is, needless to say, much too earl hope for a reaitic proposal of ths sort in the case ofUG, 1 nevertelss it is prhap seulto take note of some of the conditions that such a theory should saisy

In the eneral case of theory construction, the primtive basis can beslected in any number of ways, so lon as the condition o enabty ismet, perhaps subject to conditions of simplicity of some sort.12 ut inthe case ofUG, other considerations enter The primtive basis mu meta condition of epistemoloical priority Tat s stl assumn the i?-tion to instantaneous lanuae acquisition, we want te prtives t beconcepts that can plausibly be assumed to provide a prelinr, elinuistic analysis of a reasonable selection of presented data, that is, to provide the primary linuistic data that are mapped by the lanuae facltyto a rammar relaxin the idealization to pert transitiona staes, smarconsiderations still hold It would, for example, be reasonable to spposethat such concepts as precedes or is voiced enter into the primtive

basis, and perhaps such notions as "aentofaction one believes, say,that the human conceptual system perts analysis of events in thes termsindependently of acquired lanuae. But it would be nreaonabl toincorporate, for example, such notions as "subject of a sentence or otherrammatical relations witin the class of primtive notions, since it is

unreasonable to suppose that these notions can be drectly applied tolinustically unanayzed data Rather, we would expet that such notionswould be dened inUG in terms of a primitive basis that meets he ndi-tion of epistemoloical priority. The denition mht be complex Forexample, it miht involve some interaction of syntactic conurations,morpholoy, and 8roles (e, the rammatica subect s the (usua)aent of an action and the direct object the (usua) patient), where theterms that enter into these factors are themselves reducible to an acceptable primitive basis14 Aain, an effort to develop a principled theo ofUG issurely premature, but considerations f ths sort are nevertheless not o f place. They indicate that we should, for example be ary of hypotese thtappear to assin to rammatical relations too much of an independentstatus in the functionin of rule systems I w return to some exam

pesSince virtually the oriins of contemporary work on enerative am

mar, a maor concern has been to restrict the class of raars madeaccessible in principle byUG, an obvious desideratumUG is oattainexplanatory adequacy, or, to pu the same point ifferently, U is account for the fact that knowede of lae is acquird on the basisof the evidence available The problem can be viewed i a slihtly dfeentliht when we distinush between coe rammar and marked peripher.Consder the theory of core rammar, assun it to be decomposble nto



Outne of the theo of core grammar

e subsysems of rues of () is reasonable o supose ha he rules(iv) of he LFcomponen do no vary subsanialy from language oanguag and ha such variey as may exs is deermned by oher elemens of he grammar; he language learner afer al has ie direcevidence bearing on he characer of hese rues. ie here is varieyamong he sysems associaing Ssrucure and poneic form (iii) is

pausible o assume ha his variey fals wihin nie bounsX bar heoryermis ony a nie cass of possible base sysms (ib) and he rasforaiona componen consising of he singe rue Move adms a mosa nie degree of parameric variaion (perhaps choice of or specicaion of landing sies in he sense of Bain ( 978, 1979)). Te excon aowsfor innie variey ony in he rivia sense ha here may be no nie boundon he engh of words and morphemes; subcaegozaion frames and_he like are narrowy limied in vieyf hese asumpions are correc hen UG wil make avaiabe onya nie cass of possibe core grammars in principe Tha is UG wi

provide a nie se of parameers each wih a nie number of valuesapar rom he rivia maer of he morpheme or word lis which mussurey be earned by direc exposure for he mos par. Dependng onhe naure of he heory of markedness here ay or may no be aninnie cass of possibe grammars bu hi is an esseniay unineres-ing quesion in his connecion since mared consrucions wi be dded

by direc evidence (or indirec negaive evidence) and can hus proli-ferae ony slowy raising no quesions of principeThe concusion ha only a nie number of core gramars are avaiabe

i principe has consequences or he mahemaica invesigain of genera-ive power and of learnabiiy.5 n cerain respecs he cocsion rivia-izes hese invesigaions. This is eviden in he case of he major quesions ofahmaica linguisics bu i is also rue of ceain probems of heahemaic heory of learnabiy under cerain reasonabe addiionaassumpions. Suppose haUG perms exacy

rammars No maer how

"wid he languages characerized by hese grammars may be i is quie possible ha here exss a nie se of senences sc ha sysemaiciveigaion of S wil sufce o disinguish e possibe grammars. Forexape e S be he se of al senences of ess han words in egh(a wedeed noio ofUG if he se of possible words is caraceried).Then i migh be ha for each of he possible grammars here is a decision procedure for hese shor senences (even if he grammars ack deci-sion procedures in genera) ha enabes he grammars o be differeniaedin S The grammars may generae nonrecursive ses perhaps quie"crazy ses bu he craziness wil no show u for shor senences whichsufce o seec aong hese grammars.Under his assumpion socaledlanguage earning i.e. seecon of a grammar on e basi of nieaa wil be possible even if languages caracerie ·by e gram mars ave very srange properies.



2 Lectues on govement and binding: the Pisa lectues

Ne that the assumptin is nt unreastic surey n mre unresticthan thers standard in the thery f learnabiity us cntrary t whathas ften been aleged ther is n cnceptua cnnectin between re-cursiveness and "earnability (in any empiicly signicant sense thelatter term) which is nt t deny that ne might cnstruct sme set fcnditins under which a cnnectin culd be estabshed a differentmatter.6 Hence certain questins f the mathematical thery f earn-ability are trivialized by the assumptin thatUG permits ny a nite set fgrammars under pausible additinal assumptins such as thse justmentined. Nte als that ne shud be very wary f arguments puprt-ing t favr ne linguistc thery ver anther n grunds f legedprbems ncerning earnabity n rly reasnable assumptins thesequestins simply d nt arise

But even if crrect the niteness assumptin frUG des nt shw thatinvestigatins in mathematical linguistics r the thery f learnabiity frinnite classes f grammars are pintless. Rather it indicates that theyprceed at a certain level f ideazatin einating frm cnsideratinthe prperties fUG that guarantee niteness f the system f cre gram-mar. ne may then as whether the innite set f cre grammars avaiabeunder this abstractin frmUG is learnabe in sme technical sense f thewrd r what the prperties may be f the css f generated anguages.Wr cnducted at this evel f ideazatin ight pve t have empiicalcnsequences in an indirect bu perhaps signicant way r exampleabstracting frm prperties fUG that guaranee niteness the set fpssibe grammars and anguages nw innite might be unlearnabe insme technical sense If the cntrary the set turns ut t be earnabeunder this ideizatin then this is a pssbly interesting thugh ratherabstract empirical discvery abut the prperties fUG urthermreeven fr nite classes f grammars that are learnable fr a reasnable niteptential data base signicant questins aise in the thery f learnabiityspecicaly questins relating t the bunds n cmplexity f sentenesthat sufce fr selectin f grammar

Siar bservatins hld f the study f the pwer f varius therieshere have been many lusins in the iterature t ts tpic since eappearance f the badlymisunderstd wr f Peters and tcie (1973)n the generative pwer f the thery f transfrmatinal gammar Inessence they shwed that in a higy uncnstrained thery f transfrma-tin grammar a particular cnditin n ue appcatin (the survivrprperty wich Peters independently argued was empiicly el-mtivated; cf Peters (973)) guarantees that nly recursive sets aregenerated whereas withut ts cnditin any recursively enumerable setcan be generated by sme gammar. he cmn msunderstanding isthat "anything ges since withut the survivr prperty r sme cmpar-able cnstraint al recursivey enumerable languages have transfrmatialgrammars In fact the questins d nt even arise except under the ideal-izatin just nted ifUG permits nly a nite class f grmmars t might



Outne of the theo of core grmmr 1 3

fo empe, un ou h hese gmms chcterze nguges the not ecusive o even not ecusively enumeble or even tht they donot genete lnguges t l without supplementtion fom othe fcultiesof mind, but notng of much import would necessrily folow contry to

wht hs often been ssumedIt s worth sking whethe the coect theory of UG does in fct pemt

only nite number of core gmmrs The theoies tht re being studiedlong the generl ines I wil be discussing here d hve tht property, ndI tnk tht it pobbly is the ight popetyt my so be worthwile toinvestigte the properties of UG under n ideiztion tht woud permtn nnite clss f grmmrs, but ce must be eecised n consdeng theimpictions f esults ttined in such investigtion

One must gud ginst other flcies Ely wok in trnsformtionl

grmm permtted very wide choice of bse gmmrs nd of trns-formtions ubsequent ork ttempted to reduce the clss of permissiblegmmrs by fomutng generl condtons on ule type rue picton,o output tht would gurntee tht much simpler rule systems, ckingdeed sp ecicton to indicte how nd when ules pply would never-theess genete equied structues poperly Fo emple, Xbr theoydicly educes the clss of possible bse components, vous conditionson rules pemit reduction in the ctegory of pemitted movement rues,nd condtions on sufce structure structure nd LF ow sti futher

smpiction of ues nd thei ogntion uch eductions in thevriety of possibe systems re obviously welcome, contributions toexpntory dequcy But it is evident tht eduction in the vriety ofsystems in one prt of te grmmr is no contibution to these ends if itis mtched or exceeded by profetion esewhere Thus considering bseules, tnsformtons, intepreve ules mpping the ouput of thesesystems to phonetic nd ogc fom nd output conditions on PF ndLF, it is no doubt possible to eliminte entiely the ctegory of besystems by lowing proifertion in the othe components, o to eiminteentiely the ctegoy of tnsfomtions by enicng the css of bsesystems nd intepetive ues fting the vey of devices fm oneto nother component of gmm s no contbution to explntory de-qucy It is ony when eduction in one component is not mtched orexceeded esewhere tht we hve reson to beieve tht better ppoi•mtion to the ctu structure of entyepesented gmmr ischeved

The objective of educing the clss of grmms comptble withprimry inguistic dt hs served s guiding principe in the study ofgenertive grmmr since virtuy the outset s it shold given thenture of the fundment empiicl poblem to be fced nmey c-counting for the ttnment of knowledge of gmm nd the closelyelted gol of enhncing expntoy power Other guiding ides wlepusbe n my vew, e ess obviousy vid It hs for emple provenquite fruitful to expore redundncies in gmmtic theory, tht is, cses



Lectures on goement and binding: the Pisa lectures

in which phenomen e "ovedetemne by gven heoy in the senseth dsnc pinciples (o systems of pncples) sufce to ccou fothem To menon one emple h I will conside belw, he hoies fCse nd bndng ehb degee of edundcy in he OBfmewon

tht ech sufces ndependenty to detemne subsnl pt o edisibuion of he empy ponomn elemen PRO: PRO ppes nposions th e no Csemked, nd om n indepenen pon of vew,n postons h e tnspen (nonopque) in the sense of bindg heoy ; bu see chpe fo some qulictons In OB, this s mentones pobem (cf OB, noe 30); in chpe 3, I will sugges h i s o beesolved by educion of both Cse nd inding theoy o the me fund-ment concepts of he heoy of govenment

o menon nothe cse, I will suggest tht the *

thatce] lt of

Chomsky nd snik (977) is too "stnge o be n ppopite cnddfoUG nd shoud be educed to othe moe ntu nd moe genelpincpes (cf Tldsen (97b) Kyne (90), Pesetsky (97)imly, I will suggest tht he two bindng pincples of te Bsytem

he (pecied) ubject Condtion C nd he omntve Isn Con-tion IC e mplusbe becuse of the fom, nd should be educto moe esonble pnciples Much ecent wok s motved by silconcens

Ths ppoch, whch hs often poven futful in the ps nd s· I

beeve, n the cses just menoned s well, s bsed on guding nutonbout the suctue of gmm tht mgh well be questoned: nely,tht he theoy of coe gmm, t est, s bsed on funmentl pn-cipes ht e ntul nd smple, nd tht ou sk s to dscove them,ceing wy the debs ht fces us when we eploe the vied phen-men of nguge nd educng he ppen compleity to sysem t goes wel beyond empcl genelizton nd ht stises intellectu oeven estetc stndds These noions e vey vgue, but no ncompe-hensible, o even unfmi: the sech fo symmety n he study of

ptcle physics s ecen emple; he clssicl wok of he ntuscences povdes mny othes

Bu t might be th ths guding intuition is msken Bologicl sys ems nd the fcuy of lnguge s suey one oen ehbt edunncynd ohe foms of compleity fo quite ntelgble esons, engboh to functonl utly nd evolutony ccident To the etent tths poves tue of the fculty of lnguge, then the coect theoy fUGsmply s not n itself n ntelectuly nteesting theoy howeve em-pcy successful t my be, nd the effot to pove othewse wil il

Much esech on nguge hs been guded by the belief ht the sysem sfly chotc, o tht nguge is so ntetwned wth othe spes fknowedge nd belief tht it s mstke even to ty to isole fcuy fnguge fo septe stuy Qulittve consdeons bsd on "povetyf the stmuus guments, such s those mentoned bove n consedn moe deti elsewhee, songly suggest th ths pctue s not genelly



Outline of the teo ofcoe gamma 5

correc, bu i igh prove o be correc or arge areas o ha e hinko as phenoena o angage n he cases jus enioned, or exape icod urn ou o be he case ha he redundancies sipy exs ha odand very specia properies such as he -race]er or he o bind

ing condiions o he OB syse are sipy irreducibe and us be sipu aed ih G or ha hese pncpes are aready oo absrac and hae us be saised ih supercia epirca generaizaons

is poiness o adop a pioi assupions concerning hese aers,hough one's inuiive judgens i, o course, guide he course oinquiry and he choce o opics ha one hinks eri careu invesgaionThe approach i pursue here cn be jused ony in es ois successin unearhing a ore eegan syse o principes ha aceves aeasure o expanaory success To he exen ha his ai s achieved

is reasonabe suppose ha he princpes are rue, ha hey in accharacerize he anguage acuy, snce is dicu o agine ha suchprincipes shoud erey hod by accden o a syse ha is dierenyconsued Consideraons o his sor are aken or graned, generaypicy, in raiona inquiry or exape in he ore advanced scences,ad here is ie reason o queson he in he presen conex, hough is quie appropriae o do so esehere; speccay in he conex ogenra episeoogy and eaphysics Bu s orh earing n indha his cass o raher vague ehodoogca gudeines has a raher

deren saus and uch ess obvous vadiy, han he search or oreresrcie heories o G hich s dicaed by he very naure o heprobe aced n he sudy o G is quie possibe o disinguish beeenhese concerns or exape, a heory o G ih redundancies andnegan spuaons ay no ess resricive han one ha overcoeshese concepua deecs

nsoar as e succeed in ndng uniying prcipes ha are deepersiper and ore naura, e can expec ha he copexy o arguenexpainng hy he acs are such-and-such i increase, as vad or,n he

rea rd pariay vaid generaiaions and observaons are reduc ore bsrac prinipes Bu his or o copexiy is a posiive erio an expanaory heory one o be vaued and no o be regarded as adeec in i is a concoman o ha Moravcsik (90) cas deepas opposed o shao heres o ind, and s an indicaon o successi deveopng such heories is iporan o disingush ceary beeencopexiy o heory and copexy o arguen he aer ending oincrease as heory becoes ess copex in he inuive sense

here is e poin in deing on hese aers, hough hink i is

perhaps useu o bear he in nd, pricuary one hopes o akesense o curren endences i he sudy o anguage s no dcu hink o deec he basc deence in aude jus skeched n ork o hepas ears, and y persona eeing is ha i ay becoe si ore evidenn he uure as quesions o he sor jus briey enioned coe ore ohe ore, as xpec hey i



6 Lectues on govement and binding the Pa ecues

Noes

I Henceforth, I will capitalze the word Case" when used in its technical sens, alonglines suggested originally by JeanRoger Vergnaud. OB, Rouveret ad Vergnaud (980),and Vergnaud (forthcoming). See also Babby (1980), van emsijk (980).. See, for example, the references in chapters 4, 5 below 3. See Chomsy (1980b,c) for some discussion. 4. See Chomsky (180b,c) for further discussion. See so the nal remarks ofchapter I Chomsky (1965)5. For ome intrigung recent ideas on this subect, see Halle and Vegnaud (980)6. Cf. Kean (975), van emsdijk (1978b), George (1980); also many pape inBelletti, Brandi and Rii (forthcoming)7. On the legitimacy of this idealization and the implausible consequences of reectngt, ee Chomy (1980b, chapter 1)8 On this matter, see Wexler and Clicover (1980) See also Baker (979), Lasnik(1979).

9. For a concrete example illustrating this possibility, involving stylsic inversion andthe socaled pro-drop parameter," see Ri (1980b).I 0. For discussion, see Rii, dII Cf. Chomsky (1955) for an early, and no doubt premature eort in this direction.or further discussion of the issue, see Chomsky (965, chapter I and (77a, chpter Ialso Baker (979), Wexler and Clicover ( 1980), and other related work1. See Goodman (195).13 On this matter, see homsky (1975, chapter 3).4. Cf Marantz (981), where it is suggested that broader consderations (includingdelopmental factors) are involved

ne might, perhaps, take a diferent tack,· and sppose that the or oter notions arepriitiv, linked to notons that meet the condition f istemological priority by postulatthat o not sufce guaantee denaility he csequence s indermnacy of the choceo grammar hen the xtension of each of the imitives meeting the condition of episemological prioriy s xedhe ess fully such nions_ as those of the theory of grammatcalrelatons, fr example, are rucble to primitives meetng ts condton, the greater thndetemnacy of gammas seected on the basis of prim nguistc data. There is,however, lttle reason to uppose that such indeterminacy exss beyond narro bouns.Insofar as this s true, we should be skeptcal about theor with a primitve basis containingoncps that cannot plausibly be assumed o enter into the determination of the primary nguistc data, or about unrealstic assumptions conceing c ata (cf. referenc of

note 8) gain, more complex versions of these considerations apply if e tu to accountsof language acquisition that proceed beyond theidezation t nstantaneous acquisition,say, alng the line discuss in Chomsy (975, chapter 3), Marantz (oct)15. On the latter topic, see Wexler and Clcover (1980) and material revi there.Also inker (1979).16 On the quton of recusivens and leaability, see Levelt (1974), Lasnik979,980), R Matthews (1979). Also Chomsky (1980b, chapter 3).17. See Wexler and Clicover, oct for interestng rk on this topic.18 See Chomsy (965, p 6), and the referenc ofe 16.19. As was don, for example, in the earlit generative gramma in the mode sense,whch had as its syntactc component a phase stucture grammar (which could efectly well

have been pented as a contextfree grammar) with indic to exps inteelations amongscattered parts of yntactic strctures (Chomsky, 1951). The class of such grammars (whichgeneate contextfree language, a fact of minimal signicance is extremely rich in dcriptve powr and qute unnteesting fo thi among other reasons. t was advance whensubsequent work showed that these powerful, but clmsy and unrevealing systems, could befctored into two com ponents (base and transformational), each wt quite natural po-

perties20. See the referenc cited in the preace o further discussion



apte 2

Subsystem of core grammar

et us nw turn t the ther f UG, cetrting n cre grmmr. Inchpter , sever subsystems f rules nd pinciples were identied (cf.( ), .(2)). We nw urn me prperties f hese. Since he subsysems

nerc s clsely nd re s inerdependen, perhps the ms sisfcryrcedure wi be develp them mre r less in prle, beginning wih s pprximin t ech nd hen urning t further renements, event he cs f se rdundncy nd sme nern cnict s ery prxi-mtins re mied

2 . Levels of epsentation

Cnsider s the ssstems f rles ( ). A he ms gener leve,ssume UG hve thee undment cmpnens, rgned s in ():

syntx

. �S-structure/·

PF LF

The rues f he syntx geere S-sructures. One system f inepretiverules, hse f the PF- pnen, sscies S-structures with epresen ins in phneic frm ; ner system, the rles f the LF-cmnen, sscies S-srcures wih representtins in lgic frm" (F),where i is unders t he prpeties f LF re be deerinedempiricy nd n by sme exrinsic cnce such he tsk f determinig ntlgicl cmmimen r frmlizing inference te er F" isinended sugges n mreth in fct the representins his levelhve sme f e prpertes f wht is cmmny cled lgic frmfrm ther pin f view

A the ms generl leve f descripin, he g f grmmr is express he ssciin between representins f frm nd representins f mening. The system ( embdies certin ssumptins but thenure f his ssciin: nmely, h i is medied by mre bsrcS-sructure nd th the mppings f S-sructure n PF nd LF re idependent f ne nher



ectues on govement·and binding: the Pisa lectues

The system ( , when its eements e specied, wi be theoy o G,o the lnguge cuty in now sense o ths tem is eon e tosuppose tht the epesenttins PF nd F stnd t the inece o gm-mtic competence, oe mently epesented syste nd ote systems:the conceptu system, systems o bee o pgmtic competence, ospeech poduction nd nysis, nd so on. Any pticu theoy o G,sy, speciction o 1 , invoves empiic ssumptions o somewhtbstct sot concening egitimcy o idetion, ssumtions ht my pove incoect but e unvoidble we hope to gin some undestndingo system s compex s the nguge cuty, nd moe genely, thehumn mind. I wil put these questions ide, nd continue with nestigtion o( n wy ht emodies nd shpens onesystem o ssump-tions bout these questions.2

ssume uthe tht ech o the components o 1) the syntx, the Pules nd the LFues include ues o the om Move-, whee is somectegoy, thei exct ntue nd popeties to be detemned. Thus, mongthe PFules thee my be ues o movement, engement, etc., whche sometimes cled styistic ues mong the LFues is the ue oquntie movement QR (quntie ule3 nd in the syntx thee is thesingle ue Move- tht constitutes e tnsomtion component .iib Fo esons ldy noted, it is esonbe to suppse tht theF-u e subject to vey itte vition mong nguges, but the option

o empoying Move my o my not be ten in ech o the thee subsystems, nd i ten, my be subject to some pmetc vtionTuning st to the syntx, pt om the ue Move, whch is poten

ti eemen o ech o the thee components, it consists o bse wchn tun consi ctegoi component nd exicon. The bse genees D-stuctues (deep stuctues which e ssocited with S-stuctueby t ue Move-. To cy temnoogy, wi use the tem sucestuct in smething ie its ogin sense, eeing to the ctu beed ting o n expession t the eve PF. Chnging usge ove

the yes hs gi ise to degee o conusion he tem suestuctue hs beesed in much ecent wo to ee to mo stctepesenttion thn th6 cu beed bceting o n exessio, theeie sense o suce sctue, to which etu he.

et us conside now sme p eties o epesnttions t the eves oce stuctue (P, LF nd Sscue. Conside st te seneces (2)

2) (i the students pee o Bi to isit Ps ii th students pee tht Bill visit s

The eb pefes n ineent exc popety, tes s omnt wic has a subject NP and a predicate V (Bi nd · visft Par, .espectively, in (2)) nd n eement (c it INF, sggetir iection' indicting in pticu whethe the cuse is nite o i f i

t

al.

Sup peing th distintion between indictive nd subjunctive, wei st i:



Subsystems of coe gamma 9

INFL hs the vlues [±Tense], where [ +Tense stnds for nite nd[Tense] for innitiv Following Bresnn 90, 972), we ssume tht cuse consists of complementizer C nd proposition component (S); the tter is nzed s NP-INFL t LF Thus t the Flevel, the sentences (2) re represented s in (3), where in the cse of 2i),COP = fond INFL = Tense]; nd in the cse of (2ii), CO thatnd INFL [Tense]

(3) the studens [ prefer [ COM [ Bil INFL [ visi Pris]]]]

he S-srucre undering (3) m be ssumed to be identic with (3) in this cse, so tht he mpping of S-srucure o LF is trivi. Similrl, he mpping of S-strucure o surfce strucure is quie trighforwrd inthis cse.

onsider next the sentences of ()

(4) (i) the sudents wn to visit Pris(ii) the sudents wnn visi Pris(iii) he students wnillo vsit Pris(iv) he sudens wnt tht Bil visit Pris

Senence (4iv) is no idiomic English, bu we m ssume his obe n

cciden gp reecing properties h re no prt of cre grmmr; husssume (4iv) to be full grmmic the relevnt level of bstrction, sin he ngous cse of (2ii} d s n lnguges oherw se similr to English. A the level of LF, hen, (iv) is gin of the form (3), wih wantin plce of pefe

Trning o (iii), i is nogous o (2iexcp th i lcks he CMfo Considertion of suc exmples s (5) reves h his reecs idosncric propert of the verb want in these diects of English:

(5 (i) he sudens wn ver much fo Bill o visi Pris(ii) h he sudents wn is for Bil to visi Pris

Le us enttivel ssume (subject o er discussion) h leofhe PFcomponen deeesfoirecl fter want in these diects, is so possile directl fer pefe, suject o idiosncrtic vriion. Then theFrepresention of (iii)s, gin of theorm 3), wih want in pceofpefe. Exmples (iii) nd (4iv) differ he Flevel in exctl he wth (2i) differs from (2ii), wih he choice o COM fo nd INF =

[Tense] in one cse, nd COP tha nd INFL = [ ensein heoher, the regur ssocition of these eemens. The undering Ssrucures re gin identic o he LF-epresentions Surfce structuresre derived b-deleion in he cse of (iii) nd other detis h we needno consider

Now consier the exmpes (4i) nd (4ii. At the eve of surfce src-



20 Lectues on govemnt and bndng the Psa lectues

ure, ssume these o be epresentd ithhe ctegoril stucue of (6i, ii),jus s (iii) is epesentd with the ctegril structue of (6iii):

(6) (i) he studens

wnt to

visit Pis]](ii) the sudens

wnn

visit Pris]

(ii) the students wnt Bill to V visit Pris]]]

Recll tht (ii) deives fom the undelying Sstructue by deletion of theCOM fo Since sufce stuctues observe (phonologicl) word boundies, (6i) nd (6i) diffe s indict< But the re Uel the sme heLlevel n ined e f the sme genel fom s (6iii) t this level Thus

ll the sentences of (6) e o the fom (7) nlogous to )) t the level ofLF-epesenttion:

(7) the students V wt COM INFL V visit Pris]]]]

COP in (7) isndNFL, coespondingly, is [Tense] to, exctly sbefoe, in iniml contst to (iv) with COM = that n INFL =[Tense]

The choice of the embedded subect of the clusl complement of want

in (7) diffes, howeve, fo 6i,ii) o the one hn nd (6) on the oeIn the cse of (6iii), the emedded subject is In te cs of (6i,ii)i is ponoinl element mked i some wy t indicte tht its efeenceis th f te phse the students, he mtix subjct; it is someting likethey (the students)," s i 8), the common LF-epesention fo (6i,):

(8) the students wnt fo [ they (the students) to V isitPis]]]] ·

How shll we nlyze the infoml nottion they (thestudents)"?Wewilluse the device of coindexig to indicte ntended efeence in the elevntsense, ssuming tht ech noun phse s ssigne numericl index; fothe moment, let us ssume this ssignment of index to be fee Then ssuming tht the noun prse te students hs bee signed the index thephse tey te sudents)" of (8 coes P • whee P is some nd ofonominl elemnt The pnominl element P hs no popeties beyontose f minim ponminl eement: nmely, the etus peson, ub nd gende, whic must of cuse mtch those of the coindexedntecedent in wellfomed LFepesenttion We will use the nottionPR" fo t cllection of these feues, with some choice of vluesThus the LFepesention·(8) becoms (9):

(9) the studnts] wnt [ fo [ PROto [visi Pris]]]]

The element PRO in e LF-epesenttion (9) hs exctly the sme -ole




as B in ) or in he corresponding LF-represenation for (4iiv) ; PROffers from B n hat (in s case) is reference is deermned by is coindexed antecedent rather than being inheren" hrough an independen

ly assigned index, a mae deat with in the theory of conro.Consider nex he S-sucture uderlying the surface sucures (6i)and he LF-represenaion (9) The simpes assumption, once agan, is oassume that he Sstrucure is viualy idenica wih he LF-represenation in s case. Le us tentaively assume, then, hat he S-suctureassociated with (4i) and (4) is idenical to (9) apa from the indexing ofPRO, the later being deerned by he ule of conrol in he LF-component. Then he underying S-srucure is (0):

(0)

[N

the sudents] [

wan [ for [s

PRO o [

vst Pais]]]]lternavely, we mght assume hat PRO too receives is ndex at Ssucure akng the rule of conrol o be a rule of indexcheckng raher hanindexassignmen; hen the Sstucture oo s (9) Throughout, we have suppressed he IFL of he maix sentence and oher detals reevant tothe discusson. 5 The surface stuctures (6) and (6} ae deived from (10)or (9) in a perfecly straghtforward way dfferng by applicaon (in(6))or nonapplication (in (6i)) of the opona ue (1 1 ) of he PF-component:

( 1 ) want + o wanna

The phonologial rules of he PF-componen do no see" he absracfeatues of PRO, wch are elevan only to the LF-cmponen or tmrphology.

Summaizing he vebs want ad pefetake clausa complemens as aleca propey. The clauses are of he form (12) hee ethe M fo ad INFL = [Tense] o M = thaand INFL = [+ese]:

(2) [ [s NP INFL

JJThe mapping of S-sucue o LF s rva, involving only the oindexingof RO in he examples so fa dscssed The mappng ofS-stucture o PFs lso saightforwad involving only he idiosyncatic ule of-deleionand the opiona conacion ule ( 1 ) As for the choice of / in hesurface sucures (6), clely = = ad hle litlefanytngtunson the matte f categoral eprsentation in surface sucure n hs case

he simpes assumpon is hat/ = s exacy as in he pael example(6iii)In hese exampes the approach o he centra problem of gammar

namey, he associaon ofPF and LF-epesenaions tha is epesentedin (1 ) appeas o be quie wel-moivated. Noations and irrelevan dealsasde he F- and LF-epesenaions hat we have assumed ae elativelyunconovesial and seem o be the smplest pssible, wth unfom lexica



22 Lectures on goement and inding the isa lectures

entries fo such verbs as ant reer expressing exacty thei roe nLF-reresentation The asumptons that soud be consdered more carefully are i those embeddd n 2), te anlysis of the noton clae and ) those relaing to sructre nd ts roe n mediating he assocaton betwen PF nd LF-representaton In the cases so far onsderedthese assumptions seem optmal

Let us now aply a smilar analyss o some sghtly more cmplcatedexampes Consder rst the sentencs 13) :

(13) t s unclea that B saw May

John knows

The matrx predcates unclear knowtake causa complements, so the LFrepresentatons of (13) are (14 where we will use M ambguously for thematrix eement of 13):

(14) M that Bl [+Tense] [ se Ma]]]

The S-structure underlyng 4) y once aga be taken to be dentca tothe LF-representatn, so that the mapng from S-structure to LF s

tval The surface sructures coespondng to ) derve by a rule of thePF-component assgnng the element [+Tense here further speced aspast) to the verb see

In (13 ), M takes a declarative compement, but t ma aso take an nterrogatve complement as n the surface structure 5):

5) M who Bl saw

The embedded complement coesponding to 5) is represented at L

as something lke (6):(16) for whch person x B saw x

For empca evidence beang on the Frepresentaton (16) see thereferences of note 10.

Stil pursuing he tur asumpto tha the mappng fromS-strctreto LFbe reduced to the mnmum, the optima S-structureundelyig 5),(6) wl b ):

) M s who Bil [+Tense] [V see ]]

Here has he following propertes ) t has the 0-role of the direct objectof see, xactly as des Ma in (14); ( s assocted wth wh, as a reprsentaton of the vaable bound by the quasi-quantie who which s nter-



Susystems of core grammar 23

preted as "for wich person x at LF; l it disappears at PF Gven i) is an . Gven (), it is coindexed with adapting the indexng deviceareay prposed) Gven l it acks phonetic properties Thereforewe tae =

e] where e is the identity eement and i is the index of

We wi refer to in such cases as this as the "trace of and wioen use the notation in pace of The S-structure underying 5) 16)is therefore 18)

18) M who Bi + Tense] V see t]]]

ote that we are distinguishing trace from PRO, the empty pronomn;whie it is not obvious tat they are distinc reasons for distinguishing them

wi appear in subsequent discussion and we wi maintain this distinctionthroughout recasting it in somewhat more abstract terms in chapter 6.Note aso that the rues associating antecedent and trace are distinct fromthe rues associating antecedent and PRO, whethertheantecedentoftraceis a -phrase as in the case we are now considering or a phrase of a different type as in cases to which we return The association of antecedentand PRO is deterned by a rue of contro which either assigns to PROthe index of an antecedent or checks the indices of PRO and antecedentin accordance with the theory of contro which beongs to the LF-compo

nent. We wi see that the properties of is rue are quite different fromthose ofthe rue deterning the association of antecedent and trace whichdoes not fa under the theory of contro. wi assume in fact that the attercoindeng is a property of the rue Move. n the present case the Dstructure underying 18) is 19) ; appicaton of the rue Move assigningidentica indices to and its trace maps 19) into 18)within the syntax

19) COMP B [+Tense] V see who]]]

The D-structure underying ) differs from the D-structure undering15) in two respects i) the object of the embedde cause s a in thecase of 1) and is in the case of 15) ; the CO is that in the case of) and is something different in the case of 15) w assume that COmay be one of the foowing in D-structure

2) CO �±W

f r

The eement

+ WH] hea an interrogative compement and is seected

by certain matrix predicates eg. but not "John said. The eementWH] is speed out as that in Engish it may aso be nu) and equivaentsin other anguages The eementfor is the-compementier aready discusse n the case of 1 ) the D-structure is identica with the Sstrutre



24 Lectures on goernment and inding: the Pisa lectures

and the LF-epesentation 14) In the case of 15) the D-stucue 19)becomes the Sstructure ( by application of Move- in the syntax andthe corresponding LFrepresentatin is formed b speling out the

phrase h j as "for which person whee t j is taken as the viable X pat fom these ifferences the structues 13) and 15) crespond pointby-point as desired

In these cases once again the approach represented in 1) is empiiclywell-motivated yielding a very simple ule system for associating P- andLF-repesentations with propeties that seem optimal

In examples 13) and 15 ) M takes a nite +Tense]) complement. Wewould expect then that such matrices should also take innitivalT) metsnd ac thy dan2)

21) M who to see

Beause of lexical properties of the articula icates in M, the innitival comlement happens to e interrogative in this case but in general itmay be interrogative or declarative and ±Tense] Consider now thevaious repesentations of 21 )

At LF te repesentation is clearly 22):

22) M

forhichperson

to see]

That is the LF-epresentation of 2 1 s exacty e same that of (5)namely 16)), apart from the choice of INFL in th embedded clause anthe choice of the subjct of tat clause: Bin 15) an in 2) Theeemet has the same roe as Bin 15) but acks indeendent specicreference The optimal assumpton is tha = PRO the mpronominal which is coindexed with John by the heoy of control whenM = John knows and is arbitrary in efeence there beng no antecedent

when M = it is uncear Assume theefoe that this is soThe S-stuctue underyig 22) is 23)

The pair (who t is converted to the coresponding LFforms by rulesalready estabished Clealy = and = since it has the distibution

of and convets o it at LF and ke domnates CO What is{?[ is a category with the folowing propeties: i) i is the domain of

movement ; ii) COMP { i it dominates tV iv) it convertsto S in LFepresentation Cleary { = S the sole category havin exactlythese properties

Turning now to the internal structure of the embedded S in 23 we haveto etermine the nature of There are two plausible possibilities: i) Xis null ie. no lement at al so that the embeded cause is: to seet ] ii) X = PRO On assumption i) he basic es analyzing S are 24)



Susystems of core grammar

on assumption ii) they are 2:

24 S NP) to VP

NP Tense VP S NP INFL VP

2

Under 2, INFL may become either [±Tense] freey subject to exicaidiosyncrasies common to the two aternative anayses Furthermore in 2 may only be PRO in 23

Ceary e anaysis 2 is preferabe on conceptua grounds This isparticularly clear if there are reasonable principes that determne that theNP is PRO when INFL is TenseJ as in 23 bt not when INFL =

+Tense] If so then 2 expresses exactly the correct generaizationabstractin from properties of language determned b other principles whereas 24 redundantly expresses some of the content of these otherprinciples_ As we sha see the theories of government binding andCase do have this consequence; they determne the distribution of PROin exactly the manner reqire by adoption f 25, and do so on qitereasonable gronds with many desirable consequences that are independent of the properties of PRO herefore we adopt the anaysis 25,taking the S-structure of 2 to be 23 with X = PRO

The consequence once again is that the mapping of S-structure to LFis quite straightforward as is the mapping of S-structure to PF The mapping to LF ivolves the same ules for interpretation of -phrase andtrace that are independently required for nite causes and the controlrule indexing PRO just as in the cases discussed earlier Te maping ofSstructure to PF requires no special rules The congurtions and2 differ in exactly one respect abstracting from the content oflexicacategories both congurations derive from the S-structure 26, whereINFL = [+Tense] in and INFL = Tense in 2 :

26 M _ [ who INFL see t]JJ

Again this is the optima result congurations that differ mnimally dfferin exactly one strutura property in this case ±Tense] chosen freelycontingent upon exical properties of M

Recall however the basic assumption yet to be established that thedistribution of PRO is somehow determined on reasonabe grounds

Suppose that in 23 were taken a where COMP

being an innitival verb phrase as has occasionaly been propos in oneor another variant This amounts to adopting the analysis 24 n essencereplacing it by the considerably clumsier system of rules 27 :

27 i) VP COMP VP i) S COMP S



26 Letues on goeent nd ndng the s letues ·

iii) S NP VP when COMP = fo S VP thriseiv) VP is -VP and VP is Tense-VP

Furthermore a rues introducing embedde w have t be extended toincude VP which has the same distribution as eica idiosyncrasiesapart This rue system can be stated in various ways but it is ceary nogenuine alternative o 24) which is to be rejected n avor o the simper25 I reurn to variants o 24) wch rase still uther dicuties n24

,

ndepenet and in this case diect evience in <r o25)oer24)i$ rovid bhe behaviooenastic elemns such as theean-persona t; we return laero their counerparts in other anguges Frenchimpersonal and we wll later suggest impersona PRO in such languagesas Italian an Spanish) There are certain constructions in ch theseelements must be inserted as ilustrat in 28):

28 i) thee is a good reon or s reusaii) I belve theeto be a ood reason or hiseusaiii) I'd preer or thee to be a better reason o s reusaiv) I'd preer thee being a better eason or s reusalv) I believe tto have raied (t to b cear wh won)

·i) I'd preer ts raning in September ts being cear who won)

The itcized categorP annot be omtted in 28) ; some ust apparin these positions s we shal see the theory o governent exclds PRrm these positions in i) ii) iii v) ; poperties othe embeddd P andthe gerund exclude PRO rm these positions in iv) and vi) since i PRappared her the theoy o cntrol woud assign an Freresentationith the sense "I'd preer my being better reasn or his reusa !d

preer my raining i September et te same consderations redundtly exclude PRO in ii) iii) v) We will return ater to the choice o theeversus or the moment let s simply identiy them as an obgtory lenastic eement wch cearly is an NP

gatory insertion o the NP oows rom the act hat the constructions illustrated require sbjects or some structural reaso; call itthe principle P Cleary P does not derie rm -theory; the iticizedeemets bear no 0roles Nr does P derive ro considerations o subcateriation Verbs not subcategrie or subjet w m be

eely missing when is inapplicable as in 29) and othr construcionso wc e wil trn:

29) i) my beie that tere wil be a oo rason r re-usal

ii) the belie that there wi be a good eason or s reusa



Sbym of cor grammar 7

The pincipe P, pin, is he srucu equiemen h cein conguions inniivls nd geunds mus hve subjecs; i.e. he pincipePis simpl h ue (25), which incopos h cses we ke geunds ohve cus s wel sP sucue (s s wel-moived on ohe fmiligounds) nd e coninue o ssume, s oe,hhe ilicizd elemen in 8iivi is no n he mix cuse u is e he subjec of heembedded clusl uni, excy s is he cse in he LFresenions.Rue (25) pedics he fcs of (28) whees (2 leves hem unexplined,n ddiionl nd compelling reson fo seecing (25) over (24) beyondhose redy discussed.

We igh pproch hese quesions fm sighly differenpoi ofview. Cnside he srucure of cuses LF. Keeping o resonble concepion of core gmm hus eliminin fro consideion elipiclexpessions, ec. cluse mus ea conin pedice, which weke o be ofhe cegoy . The miniml cluse hen, be somehinglike (30:

(30) i rins

Here rain is he VP pedice nd here isno rgumen. n more complexcses, he predice my isef conin n gunen(eg., (3i) wih he

pedice: cluse (3 ii wih he pedice: hiBil d my

conin subje gumen (e.g., (3lii)):

(3) (i) i seems h John is hee(ii) John hi Bil

Suppose we ssume fuher, subjec o some reconsideion le, h cluse LF mus conin mood-indico of some sr, nely, hwe hve cled !NFL, which my be nie o inniivl. hen cuse LF wl es conn he srucure (32), s in (30)

(32 !NL VP

We migh hen enivey dop he ssumpion h obigory preseneof subjec epesens picu choice for cerin pmeer oG.Engsh nd Fench, fo exmpe, mke his coice; hus e hve suchsrucures s (28) nd he bse rule (25) n he cse of (25), wh mus bespecied in he pricur gmmr of Fench nd Engish is obigorinessof NP nd ode of he eemens Ohe nguges migh no require hNP is obligoy; he Semiic nguges re possible cndides n suchnguges, puing side quesons o ode, he bse ue oud hen beno (25) bu (33):

(33) S - (NP) !NFL VP



2 Lur on govmn and binding: h Pia lcur

he choice between 25) and ( is a choice with egad to a certaipaamete of G namey obigatoiness of subject in syntacic stuctueIn dditin, hee ae choices with egad to odeig of eements! wi

suggest in § 2 that much te same is tue at the eve of LF een fo non-conguationa anguages acking a syntactic phase

Cae must be take, oweve o detemine whethe 25) o (3 isseected in vaious anguages us conside he Romance anguage apartfom Fench. In these, as in Latin, the anaogue to (0) acks an overt subject (cf Ha 1979)) his fact suggests that these anguages seecoption(33) But the concusion is questionabe Such anguags as Spanish andItian dffe fom Fench and Engsh in a distinct paamete, namey,what has been caed the "po�dop paaete, wicent a aie

of consequences, as we sha see; that is, in these anguages not ony"weathe vebs such as rain but so vebs that have subjects with adenite 8oe may appea at suface stuctue with no subject. In suchcases, there is surey a subject at LF, and there is good evidence, as wesha see, that thee is an NP subject at Sstructue too in cases acking anysubject in surface stucture It may be, then, that th "weather verbssimpy fa under ths distinct pincipe. We wi see in chapter 6 that theeis good eason to suppose this to be the case. See the discussion of6(6) and eferences cited thee.

The agument might cut the othe way as we f Kayne 1972) is coec,then Fench sentences with subject ponouns have no surface subject, theponoun being a citic As usua, a suvey of sufa forms is quite uninformative.

Now et us retun to the question whethe the property ense] shoudbe teated in the manne of (24) or 25) Note that this question is distinct fom the question of obigatoiness of subject. he question does notaise in anguages that equie an obigatoy subject in syntactic stuctue.Fo such anguages as Fench and Engish, the rues (24) ae not an option

at a, as shown by 2). Consider, then, anguages that do not equie anobgatoy subject. In this case, by assumption, is optio whenthe cause is nit Again, (24) is not an opton The choices in UG eestcted o the question of whethe the subject is o is not obigatoyi.e., 25) o (33).

Summaizing, a o the constctions ith embedded causes thatwe have discussed are of the gener form (34), whee s some matiX eemet:

(34) M s COMP NP INF VP]A matrix veb o adjective thatakes a causa compement appes at Dand Sstructure in the conguration (34) Nonembedded causes ae soof the form of the embedded cause in (34), with INFL = +ene] foother reasons (which, incidenty, ae reaxed in certan cases in otheanuages and aso magiay in Engish). For easons yet to be discussed,



Subym of cor grammar 29

whe NFL = [Tese ad COMP for sytactc represetatsthe the NP suect f the emedded clause (34) may e ad rmalymust e PRO thewse t cat e PRO. We as wl retur t thecase f geruds where PRO ad lecal suects ctrast. Speccay,

wth M i i uncla r M � John know, as ave the emedded hasef (35) s causa eacty as the varats (3) r as (37)

(35) M what t d(3) what Bl s t d

(37) M that Bl s t d that

Let us frmulate these servats as a gudg prcpe fr the thery

t e develped

) Rersetat t each sytactc eve (.e., LF, ad D ad Sstructure) are prected frm the ec that they serve thesucategrzat prpertes f eca items.

Let us cal ths prcpe ad ater reemets the prect pricipefr sytactic epresetats.6 We wi geeraze t the et sectdscussg further ts eati t the ue (5) aayzig S as NPNFLP.

Nte tht we ae fr the mmet attug a differet status t the precti prcipe ad t ue (25) The frmer we are assumg t e ageera prcpe q G whie ue (5) may e part a aguagepartcua ue f Egsh. t mght e the that sme aguage des t satsfy'(25) geera, thugh it wi satsfy ths ule sfar as the rue flwsfrm the pecti pce as i part t wi uder a refrmlat t eprpsed the et sect.

Let us w csder te meaig f the precti prce. Ceary,suctegrzat ppertes f ca tems muste satsed at LF. Ts

s true y et f hs cdti s vated the setece s smyt wefmed, s there eed t stpute that the prcipe hdsi sme frm at LF f pruad, fr eample takes a ect ad acausa cmpemet as a eca pperty, the a LFrepresetaticudig ths ver wil e welfrme y f t s asged aject ada causa cmpmet at ts ve eresetat. Whatever ttwe adpt, the seteces (39) wil all have LFrpesetats f rugy thefm (4) ( e readg f () (i)):

(39)

(4)

() we persuaded Jh that he shud ish clege() Jh was pesuade that he shud sh clege() we persuaded Jh t sh clege(v) Jh was persuaded t h clege persuade N Jh] that he (Jh) shuld ish cege} .



0 Lctr on govmnt and binding: th Pia ctur

Naurll, o epress he inended inerpreaion (40) o (i), (ii) we will�e te ae deice a as alread been suggesed or e case o(iii(v, where is inerpreaion is obligaor nel, a pronoinal c

inxed wi n, eiher (as in (i, (ii)) or PRO as in ) (iv)) he ac coindxing s equid in cass (iii, iv) bu o (i, (ii) (39) ollsrom he heor o conrol an oer propries o pronoinals

In accordance wih he pojecion principle, he caegorial equireenso he veb pruad expressed in (4 us be saisd a D- and Ssuctue as well Assuing he ule (25) and the projecion piniple, e Ssrucues o (39) us be (41)

(41) (i) we INFL pesuae Jon] [ ta he should fnis

college]]

(ii) Jon INFL be [ persuade [ { ] [ a he soud nishcollege]]

(iii) we INF [ persuae [ Joh [ PRO o nish college]]

(iv) John INFL be [ persua ] [ RO nish colege]

In () and iv), and { are o be deeined The Dsruures die o(41) onl in eplaceen o ] b is neceden, Jon Thus, he Dsucues ae pped o e S-sucues b e ule ove-, wic asa eect onl in case (ii) nd iv 4), leaving he race , wich,as in as o -oveen dscussed ealier, we assue o be coiexd wih is aneceden he oven ule We will eurn o estats o at te end o te next setion d again in §2 As Q thereis no parent reason to take t to e anthing other than , as we ave'assued in the case veent, thugh we rconsier tsquesion n 246 and in chaer 6

T projection piple ields se of our ealier conclusions Foexple, we asse a th S-stutue underling {2) i (3), oras alrea discussed: I

(42 (3

it is uncea ho o eeit is uncler [ho iT R to see t ]]

Te prsene the tace t i etined b the projectio principle, giventat a a diect oj a a leical propert The presence o PRisdeteined b rule (25)

The proection rinciple requires that an NP appea as object opruad in (4l, iv) an in 3) -theor will learl requre that thisbe associated wit John in 41 ) as device or asigning t John its proper-role in our notation, sch association will be representd again b coindexing As we have seen inepenent consideraions equire that therace be cindeed with ho in (43) Thus, the basic uiens o tacetheo ollow ro the proection principle and certain airl obvious



Subyem of core grammar 3

prncples o nterpretaton One mght say that trace theory n ts essen-tals s nothng other than the mnmal way o satsyng these requrements,takng the condexed P that satses the proecton prncple to bemaxmally smple, e , to have no unmotvated propertes

On te assumpton that the proecton prncple holds, the role o theategoral component o the base s reduced to a nmum It wl smpyexpress languagepartcular dosyncrases that are not deterned by thelxcon t s unnecessary or base rules to stpuate that structures suchs those o (41) are generated, as ar as the choce o compements oreruade s concerned peruade s nserted n some derent rame, theproecton prncple wl be volated and no wellormed LFrepresentatonwl be derved Exacty what propertes o the ategoral component muste stpulated n a partcular gramma s a queston to whch we return;

erhaps such propertes as order o maor consttuents, nsoar as thss not deterned by excal propertes and other prncpes o grammarThe grammar o a partcular language can be regarded as smpy a

speccaton o values o parameters o U, nothng more Snce the proecton pncpe has the consequence o substantaly reducng the speccaton o the categora coponent or a partcuar grammar, t has corr¢spondng mpcatns or the heory o anguage acquston Someonernng Engsh must somehow dscover the subcategorzaton eatures oeruade one aspct o earnng ts meanng Gven ths knowedge, basc

popertes o the syntactc strctres n hchperude appeas are deterned y the proecton prnpe an need not e learned ndependentySlry, a persn who knows the word peruade (hence knows ts lexcalpropertes, speccaly · ts subcategorzaton eatures) an a once assgna approprae LFrepresentaton and S and structure when the words heard n an utterance, or n producng the word, and wl recognze thesentence to be devant other propertes o the utterance cnct wthths assgnent Hnce angus satsyng the roecton rncpe nter basc desgn have obvous advantages wth respect to acuston and

useConsdeaton o the poecton prncpe unates a conceptua deency o theores o UG o the type consered n Chomsky (19). nsch theors, the excon s a set o excal entres each wth ts specccontextua eatures (amng ohe propertes) The categoral componento the base qte ndependently, speces a certan cass o sub-categorzaton rames n hch ecal tes may appear Thusnormaton conernng the class o subcategoraton raes s neect gven twce n he grammar once mpcty n the lexcon,

as a property o the class o excal tems n ts totalty; and once ths tme drectly by the rues o the categoral component Theac has, o course no gone unnoced The caegoral component o thebase s sometmes descrbed as a speccaton o redundancy rues o thelexcon, e as n expct ormulaton o the cass o sub categorzatonrames hat are ound n the lexcon But ths ormulaton s msleadng ; as



32 Lecures on governmen and binding he Pisa lecures

a specicaton o redndancy rles, the categorial coponent does nowork Copare, or exaple, the case o trly eectve redndancy rles,sch as those that speciy that a lexical ite has a ceran propery then t wl also have the propery P; eg, the ite has he eatre

[han], t wl have the eatre [anate

;or i has he propery ha begns wih hree consonans, hen has the property ha begns wh

s/. In sch cases, he redndancy rles are eectve n the sense ha oncehe re is stated hat an e wh property Phas the propery P, then is nnecessary o ncde the propery P n the entry o any exical ewth he proery P Bt the res o he caegorial coponent do no havths eect even when hese res are expcty oaed, each exicalte s st conta l seaton ts sbcaegoan raesFor exape he base res o Engsh sae ha

- V S s st

necessary to ncde n the lexical enry orpersuade the noraon that takes an objec and a casal copeent thogh ther order need notbe stpated, gven the re o he categoral coponent Apa roorder, the re o the categora coponent serves no nction as a redndancy rle as or order I wll sgges beow that ths speccaion oos probably nnecessary n hs case, and n qie a ew ohers.

n shor, there s an nwanted redndancy beween he res ohe caegoral coonent and he xicon n a graar o he sor otined nChosky (965). The inoraon abot the cass o sbcaegorizatonraes that s hs daly represened canno be enated ro exicalenres Thereore e shod attept to einae it ro the categorcalcoponen The projecton princpe n ac accopishes ths n qe asweepng way Gven he projection pincpe and he general properieso Xbar heory, he categoral coponen or a patica graar wbe qte eager

e e projecton prncpe s a natra one ro several points ovew, t s by no eans obvosly correc Is eprcal conseqences areqite ar-reachng as we have aready seen and w nd agan laer on. Tsthe prnciple s ar ro innocos s voaed by theores at conoro he genera ones o Chosky (965), or by any heory that does noncorporae soehng siar to trace theory assing ha t has synacc represenaons at al. It is aso volaed by ost approaches that incorporae trace theory, eg the OBheory, wh ts strctrebldingres Slary a eory tha aops soethng ke (24) as he analysso S, and correspondngly assgns to sch nnvals as () he srctre(45), vioaes he projecon prncpe

() expec i o rain(45) V expect it] a o rain]] ( = S or = )The reason s ha at the eve o LF-represenaon expe cearly akesonly a casal copeen bt n the strctre (45) it has an ojecha does no appear n he LF-representaton For sar reasons an



Subyem of cor grammar

analsis o (46) as (47) is exclded b the projection principe:

(46 consider John integent(4) IP consider V John AP inteligent

33

In general an appoach ha analzes sch atrix predicates as wa, pruad uclar ec n · certan o he was tha we have been ed o rejecearler wl violae he principle or o pt the sae pont dierentl thereasons hat led s o rejec these analses (or exaple heir ailre opredict he behavior o pleonastc elents or to accoodatetheprinciples et to be orlaed that deerine the dsribton o ep caegories) lend epirical spport o the ch ore general projectionprncple b showng ha an o ts secc conseqences e nde

pendenl jsied will explore a variet o sch conseqences belowRec tha he valid o the projection principle is closel relaedo he qestin o wheher he heories o governen bndng and Casedo provide an independenl otvaed and reasonable accon o the properties and disrbon o PRO and trace a atter that will becoe stillcearer when we reorlae the princple n a sightl dierent wa in henex section I hese heories do not provide satisactor answers to theqestons concernng he disribon o ep caegories then the projection rinciple is dbios snce t wold have to be sppleented b

splatons o soe sor concerning he ep caegories these theoriesdo provde rincipled answers to hese qestions then the projection principle receives indirect b sgnican spport snce redces he specicaon o D- and S-strcres to exactl what is not deterined esewhereand does so on qie reasonable general gonds et s conine to asseha hese qesions will be answered appropriatel b the theories ogovernen bnding and Case and conine to explore the conseqenceso hs asstion o wch we rern hs adopting the projecionprinciple

Revewng he evels o represenation we have considered or the senenc (4) we have the or represenations (49):

(4) i is nclear who o see(49) () i s nclear who to see

() i is ncle [ who i [ PRO to see i](ii) i is nclear COM PR to see who](v) i s nclear or whch person x [PRO o see x]]

Represenaon (i) is he srace strcre and representaion () he Sstrctre with who n the P position and ts trace Representation() is he D-srctre wle (iv) is the -representaion Representaions(i) and (iv) are derived (ndependentl) ro (ii) whch in trn is derivedro ) b ove

s noed earlier in recen wok withn the raework I a assng



4 Lctur on govmnt and binding: th ia lctur

here, reresentaton (, wich s consderaby more abstract than (an emty P subect and an emty obect n the embedded nnitvaclause, has been called the "surface stucture' whereasn earler usage,to wch return here, th latter term aled to the reresentaton (aPF. Use of the term "surface structure for Sstructure has conveyed theerroneous mresson tht some radca change !has been ntroduce ascontrasted wth earler aroaches, wth a deure from abstrac under-lyng reresentatons ; bu when terminology s claried, t s evden hahe change s much less radca than has been assmed, and n some resectss n drectons ooste to wha s sometmes assumed8

In he Sstrucure reresenaton (49) a dstnction s made beweenPR and trace, eac an emy caegory h sense tat ssned nrinsic hnetc conten though resence of race may affect hnetcreresentaton, a maer to whch we return. s noed, t s no obvioushat PRO and race should be distinguished ; n fac in the OBframeworkand earler work (eg ., Chomsky (1977b )) hey are dened as a caegorylackng lexca content. I wil argue however, tha hey are dsnc anha they dffer n fundamenta resects. For the moen, le us simlyadot the distincion entaively.

Summarizng hese remarks, we have formulaed he roecton rin-ce () as a gudng rince, wth he consequence tha the ole thecaegora comonen for a aticua grammar s educed to he sec

caon of vaues of such aameters as ode of mao constuents. Wehave adoed he analyss (25) for S. Corresondngly, the rues of heLFcomonen w necessay be que smle. n the cases consdered sofa, hey are faily triva, as ae the rues of the PFcomonen. We avedstinguished two emy caegories, PRO d trace the recse oer-es o be estabshed. The eference of PRO is determned by the theoryof cont. The anayss s based on the assumon thahe dstributionof trace and PRO wl follow fom the theoies of govenmen, bindngand Case. If the nces determining the dstribution of emy cago-

ries ae sound then we have song evdence for te aroac so fa out-ned, and secicaly, fo the oection rincle.

2.2 LFrprntation and tho

Le us turn next o wha e somemes caled the "ineretive comonents of the sysem ouned n 2 1 .(1), namely, the PF and LFcom-onens, no consdering he oecton rnce and its consequencesmore caefuy.

As noted I w have ttle to say about the characterscs of PF wchwe may assume to be a surface strucue in some standd system f one-tc reresenaton The oertes of LF, however, are cena o tis discusson. Work has advanced to the ont where s ossbe o consdersome nontrvia questions about the oerties of LF, n tcuar, abouthe syntax of LF. For exame, thee is linguistc evidence n suort of



Subym of cor grammar 35

the hythesis that quantication in LF uses sometng ke the standardquantier-variable notation (as in 21(16) (22)) rather than a quantierfre notation One might seek evidence to deterine whether somethnglike the notation of faiar predicate calculus plays a role in LF hassometimes been suggested. Thus consider the following representationsof the sentence John m o b ad:

(1) John seems [ t to [ be sad]]](2) sees (sad (John

In theories of the sort I wil be considering here () is the Sstructure representation of the sentence whe (2) understood as indicating thatad is predicated of John and m of the proposition ad John is reminiscent of notations of famiar logics The nu ypothesis within thetheories considered here is that (1) is also the LF-representation. While itwould be imple enugh to dsign an algorithm to convert () into (2) orsometng ike it empi ca evidence woud be requred to support any suchmove. Informay speaking there is no a priori reason to suppose that thbrain uses such notations as (2) in preference to ( though there mightbe empirica evidence 1 as there is now some empirical evidence thatit uses quantier-variable rather than quantierfre ntation. Withoutsuch empirical evidence there woud be no motivation for adding ruesto the LF-component (the right branch 21( to map () into somethngike (2) I wltentativey assume that representations such as () are indeedappropriate for LF.

It has traditionalY been asumed that such notions as "agent-of-action"goal-of-action ec. play an impoant roe in semantic description andthere has een important recet work elaborating these ideas These notions n fact enter into many dfferent theories of semantic description.Tey are the semantic reations of Jerrod the thematic relationso Jeffrey Gruber and Ray Jackenoff the ase relations of Charles Fillmore and the primitive notions of event ogics such as that of DonaldDavidson wch analyzes eg John ran quickly as: there is an event

which is a running event ith John as its agent and is quick Let us assumetat F must be so deigned that such expresions as h man John hareassigned 8roles that is are assignd the stats of terms in a thematicreation. Let s ca suc expressions "aguments as distinct fromidiom chunks (eg. oo much in oo much h bn mad ofhi problm),nonargument (as in i i crain ha John wl win), or existentialhr (as in hr ar blid o b unicon in h gardn), terms whchassume no 8role Thus e understand arguments to be s with some

!ferential function including names variable anaphors proouQ� ; but not idiom cunks or eements inserted to occupy an obigatory�

ti n

of syntactic strcture Let us refer to a position in LF o whch a8

�

is assigned as a "8-postion. Idioms apar each position satisfyingthe subcategorzation features of the exica head of a construction is a



36 Lctur on gomnt and binding: th Pia lctur

0-position; in the terinology of X-bar heo, each copleet positionis a posion urerore, a rle y ough i ne no be assignin he poiton of subec, weher ofNP or S, a position not associate witha sucategorization feare o a lexical he. The -positions ar those

bracete n (3)

(3) (i [hey ] persuae [John ] [that [e ] shoul leave(ii [we J hol [ha [hese ruths] are [self-evient]](iii [weJ hol [[these ruhs ] to be [self-evient ]](v i is hel [ha [these truths ] are [self-evient]](v these ruhs are hel [[ t] o be [self-evient](i [hese truhs] are [self-eient

(vii [we] put [the books] [on [he table]

(viii the books were put [t] [on [he able]](ix avantage was aken t of [Bill ]

Soe 0-positions are lle by arguens; all copleents of a hea are0-positions apart fro exaples restructure by iio rules in ways towhich we will reurn ; the subect is a 0-position where a 0-role is eterine fo i.

reasonable criterion of aequacy for LF is (4)

( Each arguent bears one an only one 0-role, an each 0-role isassigne to one an only one arguent.

will refer o (4) as the "0-crierion An arguen is assigne a 0role byvirue of he 0-posiion ha or its trace occupies i LF

Cnsieration of the 0-criterion suggests a oicaion of the proection principle 2.1.(3). The natural intuitive sense of this principle is haeery synactic representaion (i.e LF-represation an S- an D-structure shoul be a proecion of he heatic srucure an te prperies

of subcategorization of lexical entries, siilar but not ientical equireens. Only the later requireent is enopasse in the forulaion2.1.3). Suppose then, that we recast the proecin rinciple ore gnerally o incorporae boh cases As a preliinary to oing s, let us ienifyore losely soe of te basic noions hat are involve

Consier structu congurations of he for (5, were is an ieiate consituen of

5 (i [ J(ii

· ]

Thus c-coan Tese are he basic congurations f GB-heo.n aricular governs in (5) uner aitional coniions at eillexplore, "governent being the funaenal concep unifying arioussubheoies



Sbytm of cor grammar 37

Consider the specia case of (5) in whch = and too is an immediateconstitent of . Ths s the head of and /s one of its complements (oran optona interpolated element e.g. an adverbia a possbiity that wewil henceforth ignore restcting attentio to a compement. This con

gration s famiar of corse from the theory of sbcategorzation.

I is a -eve category ofX-bar theor then the category mst satisfy thesbcategorization frame of . In ths case we wil say that bcatgorih poition ocpid by

The same congration is reevant to determnation of 0-role. Given th the frther proviso that is an mmediate constitent of thenthe position occpied by may be a 0-position with respect to i.e. apstion for whch determines a 0-roe. Whether it s or not depends onroperties of . If it s we wil say that mar th poition ocpid b

To reate these notons to the 0-crterion et s extend the noton "0marking in the folowing way. We wil say that mar th catgo 0marks the position occpied by or a trace of /. ote that sbcategorizes a position bt 0marks both a position and a category.

This accont prespposes that the 0roe of a sbject (where it has ones determne by the of S rather than by the verba head of ths (anaogsly in the case of sbject of ). I w assme this conventonthroghot If the assmption is incorrect then the denition of"-marking wil have to be revised in an obvios way

Cleary 0-marking is closey reated to sbcategorzation. The twonotions are not identica however. Ths is

n (5) wih = S then

may 0-mark the NP sbject bt does not sbcategore it. Bt we msteqre that sbcategorzes the position , then 0marks . Were thiscondito not to hod then the deniton of "sbcategorize jst gienwod fai to captre the intended sense of ths notion. or exampe theverb hit might appear n the same sbcategorzation frame as prad,namey NP ; or it might appear in a of the form [V ] where and are cases and is an empty ; etc We therefore reqire that

sbcategozation entas 0-aking. That s al compements of a headare £-marked by the head as stated above. The soe excepton to tsreqirement is the ase of idoms In the case of the idom "take advantage of Bil for exampe no acta 8-role is assigned to advantag, thoghwe might say that the idim re that converts the phrase "take advantageo' ito a derived exical item (cf note 94) permits this derved item to 0-mark the object B

We can brng sbcategorization and 0marking together more oseyby inventng a new 0roe ca it # for nongments that ae sbcate

gorzed by heads e.g. advantag in "take advantage of Then even nidoms each sbcategorzed position s a 0-position We may nowregard e.g. advantag as a kind of argment ca it a qiargmntWe wsee n chapter 6 that thee is some ndependent jsticaton forthis mve which for the present is smply an artce. w can nowassme that withot excepton if sbcategorizes the position , then



38 Lctur on govrnmnt and binding: th Pia lctur

0-maks and 0aks a caegoy C suc ha o a ace of Coccupes e posiion

Te equiemen ha sucagoizaion entals 0-mak has sevea

conseqences. onside, fo example, a hypothetca ule oaisngobject. I the ased eemen s n a 0-posion n D-stctue, then wil be doubly 0-maked at S-sucue and at LF volating he 0-cteon.The eason s a he posion o whch moves s sucategoiz andtheefoe 0-maked. The ule is, n fact, baed on independen gouswhaeve the staus of he D-suctue posion of cf. notes 9 108

Ths equement aso esticts the vaety of lexcal enies I is mnmaly necessay ha he lexcon povide, fo each excal head, nfoman b aig o let. We umg

mimaly necessay ; that s, thee s no ndependen subcategoizaoninfomaton, except, possibly, in the case of dioms, o wth egad to thenking of 0ole and categoy (e.g., is an inntval complement an only an S? Even he latte may well be emnabe eie on geQeagounds o, a wos, n ems of edundancy ules fo e lexcon of a a-ticua language.

Recal that 0-making takes pace in the conguaon (5) whee wel as s an immedae consuen of , assumng to have appopaepopees deemned utmatey by the excon. Thee ae wo case:

(i =;()

s the subect of

In case (,

s a lexca elemen hasubcategoizes and hence 0maks ; le us say tha in ths ce, dirctly-mar o a caegoy C such hat i o is ace occupes the poson In case () if 0maks (a posion o caegoy, let us say that helexca head of indirctly -mar Dect o ndec 0-making aetheefoe popeties of lexca tems detemned by he lexco. If dectly o ndectly 0-maks { we say that l A veb, fo example,seects is complemens and also seects its subect t atcipates nsignng a 0ole o he subjec. Note agan that selects thn s

ehe a posion o a categoy C such ha C o s tace occups heposton selected by Bingng togethe these vaous bsevations, we can estate the

poecon pncple 2 1 (38) as (6:

(6 (i is an mmedate consttuent of n (5) at L> a n d = hen 0-maks n

(ii selects in as a lexca popety, hen selects in atL

(ii if

selects in aL • hen

selects n aL

jThe vaiables L> Lj ange ove what we ae consdeng houghout tobe he "syntacic leves : LF D-stuctue, S-stuctue. Case of6stpulates tat subcategozaton n the puely fomal sense entails-makng,as s equied o captue the intended sense of the pincple. In ce () is necessaly a posion, not a specc catgoy such ha o its tace




ccupies the seleced oston ; the exicon states, or exampe, hat takes a NP object n a but does not speciy that this object s, say,B ase ( expresses the basic intuition that al syntactic rresentatonsare projections o the thematic structure (hence e subcategorizationindicate in the exicon, including both direct and indirect markig. Wew give a sighty sharper formulation o ( directy, distinguishng between obligatory and optiona psitions. Case i guarantees that catego�

ries and positions must be marked in the same wy at syntacticeves ;here may be a category or a position. Given tat the criterin hods atLF, it olows rom that it must od as wel at D and Sstructure.Principe (6 subsumes 1 (, but adds to it a requirement oncerningsubjects in positions that we wi cariy direcy.

In a weldesgned theory of G, cse iii o (6 shud foow withutstipuation rom (i and ( ; that is, grammars conormng to this theoryshoud simpy not provide devics that permit (i and (ii to e satised but violated by a derivation. What thn is te status of (i and (, nowtaen to express the essentia content of the projection rincipe? It seemsmost natura to regard the pricipe as part o the denition o "wel-formed drivation given in UG. These is true othe crterion, ceary

_ clos ]y_r lat d principe.The crterion an the projection principe w pay a airy important

roe in subsequent discussion. In chapter 6 we w give a somewhat dif-ren and more precise version of the criterion, ncorporting modicatns hat w be introduced in the course of this discussion. As for theprojection principe or most of the ensuing discussion it suces to haveceay in mnd the intutive idea it is intended to express that representations at each o the three syntactic eves are projections of exicaproperties. The preceding comments sketch one way o tnk aout thisintuitive ide, but there is paiy much more to be said about the pre-cise character ad status of this princpe, which I thnk ay prove to bean important one.

In accordance ith our enera framework . 1 .( 1 , Sstructure is dervedro Dstructure by the rue Move. Actualy, a stronger prncipe isintended: Dtructure is derived rom Sstructure by abstracting from aefects of Move. hat is, Sstructure is actored into two componentsDstructure and Move. Dstrcture acks the antecedenttrace relationentirely. At Dstructure, then, each argument occupies a position andach position is occupied by an argument. In this sense, structure ia representation o role assignment though it has other properties aswell, specicaly, those that low rom

Xar theory and rom ra

meters o the base (e.g., ordeing of major constituents in a particularanguag.

Given the projecton principle in the form (6, it olows that · thebracktg indicated in ( must appear at every syntactic leve. It asofolows, as before, that the subcategorization frames at every syntactic levelmust be exactly those that appear at LF and that they correspond to



0 Lcur on gomn and binding: h Pia lcur

8marking in headomlement onstrutions, and that whenthesubjetis a 8osition at LF it aears as a 8osition at every sntati evel.

Evidently, the rojetion rinile relates losely to the rule 2. 1 .(2that requires that all lauses have sbjets at D and Sstruture, adisussed in § 2. 1 . It entails a subase of 2.1 .(25) namely, the subase inhih the subjet bears a 8role The roetion rnile, however,eaves oen the ossibty that languages may dffer as to hether on8ositions must be reresented at eah syntati leve. Thus, f the subjetosition must be led in some language, as i Engsh, ts fat is determined by the rojetion rinile where the subjet s a 8osition, butis determned by some distint rinile whether or not the subjet is a8osition this distint rinie is the bae rule 2. 1 .(25), we ave assueReal that it is the obgatory resene ofthe P subjet that must ruia-y be seied in 2.1.(25).

In short, 8theory requires that auses with ertain verb rases (e.g.,pruad John o la but not b raining or a good raon for hi rfual) must have subjets at the evel of LFreresentation. B the rojetion rinile, these auses must have subjets at D and Sstruture,either PRO, or the trae of an P, or some honetialyreed N Butas we have seen, there is omeing evidene that the subjet of a lauss obligatory in English and simar languages. The rue 2.1 .(25) embodiesthe strutura rinile

Pof § 2.1 that reues that the subjet osition

be led, a rinie that may or may not hod in a artiular anguage,we have so far assumed. But the seia ase of P that fals unde herojetion rinile holds generay, so we are now assumng. We w return n § 2. to the rojetion rinie in nonongurationa lan-gages.

What about nonausa (i.e ., nongerund) Ps, wh do not requiesubjets (e.g., 2. .(29))? Plainly, there is a fundamenta dfferene betwee and VP in that does not obgatorily 8mark even f its head is exia-y seied as an element that indirety 8marksasubjet, whereasVPdoesoblgatory 8mark f its head has ts roerty. It is nt realy aurate,then, to say, as we did a moment ago, that the rojetion rinile entailsthat subjets must e resent when the head indirety 8marks a subjetRather, we must rey on the rinile 2 1 (25) guaranteeing that lausehave subjets, to make the requred distinton. iven ts rinie, wemay interret the notion 8marking in the foowing wa: f a struturaosition that an be 8marked is obgatory, then it is obgatorily 8markedby an element that may 8mark it f suh a ositon s only otionaly e-sent, then 8marking of this ostion is orresondingly otiona, and

aly just so as to satisfy the 8riterion There are two ases of obgatoryositions: those deterned by the subategorzation frmes of lexiaitems, and subjets of lauses, as determined by rnie 2. 1 .(25). Sinesubjets must aear in S by virtue of 2.1 .(25) these subjets w nees-sarly be 8marked by the VP f it has the aroriate roerties (i.e.,those of k B or pruad Joh o la but not rain or m ha John




lf). But in NPs, the subject may or may not be present Suppose that thehead N of the NP has the property that it indirecty 8marks the subject.If an argument apears in subject position at Dstructure, then theposition is 8marked at every syntactic eve. If no subject appears atD-structure, then the position is not 8marked at any syntactic eveThis convention gives the required distinction, whie aso permttingNP-movement to the Sstructure subject position of an N, not a 8position, without vioation of the 8-criterion.

Supose that the rue 2..(33 is seected by a grammar in pace of. (25 Then S and N are not distinguished in the required way; neitherrequires an NP subject. We thus have no basis for accounting for the distinction just noted between NP and S It is therefore natural to supposethat rule 2..(33 is not an option permitted in UG, contrary to what wetentatively assumed earlier As we have seen in §2. the absence of asubject at surfae structure tes us very litte about whether the graarchooses 2..(25 or 2.(33, i.e., whether or not it requires subjects inS. Specicaly the absence of subject at surface structure might be connected to the prodrop parameter, quite different phenomenon. Pttingthese observations together let us now aopt the position that 2. .(25 isthe ony base rule analyzing S in UG (order aside I so, then the NPsubect is ust as much a requirement for S as is FL and . Apparentcases to the contrary w have to be accounted for in some other way Cf.Aoun (9c for evidence supporting rule 2..(25 in Arabic We returnto the question in the case of the Romance languages in the subsequentdiscussion particuary chapter 4.

There are certain further questions that arise in connection with theprojection principle Consider for exampe the phenomenon of restructuring either in the case of idiom rues or in oher constructions (e.g.restructuring verbs in Romance in thesense of Rizzi (97a Rouveret andVergnaud (1 9 Burzio (9 andmuchotherwork;prepositionstranding constructions if analyzed along the lines of einberg and Hornstein(197 ; etc.. Is the proection principle satised in these cases, and if so,how? There are several possible ways to deal with these questions, depending on exactly what mechanisms are adopted for restructuring. Since I wnot pursue the restructuring phenomenon in any deta here, I w leavethis question open noting merey that it must be dealt with somehow.Simiary I w not expore many other relevant questions for exampethe implications of the projection principle for suh constructions asrelative clauses (free or with heads, topicalization, disocation andothers that raise obvious and pertinent questions

The grammar must contain rules determning surface structure, 8-roeassignment and the relation between them I have been assumng that thisrelation is mediated by S-structure Surface structure is (in art an impoverished form of Sstructure, as the exampes given above indicate.S-structure is mapped onto LF in a fairly direct manner given the projection principe. The problem of relating surface structure to 8role assign-



ectures on ovement and bindin the isa ectures

men thus educes to the pblem f elatng stuctue to 0ole assgnent n essence

• Fo te ealest wo n generate gaa n tadtonal

ma t has been assumed that wh! aocalng "0ole s detened pat by a epsentaton n tes o gammac functons (GFssuchs sjectof objto and so o hee GFs e detemined tem fsntactc cnguatons fo eta types of angues (conguatonlanguages) and by other propertes wher synactc conguatons d notufce In the Sstuctue underlyng the sufce stucture () foexaple they s the subject of the sentence and ohn s the ojec of thve phrase kied ohn:

() () [[they ] INFL [ V[vkill

ohn JJ() they killed John

Folwng a faiar practce et us use the notaton "[S ] to expssthe GF "subjectofS and he notaton "[ o expess the F"objectofVP. Thus they n () beas the gammatcal eaton []to the sentence () and has th GF [ o() Pacua exical propetes of the verb kiassgn to ts object a secc 0ole thus 0marksthe oject pston nalogousy poperties of the n () reque that

ts 0mak the subject of ).In more compex stucte such as (8), representatns t vaouses may incude more tn ne occurence of a paticua categoy:

(8) John was beieved t have been killed

In such cases I distngush occurenes by indexing S h S etcI use the noaon " [PS 1J to epess the GF [S fS 1> e subject of S 1 ; and so n

ven the projecon pincipe and othe poperties of syntactc epresentaton the Sstuture of (8) wll be somethng ike 9):

(9) [ [ ohn INFL [ V be [ a beieve [s2 t IFL have been[a 2kt

We tun to the tats of each tace s a trace of John Thus John is[,1 t s [NPS an is [NP n Sstuctue (where s omthng ike VP)

Note that the basc propeties of the epresentaton (9) are determedby the pjecton pincple since beieve tkes a csal compement aeXica popery It remans to sho that the empy cteoy in (9) s indeedtre not PRO assming the two to be dstnct

W e now asung folowing stanad practce that factorsener nto the etermnaton of 0e intrinsc exica poperti oflexicaliems wh are heds of phrase caegoies (as h verb s the head of)



Subsystems of core rammar 43

and GFs such as subject, object, causa compement, head, etc. To assign0-oles poel in the sentences ), (8, for example we must now thatthey is NP,S] in i), underying ii), that John is J in ) and thatits trace s J in 9), that is V,VP] in ) a specia case of themore general notion "head) and is head of n (9) etc We have beenassumng that Sstructures are formed from Dstructures by the rue Move and are thus n effect factored into two components: the base and etransformationa component . On this assumption, Dstucture is a levelof representation at which the GFs relevant to assignment of 0-roe andonly hese have arguments earing them henceforth, et us refer to sucha GF as a G0 This is the case trivily in ), and it is ue as wel for (8,(9) on the assumption that John appears in the position of t in the D-stucture underlying (9) and is moved successively to the position of and thento its S-structure postionTo summarie: a proerty of D-structure, foowing from the projectionprincipe, is hat every 0role determned oblgatorly the D-structuremust be ed by some argument with the apropriate GF, and thateach argument ust exacty one 0-role as determned by its GF.In the Dstructures underying ) and (8, for exampe, each s onerole and each 0roe is properly ed by an N with the appropriateGF0. Thus, Dstructure is a direct representation of GF0, among otherproperties We may thn of ths property as constitutng the 0-criteriofor Dstructures, as determined by the projectio principleIt is clear ha apart from GF0 represented at D-stucture, otherGFs are also relevant to LF. In the sentence (9) e trace of Johnbearsthe relation object to the abstract predicate k t just as John bears thisrelation to John in ), but John in (9) bears the relation 1J to thesentence (9) itsef. Each of these GF plays a roe in determning properties of LF. The former determines the 0roe ofJohn as patient r theme.To ilustrate the contribution of the ater to LF, consider the sentences10):

10) i) it seems to each other that they are happyii) they seem to each other to be happy

Lexica properties of seem indicate that i taes an optiona phrase anda clausal compement, so by the projection principe and the 0criterion,the D-structure of both sentences of 10) must be 11) oder aside):

11) NP INFL seem] to each other] they INFL be

happy]]]

where IFL in is nite +Tense) n i) and innitiv&l Tense])in 1ii nd is an empty NP assigned no 0-roe and utimatey ledby peonastc it or the subject of the embedded cause In both sentences,the 0-role of they is subject of the predicate be-happy as determned by the



eures on overnment and bndn the Psa ectures

GF of they as [NP,S] in (11) Bu in (lii, they can serve as aneceenfor the reciprocal each other whereas in (li it cannot, soat theatesentence is ungrammatic with an anaphor lacking an anteceen. Th

reason obviously, is that in (lii but not li they takes on a seconaryGF: [NP,S ] aongsie of [NP,S] Each of these GFs thus contrbut oF. There are many other kins of exampes ilustrating the conrbuionof such seconary non-thematic GFs to LF; for exampe, in any languages, subjects (whether thematic or not an ony sujects serve anteceents for the reexive element

It seems, then that we have two notions of GF relevant to LF: G-8 aGF, where the former is the notion reeant to assigning 8ro a teatter is reevant to LF (if at a only in other ways. GF-8 s reprsente at

D-structure; GF- at Sstructure As note earier he basic questionofhow surface structures are reate to LF reuces to the question of thereatons of S-structure to 8role assignment. In substantial par, ths ishequestion of how GF8 representations are reate to GF- representaionI hae been assung so far that the answer is given by the factorng ofS-structure into the two components that generate it: D-structure nMove- Of course, the rule Move- perfors a range of other functions inthe grammar: it may appear in the PF- an LF-components: an in thesyntax, apart from associating GF-8 an GF it aso serves to reate te

quasi-quantier in a phrase to the abstrac varabe t bns (as n (12))to express the fact that in (1) the subject of the preicate s here is theabstract phrase a man whom yu know an that n (14) an iomatic nterpretaton must be constructe invovng take advantae o aong with muchelse:

(12) ( who i you thnk woul win(ii for which person you thought [xwoul wn]

(1) a man s here whom you know

(14) avantage was believe to have been taken of JohnOne central assumpton of transformatona gramar, aopte here, sthat the rules playing the essentia role n assgnng GF-8 to elements ofsurface form are rules of the same kn that serve many other functons ingrammar nee, the very same rule: Move- rather than beng rules ofsome new an stnct type, an mportant generaizaton correct, as Ithnk t is.

In the case of sentence (9), we were le by he projecton prncpe to

assume that the rue Move- appies twce, leaving the two traces t ant successivey The origina poston of John inicate by is relevant toLF by vrue of the GF-8 that t ls an the nal S-structure position ofthe nteceent of race may aso be relevant, as shown n (10). The GF-lle by mea traces such as t n (9) may aso be reevant to LF; forexample n the sentence 1), wth a D-structure anaogous to (1) wherethe mea trace serves as the anteceent of each other whch requres an




anteceent in the same cause in such cases in accorance with biningteory:

(15 they e ikely t to appear to each other t to be happy]]

To put it ferenty, they in (15) seres as anteceent of ea other va itstrace, though it is neither the D-structure nor the S-structure subject of theclause in which each other appears, an thus s not in a postion to serve asanteeent in either of these structures

Note that there is a goo sense in whch S-structure repesents bothGF-0 an GF In (9) for exampe, the anteceent John bears the GF[NP,SJ by virtue of its actua position in (9), an bears the reationsNP,S an [NP, by vrtue of th positions of ts traces t' t respectively Suppose we associate with each NP in S-structure sequence , , whch, in an obvious sense, represents the ervationa hstoryof this NP by successive appcations of Move-; thusp is e position ofthe NP tself; is the position (e by a trace from whch it was moveto its na position; etc, p being the position ( e by a trace occupieby the NP in Dstructure Corresponingly, let us associate with each NPin S-structure the sequence of GFs (GF , , GF , where GF is theGFof the element ling position p in the S-structure conguraton: the NPitsef for 1 , a trace in each other case IfNP was base-generate, thenGF is its GF at D-structure, a GF0 IfNP is a non-argument inserte inthe course of a syntactic erivation, then GF s the GF associate withthe postion in whch it is inserte, a GF- Let us ca (GF h , GF the"function chain of the NP ing GF

I have ene the function chan in terms of successive appcations ofMve-, but it can in fact be recovere from S-structure tsef, gven otherproperties of syntactic representations ; this s a basic assuption of theExtene Stanar Theory ST as represente in 21(1), wit no irectconnection between D-structure an LF We may therefore thnk ofS-structure as an enriche D-structure incorporating the contributionof D-structure to LF, thinking stil of D-structure an the rle Move asthe to components that interact to yiel the fu S-structure, Dstructurebeing a epresentation of GF0 etermne by abstracting from the effectsof Move-

Returning to exampe (9) John is assgne the functo chain (GF hGF F, where GF s [NP,S anGF is [NP, Thusacquiresthe 0-role assigne by k to its object, an is the S-structure subject of thefu sentence ; no 0-role is assigne to the atter positon, whch can thereore be e by iiom chunks, as in (4), or by non-argumets, as in (6):

(6) it was beeve that Joh was ke

Suppose that NP has the function chain (GF , , GF in some Sstructure Then we have the foowing consequences of the 0crterion an



46 ectures on ovement and bindin the Pisa ecture

te prection principle:

(7 (i if P is an argument then GFn is a GF-0

(i for i n GF s a GF-The proection pinciple yels (i ect since it mpes tha the 0-cierion hols a Dstrucure, where each chai is of length one For agu men , (7i foows irectly from ( 7i by he 0-crierion for if GF isa GF-0 hen he wl be obly 0-marke Ifis a non-argumen (7iihs by virue of he 0-criterion, for if GF is a GF-0 then his on-argumen wl be assigne a 0-roe by GF We reurn o some concreeexampes in § § 26, 323 ·

Uner a revision of the noion of 0roe assignment ha we will aopin chaper 3, ths erivain of (7ii from (7i n onger goes hrough forhe case of an argumen Bu we can reach the same concusion in aghty more iniect way, whch wl stan uner ae revisions SupposeG to be a G0 for n Then by the proection principe i is assignean argumen at D-structure, an ths argument is "erase by appcationof Move to hs position Bu an reasonable version of he principe orcoverabiiy of eetion wi require tha arguments canno be erase bysubstiuion ; in fac the arge of movement can ony be eJ acking an

inex a non-argument Hence (7i foows from he proection principlean he principle of recoverbiliy oeetioI foows tha movemen must aways be o a position o whch no 0-roe

is assigne; an apart from iiom chunks an oher expressions tha aret "referentia in the appropriae sense an hus o not serve as argments movemen mus be iniiay from a position in D-structure to whcha (genuine 0-roe is assigne Agin, Dstructure serves as a representationo 0roe assignment nte aa For example, since a 0-role is assigneobigatoriy to he compements of a verb in its verb phrase, here can e

no movemen o a posiion witn Bu since the posiion o subect,whch is no subcaegorize by he verb of, may ack a 0roe, as in theexampes 9, , (14, here can be moveme fro obec or suec subec, though no o the posiion of a subec assgne a -role y s These are genera propertes of the rue Move-, or of ts counerpar innon-conguraiona anguages o wch we return in § 2

In § 24, we wl conser he question of choosing beween the versonof EST expresse n 2 1 (1 an an aernatve heory ha replacesherueMove- by a new cass of nterpretive rules wh the same propertes as

Move-, mappng S-structure o The ifferences beween thesevariants is quie subtle an may urn ou (as suggese in heremarksin Chomsky (1977a quoe n chaper 1 above, tha hey wi utimaeybe shown to reuce to the same theory a he appropriae eve o abstraction We have evence in favor of the varan that assumes the exisenceof D-structure an he rue Move, as 21 (or some mere noatonavarant of whenever we can show tha some empirica argument rees




n a propery of an independen level o D-srucure. As we have us seen,he principles (17 rely on such a propery ; namely, he propery a he&crierion b saised a D-srucure n § 2.6 we will see ha he principles(17 hae direc empirical consequences cf 26(35)(37)). herefore, wehave an empirical argumen supporing 21(1 over an aernaive hainvokes a new inerpreive rule of he LF componen in place of hesynacic ule Move-, elaing wo levels of synacic rresenaion.Oh examples of a simlar sor will appear as we proceed

seems o me ha he weigh of evidence suppors 2 1 ( 1 over heleaive us menioned bu i wil be observed ha he argumens supporing hs conclusion are hghly heory-inernal. Of course, agumensare heory-inernal, bu here are imporan differences of degree Thus,

he behavior of non-argumens provides quie direc evidce ha hesubec posiion is obligaory in synacic represenaion in English, andhe disincion beween S and NPwih regard o obligaoriness of 8-markedsubecs provides indirec evidence, more heorybound, ha he same isrue quie generally. is ineviable ha empirical argumens bearing onhe choice beween heories ha are very close in concual srucur, asin he case we are now considering, wil be hghy eryiernal To heexen ha quesions of hs sor can be raised a and confroned wihevidence, we have indicaion of progress in heoreical undersanding

The GFs discussed in he preceding remarks are hose ha belong ohe hemaic complex associaed wih he head of a consrucion, in hesense of Rouvere and Vergnaud (19 namely, subec-of-S and complemens ofX (X = N, V, A, P. Te posiions in whch hese GFs are assignedare someimes called "argumen posiions (cf noe 12, bu since amusing he erm "argumen in a slighly differen way, will avoid hsermnology referring o hem aher as "A-posiions and o he GFsdeermined in hem as "AGFs An A-posiion is one i which an argumen such as a name or a variable may appear in D-srucure; i is a poen

ial 8osiion The posiion of subec may or may no be a 8posiion,depending on properies of he associaed Complemens oX are awas &-posiions, wih he possible excepion of i<ioms. n addiion, havemenioned he GF "head of , no a 8-posiion, obviusly Anoher nonA-posiion (-posiion is ha of an adunc of one sor or anoher

Consier, for example, -movemen, whch we may assume o beaduncin o COMP in he sense of OB (Chomsky, 19a he funcion\chain (G GF) produced by a single applicaion of movemen con-ains GF• necessarily an A-GF, and GF a non-A-GF (GF ha we

may denoe "adunc of COMP Assume ha here are wo ypes of movemen rules: subsiuion and aduncion, he laer always forming a srucure of he form [ { or [ { , where is adoined o { by Move-.Then he only GFs are heads, complemens, aduncs and subec Aprinciled approach o he heory of GFs, which w no underake herewill begin by dening such genera noions as "head ec., hen deningparicular GFs in erms of hem Cf Chomsky (1955 for an ouline of such



48 ectures on ovement and bindin the Pisa ectures

a heor In such a heor we should also express he ac ha ] ishe GF direc obec heher is V or an ha [N N and{P S] bh express h F subc

Noe ha he noaion oes no suce or he case in which ore anone er o caegor appears as a copleen as in double-N consruions -- (ive-John-a book). In his case le us sipl use he naion [ ] [N ] (priar and second obec siilarl inoher cases s in he ouline o-hor I a oiing dscussion o anoher relevan quesions eg he saus o predicae noials opicsheads o relaives Noe also an abigui o he noaion in he case oaduncs hus he noaion [N does o disinguish beeen(18i d (18ii he orer being a case o aduncion h laer rec

obec(18 (i { V N

(ii [ y V ]

he prble can easil be resolved b eans a ore careul developen o heor and noaions in ers o heads copleens and aduncsNo probles arise wihin he resiced class o consrucions ha I be considering here so I wil sipl pu hese aers aside or considera

ion elsewhere.In §8 I wil urn o he quesion o how ese noion can be appropriael generalized o aguages in which GFs are no represenedconguraional as e are in Egish

2.3. e teoria component nd the heies of case and ovement

uber o assupions have been ade in he oregoing discussionabou he caegorial coponen o he bas Le us now review and exend

hese soewha ssue ha he rules o he caegorial coponen eehe condiins o soe vrsion o X-bar heor Spcical e us assuea varian basd on wo caegories o radiional graar subsanive([ +N] including nouns and adecives and predicae ([+ V) nludingverbs and adecives. Le us reer o subsanives and predicaes as hlexical caegories" So we have a sse based on e eaures ±N ][ ±V] where [ +N V] is noun N +] is verb [ +N V] is adecive an [ V J is preposion he rs hree eng lexical caegrieshe basic rue or lexical caegories is (1 where s ed or lexical

caegories in he unarked case

( X � (X [+ N, ±V] or [ + V ±])

ha is I a assuing ha in he unarked case nouns vebs nd adecives have he sae copleen srucures hus (i and (ii have hesae or in he base apar ro lexical conen, as do (3i and (3i and



ubsystes of core raar 49

I assume tha (4ii s derved from (4i, a "transtve adjective, by thesame rule of nseon tha gves he surface fos of (2) (3), sohat adjectives have close to the ful range of verba and nona comple

men sctues:(2) ( desoy he ciy

(i destruto of the cty(3) (i write he ook

() writer (author of the book(4 (i proud John

(ii prod of John

Of course, in surface structure, verba constuctions dfer fom nonaand adjectival constructions in form I assume that the easons deivefrom Case theory The crucia ide is that evey noun with a phonetcmatrx must have Case; ie we assume the principle (5):

(5) * N ] where ncludes a phonetic marx, N has no Ce

Assuming that Case is assigned to NPs by vtue of the congurations inwhch they appea and percolates o heir heads, (5) folows from the

se Fter (6) which I w assume o be a lte in the PF-component:(6) *NP NP has ponetic content and has no Ce

Only the empy catgoies trace and PRO may escape he Ce Fterappeaing with no Case

No a the Case Filter (6) is soewha moe genera than (5) since itholds also fo Ns that have no lexcl N as head for exale, geunds oclauses ( ese are NPs Thus in positions in which no Case is signed,say the subject of an innitive in he unmarked case, nether geunds noNPs wih lexcal heads an appear, ustrated n (7) where s he traceof who:

(7) (i * it is unclear s who N reading books ] to nterest t]](ii *i is unclear s who N John ] to vsit ]]

In the embedded subject position of (7), we may only have an empty categoy, eher trace or PRO by vitue of the Case Fter other consderaionsto hich we etun restrict te choice to PRO Note that the Ce Feives a parial answer o the queson raised earlier of where PRO may omust appear snce it excludes categories with phonetic content from suchpositions as embedded subject of (7) The Case Fter s much wder napplcato, however cf OB

In Engls only the - NJ categories verb and preposition are Caseassgners In OB, i is assumed tha verbs assgn objective Case and tha



5 ectures n vement and bindin: the isa ectues

prepositions asign obque Case aart from marke properties Let stentatey assume followng suggeston of Kaye's hat n Engsh bothverbs an repostions assgn objectve ase the rcher Case systems hav

ing been ost (cf. § 5 .2. Furthermore nomnative Case is sgne to hesubect of a tense sentence an genitve Case is assgne in the context[ X], as n "Johns book "hs reang the book' ' In othe anguagescategores other than [N] are Caseassigners an there are other Casesan other conitons uner which Case is assigne a matter to which weetrn in § .2.2 thogh not n any compehensve way

Case-assignment is cosey reate to govenment a cucial notion owhch we wll retun n chapter 3 Nomaly Case s assigne to an bya category that govens t s fo the notion "government fo t momet

et us smpy assumethatthepotentiagovenors ae the categoes[ ±N ±Van INFL that a cateoy govens ts complements in a constuction ofwhch t is the hea (eg. V govens ts complements in , etc an thatINFL governs the sentence subject when it is tense To illustrate con-se the exampe (8):

(8) John [ F [+Tense]] [ [ think] [s that [ s he [IFL + Tense ]] leave] [ Phis book] [ on ] the tabl]]]]]]("John thought tht he left hs book on the table

The mat veb thinkgoves ts complement S but not any element (e.g.he) insie S The embee verb governs ts complements his bk ann the tabe but oes not goven any eement (e.g. his or the tabe) wtnthese categores. Thus, his bk an bkeceve obectve Case (the ateby pecolaton. The two occurences of INFL govern hnan he asgnng them nomnatve Case The peoston n govens an assgs objectve Case to ts complement the tabe The genitive ule assigns genitveCase to the ungovere element his

Returnng to (7, the embee subjects ae ungovee a thereforereceve no Case. Some languages have mare ules that permt Case tobe assigne to the subject of an nntve n such stuctures. 5 I notpsue these an other such topcs hee though they rase many nteestngquestons

Let us now etun to the examples (2)(4) Snce only the [N categoies veb an pepostion are Case-assgners t folows that in the complement . . . ofX n (1) Casewillnotbeassgne byXfrX [ N] Then thelanguage equres some other evce t is to allo these complemetstuctes to surface ne evce typcal of Engsh-ke langages thatuse pepostons instea of inectonal Case systems s to nset an emptypeposton evo of semantc contet as a kin o Case-maker o permtnominal complements as n (2i (3), (4) Thus we have the ule (9:

(9 [ of] NP n env. [ + N




We eave open he exac foruaion ofhis rue (e.g., does i adjoin oNP foring ofNP]? (cf note 2lM. Anderson (1977 shos ha assuin insertion, he rue Move(under consrains ha she discussesil then yield such expressions as the citys destruction fro destructionthe city bu no, say, Johns fro to Johnor Johns beieftobe afoofro beief John to be a foo (cf. John is beieved to be a foo) see asoFengo (1979 Kayne (19b. Thus, henonacorrespondingo (2i cansurface in oe of to fors: as (i) ih insertion, or under Move-foloed by genitive aseassignen n either case, he Case Fer issaised, but one or he other opion ust be taken or the ter is vioated 26

Such exapes as (24 raise soe echnica quesons concerning theprojecion principe At Dsructure, dstruction (or, perhaps, is headdestroy) subcategories and 8-arks he NP objec the city in (2i. f the

projection principle is vaid, ths ust aso be true a S-strucure and LFThere is no probe he oinserton rule s an adjuncion rule orngthe NP P of], as in one of the options e have jus considered, or he phrase is basegeneraed as a PP (cf. note 21 f he insertionrule creates a PP, hoever e us coninue o hold ha destruction subcatgorizes its NP objec at Ssrucure and LF. Noe tha s another possibility oud be to assue hat the insertion rue ors a neurizedNPPP o he for V] , in hch case, again, no probe arises and hiscategory il share properies of boh NP and PP. Lite sees to be a

stake beyond ernology, so I ll drop he aer.The exaples (24 shed soe ligh on he reations aong he noions

"subcaegorZe, "-ark, "govern and "Caseassign. Generalyhesecoincie, but no aays;e have aready noed he possible dissociaionf subcaegorization and 8-arking (cf 22 In such exapes as (2i,he NP te city is subcaegorized by destructionor is verba head, 8arkedby ths eeen, governe by te insert preposiion o and assignedCase by o As he exape indicaes, governent raher than subcaegorzaion is he reevan notion for Caseassignen in hs case, a S

srucure. Bu governent is aso he reevan notion for subcategorizaionn -strucure in case (2i, and generaly Thus the heories of subcaegoraion, 8-arkng and Case a fal ithn he genera heory of governen at least n teir essentas

There has been uch recent discussion of furher projecions of hebasic categories o hgher bar sructures. I no enter into hese issuesere, bu il ipy assue ha here are ia projections ih theappropriae nuber of bars for each caegory i use he noaionXfoX th i bars, and i coninue o use NP for he ia projecion of

+ N, V] AP for he axial projecion of + N, + V] and PP or heaxia projection of [ N, V].One debated quesion s hether the S, S syse shoud be regarded

as a projecton of V, h verbs taken o be heads of clauses, or heher hisis a separae syste, perhaps ith NFL as head I i assue here tha heS, S syse s separate and i use he sybo for the ia projec-



52 ectures on oement and bindin: the Pisa ectures

tion of V, a constituent of S. Some considerations bearing on this decisionwil arise ater on

I hae been assuming the expansion (1)for S in Engsh (cf. § 2.1)

(1) S NP INFL

The inectiona" eement INFL may, in turn be [±Tense] i.e, nite(+ Tense] ) o inniti ([ Tense]). If nite it wi, furthermore, haethe features person gende and numbe; ca this complex AGR (agreement". The element AGR is basicay non in chaacte; we mightconside it to be identica with PRO and thus to hae the features + N V ]. If so then we may eise the theory of goernment, tkngAGR to be the goerning eement which assigns Case in IFL. Since

[ + N V is not generally a Caseassigner, we must extend the theoryof Case so that [ +N, V + IFL] is a Caseassigner along with Negading [ + IFL] as basicay erba," if we take AGR to be nomna.INFL goerns he subject it contains AGR, then assigning nominatieCase by itue of the featue [ IFL. It now ollows that the onlygoenos ae categories of the form X in the Xbar system (whereX = ±N, ±VJ). Subjects are nominatie when they agee with the matrixeb technicay with its inection. In some languages, e.g. Portuguese,AGR may also appear with innities and the subect is indeed nomina

tie in this case. The question of whether it is AGR o [ + Tense] (or pehaps some othe poperty eithe a conguationa poperty or oneinoling featues of the erb) that goerns and assigns nonatie Cases an impotant one with many consequences. e eturn to this topic.

Aodng questions of markedness, let us assume that IFL may in principe be the collection of features [±Tense] , (AGR)]. 28 In sufacestructure IFL may appear phonetcay as part of a erb fsystem,but I wi assume here that in Sstructure the repeentation is as in (1)If the Sba system is a separate system it ght be regaded as a projec

tion of IFL.Let me stress again that many important questions are begged or simpy

omitted in the preceding account, some of whichbe considered moredetai below. I pesent these assumptions here as a concete basis on whichto proceed, pending later modications.

I hae also been assung that there is a rule (11) introducing S, whereCOM may be the specier of or perhaps as some hae argued, the headof

( 1 1 ) COM S

hat about the structue of COM? I hae been asung lagely as amatter of execution a theoy such as that of OB and earer wok that ostulates two positions in COM, one that may be e with a pase orothe category (e.g PRO) that has been moed to M, and one that is



Subsystems of core rmmar 53

±WH ] where - WH J = that (and analogues in other languages) and ] is the abstrat element that appears in diret or indret questionsand might be base-generated with exia ontent in the ase of suhelements as whether. n Engsh there is aso the ompementizer for in

innitivals. 2 So we have something ke (12) whereX is a pase movedto COM (f. 21.(20)):

(12)coX I

±WH ] l ]for

The order is not very well-motivated empirialy. f (12) is adopted wemight think of it as arising from a rule of aduntion to CO M as suggested

in OB giving the more detaed struture (3) for COM:

(13) I WH l CO X CO

JJfor

f we now assume that -ommand is a neessary requirement for the anteedent-trae relation it foows that the interna COM must be deletedf a -phrase is moved to CO. Thus the doubyled COM ter of

homsky and Lasnik (1977) foos wiout stipulation as noted b LuigiRizzi. What of languages tha appar to have doublyed COM? woud now be neessary to assme that the overt omplementizer is not inCOP but rather in a re-S osition within S as suggested Reinhart(1979b) here a theory of bonding is developed in ese terms. Furtheronsequenes of these ideas are deveoped by Rizzi in work in progress. 0

In the theory outned in Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) there was goodreason to suppose that the ase in COMwas sbet to aruleofreedeeion in CO M applying to andfoas we. The latter rue as ose

y onneted to he * toV J lter whih is now largely eminated interms of the Case Fter folowing a suggestion by J -R. Vergnaud. In theOB theory it as proposed tha the -pase in innitives is deleted upto reoverabity aong nes sggested by Kayne for Frenh and it wasobsered that one might eminate the residue of the * [toV] terin this way. · This aproah has onsequenes with regard to the rue offree deetion in COM; namey the motivation for it is weakened onethere is a fferent soure for the deetion of phrases in innitivas.We might therefore turn to a dfferent approah to thestruture ofCOM

that was unaeptabe in the ramework of Chomsky and Lasnik (977)but is ompatibe with the OB pproah namely that te rue that expandsCOM is optional; it does not apply then COM w simply a aomplementizer in delaratives. This has the effet of free deetion ofhat and for. There are many onsequenes to this assumption amongthem weakening of the motivation for taking -phrases to be in COM. 33



54 ectures on oement and bindin the Pisa ectures

I wll tetavely adopt the ssmpto that the re expag CO sopal cg assme tha -moveme s o CO hsesed clases may ve that or compleezer -srt a

tves may have or no coplementer We now have d for arle of eleton n OMP apa from he -phras of relves (thea(who) yo saw) some resdal problems concerng/ Egls a trace of -phrases COMP As for the rst of these assme ths to be amarked property of Eglsh perhaps governed by a ler as olne Chomsky and asnk (977) or n the dfferent maer develped Pesesky (978b) We rer o the oher cases

Ths approach to COMP bears on he formlaton of selectoal restrtons bewee max verbs ad embedded clases There are evenly

relatons between COMP ad INF (tha-tee forto) and marx versdffer wth regard to he compeents they take (dclarave or eogtve te o nval) COMP may be empy we mgh pem dretelaons beween max vebs and INF of the embedded clase weethe veb a�cepts oe bt not the othe of [±Tense ts clasal coplement presmably a maked popey Agan ths pehaps sggests thkng ofNF as the head ofS

In dscssg passves I let ope he qeston of he category to chte passve pse belogs To ake the mp les case cnsde he expes

son (4) wth he S-stctre (5) and the D-sce (16) whee * sa fom of t s he ace ofJohn, and [ NPeJ s a basegeea emptcategoy:

(4) Joh was [ klled](5) Joh INF be [ kll* t](6) [ NP e] INF be [ ll * John]

These ecall ae the S- and D-stctes ed by the -cteoad the pojecton pcple What s the op coce of n these sctes?Sce the sentence s copla sce t s easoable oassmethat = AP n John s sad Ths cocls s ppopate fopassve patcples tha ae geeated the lexco eg the "passvessch s untauht, unettered, uneduted etc Bt he case f syaccpassves sch as (4) s dffeent In some constctons tht allw ssyntactc passves are excded and sytactc passvs apper someveba constctons that do not pemt adjectves eg ( 8)

(7)(8)

oh seems od (sad ed tobled ntaht *taght by B*beeved o be a fool *ked) ohn had Bl leave (kled tagh Fech *sad *tobed*taght)

These and smla facts ndcae that syntactc passve patcples dffe some espect fom the excal contepats (whch ae sometmes homo-



Subytem of core rammar 55

ponous : tired coed frihtened etc.). e minima assumptio is tattey diffe in one featue. A natua decision woud e tat syntactic passive paticipes ae not adjectives ( [+ N, + V ]) ut ate neuted ve

adjectives wit te featue stuctue [ + ]. en in ()6) wi e[+ V] e popety of eem in (7) is tat it equies adjectiv compements as distinct fom be wc takes [ + V] compements. And te popety of ave in (8) is tat it jets N] compemen, pemittng[ + J ut not [ + N + V] us syntactic passive paticies ae soetimes teated as adjectiva and sometimes as ve. te case of sucfoms asfrihtenedw appea in ot (7) nd (8) we teefo expec,and nd amiguity, depending on wete e patcie is exicay geneated o a syntactic pasive e et to passies in § 2. noting tat

te usteing of popeties f exic and syntctic pasives foowsdiecty: passies tat us e exic y itue of tei mopogy (e.unpassivs, o psives it ote pexes suc as puo emi- etc.)ave one compex of popeties, wie te synactc passives ave a diffent compx, and some amiguousy ave ot compexes. No tat sdiscussion eves open te question of ow * appeas o is genet in(5), (16) e assume ee ony tat it as te categoi fate [ V] ;te mopoogica sape may e detemin y Afmvement a xicau o a opoogica ue of te PFcomponent e iffeences ae ofsome inteest, and ave een muc discussed, ut wi not pusue ematte ee

2.4 Empty cateorie

24. Trace and PROSo fa, we ave simpy stipuated tat e emty categoies tace andPR ae distinct. et us now tun to a cose exainatio o ts question,inquiing into te popeties of tese eements and moe gene, int tepopeties of te ue Move i.e. e popeties o te antecedenttaeation as compaed to tose of ote ues eating antecedents andanapos wat ae oen caed ues of constu

e question of te natue of empty categoes is a pacuay nteesting one fo a nume of easons In te st pace, te study of suceemnts aong wit te eated investigaion of anapos and ponunsas poven to e an exceent poe fo dtemnig opeties f syntactic and semantic epesentations and te ues tat fom tem Bt apatfo ts, tee s an nnsc fascination n te study of popetes ofempt eements ese popeties can ady e detemined inductivey

fom oseved ovet penomena, and teefoe pesumay eeinneesouces of te mind I ou goa is to dscove te natue of te umanangage · facuty, astacting fm te effects of expeience, en teseeements offe paticuay vuae insigts.

e exampes discussed so fa invove te ponoin eement PRand tee types of antecedent-tac eaion, wic we may identify y te



56 ecture on ovement and bindin the Pisa ectures

descrpive erms in (1)

(1) () John seems (o us) o e ice cream] (N-movemen)

() John nows wha we ie ] (movemen-o-CO)() a man ] was hre who John nows] (exaposiion)

Each of hese descrpve caegores includes a range of possblies,whch we will llusrae as we proceed In case (), he aneceden is anNP wih a G n case (), i is a phrase ere, a -phrase) in CO ncase (i), i s a phrase (here, a relaive clause) adoined o . 39

One property of he rule Move, illusraed by hese examples, is hahe aneceden is no in a 0posiion. hs fac follws fo e and he proecio prncpe, as we have seen n § 22 In case (i), he aneceden John is in an A-posion bu one ha s no a 0-posion, and n ()and () i s cea ha he posion of he aneceden (what who ohnknows especvely) is one ha s assigned no 0-role.

A second general propery of he rule Move s ha it observes thesubjaceny conditon and hus falls under the theory of bounding 1(2i).A third property, still moe theory-dependent, is tha he trace mus begoverned in some sense, a matter to which we will return in chapter andha we wll smpy assume now Summarzng, we have he folowng propertes of tace

(2) (i) trace s governed(i) the antecedent of trace s no in a 0-position() the antecedentace elaon saises he subacency con

dtion

PRO lacs al of these popertes i s ungoverned ts antecedenifere s one) hs an ndendent 0-roe, as does PRO the anecedenPROeaon (whee PRO has an aneceden) need no satsfy he subaency

condton uthemoe, PRO need have no aneceden, as n (3, heace always has an aneceden

(3 t s unclea wha PRO o do ]

In (3, he ace is govened by he verbdo(sasfyng (2)) we PR s ungoverned he anteceden of he tace (what) s assgned no 0-ole (sasfyng (2i)) he PRO acing an anecedent ths case, has an ndendent0role and the antecedent-trace relaon (what-t) sases subjacency (condton (2)) he same poperties ae illusaed if e replace the matrxit i uncear n (3 by tod aked you

() () I od you wha PRO o feed yourself ( mysef) J() I ased you what PRO to feed myself (yourself) J

he heory of cono deemines e choce of aneceden fo PRO n (),



Subsystems of core grammar 57

dffeely i he wo cses, s we see o he choce o eexve hPRO s ecede ech cse, he ecede s depede -ole, s does PRO, hogh what he ecede of ce, hs oe.

e wl odf hese obsevios sighy s we poceed, b hey eclose eogh o cce so h we c ccep he ow very goods ppoxio, d deqe bss fo explog he popeies ofhe epy cegoies.

h ecede-PRO elos (elios of cool, oe sbcse ofelios of cos) y vole he sbjcecy codio s lsed (5), whee he bckes e bodig cegoes (NP d clse)

(5) () Joh hks [h wl be dfcl [PRO o feed hself]]

( ) J h h k [ h [PRO o feed hiself] } l b df J o s [PROfeednghimself] w e cu t

() y ep [PRO o help hiself]] be dfcl fo JohOhe elos of cos y lso vole sbjcecy, s lsed byhe ecede-pho elio (6) d ohe oe coplex expleso whch we will e i chpe 3

(6) (i) hey hk h ces of ech oher] wl be o se](i) hey expeced [h [ech ohe's pices] wold be o se]

Spose h we replce thn by seems (5), gvg (7)

() Joh sees [h i will be dfcl o feed hiself]]

() J h [ h [ o feed hiself] } l b df J o sees [ f ed hi f·] w e c e g se

he seece (7), he ecede s poso lckig -role (cf. (8))

so h he epy cegory s be ce, o PRO(8) i sees h Joh feeds hself

B he ce (7), whe ssfyig codo (2), violes codios(2) d (2). he re s govered (vog (2)) d he ecederce relo does o ssfy sbjcecy (vog (2)). heefoheexples re grcl.

Coprso of (5) d (7) ilsres he cosg behvo of PRO

d rce Expe (7) so sres e fc h codio (2) does osfce o chrcerize he re Move-, ie , he ecede-rce reioEihe (2) o (2) s e ssed for he rle o be ppicbe (7)whie (2) s ssed, boh (2) d (2) re voed, so he seeces egrc. fc, (2) d (2) s ech be ssed for he rleMove- o be ppicbe e s ow look o hs qeso.

Noe h (2) eed o be spled i folows fo he -ceo d



8 ectures on ovement and bndn the sa ectures

e projecion rinile as e have seen uppose ha (2i) holds in addi�ion o • onsider he se o exapes (9)

(9) (i) i is cerain

ha John kes ice crea]() John is cerain

o ike ice crea ]

(iii) i sees [ha Jon ikes ice crea (iv) John sees [ o ike ice crea ](v) i sees [ha i is cerain [ha John ikes ice crea ]](vi) i sees [ha John is cerain [ o ike ice crea](v) ohn sees ha i is cerain o ike ice crea]

(9i) e see ha s certan assigns no 0role is subjec so ha

(9i) saises propery (2). Since (9ii) aso saises (2i) (assuing hacertan governs he race as does seems in (9iv) or rasons o hich ereurn) and (2iii) he senence is graaica. he sae is rue o (9iiiiv).Exaple (9v) lusraes again he ac ha he subjs seem and be certan are no 0posiions so a (9vi) saises propery i). I aso sass2i) and (2ii) and is hereore graaica urning o (9vi) he racesaises (2i) and is aneceden is no in a 0posiion (copare (9vi)). hereore i us be ha (9vii) is ungraaica because i violaes soe ohercondion C. Assuing C o be e subjacency requireen (ii) e see

ha he laer is independen o he oher o propeies o (2)I igh be argued ha he reevan condiion C in his case is no esubjacency requireen bu raher a requieen o he binding heorynaely he (Specied) Subjec Condiion o he O-raeork hich e rinere in a diere ay in chaper 3 Bu s sees incoe.Whie here are as e sha see binding heory vioaions o a srucuraor siilar o (9i) hey ee very dieren in level o accepabiiyro e copeey ungraaica (9vi) indicaing ha (9vii) is no abinding heory vioaion Direc evidence ha i canno be a binding

heory violaion ha accouns or he saus o (9vi) is presened in Long- �obardi (orhcoing). We hereore conclude ha i is e subjacency re-quireen ha is he reevan condiion C in his case. he conclusionrequires a sharpening o he heory o bounding o hich e eurn in§5.4.

o ilusrae he independence of propery (2i) conside he exaes(0)

(0) (i John knos [ho [ o solve s pobe]

i hee knos [ho [ o be a unicon in garden ](iii) Bil is knon [ho [ o solve s poble ]](iv) i is (e-)knon [ho o sove s probe ]](v) i is (e-knon [h [Bil solvd s proble ]]

vi) i is possible [or [John o in (vi) i is possible [[PRO o in ]]

(viii) *John is possibe [[ o in ]



Subystems of core rammar 59

(l, John occupes a posito, as s ovous from the sese ad fromthe ugrammaticalty of (li) (compare there seems t e a uicor the garde, there is certa to e a uco the garde tomorrow). Therefore, the emedded suject i () (simarly, (v)) must e PRO ottrace, y (2i) example (l), however, the atecedet Bi is ot i aposto as idcated y (v), (v), so that (2i) is sated, as is the sujacecy cotio (2) But the ugrammatc status of (i) follows fromth property (2i). he partcple known does ot gover the suject of theemedded tiva compemet, or s t iterly govered, so thatPRO s permtted i (lv) ut trace s arred (lii)Examples(lvvi)lstrate the same facts t s oly property (2 that ars (v), where theto racets are categord ad S lockg govermet o theemedded suject ad thus permttg PRO i (vi) ut ot trace (v).

See ote 41 Proertes (2) ad {2i) must each hold the, depedetly otheoter propertes of (2), for the rule ove- ad the atecedet-trace relati Whle property (2i) follows from the projecto pricple ad the-rtero, propertes (2i) ad (2iimust e stpulated some faho fortrace. The requiremet that trace must e govered turs out to have wderamcatos, apart from the examples cosidered here ; see chapter 4. Theteory of oudig, ased o the pricple (2i), holds just of the uleove-

We may th of the rule ove- a t more astractly as expressgte cogurato (1 1 )

( 1 ) locally ids / ad s ot i a -posto

To say that localy ds / s to say that ad / are coidexed, c-commads / ad there s o coidexd with that is c-cmmade y adc-commads / (cf § 32.3) I ths cogurato, / is trace, ad sa argumet, t s assged ts -role y /. Codtio (2) states hat i(1 1 ), / must e govered ater, chapter 4, we wl see at fact aarrower codito s reuied). As far as ca see, ths requremet, hchhas may cosequeces, must e stpulated as a priciple of e theory ofgovermet cf chapter 4 Codtio (2ii) states that the codito ofsujacecy holds of the par (,) (11). There s strog evdece thatths codto holds of movemetto-CO, extraposto, ad versoof suject to postveral postio (cf §2.44). The simplest assumptio,the, is that sujacecy simply holds of the coguratio (1 ), that is, ofthe rle ove- ad the atecedet-trace relato. I the asec o explct evidece to the cotrary, we would aturaly coclude that codito

(2i holds of NP-trace. If there were evdece to the cotrary, we oud ecompelled to replace the smpe theory (2) y (12)

(2) (i) Sujacecy holds of (1 )(i) Sujacecy holds of (1 ) , except whe is suject pos

tio



60 ectures on ovement and bndn: the isa ectue

It was therere somewhat misleading t say, as I did aove, thacondiion(2ii) has to e stipulated or NP-trace It has to e stipuatedr race, asin (12), ut it comes "ree or NPrace. Patterns such as (9) istrate that

we hae to appeal to the act that NP-trace meets condition (ii) to accountor certan acts thus (9) oers independent conrmation or 12i), asopposed to (12ii) But even without such indepenent conrmation, wewould surey adopt (12i) oe (12i). To put the same point dierenty, esee, once again, that the rules ha assign roles to arguments andhatassociate non-arguments with the congurations in whch their asic properties are determne (ie., that determine the interpretation o idiomchunks or o impersona t etc.) are not some ne kind o ule, ut arerather rules o the same kind th ae ivlvd in many other processes,or example, extraposition, movement-toCO, NP-inversion etc. Inact, the single rue Move (possil with some urther specication asto landing sites) accounts or o these phenomena. We turn to a urthergeneraation in § 2.8.

Turning to PRO, the act that it does ot satisy the anaogue ocondition (2i) ut requies an antecedent with an independent 0rle, whileassumng an independent -role itsel, indicates that PR ehaves in themanner o a pronoun other properties o PRO aso suppot tis conclusion specicaly, the act that it need not satisy the suacency condition(c (2iii) ), that it need not have an antecedent, and that i it has an antecedent that inds it, then the antecedent w e "remote ie. , notwitin the same cause or NP et us thereore continue to regard PRO asa pronoun acking a phonetic matrix, i .e, as an NP with the grammaticaeatures person, numer an gnder, and perhaps othes (e.g., perhapsCase in some instances), ut not phonetic eatures or the eatures o a reeve element, etc. See chapter 6 or a more careu and improvedaccount

I it is true that trace must e governed (namely, (2i)) and that PROmust e ungoverned, then we have the principle (1 3), given tat an emty

category one lacking phonetic eatures is either trace or PRO(3) I is an empty categoy, then is PRO i and only i is un

goveed (equivaenty, s trace i and only i is governed)

We w see, however, that tings do not seem to equitethat simpe, sincetrace must meet a slghtly more stringent condition han government, whatwe wi cal the condition o "proper government See chapter 4. We wthereore keep the two parts o principle (13) sarate (I) trace must e

governed (i.e., (2i)) (II) PR must e ungoverned. We wl return to ( 3)in § 45, ater having discussed the various concepts o the theoy ogovernment more uy. In discussing the theoy o inding in chapter 3we wil see that (II) oows rom he princples o is theoy underminima assumptions. Pending these clarications, we can adopt (13) tentatvely as a centra prnciple o the theoy o government.



Subsystems of coe amma 6

daptg to o pposes tems sed meca da lgstcswe wll call a poo o PRO "poxmate whe t s codexed wth aatecedet ad "obvatve he t s ot Poxmate PRO s cotolledas 4); obvave PO s abay eeece, as 3), thogh we wllshap ad slghtly modfy ts oto chapte 4 Whe RO s poxmate t mst agee feates wth ts atecedet exacty the caseof poos. The feates of PRO whe obvatve ae sject to somepaametc vaato: ths PRO s sgla Spash, Egs ad Fechbt plal Itala e.g. 4) s Itala:

14) o e chao come essee alleg"t s clea how to be happy lal))

he fact that PRO mafests te popety pa J the obvatve seaga sggests that t s sma to poosPR dffes fom poos the that t does ot satsfy the ase

Flte 236) I wll se the tem "poomal to efe to elemets wthjst the gammatcal feates dcate above, whethe o ot they havea phoetc ealzato: ths PO ad poos Note at the tem"poomal s pely descptve t does ot efe to a eate apatfom the gammatcal feates peso mbe, gede PRO s a poomal whle tace s a empty categoy e] codexed wth ts atece

det the me of a aapho sch as ecpocal o eexve Theefeetal popetes of PRO ae detemed y the theoy of cotoll 2v) cf §243

s oted eale t s ot obvos that PRO ad tace ae dstctad eale wok I assmed them to be the same elemet Bt a deepeaalyss dcates that they te dffeet the popetes Iet to a moe abstact cosdeato of the stats chapte 6 ecastg te udametal dstcto betwee tace ad PRO dffeettems.

Thee ae my othe examples llstatg the dffeece betweePRO ad tace. To llstate wth a dffeet kd of case cosde tefollowg exampes oted by g Bzo )

) ) they assged oe tepete each to the vstg dplomats) oe tepete ech was assged t to the vstg dplomats) oe tepete ech seems t t have bee assged t to the

vstg dplomats J6 oe tepete each ted PRO to e assged t to the vstg

dplomats]Tougot s the tace o a moved eemet: one interpeter each 15),PRO 6 Example 6) s gammatcal thogh t dffes fom l)whch s gamatca oy epacemet of tace by PRO Th dstcto caot be accoted o tems of te popete 2) these ae



62 ectures on overnment and bindin the Pisa etures

aied o race (15i) ad for PRO (16) Evdly heDrucurepio of one interpreter eac mu be "cloe eough' o he phe thevisitn dipomats for ea o be erpreed appropriaely a a quaerrelaed o he ler phrae Pehap he aociao eablhed prio omoveme f he phrae one interpeter ech perhap by a ule of each•moveme, alo avig race Or perhap he correc approach o coder he uco chai aocaed wh he phrae one nterpreter eaI 16) e fucio chai ju ([P S where S i he mar lauewle PRO ha a wo-member fucio chai wih he of he race ai al member Bu ( 5), he G of he mo deeplyembedded race ihe al member of he fucio cha of one interpretr each ruclly,PRO (16) break he fucio cha o wo, wle rac i t copodg poiio (5i,i) doe o, aga reecig he fudamealdfferece au bewee PRO ad race The cha mgh he vea he bai for a recoruco rule of he or dicued Chomky(1977b ) Sill aoher pbiliy a erpreaio of moveme rmof copyg ad deleo a dcued § 2..6. Bu whaever e exacmecham may be, clearly PRO ad race agai dfer fuamerepec f Burzio (1981) for exeive dcuio of he ue raiedby ad may milar queo

Oher dfferece bewee race ad PRO are dcue i zz ( 198 )He oberve ha here are cera coguraio wch orol complme (wh PRO ubjec) ca appear Iala, bu rig copeme (wh race ubjec) ad here are oher which aigcompleme ca appear bu o corol compleme:

( 17) () Ga uoe orare a caa("Gai wa o come back home)

() orare a caa che Ga uole( i o come back home ha Ga wa)

(i) Ga embra orare a caa

("Ga eem o come ack home)(v) * orare a caa che Ga embra("i i o come back home ha Gai eem)

(18) () i colpevol embrao eere a pui duramee("he guily eem o hae bee puhed everely)

() i colpevol dcarao d eere a pu duramee("he guily aer ha hey have bee (o hae bee) puhedeverely)

(iii) i colpevol i oo pui duramee

("he guily have bee puhed everey)(v) i colpevol embrao eer pui duramee("he guly eem o have bee puihed everely)

(v) colpevoli dicharao d eeri pui duramee("he guily aer ha hey have bee (o have bee) puhedeverely)




Here agan e have drec conrass beeen PRO and race, h PROn 7i) versus race in (7v), and race n (v) versus PRO n (v).

Rzz suggess ha he explanaon o he PRO-race conras n (7)() ies n he heory o governen. Consder rs (7). Exaples () and

ii) are conro and rasing copleens, respecvey, h PRO and raceas e respecve subjecs o he ebedded copeens. As () and (v)ndcae, he conrol copleen b n he rasng coplen canapear in he ocus poson a cle senence le he Englis exaple(i) s perhaps no fuly accepabe, he dsincon beeen () and (v)s clear n English, and s a sraighorard graaicaungraacadscon in alan. he dsincon can be explained n ers f hecondon hich requres ha race be governed and PRO ungoverned. n (7v), he race subjec of oare is ungoverned, as con

rased h (7), here s governed by sembra so ha (7v) sungraaca b vrue of condion (2). Bu PRO s peried in hsungoverned poson, so ha (7i) s graaca

he exaples () are ore coplex. Exaples () ad (i) lusrae respecively a passve ebedded nnva in a raisng conex hrace subjec, and a conrol conguraon h PRO subjec. Exaple() lusraes he persona consrucon h he cliic si hchRizzi assues (folong Belle (9b)) o be n he INL poson nhe NPINLP srucure hus he Ssrucures of he raising congu

rao (v) ad h cool coao (v) ar (9), (9, rspcvely

(9) (i) colpevoli sebrano s essere pun draene(i) i copevoli dcharano d PRO s essere puni dua

eneOn he saus o di, see § 52. A rule o he Pcoponen (aogous oaxoveen) aaches he cliic si o he righ of he innva verbessere o yield he ors (v) (v. We have assued ha INL (or aleas, "nonal eeens IN) govern he subjec. erefore he raceis governed in ( 9) and PRO is governed in (9i). By propey (2), raceus be governed, so ha (9), hence (iv), s graaca. Bu as ehve seen, PRO us be ungoverned, so ha (9i), hnce ( v), s ungraaical he assves ( ) and ( i) are boh graaica snce ere sno governng eleen ihn he bedded lause, so ha race ay aper (governed by he arix verb) and PRO ay appear in he corresponding ungovern posion he conrol srucure ( ii).

Consideraons o hch e reurn n chaper 4 sugges a dfferenapproach o explainng he conras beeen race and PRO ilusraedby ( iv) ( v) No ha he rae subjec o he eeded consruconin (9) is governed by he arx verb n any even so (9) (hence ( iv)ees he· cndon (2) rrespecive of he saus of si. As or 9i), ay be ha si s acually a subjec clic and ha he PRO is i eec anipersonl pronoina associaed h si ad no subjec o conrol



4 ecures on oernen an bnn he Psa ecures

hs case fo he easos hs blocg l9). Ths acco o hche e oe deal sll edces he dsco beee 8vad 8v) o he heoy of govee b a soeha oe caeay.

Noe ha hese exaples popey 2) s sas hogho Ihe asg sces he ax sbec s o a poso hledoes eceve a depede -ole he cool sces opey2) s also sased Whaeve he explaao ay be fo exaples ) 8) pehaps hose s dcaed hey llsae aga he coasgbehv of RO ad ace

Whle RO ad ace de poa especs e ae ale oes o exape boh R d -ace behaves aaphos h espec o he bdg heoy ad ae hs exclded fo posos ha aeopaqe he sese of OB. Ohe aces hle sasfyg he codos2) have soeha dffee popees. The heoy of gaa sexpla hy epy caegoes of vaos ds have hese specc popees ad ho lagages ay vay hese especs

2..2. Furher propeies of PROe s o cosde he behavo of epy caegoes oe closely

begg h RO. I he case of RO e have o cosde hee codos hose d hch RO ay appea he gap s peed) dehch s appea he gap s oblgaoy) ad de hch ay oappea he gap s pessble)

cple 2.4 3) splaes ha RO s goveed. If so ll beexclded fo he coplee posos goveed by he head of soecosco ad fo he poso of sbec of a esed clase. ROay appea he he poso of sbjec of a ve specesbec) of a N o COM as )

l) ) s clea

ha

l RO o o ]]

) d ch efe [ RO go o a ove

I bgh a bo [s [coMP O [ O o gve o May

Case ) e have aleady dscssed. ee RO s pessble sce he poso s goveed ad oblgaoy sce he poso s o Case-aedless he lagage has aed devces o assg Case cf. e 25). Wee o case ) decly. case ) RO s essble sce hepos s govee b s o oblgaoy sce geve Case ca beassged hs poso as 2)

2) d ch efe NP hs gog o he ve ]

We gh asse ha geve Case-assge s opoal h ahotcay-realize NP subject as in (2) when t is assigned ; or that genitiv

Cas-assnment s obigatory but not phonetically realiz when PRO




i eeced a he opio, o ha PRO i Cae-akd bu ugoveed i(). e u eave hi a a queio o execuio.

Noe ha i (3), PRO i baed

(3) (i) I ike

N PRO book]() I ike P hi book]

§ 3.2. 1 , I wil eu o he queio o why geud de i hi wayo NP wih a oia head.

The tuctue (ii), (2) de o (3) i aohe epect, apat ohe act that he pecie o he NP ay be eithe Ro a phoeticalyeazed i the oe but oy a phoeticay-ealized NPi the atte.Copae the exape o (4)

(4) (i Joh woud uch pee h goig to the ovie]() Joh woud uch ee h (ow) book

cae (), the poou he o his book ay o ay ot ee to Joh. cae (i), thee i at eat a tog peeece o akg i o be oeoeohe tha Joh, paticuay whe i i ueed. (4) dicae, hii ot a poitio o dijoi eeece. hik ha he choice o eeeceo he i (i} i dictted ot by he dijoi eeece piciple bu ahe

by a piciple that we ay tae i the o geea e a 5), iepeed ipoig a choice o PRO ove a ove poou whee poible

(5) void Poou

Thu i (4i), whee PRO ay appea, the ovet poou i ake aditic i eeece o ohn bu i (4), whee RO ay o appeathe ovet poou i ee i eeece. Piciple (5) ight be egaded aa ub cae o a coveatioa piciple o o ayig oe tha i equied,

o ight be elaed o a picipe o deletio-upoecoveabity, butthee i oe eao to beieve ha i ucio a a picipe o gaa.

Coide y cae () o (1 ). Hee PRO appea a ubjec o hepupoive iitiva, a i (i). oowig he aayi i OB (Choky,198a, pedix; 198b), it ao appea the ugoveed}COpoiio a atecede o the tace, a iace o ovee-o-CO (c.24.(1)). I wa aued i OB ha he ovee oPR o O,whee it i cooed by a elee o he atx claue, i a iace

o Moe- i the ytax, bu i poibe ha i a ace o Move-i the -copoet aaogou o he ue potuaed i Choky (1977a,chapte 3) o accout o the age o tepetatio o eece withebedded -phae uch a (6)

(6) dot kow who eebe who pu he book whee



66 ectures on oemnt and bindin the Pisa ectures

e will see in § 3 .2.3 that there is good reason to suppose hat movementto-COM in tis case is ned syntactic movement rater thanvemetin the LFcomponent. The range of examples dscussed in Chomsky(1977b) under the rubric of "-movement may also be regarded asinstances of movement of PRO to COM, where P perhaps has thefeature - J (cf. 2.6.(45)) Ts eliminats the eed for a rule deletingthe -phrase in COM an also explains the bsence of PP-movement inmany of these cases, PRO being excluded as object of a preposition, agoverned position. See also note 32.

s we have seen, PRO is in general oblgatoy as the subjec of aninnitive by virtue of the ase Filter, but phonetically-realzed maapear� as · subjec ihe nnitive is n the contex or P, as i

(7) (i) or John to leave ]] would be a mtake(i) expect m o leave] ; believe m to be incompetent](iii) 'm eager for you to take part](iv) V (for) m to take part] (V = want prefer etc.)

he exception is quite natural, under the asumptions of Case theoy inexactly these two contexts, Case c be assigned by the governing vrbo prepositonal complemetier, presumably marked options in nglis.ormall, RO s obligatoy as the subject o an innitival complemento a verb, as in (8)(8) John td [PRO t win ]

assume (8) to be the unmaked case. By the pojection principle, verbswith innitival compements appear with claus cmplements, as idicaed b their leical features. Clausal complements are o th categoy, wch we have assumed to be an absoute brie o gvement, husrequiring PRO as subjec of the embedded clause since the subject is not

gvened clauseinternally English -inniivals, with a prepsitionalcomplementer, escape ts equiemen sinceformay gove and assignCase to the subjec, excluding PRO and permitting a phonetically-eld.47 n anguages simia to Englsh, he verbs of (7 equie PROsubjecs for he innitival complement A easonable assumption, thenis tha Engs has a aked rule of -deetion fo complements of vsof te ategoy, peritting e verb to govern the subjec of theembeded cmplement, hus exuding PRO and peiting ponetiallyeaized n (7). Tis move equis a slgh modication of the notion

"govenment given inomally in § 2.3 we eturn to s questi in§§3..1 and 5.2.

On he same ssumpion the trace is governed by beieedin such exaples as (9), saisfing equiement 2.4.1.(2i) or trace (namely, that tacebe governed) and ovecomng a probem that woud otherwise arise fosuch exampes:



Subsysems of core ramar 67

9) on was believed [ o be incompeen

Example 9) deives fom e D-sucue 10) wee IFL [Tense]

10) [ NP e] was believed [ COM on IFL [ be incompeen ]]

I IF = [ + Tense] in 10) we deive 1 1) by -inseion:

11) i was believed [a on is incompeen]

us 9) and 1 1) deive fom D-sucues difeing only in e value ofIFL in 10) and e coesponding value of e embedded COM Tecomplemen obelieve is clausal a LF as a lexical popey, and e clausalcmplemen may be nie o inniival, e smples case By e poecion pinciple we expec 10) a D-sucue and 9) o 1 1) a S-sucueDeivaion of 11) is sagfowad Applicaion of ove is blockedby pinciples of binding eoy IFL [+ Tense in 10) ; us insein yielding 1 1 ) is obligaoy Applicaion of ove- is pemied in edevaion of 9) because of e ule of deleion wc ensues a eace is govened Joh eceives no Case fom e embedded clausein 10) wi IFL = [ Tense ], and is no Case-maked by believedwicis no a Caseassigne sice i as e caegoal sucue [ + ] i is no[ 48 Teefoe fo 10) o suface in is case some ule mus appyo assign Case o Joh. Te inseion ule 39) is inapplicable snceblieved is no [ + N49 Teefoe, ove is obligaoy placing Joh a posiion in wic i can eceive Case in 9) wic saises of equiemens fo e anecedenace elaion cf §.1))

Noe a e siuaion wi espec o 9)1 1) is quie analogous oa of e noinal and adecival consucions .3 ) ) epeaed as)

i) desucion e ciy() auo e book

poud on

I 1) e Case File is violaed so a eie inseion o ovemus apply, ony e fome being applicable in case wle eie mayappy in cases i) and ()

Te same ideas exend o aing pedicae suc a 13)

13) i) on seems [ o be a nice fellow] on is lkey [ o be a nce fellow]

Te D-sucues ae 1) exacly as 15), wi empy N becoing iin 15)



68 ectures on oement and bindin the Pisa ectures

(14) () NP seems [John to be a ce elow](i) NP s lkely [John to be a nce elow]

(15) ( t seems [that ohn s a nce eow]

(i) t s lkely [that John s a nce elow]As (15) ndcates, a excal property o seem an key s that they takeclausal compements and assgn no roe to the subjects Thereore, bythe projecton prncpe the D-structures or te sentences corespondngto (13) must be (14) Agan, the embedded clause may be [ ±Tense], theunmarked case I t s nte ([ Tense]), we derve (1 5) I t s nntval( [ Tense]) as n (4), the embedded subject eceves no Case, so tsats the Case Fter, applcaton o ove s obgatory (the nser

ton ue 23(9) beng napplcable) yeldng (13) As or the condtons24 (2) on tace, codton () s satsed we assume that the predcatesseem ikey lke beee deete , so that the ace n (13) s govene ;condton (i) s satsed snce the subjec acks a oe; and condton subjacency) s satsed n (13) though t woud not be n the devatono(16) om the D-stucture (16), aswhaveseen n4 1 (9):

(16) () NP seems NP s lkely John to wn]](i) John seems [t s key t to wn ]]

The oton o deetng s n par a excal dosyncasy; thus, t s apopery ikey but not o ts nea-synonym robabe. It s the popertythat caacterzes asng pedcates Note that tere s no sense, n ouamewok to the queston whehe (9) s an exampe opassveosnghese are smply descptve categoes, not rules ; (9) s an nstance o theapplcaton o ove-, whch coves both categores. See the comments ondecmposton o ules n chapter

In geneal, then, the subject o an nntval s PRO n the unakedcase Engsh pmts two marked exceptons, exactly the two we expectgven that the Case-assgnes ae the categoes [ NJ :-nntvals andvebs wth -deleton In both nstances, Case s assgned over he S bonday and the tace s govened, as equred, when t appears ate a predcate such as beieed seem ikey that deletes

As these examples lustate, rasng predcates that dete and thusgoen a trace n the subject poston o an nntval complement ae notCase-assgners ; hat s, the tace let by NPmovement s governed but notCase-maked The same s true o mooausa passves We etun o thesepoperes n a moe general settng n §268 In contrast, the race letby movementto-COP (whethe -movement o PRO-movement) sCase-marked The latte s ntepeted as a varable n LF and shares poperes o names n the theory o bndng, as n the cases o (strong) cossove whe the tace o NPmovement, n contast, behaves as an anaphounde the bdng theoy We etun to these matters, whch ae amla




in part from earlier literature We therefore have the following observation:

(17) a trace is a variable if and only if it is Case-marked

I will return to the question of whether (17) holds without exceptin, andif so, whether it must be stipulated in whole or in part or whether it follwsfrm other principles. In the examples so far discussed the bservatinholds but need nt be stipulated. Tentatively, let us assume that (17) is truevariables are Case-marked traces.

We have reviewed the properties of examples (7i-iii). Consider now(7iv) verbs of the -type that take -innitivals as complements Asis well-known, there is some variability, in part dialectal, as to whether the for is deleted in immediate post-verbal position Thus we have suchexamples as (18)

(18) (i) John wants very much for Bill to win ](ii) what John wants is fr Bill to win

(iii) John wants Bill to win (iv) Jhn would like [(for) Bill to win

These are the structures implied by the projection principle, with thebracketed expression a clausal complement; -clauses are often anoptional variant, the unmarked case The complementizer for is undeletable in (i), (ii) as required by the Case Filter. 0 Why is it deletable in(iii), (iv)? One posibility is that these verbs smetimes peritS-deletion,s that when for does nt appear the subject of the innitival complementcan receive Case from the matrix verb, a in the case of -type verbs;a second possibility is that there is a rule of -deletion in immediate postverbal position for these verbs in the PF-component (with idiosyncraticvariation, in either case) The secnd ption appears to be the correct one.If these verbs permitted Sdeletion, we would expect to nd passive formssuch as (19), analogous to (9)

(19) *John was wanted (liked, preferred, . . . ) t to win

But such examples are uniformly excluded, exactly as in the unmarkedcase of verbs with innitival complements

(20) *John was known [how [t to slve the problem ( = (24.1(10ii)))

It seems, then, that -type verbs do nt permitS-deletion as a markedption 1

ome verbs (e.g., expec) permit either of the tw marked options Thus



70 Lecures n gvemen and binding: he Pisa lecures

w av )

) ) o was xptd t to w wt S-dlto)) wat o xptd was o l to w wt -om

plmtz)

t gal ta vbs tak o o t ot bt ot bot o t twomakd optos pmttd Egs 52

Aot wl-kow at abot vbs o t wan, prefer atgoy sppots t sam oso Ts vbs a m mo sstat to avyNP-st ta tos o t believ atgoy : 3

) ) ty'd bv to b oos ay addat wo wod tak t

tob to vy pmay) tyd wat to w ay addat wo wold tak t tobl

to vy pmay

T xat stats o t qsto d ot o s . Papst s a styst l o t PF-ompot tat dos ot oss S-bodaso paps as Tm towl sggsts t s a sytat lavg ta

w mst b govd by vt o .4..) so tat t a appy oly ass o S-dlto. I t as t s applabl stts

tat av dgo S-dlto as ) w t ospodgass wt -typ vbs t s ot datg aga tat ty do otpmt Exptoal Cas-makg by S-dto bt at vaablyav -omplmts at -stt maly s xamps as 3) w w mst aso assm to volv-dtoavy NP-st s aptabas 4)

3) I osd o tgt 4) I wod osd tlgt ayo apab o dstadg

Gdls omptss poo

As otd apt w do ot xpt to d aos t makdppy o lagag T xamps st vwd lstat a mopasbl xptato. t Cas-assgs a t -N atgosV ad P w av two makd optos o sapg t Ca F wpts potaly-azd sbts tva ompmts Exptoa Cas-makg by vbs o t typ ad a ppostoalompmtz fr t latt dv also pmttg tvs wt

potaly-alzd sbts ot postos as wl.W a tva ompmt s ot t otxt [- N J PRO s

obgatoy as sbt as 5) ad t a o makd xptos

5) ) V NP PRO to VP J "I psadd l PRO to lav "I psadd l Tom to av )



Sbsystems of core rammar

(ii) AP [PRO to VP ("I was sorry [PRO o leave ]*"I was sorry [B t leave )

V PP[PR o VP] ("I appeaed to Bll PR t eave]*"I appaed to B [To to leave])

(v) V . . . [-phrase [PRO to VP]] ("I aske B)

what PR

to do ] �"I asked (B what Tom to do ')

In these cases too there are tensed counterparts. By the projectin principle te embedded construction in each case s declaraive ontrrogatie and declaratve nite or nnitiva 54 depending on poperisof h matrx verb.

ince PRO is a pronomnal it must assume a -role; thus t is either ia 8position itse or bnds a trace thats n a 8-position. PR is excluedfromgerned 8-positions as n (26):55

(26 (i) *t is unclear how PR solved the problem(i) *t is unclear [how t sole PRO]

() I'd much prefer [hs gong to PR](v) *t is unclear [what to give t to RO ](v) * it s unclear [who to give PRO to t

Th positons·from whch PRO is excluded are opaqe in the sense of binding theory an mportant property of this element to whch we return inchter 3. PRO s also excluded as subject of an innitve ter a prepositoal complementzer or an Exceptona Casemarking verb such asbeeve, o as the subject o an N wih a nomina head as in (3i) ; the latterproerty is stll o e explaned and there are aso soe questions oncerning coplementzers to wch we w return PRO may ppear other

ws as subject of nntve subjct ofNP in C or in INF (asGR)Tese propertes of PRO are no mere idiosyncrases We would like to

reduce them as far as possible o genera prncipes even

these proveutmately to be subject to some paraetric variation as n ExceptonaCasemarkng As we have seen straightforward explanations are forthcoming for a of these properties of PRO (with soe exceptions as notedto ch we w return) f we assume the projection principle and theanyss of S as NPINF-VP, assumptions whch seem to be near optaThe obligatoriness of PRO follows from Case theory Otherwise its dstribton foows from the projectio principle and the 8-criterionnd theprincipe that PRO s ungoverned he latter stll to be grounded in heGB-theory in such a way as to account for the properies tat PRO shareswit overt anaphors such as each otherand wth pronouns ; specicaly thatit s excluded from opaque contexts. It wl be the task of te bindingtheory (2iv) to show n what manner PRO is subject to the conditionswhch for example permt overt anaphors as subject of an nntive butnot elsewhere in clause and whch require disjoint reference or pronouns under the same crcumstances whle guaranteeing that PRO is



72 ectures on ovement and bindin: the ia ecture

ungoverned The fac ha PRO shares basic proies with overt anahorsand pronouns (whie dffering from hem in sme repecs as a consquenceo its lck of phoneic content given he Cas ltr and hat i es

cerain fundamental properties of trace (whie dfferg from it by irueof condiions of 2.4. 1 .(2 and24{3 is anprtant one ; it pidessignicant independent support for he rojeco principle and he rule2.1.(25 analyzing S as NP-INF-VP in hat this complex of silritesand dfferences folows from ndependeny-moivate and reasonableprinciple: he binding princples for anaphors and pronouns ; he -criteron whch s vrtuly a denton of wel-formedness at LF; he projecionprinciple whch has a wde range of consequences quite indpenent ofept categors ome grammar-interl, some beyond; he genral

principle 2.4.1.(13 concerning governmen of empty caegores in partreducble o the bnding heory, and with a wde range of conseuencesas we shall see n chapter 4; he Case Fler whch partally suppans the*NP--VP] te of Chomsky and Lasnk (1977 (c. OB and has avariety of consequences e.g. with regard o oblgatoriness o rus ofNP-movement he mpossibity of such sruures as "oh to have wons wdely beleved "what he expects s ohn to in etc We will seefurher in chaper 6 hat he se Flter is cosey related to the -riterion

Note that he disribution of the empty caegories the dfferences among

them and heir siaites o and dffeences from overt eeens ardeermned through he nteracton of qute smple principles hat belongto severa dfferent subheories in accordance wth the modu approachto grammar that we are pursuing roughout Note also that ere is nonee to stipuate tha cerain congurations are "control sucues. Thecurret discussion is a continuaion of efforts ntiated n Choms andasnik (1977 o elminate hs noion excep as a descripve category.The stuaon s more complex as we shall see when we conidepro-droplanguges n chapter 4, bu the conclusion nevheless sands. See chap

ter 6 for summary and further exensions.Coninuing with these assumptions, we wll account for the ungratica satus o (27 and (28 in he same way:

(27 hey waned me to feed each other ](2 hey old me [wha PRO to eed each oher]

Tentativey assuming the bndng theory of the OB-framework, o beimproved later the (Spced Subject Conditon prevents from

takng th as antecedent in (27 because the anaphr is n the ccommanddoma of a subject me in (28 the same is true n he domain fhesubjec PRO whh is conroled by me not th because of propertiesof te max verb te (compare "hey asked me what to feed eachother. hus a the level at hch he bndng theory apples we w tohve PRO n (28 n the position occupied by me n (27. I e bindingtheory applis a S-strucure, as we wll conclude in chaper 3, then PR



Sbystems of core rammr 73

must be present in (28) at Sstructure. If the binding theory applies t LF,then �he simplest asumption again -and the only one consistent with theprojection principle-is that PRO is present at Sstructure ; then no LFrule

is required to give the LFrepresentation from SstructureIt might be thought that tese phenomena could be described somehowin terms of properties of control verbs directly, but tha would be astake, because the same penomena appea when there are no controlvrbs at Consider the sentences (2), (3):

(29) they thought NP sad that :) ech other ( theselve]

would be difcult]

(3) (i they thought NP said that pictures of each other (themselves] would be on sale]

(i they thought NP wanted each other's candidates ] to in( ) they thought N wanted each other to win ]

In example (2), whatever the choice of N the matrx subject they can taken as antecedent of the anaphor ea other (theseves).56 Thus if B the sentences can be taken as meaning that each o them

thought Bil said that to eed the others would be dicult (etc and iN = we the sentences ·e ambiguous as to choice of antecedent neamples (3), however, the matrix subject they cannot be taken as antecdent. If NP = B the sentences are not wellformed ; ifN = we thenit is necessaily the antecedent The properties of (3) follow directlyfrm the binding theory for the anaphors (reciprocal, reexive n 3)namely, the (Specied Subject Condition in the DBframework ButeVidntly thi does not hold for the anaphors in (), though they areembedded in the same way in relevant respects The corrct conclusions

fllow, gan if we assume that the embedded phrase in (2) is (31) at LF:(31) ! to feed JPRO f d each other (themselves) ee g

Then the antecedent o he overt anaphor (reciprocal, reexive is PROwich ned not e locally controlled in contrast to trace; cf 241 (2 )21()(7) By the projection principe, the same must be tue at D andStucture.

As these examples agan ilustate, the theory of conrol perits thecontroller of PRO to be remote as in the case of other anaphors apart fromtrce, which alone is subject to the theory of bounding As we have seen,PRO is like other anaphors and overt pronouns with respect to the theoryof binding as well, in that it may appear only in transpaent (nonopaqueconstructions But the examples (2), (3) also illustrate some differencesbetween PRO and overt anaphos The binding theory must account for the



74 Lcurs on govmn and ndng: h sa curs

fact tha RO sharsth other aapors te property hat may appear oly n transparent contexts, but t must also explan why PR n (29ncporatng 3)) may take the emte atecedent hy whle e

anaphors of (30 may no. he bndng theoy f B yelds e rong predcon n ts case, requring ta nether RO nor other aphrs ayhave reote antecedents n such exaples, where the o 29), (0) sa lexc argumnt. Ths s a poblem to wch we wl return n reformu�latng the theory of bndng n chapter 3.

The examples (29), (30) provide evdence for a PRO analys of QUconstructons as aganst a deleton anlss (cf. Fodor (975), Cosk (95, 977a), Chomsy and Lasnk 97), B and owork). If we were to assume that the embedded phrase s (32) nstead

of (3) at -structure, wth or-s deleted by ules f the PFcomponent, then th aphor s should be assgned rather than hy asantecedent n (29), as n (30), by the bndg theor (whether n theBframework or the GB-framework to wh we turn n caper 3)

(32) for sef to feed each other (themselves)

Note that or, wth phnetcally-reazed , can appear n theembedde prase of (29), as n (33):

33) they hought Bl sad that for to feed each oter would bedfcult]

W terefore have two optons for choc f n the ebedd phrase:PR or phonetcay-rezed The same as tue n (l the suet poson o a eund I the Case-markng elemntr s selected ascompmentzer, th we may have a phonetcaly-reaed t not,we mst ave PRO. Ths follows from the ase Flter.

23. Conrol hoRecl that there re three basc questons that se n connecton wth

th element PRO () where may appear? ; ()wheremust appear? ; (i)how s ts reference determined? The rst queston fls under generaprincples f he oies of govement d bnng, the secnd underthe projecton pncple and Cas theor, and the d under controltheory he rstwo questons w have dscussed n a premnary ayPRO s restrcted to ungoveed postons at are non-opaque he

sense of the heory of bndng ; and t must appear n postons here an s eqrd but no Case s assgned (excludng phoneticly-reed) and the pston s ungoverned (excludng trace). The B-frameworkodes paral answers to queston () n terms of the ndng theoy tcontans, thoh there are problems, some noted, t whch e retunchater 3 he answer to uesto () n te OB-framework seems t me tobe essena correct as f as t goes, though t becomes ore princpled



Susysms o cor gramar 75

n the ht o e proecton prncple and s now extended to trace by2.. (1 There s also a partal theory o control prsentedn OB. t seesto me on the rght track though as noted ere t s too rescted. nadequaces n ths approach are dscussed n Manzn 198 where anmproved account s proposed wll not attempt a comprehensve theoryo control here but wl smply ndcate some o ts prperes.

onsder st structures o the orm (1 where s a case contanngPRO wth an AG (c § 22 whch by prncples obndgtheory mustbe that o subect:

The embedded claus wh PR subject may be declaratve or nterrogatve as n (2 ( respectvely:

(2 ( John persuaded B PRO toeed hmsel( John prosed Bl PRO to ee mse

( John appealed to Bl PRO to eed hmse(v John pleaded wth Bl PRO to eed hmse

( ( John asked Bll how PRO o eed hmse( John told B how PRO to eed ms( t s unclear how PRO to eed onesl

Deenng on the nature o the verb PRO s controed eher y the cmpleent o he verb (as n (2v ( or by s subjetas n 2 (The reexve n these exampes takes as ts (ultmate antecedent the controng 5 Arbtrary reerence s mosble n (2 thouh t s posben ( wth nterrogatve compemens as lustrated n (. As noted nOB t s perhaps argnly possble n cases ( and ( wth onsreplacng hms r as n (4

(4 ( John asked Bl how to proe the theorem wthou usng theaxom o choce

( John asked Bl how to behave onese under such crcumstances

We gh say tha arbrary reerence s aways possble wh nerrogaveompleent bt at conrol properes ohe verb estabsh a srong preerence relaon or NPconro wth the choce o deerne b

poperes o he verb. Gven he possbty o arbrary reerence whnterrogatve compleme but not declarave complement we hae suchexamples s (5 bu not (6:59

(5 John was asked t wha PRO o do J(6 *John was promsed t PRO o wn J



7 Lcurs on govmn and ndng h sa lcurs

In (5) and (6) he passivized verb has no subject, so subject cntrols ms-

sle as required by these verbs; arbitrary eference is possbe i (5)but

n n (6)

Othe examples suggest that sometng more general is involved in these

cases. Cnsider (7

7) (i John asked Bl hs plans() Jhn told Bll hs lans(i) John promsed Bil s consent(iv) John promsed Bll s admssion to the university

I not free the reference of he (in his) is to B in (i), Jo i ( and (i;

and Bl in (iv). Note that the NP-antecedent in (i), (), (iv) reverses the nor

mal roperties of the verbs in the contro structures (2), (3). These are at

least strong preferences, perhaps requirements.The normal control properties lustrated in (2) and (3) can sometimes

be reversed. Thus (8 is ambiguous as to controler and in (9) subject control is preerred to object control:

(8) John asked the teacher to eave early(9) John asked (egged, pleaded wth . . . ) the teaher to be allowed

to leave earlyWith prsuad as the man verb reversal o control as in (9) seems muchmore dcult Another amiliar case violating the descrptive observationsjust revieed, is (10):

(10 John was promised to be allowed to leave

n 10), as dstinct rom 6), John may be th controler.

A natural suggestion is that choice o controler is deterned y -rolesor other semantic properties o the verb, or perhaps pragmatic coditonso some sor so, we woud expect to nd subject contro in 11) (analogous to (9)) and contro by the surace subject in (12) analogous to (10):

(11) John asked Bil to get (receive) permission to eave early(12) John was promsed to get (receive) permssion to eave early

Example (11) seems to me to behave as expected on ts assumption, whle

(12) does not.

Arbtrary reerence is also possible in complements to adjecties thattake clauses as n (3) c. (14):

(13) it is important (dcult etc ) PRO to get an A in math](14) it is important or us or you to get an A in math]

n OB the act is reated to the presence o an overt complementizer as



Susystms cr grammar 77

(3) ut comparatve evdence ndcates that s s the wrog dea Manz otes, the same s true say tala, where there s n ercomemezer

n puposve tvas, referece of the subject PRO may be arbtrar

as (5) or determed by propertes of the matrx verb as (6):

(5) the books ere sod [PRO to hep the refugees ](6) ( sod the book [PRO to hep the refugees ]

(} bought Bl a book [PRO [PRO to gve t to Mry]](} got a book from Bl [PR [PRO to gve t to May]](v bought a book from Bl [PRO [PRO to gve t to May]

n (

s the controler (-(v,

controls the PRO COwhchs the atecedent of the trac t a varabe PRO he subjec poston s cotrolled by ( ad by (v, aga suggestg hat sematc or pragmatc cosderatos are operatve

Not that ccommad s ot requre for contro as llustrated n(2v o more clearly (7) whch there s o ossbty of somekd of reaayss:

(7) ( PRO to clear mysf of the chrges mprtnt t me

( [PRO nshg my work on tme] s mportant to me

Other aaphors re margaly posse th c-comma volatos, as (8):

(18) the rumors about each other rrtated the me wr< annoyg tom

I the case of PR ad margaly the case f other aaphors, t sufce

for the atecede to be a elemet of the argumet structur of the clauseNote that the case o PRO the bdg theory mposes o requemeto choce of atecedet as s aeady evdent from the case ofogdstancecontrol a matter to whch we retur hus PRO behaves ths respectlke other proomas n the case o trace the atecedet must awaysccommd, so t appears as requred bythe bndg thory.

e PRO may have a non--commadg atcedet the latter mayot be contaned wthn an NP that s a possbe controle

(9) ( PRO shg hs work o tme s mportat to John( PRO nshg s ork o tme s mpotant to Joh's

freds( PRO nshg hs work o tme s mpotat to John's deve

lopment

( ad ( Jhn s the controler, but n ( oy Jhns rn may



78 Lcurs on govmn and ndng: s lcs

serve as oror, so hat h i hi efer o somthe thn thereetoR.

As we have seen, PRO may be ontroed by a remote aneedet thug

trae·y ot, as n 20):

(20) (i) they thought (that I said) that [ { g ,��e:: :� . } ] woud be ift

(i) *they seemed (tha said hat t feeding eah other t to feed eah other

wou e dfut

Cf 21 (9ii) There ae sme sujetobjet asymmetries, t east in pe•' " f�rene in suh ong-distane ontro, iustrated in 2):

(21 (i thy thought had suggested [PRO feeding eah other](i) they hought had suggested that [PRO feeding eaother]

woud be difut they tod John that [PRO feeding msef] was impossibe(i) John od them tha [PRO feeding msef was impossibe

Man speakers seem to n (i) and 0 mor tural than (i), nd prefer(i) to 6 Very loosey, it appears that PRO searhes for a possiben ithin its own ase, an'd f it nt on ee, oksoutside n (2i), is a possibe ontroer within the lause, yiedinganungrammatial embedded ause sine ach ohr has an improper antednt; eras in (ii), tre being n ontroer in te sme lause nyoutside ontroer is permtted. there is a real distintin eween and (iv), it indiates that PRO prefers a subjet to a ompement ante

c6 ar phmno i the se f anaphor n ay langugesBut se ppar tO fair lose requreents hus (22) seems o mbigus it PRO tkn eithr hy (within its ause, but not -ommanig i) r w outide ts lause) as ateedent:

(22) we eel that [ { P

RO

leal

r�ng to ·hcop

erate . } ] is important for e p ea ot er

their develpment

The phenoena ar renisen of those studied b Hal nd s oles in anuages where vaious res of onstral pay a fudamentarole64

These are among e properties hat have to be aounted for bythe theory of ontro They sue to indiate at this theory involves anumber of dfferent fators: strutural onguraions, intrinsi properties



Susysms o cor gramar 79

o erbs other sematic ad pragmatic cosideratios. Sortg theseactors out a explaiig the cross-liguistic dereces ad saritiesremais a ope robem. The ormuatio i O is at st a rst approximatio ill adopt i here as rough guide ith the modicatios iormaly reieed ere koig o o substatial impromet

2.4.4. Trac an oundng hoSo ar hae bee csiderig oe type oN-gap amey the type

ith the properties o PRO. The basic properties o the secod categoryNP-trace hae aready bee illustrated i the course o the discussio. Toreie briey cosider the seteces :

(i) it is certai that Joh is here

(i) Joh is certai X to be here](iii) it seems at Joh is here](i) Jh seems X to be here () i is beieed that Joh is here](i) Joh is belieed X to be here

s (i) () idicate the redicates cran sm v d take causaomemets. By the projectio pricipe ad the crterio X = NP ithe bracketed costructios hich are o the categor S ig the gaps

i the paradigm thus INFL i the embedded causes may e ±Tese.The matrix predicates o are ot Caseassigers so X caobe phoeticalyrealized i Sstructure. theory requires that X be the trace o hematrix subject ohn assigig to John its -re ad that i Dstructure(here F- is represeted)he positio is led by the NP John mappedto Sstructure b oe- obigatorl by rtue o the Case Fter. Thetrace s goered ad meets the subjacecy coditio ad its atecedetis ot i a -positio so the coditios 2.4..(2) are satised. Stilassug that the bidig theory proides a idepedet expaatio

appyig as e to oert aaphors PRO ad proous for the act that tesubject o a iitie may be a empty category ad that Case ad bidig teory proide a idepedet explaatio or the act that a subject oa iitie must be a empty category i e ca maitai the theoryo stax i its simpst form causes e ite or iitial ith ourther stipuatios to expess their geeral properties ormal orsematic.

I geera the e expect to d that iitial ad tesed causesappear i approximatey the same positios. I the umarke case e

expect to d such pairs as "I promise that I ill be there I promise tobe there I persuaded him that he shoud leae I persuaded him toleae etc. I a erb (similarly a ou or ajectie) takes a clausal compemet as a lexca property the i the umarked case it shoud takeeither type o causal complemet By the projectio priciple the sameexpectatio hods at eery ee of sytactic represetatio (LF ad S-



0 Lctur on govmnt and ndng th Pa lctur

and Dtucture). There will, of coure, be lexical doyncrae, but ingeneral, he aumption ape to be reaonably well oe out

To complete th revew of propertie of empt element, let u u tothe econd and thrd type of trace oted in 2.4.(1) the tace left ymovementtC and by extrapoition; for example, (2)

(2) (i) ohn know [what we lke t (ii) I ought a book [[ PRO ] [ PRO to gve to Mary J(i) a m t ] wa here s ; who ohn know]

In each cae, the trace i governe, 66 it antecedent i not in a poition,and the ubjacency conition i met; thu the condition on tracei2.4. 2

are atied. We have alo noted that the trace left by movementtoCOMP, unlike NPtrace or the trace left by extrapoition, i Caemarked(ee 2.4.2.(17) ).

We have een that boundng theory hold of trace but nt of PRO orother anaphor, and that the ubjacency requirement of bouning theorydoe not follow from other propertie of trace but mut be indepedentlytipulated. The example given o far involve Ptrace, ecically,raiing. But the ame i true for other trace, o it appear.67 The ujacency condition for movemnttoCO ha coniderable explanatorypower and permit a unied development of ubtantial part othe theryof iland in the ene of Ro (1967); cf homky (1977b) van Riemdij197a), zzi (197b), Taralden (197a), Reinhart (1979b), Spotie(1979), and the reference of note 67, among much other orrlevant tt topic It alo gure crucially in other dicuion, among them, theacount of tylitic inverion in French in Kayne and Pollock (197)and the explanation of ome propertie of Caeaignment in contruction to wch we return, along with other quetion (cf. Mlner (97))On ubjacency a a property of extrapoition, ee Ro (1 967), Akmajian(1975), Guron (197), Baltin (197, 1979), among other.

The ditinction between antecedenttrace relation and other contrualrelation with regard to ubjacency, illutrated aove in the cae of anaphor can be een a well in the cae of extrapoition Compare theexample (3)

(3) (i) picture of everal pople are for ale wch I lie() picture of everal people are for ale wo I lke

The Stucture rereentation of the N ubject are (4i,i), repectively,6 with t the trace of the extrapoed relative claue

(4) (i NPNP picture of everal peope] t ](i NP picture of NPNP everal people] t ]]



Susysms o cor grammar 1

In case ), extaposton cosses ony one boundng categoy namely, P)obsvng subjacency, so that s gammatca But n case ), t ossestwo NP boundaes so that subjacency s volated and )s ngammatcaThs s the ·genea patten

Consde now the folowng examples

(5) ) pctues of so many people ] a fo sae that decded togo to the show

) pctues of moe people] ae fo sae than I expected) *pctues of moe people] ae fo saethan I met yestedayv) *pctues o sevea people] ae fo saewho I lke = 3))

In each case, the extaposed clause s assocated wth the backeted whch s wthn anothe NP so that extaposton by Move- s blocked bysubjacency Ths explans the ungammatca status of ), v But cases), ), whch ae smla n conguatona stuctue to ), v) n elevant espects, ae nevetheless gammatca Ths fact would ead us tosuspect that exampes ) and ) e not omed by etaposton, butathe that a u o constua n the LF componnt asscates the extaposed pase wh he backeted NP0 as we hve sen oughout, ulesof constua, ncludng contol, ae not subject to subjacency, a popeyof Move-

Thee s ndependent evdence justng ths cocuson Consde thefollowng examples

6) ) so many people ] ke so many pctues ]that the show wgo o fo a week

) moe sy lectus] have been gven by moe bong pofessos ] than I woud have expected

) * [moe sy lectues ] have been gven b [oe bong pofessos ] than I et yesteday

v) sevea men] met [sevea women] who I lke

The examples )- v) coespond, espectvey to 5-v) Examples ) and) ae gammatca n both 5) and 6), and{) s ungammatca n bohcases Say, v) s ungamatca n 5) and he ntepeaton nwhch te extaposed pase s assocated wth boh backeted sexcluded n 6v) The pon ustated s that the extaposed clausesof ) and ) may be assocate wth "splt antecedents, namely, both ofthe baceted expessons o ,), and so canno hae been deved by

Move-2 In contast, v), whee such an assocaton s mpossbe,ndcate that the extaposed clauses of ), v) ae deve by Move-,leavng a tace n theNPom hch the cause s moved Coespondngly,5,), whch nvolve a ule of consua not obsevng subjacency, ae



82 Lcurs on govmn and nng: h Psa lcurs

.grmatical but not {5i,iv) in wich applictin f Mve- wuldilate subjacency Te exaples are ihtwad een analues the leftwad veent cases that we have aleady discusse epl

(7, whee a ule f cnstual (in tis case cntrl} vilatin subjacecyassciates PRO with its antecedent hy bu the ule f veent relatintace and hy in () is blcked; (8), where a ule f cnstual relateshand ac ohr bu ve elates who and its trace:73

(7) (i) they thuht that [PR t feed each therJ wuld be difcult

( * they see thatt feed each ther ] wul be dcult(8) (i) tey heard [N stries abut [N pictues each the]

() *wh did they hea [ N stries abut [Npictures ft ]The paadi (5) is quite eneal as ilustated by such sets f exaples

as he flwin:

(9)

(10)

(1)

() t th t were adied by [s any excelen criticsJ p ures a [ 11 J d d s any exce ent ccs a 1re

were f sal that I decided t attend the shw

. Iwee aded by [re citicsJ

u pctures that

[ J d ed

wee f

e ccs a rsale than I execed

( ) * t th {were adied by [e criticsJ fm p ures at [ .t. J d ed

were re cs a 1rsale than et

(iv) *pictues that wee aded by [several critics ] wee fsle wh I et

(i) the cnstructin f [s any bridesJ is necessary that

we'l have t raie taes(ii) the cnstuctin f [re bides] is necessary than weexpected (eanin "re bride cnstructin is necessarythan w epected)

i) * the cnstutin [re brides] is necessary � than wesaw

(iv) *the cnstuctin [a bride is neessay tha spnthe iver

i) the desin f [s any huses] is pleasin t the eye that

Ive decided t bece an acitect() the desin f [e husesJ is leasn t the eye than Iexpected

(iii) *the desin f [e huses is pleasin t the eye han builds

(iv) * the desin f [huses ] is pleasin t the eye that Tbuilds



Suym o cor grammar 83

(12 () composers f so many songs ] won przes that the awardceremony wen on for hours

(i) composrs of moe songs ] won przes tan I expectd

* composers of more songs ] won przes than Jon wrote

(iv) *composers ofsongsJ won przesthat Joh liked(13) i) a speech about the construction of so many bdges] was

announced that I decided to skp the meeting() a speech about the construction of more bridges ] was

announced than I expected(i) *a speech about the construction of moe bdges ] was

announced than Tom designed(iv) * a speech about the constructn of bdges ]was annouced

that are to span the ve

These examples lustate two kinds of comparative constructon: thoseinvolving constual wth possibly spt anteceents, suc as (i, and thosenvolving movement, such as (ii) Thee s anothe tpe of comparatvewt han athe than a clause, eg, (14)

(14) John es moe people than Bill

It appeas that these fall into the category of examples

(i),with construal,

rathe than examples wit moveme�t compare (15):

(15) (i) no arlne saves you more money n more ways thanDelta

(i) no one saw pictues that were admred by more excelentctics] at the exhibitthan John

(iii) *no one saw pictues that wee admed by excelent ctics ]at the exhbit wo he respected

Example (i) illustates the possbilty of spt antecedents, and (i), correspondingly, the case of constual violatng subjacency, whch holds, howeve, in the Move- case

eftwad construal volating subjacency s standad n othe constuctons as well, eg, (16):

(16) (i) I told hm that shJ should have come last week, that womanyou met

(i) je eur a dit qu'ee] aurat d veni a semae denre,

e

Qute geeally, the, the atter seems to be that ules o cstual(ludg cotol) may volte subaey wheeas the ule oveobseves i eguary: moveme, movemet, eaposito ad othes ot osideed hee Tht is, the ateedettae



84 cur on govmn and ndng h Pa lcur

lato osvs t codto 24. . 2) l ot ul assocat lts do ot.

cosdatos vwd ts scto gv a stog aso tosuppos at t s a utay pocss udlyg xtaposto t assocato of a oato suc as a pas wt t vaal t ds tassocato of G- t GF- as asg ad passv) t tptato of do cuks as asg ad passv) ad a u of otpocsss g. PP-cltczato t Roac lauags. Ts costuctos all osv t codtos of2412) utoGFgapsslaly t postos wc ot do cuks o ploasc ltsa tptd) sa a cucal popty wt ovt aapos as a otd ty apa oly postos tat a taspat ss ofdg toy. Cosd 17)

7) ty s t to coptt J) t a lvd t to copt]

) ty s [ t a coptt]v) ty a lvd [ t a coptt ]v) ty s Bll lks t] cf. "t ss Bll lks t)v) ty a lvd Bll lks t] cf. "t s lvd [Bll

lks t

T posto of t GF- ga tat s t posto wc t lof t dsplacd atcdt s dtd s stuctully paalll ttat of a ovt aapo astactg fo t ffcts of t Cas ltad t uts of t toy of govt as llustatd 8) :

8) ) a) Jo was klld t) ty klld ac ot

) a) ty w lvd [t to av klld ]) ty lvd [ac ot to coptt ]c) ty watd [ac ot to w]d) tyd pf fo c ot to w ]) ty td [PRO to w ]

T paall lustad ) aso xtds to atcdtPO atos w assu tat cltcs "aso Cas ad govt suc stuctusas 9), a at to wc w tu capt 4:

(9) j la PR

I saw )

As w av s t ul tat asscats - a GF . . tat assgsa ol to a "dsplacd agu a o-posto as 17) 18)alsosvs to assg t pop doatc tpato to dsplacd ltstat a o gu -ol as 2) ad to lat a oagut to ts



Susysms o cor grammar

base position, as in (2) :

(20) (i) avantage was taen t of John(ii) too much has been mae t of hs falure

85

(ii) excelent care seems

t to have been taen t of the orphans]

(2 ) (i) there seems [t to be consierabe support for this conclusion ]

(i) it is beieve [t to have been snowing al ay ]

Furthermore, such isplace nonarguments may be assigne certain properties in terms of their structure position as in e case of inserter in Engish or the empty subject pronomnal of Itaan whch agree

with the matrix verb in a raising construction whie receivng their featuresn the asis of their position as embee subjct C § § 245 4 5There are, ten, compeling reasons to assume that the rue that assigns

role to a ispace argument that is not in a position is a case ofMove i the nguages we have been consiering for a generalatin toother anguage types, see §28 We have also seen that there are strongreasons to assume that RO which is crucial istinct frm trace is anempty pronominal ling a gap in an Sstructure In brief, the projection principle is welmtivate it expresses exacty the properties thatare not etermine by the several subsystems of principles (2) The rangeof penomen by no means exhaust in the preceing iscussion isfairly compex but it folows assumng the projection principe, from quitesimple an for the most part inepenentymotivate principes of theinteracting theories of ouning govement ining Case an controa fact of some signicance I beieve

2.. Th voluon oh noon rac n ransormaonal gnravgrammar

Trace theory has often been unerstoo as a fairly sharp eparture from

earier transformational grammar 76 This is not realy correct however variant of trace theory is implicit in the eariest wor an expicit in theeariest formalizations (specicall Chomsy (955)) an the more recentversions arise in a rather natura way from the continung effort from theeary 190s to reuce the escrptive power an variety of grammaticalrules that is to converge on an expanatorytheoryofUG Wecanseehowthe concept emerges (concepuly, not historcaly) by consering suchexamps as (1):

(1) (i) three men from Englan arrive last nght(i) there arrive last nght three men from Engan

e common structure of these sentences, rresenting GF, is appoximately (2) :

(2) Pthree men from Engan] arrive ast night



86 curs on govmn and ndng h Psa lcurs

ha is, hr mn from England bars h GF [,S] in) a gains isro hby. h Ssucu of is somhing k (3)

(3) NP hr]

V ariv as ngh] P mn rom Engan]

hus, h rus foring (3 fro (2) rs ajoin h subjco h ricaan hn insr hr in h osiion of h mov subjc.

n h ars vrsions of ransformaiona gnraiv grammar, i wasassum ha ach grammaica ransformaion consiss of a sucua scriion (SD) an srucura chang SC), whr h S sci homain of h ransformaion an is anaysis ino hrass suc o

SC, an h SC is an oraion comoun of mnary absrac oraions of subsiuion, ajuncion, ion, c. Movmn consiss ofsubsiuion or ajuncion foow by ion of h mov mn;i., coying of on or anohr

sor foow by io. n h ca of

(3), h ru formng s sucur from (2) c i wou consis, inhs rms, of an SD of h form (, VP) an an SC comoun frm lmnary oraions ajuncion, ion, an subsiuion ofhr in h bas osiion of h ajoin , i.., in h osiion of hga vaca by h mov subjc h insr mn hr is anby viru of fac ha i is insr ino h osiion of h movsubjc. his absrac osiion ino which hr is insr is, in ffc, hrac of h mov NP h basic assumion, hn was ha a movmnrul lavs a rac wch can b by anohr mn, al of his inrnao h oraion of h sing ransformaion

On major s owars rucing h class of ossib ransformaionss o limina h ossibiy of comouning lmnary oraions Ason s n s ircon, w may rlac h comoun momn-lon by a sngl movmn oaon, whch lavs h my cagory

NP J as is rac (bu s § 2.4.6) h oraon , hn, cnsiss of an

ajuncon rul movng h subjc an lavng rac, an a ul ofnsron lacing hr n h vaca ac oson, hich rainss NP cagy hroughou. A scon s s o lmina conons onorring, so ha w mus now consr h wo rus o b sara annnn. h rs of hs uls s smy an nsanc of Mo,an h scon a ul of nsron

rsuing h goa of rucng h variy of ruls si furhr, w sumha Mov as fry an ha nsron rmis hr o binsr in any oson fry, an ha hs wo us ar nrly nnn of on anor, siulaon of nncs among ruls bngxclu n rncil. A major roblm now s o iscovr gnral ncils ha xclu unwan alcaons of hs rus, no an insgncan challng. Suos ha s cang can b m. hn h arassumon ha movmn avs a rac whn s a comonn of a morcomlx ransformaon bcoms h rncl ha h rul Mov- aways



Susysms f cr grammar 87

leaves a trae, namey, an empty ategory of the type i.e. , trae theory,in ts urrent sense The laer theory, then derives in a natural way fromthe proess of reduing the potental desrptve power of grammar, andorrespondingly enhaning the explanatory power of linguist heory,

hough i is also motiated ndependeny by onsderaons of he sor dsussed earlier the projetion prinple and he phenomena reviewed in§ .4. We then fae three basi asks: meetig te hallenge jus ndiated,determining how e properies of S-struure inluding rae relae odeermiation o PF and LF, and determining e properies of rae andeir relations to those of other elements su as PRO (whi, in turn,eolves rom the sudy of EQU- deletio n earlier work). These aree questions ha we have been onsidering.

Le us exaine he possibiliy of takng -nseron o be a perfely

free and independen rule We an appeal o te pnple of reoverabliyo deletion o ensure ha hr wil only be inserted in e poston of anemp aegory Wy is obligory afer adjunon of o in (3)?Te reason s ha trae, as an anapor, mus be proerly bound futermre, he empy aegoy trae mus be governed (f 2.4..(2)), and asw shall see n hapter 4, the GR elemen of FL is not a propergvernor for rae Te rule of inserion, like rule of -nseronat applies n te D-struure (4), overomes hese problems, permiinga welformed S-struture to surfae

(4) (i) is rning(i) e] is hed ha hese ruhs are sef-edent

remains o onsder he roperies of hr, and o explainh hris inserted in (3) and is nserted n (4), not onersel 77 Suppose a eem hr has the lexa enry (5)

(5) hr number]]

Tat is, hr is an elemenha mus reeive number n f, hrakeso the number of the NP ondexed with he trae for whi i subsiues, we se in (6)

(6) (i) tere is arrving a man frm Englad (i) her are arvng hree me fro England(iii) there seems o be a man arrving frm England(iv) there seem o be hree men ariving from ngland

s and (v) indiae, te numer assigned to hr, va e P onineed wih the rae it repaes, is arred over under raising. follows tat hr� mus replae an NP n fat, an epty P, retaining isindex.

Consider he possby of nserng hr n a base-generaed empyposon, as n (7):



88 Lcurs on govmn and ndng: h Psa lcurs

(7 (i John saw [ N e](i [ N e] saw B(i [ Pe] is rainig

n case (, -insertion is ocked by the requireen that nuber bedeterned and so by the -crterion since hr is not exprsionhatcan receive -roe In case (ii the subject position s also a -postionhence immune to -insertion i we assume, as in § 22, that markingis blgatory n obligatory positions, a well-motivated assumption as wehave see Under ths asumption, it is not relevan here that the phases Bdoes ot necssarily assign a -role, as in (8, whre s requiresno subject:

(8 [the sight o B] astonished m

n ? owever the empty category is not i a poston, so that -teorydoes not bock -nserton We conclude, then, that the requirementthat hr must receive number rom a condexed determnes the possibilities or hrinserton ths lin o reasoning s correct then hrinsertin can be mntained as a ree an independent rue, assertngsimply (9:

(9 insert hr anywhere

The rues Move- and (9 account or the examples ( 13, (6, given theexica entry (5 or hr

In other languages, inserted elements may have propertes other thannumbr onsider or exampe Italian, where we have such structures as(1:

(1 sembro essere io("it seems to be me

n (, the verb smro is rst person singuar agreeng with o. A naturaassumption ollowng Luigi zzi's suggestion is that an empty pronomnal element o some sort is inserted in the subject positio o the embeddedclause, agreeng in number and person wth the embedded predicate withwhch it is condexed, and s then rased t the subject position o the matrxverb whch agrees wth t in person number and gender Note that ths

analysis is correct then Itian lke Englsh, ncorporates the condtion2 (25 requirng that clauses have subjects, even though o subject needapear in surace structure

Analyss o such constructions as (1 n terms o (9 and a rule thatassocates the postverbal and the matrix subject positon (Move nthe case o I have assumed is optmal It remains o be seen wheterit can be sustaned wthout qualcation or not, and whether or not the



Suym o cor grammar 89

calege ced above ca be me ful geeay. ay case, we see aace eoy s o a adca ovao e eoy a we ave beecosdeg ee bu s a vey aua develome as we use e

quesos a ase w asfomaoa geeave gamma, aemg o dscove ad fomulae e essea oees of UG.

2.4. Som varan and alav emaked a e ose a wll make o seous effo ee o co

sde aeaves o e assumos a ae beg eveloed a deely seem wo elog, o yg emoely aoacg seas s wowle o sess e o aga\•

Oe queso a sould be cosdeed, weve, elaes decy oe dscusso of moveme ules e as seco eca a eaewok, e ue of moveme was assumed o be decomosed o woelemeay asfomaos: coyg ad deleo Suose a we weeo coe o ado s dea, ae a akg moveme o be a coygule leavg a emy caegoy as ace T aua way o wok s ou e ese famewok woud be o esabls e coveo fo Move-a we s moved s o deleed bu le ucaged, aa fom afeaue D dcag a s o be deeed e F-comoe ( fac,D s eduda, deemabe fom oe oees of e gama)Moveme, e, cosss of coyg of a ew oso, ad booccueces of ee e Fcomoe osde ow suc seecesas ()

(1 ) wose boe dd e see?

Te Ssucue w be ee (2) o () deedg o wc of e wocoveos we ado fo ace eoy

(2) wose boe] e saw e]

() ose boe] e saw D wose boe]

s a easoabe (oug o ecessay) assum a e F-eseao fo ( 1) s (4)

(4) fo wc , a eso, e saw 's boe

Ts eeseao s devable decly fom () b eques a ecosuco ule of e so dscussed omsky (197b) e S-sucue s (2).

Te easo f assumg a F-eeseao suc as (4) ae a oedeved decly fom (2) s, s of a, e sese, ad secodly e osby of elag a umbe of cossove eomeaeg, e fac a s o codeabe w h ems of e same oees eclude suc codeg h aw Johns rohr coas, cosde (5),wee e same oees block codeg of h ad John oug s s



9 Lcturs on govmnt and ndng thsa lcturs

ermttd the -frm 6 whch presumaby has the Frepresentatn7 nvng no recnstructon rue

(5 he read he book ha ohn kes(6 whch book that ohn kes dd he read(7 for whch a book that ohn kes he read

There are many roems that arse n ths connecton whch woud take ustoo far aed. 79 I w therefore drop ths ssue here merey notng thatheapproach to trace that I w contnue t adopt that trace s [ ] rasesquestions for compex -phrases and that there s an obvous aternatvethat ght be expored based on dssocaton f movement to copng

and eetion In chapter 6 we wi adopt a varant of the idea that movement invoves copying.Some of the assumptions I have been discussng are quite centra to the

GB-framework others are consderaby more margina. exampe of eatter is the subdson of the syntax nto base rues and ove Anobvious aternate to the theory outned so far woud be to uppose thatbase rues generate S-structures drecty with new nterpretve rues of theFcomponent associatng phrases and ther traces (now base-generatedn pace of the system descrbed so far in whch te base generates D-struc

tures mapped to S-structures by appcaton of the rue Move-. et us nwconsider ths queston hch has aready een dscussed brey n connecton with 2.2 .(17.

Consider rst a theory that I wi ca "Theory I. In ths theory weassume that sentences have the S-strucures postuated n te precedndscussion incudng trace and PRO. Consider now two varants ofTheory I. One varant ca t Ia assumes as above that Move- formsthese S-structures fro base-generated D-structures A second ca tb assumes that the base generates S-structures drecty. Theores Ia and

b share certan interpretve rues specicay the rues ofconstrua reatingantecedents to overt anaphors and to certain extraposed phases (cf§ 2.. and the rues of contro deternng the referentia possbitesfor PR. These shared rues do no observe condtons anaogous to2..1.(2 we have seen. Theories Ia and b differ however n heitreatment of antecedent-trace reations that is reations that meet thecondtions 2..1.(2. In Theory Ia these reatons are estabshed n thesyntax by the rue Move- in Theory Ib by new nterpretve rues of theLcomponent satsfng the condtions 2. .1 (2 and whatever other con

dtns may distingush trace from RO.It s nt easy to nd emprca evdence t dsnguish between TheoresIa and b. It may be thahey are to be understood as two reaizatons of thesame more abstract theoy which captures the essenta propertes oGat the eve of abstraction approprate for nguistc theory. See the qutedremarks at the openng of chapter 1 whch were motvated by ust thisquestion. Perhaps there are empica differences beween the two theores




u h wil surly b rahr sub or xamp h hois diffr somwha in h way n which hy and idioms and in hir ramn ofsuc xampls as 24 (5)(8). Th horis may aso difr n a morsubl spc hory Ia poss h xsnc of Dsucur a rprsnaon of GF-0 a lv of rprsnaon disinc from S-sucur or Th assumpon has consquncs as w saw n discussng h pincipls22 (17) wch wr sablishd on h basis of propry of D-srucurInsofar as hs consqucs ar concpualy or mpricly dsrabw hav indirc suppor for Thory a W will cm across ohrxampls of his or as w procd Bu h argumns ar sricd andhghy hory-inrna as on shoud xpc whn w considr arnavsso clos in concpual srucur as Thois a and b or h purposs ofour nqury hr i is rarly ncssary o dsinguish h wo horis I il

connu o adop Thry Ia i h rul Mov- sinc sms o mha h vdnc hough hardy ovrwhng suppors his dcision hus I assum ha h u Mov appars unformly in al h componns of grammar hough possibly ih somwha diffrn proprs inh hr componns Vry l urns on his dcision n our discussonhr bu dos hav crain consquncs ha should b carful considrd

Th virual inrchangabiliy of Thors Ia and b is clar wihin hframwor of rac hoy Wl i should no b assumd oo quicly ha

h wo hois ar mprcally indisinguishabl varians my suspicion isha hy ar no nvrhlss h poblm of choosing bwn hm(if i xss) is a fairly magina on as was rcognizd in h als wor onrac hory abou 1 yars ago (cf Chomsy (1977a chapr 3 § 17chapr4))

Simila obsrvaions hod of h gnral qusion as o whhr synacichory should invlv drivaions from D- o S-srucur o ahr a singllvl of prsnaion in whch all synacic proris ar xprssd Soformulad h qusion s scarcy maningfu Thus h Exndd

Sandard Thory in h form 2(1) can b undrsood in ihr waygivn h associaio bwn a funcion chain in S-srucur and hdrivaions o which i can b rgardd as a projcion Th primaryqusio again is whhr h propris of h ul Mov- concivdabsracly as 2 1 ( 1 ) a indd dsinc from hos of ohr rus as whav argud and whhr h scop of his rul has bn proprly xd and a scondary hough no uninrsing qusion is whhr crainargumns rn on h xsnc of D-srucu a rprsnaion of GF-0as a spara vl

Supps wr argud ha Thory b s prfrabl o Thory a bcausi dcs h class of ansformaiona dvcs no mrly o h singrul Mov bu sil furhr namly o non a al Tis s an xampl ofh fallacy discussd in chap I Whil Thory b liminas h ulMov- from h synax (aving i howvr as an opion in h PF- and-componns and prsumably in h mad priphry ousid of co



92 Lectures on government and binding: the Pisa lectures

grammar), does so by addng a new caegory of LFrules, eacly eproperes of e rule Move- Tus no argumen base on concualeconomy aplies, a leas if e rule Move- as differen properies frome nerpreve rules sared b e wo eores, as e precedng dscusson ndcaes

Consder now a differen eory, call "Teory II wc geneaesdifferen S-srucures from ose of e wo varans of Teoy I Teoy IIgeneaes Ssrucues lackng empy caegores ace o PRO One mgmagne oer vaans of Teory II n wic some of e srucures wgaps o be nerpreed ave ace and oers do no eraps movemen-oCOMP mg bedsngusedfomNP-movemennsway,for eample)Teory II s a ifferen n s properes fom Tery I For eample,Teoy II does no observe e proecon prncple fuermore assgns8-roles o argumens a are no n 8-posns by devics que differenfrom ose a are empoyed o reae operaors suc as -praes oe varables ey bnd, o assocae eaposed praes e anecedens, o nerpe doms, o deal w e properes of non-argumensa "ner feaures from e D-srucure posons as n e cae fEnglis thee and Ialian empy pronomnals dscussed n § 2.45, and odeal w penomn u s 2.4.1.1518), ec, al of ese caes nvolvnge rue Move- n Teory . Furermore does no elae e properesof nerpreed gaps o os of over anapos and pronouns w dsoirefeence, as does Tery . In ese and oer respecs, Teores I and IIdie subsanvely

Muc of e preceding dscusson c be regarded s an argumen aTeory I is preferable o Teory II on concepual ad empiical groundsBu e pon o be noed ee s a e eores do differ sucenlyso a ne mg ope o nd grounds for coosng eween em, wereasn e case of e wo varans of Teory I, suc coice may be eremeydcul or mpossble Peraps wen vaians of eores I and II arefurer rened, i w be dscovered a ey oo fal ogeer a some

appoprae eve of absacon or are someow nerransaeabe Bu ifso, e demonsraon w be consideraby more compe an a demonsraon a varans a and Ib are nercangeable if indeed ey are)Teores I and I appear, a leas, o be raer dferen n e concepualand empircal properes o so muc in e coveage of daa presumably eie can be developed n suca way as o deal n some mannerwi enomena a are a al welundersood bu n e framewoksofunyng pncpes and assumpions abou e naure ofUG

Tese remarks reae onl o e nenal srucure of e sna namel,2.1.1 )), no o e organizion of modues of 1 .(1) and 1.(2), wc s, Ink, quie wel-movaed and s cenral o e dscussion ere

2. e B

Le us now urn o a close eamnaon of e caegoral componen andof e leicon, o wc w ave assgned a cenal roe in e syna by




viue of he poection pncpe. We take the exicon to be a se oflexicaentes, each speced as o caegoy and complement sucue, wthfuthe diosyncses The caegoa and complement strucue deemne the possbes fo lexica substuon, whch I wl assume to be athe base eve, lagely as a mate of execution.

Le's assume that each lexica elemen assigns a ole o everyNPoclause n s comlemen (f hee ae any), includng NP n PP lkedo in whch case the ole will be detemned compositonaly by andhe P head of PP83 Thus he veb assgns a ole to each element ofhecomplement n such sucues as (1)

(1) () pomise -NP

() pomse -NP -NP() pomise NP PP

(iv) pefe (want, beleve) -�p}

(ha

s)(romzs John

o

)

(roms John vco)(roms vco o John)

I (rror you o la )

In case (v), he vebs dffe in hatprrtakes acmplementize whilelv does not, wie wan akes a complementize wch deletes nmmediae posveba position and n ha deletion akes place afe

lv; cf. § 2.42.Smlaly, e adecve assgns a ole to is complement n (2):

(2) {ha you wn ) .() eage (agr or you o wn · )o wn (= PRO o wn)

(" ) d (NP' (p d (of) John )) pou - rou ha h won

Te same is rue ofN andPcompements Que genelly, s hese exampeslusae, NP and clause aenate n lexica epesenations.These popees of lexcl tems ae elevan at least to he level of

LF hey specify the postons n LF n whch a exical head may appea,and the ole assgned to is complements. Surveyng he full cass ofexica enties, we nd ceain genea popeties. Fo example, hee reverbs ike proms th complemens of he form - NP , - NP PP- NP NP bu none wth · complement sructure of the form NPAP NP PP NP A sandard approach s to assume at hese proper

es are sated n he rules of he categr componen, whch n thsrespect serves as a statemen of redundancy rules of the lexicon. As wehave seen n § 2.1 ths s a hgly isleading move Assumng the proecon prncipe, none of s srucure (naely, choce of possble complemens) need be specied in he base rues, hough the problem of deermining order remans. We mgh hope o do sll beter an to explan hspropery of he lexicon too on some genera grounds raher than sipulatng n any par of he grammar. For the examples cied, an explanaion may



4 Lecture on goement and binding the Pia lecture

agan le n Case heory. Suppose ha Case-assgnmen for nglshobserves a condon of adjacency ;ha s, Case s assgned by o P anadjacen NP, and f an adjacen NP has been assgned ase, o he ex

P. Bu aseassgnmen never "skps a caegory n a srng. enhe properes of lexc enres jus descrbed folow as wel as he facha adverbs and parcles canno be nrpolaed beween verb ndobjec n nglsh. We mgh assume hs o be one of he unmarked opnsfor Case heory.

We assume ha Casemarkng akes place a S-srucure or n somecases perhaps a D-srucure; cf OB and § § 322 52) Therefore henoon of "adjacency ha s relevan s a of S-srucure, no surfacesrucure. An llusraon s provded by Plleyblank (0) n Yrua.

Ssrucure he verb assgns objecve Case o an adjacenPfoowng.Some knd of "opczaon or "clefng s norm, wh e fronedopcazed eemen presumay leavng a ace n s bae poson. Supposewe have a surface form NP . . . VNP where NP s neeed as heopcalzed objec ofV. Then NPs no assgned objecve Case hough sadjacen o V n surface srucure ; raher s assgned an empy elemenni as Case-marker, where s anogous o n nglsh, ec.For he purposes o Casemakng n S-srucure, NP s no adjacen o V,buraher s sepaaed from V by he race ofNP

Noe ha we have exended he adjacency condon for he case ofdoubleobjec verbs such as gie, f hey have he compemen srucure NP NP (gie John a book, where NP s e prmary objec wh he GF[NP VP and NP he secondary objec wh he F [NP, VP. 7 Thus eassume ha cern verbs have he propery of assgnng a secondaryCase o her secondary obec, gven he form of he adjacency condonsaed above he secondary objec s "as close as can be o he verb, gvenha s a secondary objec. Thus such srucures as "ohn gave Blyeserday a book are rued u a Ssrucure erhaps hey can be formedby sylsc rues of he PFcomponen along wh "ohn gave yeserdayBl a book, ec., by he adjacency condon.

Assumng hs condon as an unmarked opon for Caseassgnmen, s unnecessay o assgn order o he complemens n a exc ery orn he rules of he caegoral componen of he base. Unwaned orderswlvolae Case heory, or he orm of ha apples n nglsh. Thupromiecan be lsed n he lexcon as havng an NP complemen ong h eran NP, or PP comlemn, wh no order assgned o hese. And hebasc X-bar rule 2.3( expndng X n he caegoral componen need nospecfy e order or choce of caegores n .

He (7) has suggesed ha languages fal o wo ypesh regardo base srucue. Some le nglsh, have an X-bar grar h relavely xed (unmarke) order, whe ohers, lke Wbr, hae an unrdered base. Pehaps we mgh accoun for he dfferene, n par a leas,n erms of parameers of Cse heory. Thus, f he adjacency requremensdropped for Case-assgnmen, order wl be fre, a as for complemens ;




ad rther exteso to other staces o Case-assmet ht accotor other variatos i order. Note that rom ths poit o view, we woldot expect languages t be o the Elish-type or the Walbiri-type, btrather asects laaes Ths Elish wold share the order-ree

property or PP complemets bt ot or NP complemets §2.8 orrther cometRetri to the eeral properties o the l set o exical etries,

some may be explicable o eera rods as i the exampe jst discssed, bt others will be idiosycratic to the aae i qesto; orexaple, whether complemets olow or precede exical cateoressoar as the choices are laaespecc, they mst be specied i therammar Assmi them to be specied at the leve o the cateorialcompet, res sch a 23.(1 expadi will appear i the partclar

rammar o Elish oly s a speccato that complemet olows head;apart rom ts, the rle beos to UG rather tha th raar o ElishUiversas o the sort explored by oseph Greeber ad others haveobvios reevace to determii jst whch properties o the exico haveto be specied i ts aer i particar raars or to pt it i otherterms, jst how mch mst be leared as rammar eveops i the corse oaae acqisitio

Coti with these assmptos, we have to expai sch acts as theimpossblity o a complemet strctre PRO expaato i terms

o Case will ot sce, sice PRO eed ot be assed Case, as we haveee act, the impossiblity os compemet strctre ill olow ithe GB-rameork rm the ac that PRO is ecessary overed,

as Ao has observed There are, eedless to say, meros other qestios o the sort that remai ope

Let s assme these rther qestios to be settled either by resort toeeral prcipes sch as those o Case theory the optma statio) or bysecicatio o parameters o the cateori compoet with reard toorderi ad itera strctre o major ateories e, the mchdebated

matter o he itera strcre o complex NPs i Elish) The cateorialcompoe o the core rammar or a particlar ae, the, will bejs a specicaio o these parameters Give ts specicatio, the class owel-ormed base stctres or the laae is deermied by properties olexic etries der the projecio pricipe, ad by eeral priciplessch those o ase theory, peraps aso parametred y potetialrammars are excded by these assmpios, wch seem to me to observeas wel as possbe the eeral idi pricipe o restricveess oriistic theor discssed brie i chapter 1 ad amiiar rom other

workLet s ow compare these assmptios with some others tha come tomd, ad tha have bee discssed i oe or aotherormireceliteratre whch, as oted i he preace, will make o attempt to srvey)Cosider ai the act ha there are o vers tha appear i the strcre(3 where NP is phoetialyreazed, ie , = PRO



96 Lectures on govement and binding the Pisa lectures

3) N V [ N' t ]

We have suested an expanin f his fac in tes Case they: N'cann be assined ase wihin S and cann be assined ase b theveb f he atix sentence89

Suppse ha ne wee t depat f hese assupins psuain theule (4the analyss f:

(4) l (that) [ +VIblieve tatohnwon) � ) [Tense =forN dpreferforJohn to win)

ule· (4 wuld be suppleented b pnciple detenin that theinnitival V s assined a subject eithe f he atx clause n whichtis ebedded f the for-N is abitay in efeence Theexaples f (5) wuld be base-eneated with (essentialy) he suctuesindcated

(5) () Jhn [ y beeved [ [ y be sad]]](ii) Jhn [ pesuaded [ t [ V leave( ) Jhn [ V pefeed [ [ pp f ] t [V leve](iv) Jhn [ pefeed [ t [V leave]]

The le f subject f the ebedded s assined by t he dect bjectf the atx sentence Bill) n (i) (i); t the bjec f he ebedded Bill) in ( ); and t he subec the atx sentence John) in (v) Thepectn pnciple s vated Silaly the citen s vilate atLFepesentain in (i) and (iv) (since Bi and John especively havedual -les) and at S-stuctue n (i) (snceBis nt n a -psitn)

Retuin t 3 it wuld be exclud in this syste by the stipulatin nthe cateal cpnenthat thee ae n base-eneaed stucues f thef (6):

(6) N N

Thee ae n exical entes f this f but ne cannt appeal t the pecn pncple t b (6) since the pncple s nt peae in this systeUnde this appach it uld be natual t expess he spulatn whina they f aatical elatns cal t GR wee syntactic aaticalfuncins ae nw taken as dstinct f the theaicaly elevant aatcal functins f the LF-stucue8; thus B is the syntactic dec

bec f te atx veb in bth (5i) bu at the LF-level t s unelated tbelieve n (5i) while it is the dect bect fpersuaden (5) The stipulatin excldn (6) then cd be expessed in GR by he eueent that eachbase-eneated N ust be a te f a syntacic aaical eatinwheeas GR pvides n aacal elatin f the hid Nn (6)

Stuctues f the f (6) d exist n the syntax hweve; e ppsive



Subsystems of core grammar

itiv ostrutios suh as ()

() [Joh] ave [Bi] [Moby Dik] (for Tom) to read

9

But he theory R woud require that i a struture suh as (6)(), therammati roes of the three braketed Ps must be subet primaryobet seodary obet ad the theory miht preude the possibity ofmappi ts forma etork ito a F of the form (3) i some mae

This terative approah suffers from a umber of defets as omparedwith the oe we have suested i partiuar the foowi

(8) (i) it is osideraby more ompe requri a more ompesystem of base rues a ew iterpretive priipe P ad a

theory R of rammatia reatios that peudes hemappi of (6) to (3)we permitti a sytati diret obetto be dissoiated from its ovei verb i mappi (i) (butot (i)) to LF

(ii) the approah fas to reate properties of subetess iitivesto idepedet priipes o ovemet bidi ad asetheory that determe the behavior of overt aaphors adproous thus repai a epaatio of these propertiesby a series of stiuatios

the approah fais to epai the obiatory isertio ofpeoasti eemets i ausa strutures that assi o roeto the subet as disussed i § 2 1 .

(iv) the approah requires referee to idepedet properties ofbase struture ot derivabe from properties of eia itemsat LF i this ase some otherise motvated otio ofsytati raatia futio

Poit (i) is strahtforard; (i) ad we hve aready disussed. Pit (iv)

reates to the issue ow uder osideratio the desirabt of ematireferee i the rammar to idedet properties of base strutures asdistit from those aouted for i terms of properties of eia itemsat LF ad ieeet eera priipes these defets are overomeuder the pproah adopted above assumi the -riterio ad the proetio priipe the rue aayi S as PINF ad the base optioof seeti PRO or a phoetiayreaized P free for ay ourree ofP. I this ase the the restritive assumptios we have bee osideri whih redue the ateoria ompoet to a mium seem we

ustiedW oted i hapter 1 that a desideratum for uisti theory is thatrammatia reatios be reduibe to aeptabe primitive otios.The osideratios ust reviewed bear o ts poit sofar as they arueaaist deveopi a theory R of sytati raata reatios idepedet of the propertes of weformed base strutures that are deter



98 ectures on goement and binding the Pisa lectures

mined (unde the pojection principle) by the propeties ofleicenriesat LF and independent principles.

A vaiant of the GR-eoy that seems to me somewhat more plausibe call it R' retains the ule analyzing S as -FL (o some similar rule requiring that S has subject) and the otion of taking as PR orphonetically-realized while still taking Bil n (5i) to be the diect objectof the marix veb The sentences of 5) woud then appe in the form (9)

(9) (i) John p believed Bill s RO to be sad]]](ii) John y persuaded Bill s PRO to leave](iii) ohn p prefered [s for [ s Bil to eave]]](iv) oh prefered O lave

s approach is close to he one we have been consideing n fact theanalyses are identical in the case of (ii)(iv), diferng only in case (i).Recall that we have been assuming the analysis of (i) at S-sucure be(l):

(0) ohn [ p beleved [ s Bil to be sad]]

Te S-structure (10) conforms teprojectionprnciplethaofGR'doesno. The approaches diffe in he way in which e interp the propetiesof (9i) and (10). Both appoaches corretly regard this phenomenon asexceptional. Our approach interpets the marked poperty of verbs suchas beliee in English to be Exceptional Case-maring, analogous o themarked consuction (9iii) and to aising constructions which equire-eletion for trae-government GR inteprets the marked propety ofbeleve to be a eatue fom the projection pinciple, wih Bill assigneda GF ha is not a GF-.

u approach and GR', while rahe close sill difer somewhat inempirical consequences. Consider, for exampl, suc structures as ( 1 1 )

with the S-sucture (12)

( 1 ) Jon peadedith Bill to eave(12) ohn y pleaded pp with Bill] s RO o leave]]]

Evidently, this is a ontol structure Bil is in a psiin that pemitsconto of PRO. Assumng that the proection principe permits kedviolations in accordance with GR' as h (9i), there might be a verb PEADsuch that PLEA with ike plead with) means (roughly) exhort," so that(13) would mean tha John exhorted that Bill leave he matrix verb lackinga thematic object as in (9i):

(1 John LEADed with Bill to leave

f we tae the conray posiion, assuming tha he prjecion principl is




nvolable and that the maked popety of believe s accounted fo byExceptional Case-making, then no such veb as PLEAD can exst, sincethe Sstuctue (and Dstuctue) of (13) would have to be (14):

(14) John PLEADed with

Bil to eave]]

But (14) is ued out n pncple, since pepositions do not take clausalcomplements as a consequence of lexica popeties, the £-citeion, anthe poection pincpe

Thee seem to be no such exceptional stuctues (13), analogousto the aked veb believe. Assuming this to be a fact and not an accidenalone i.e. , assumng thee to be pinciped easons fo the fact it folowsht the maked popety of believe should be ntepeted as ce of

Exceptonal Casemaking analogous o (9ii), the pojection pnciplebeing inviolable. Independent agumens against assuming Bto be themaix obect in (9i) ae pesented in Kayne (198c), to whch we etunin § 52.

I wll coninue to sume, hen that the poecion pncple s ndeedinviolable so ha he categoial compoent s esiced o te speccatonof paamees such as those noted eale, all clauses being of the fomNP-INFL-VP and maked nnitivals being cases of Exceptional Casemakng As a side obsevation, t is woth nong that cetan additonal

empiical facts suppot these conclusions, as Mak Baltin has obseved(cf. Bain (198)). Thus compae (15) to he consideably less accepable(16):

(15) I told (pesuaded, pomised, asked, . ) Bill myself to leave theoom

(16) I expected (believed) Bil myself o be a lia

Simlaly if the emphaic eexive myse is elaced by himseand the

maix subjec is eplaced by John (15) is ambiguous wle in ( 16) himseefes unambiguously to B(at least, wih a vey stong pefeence, ascontased wth (15)) Suppose tha (15) is deived fom (17) by Move-applied toyse

(17) I myself told Bll [s PRO to eave he oom]

Then ove- can move myseeihe to e left o the igh bounday ofthe embedded clause (o o the ight of eihe the ful o the sm "

told B pehaps), in accodance wih Balins landng sie heoy (Batin(1978, 197)) Assuming (16) to deive fom (1 8) ahe than (19), his optionis impossible and (16) s blocked, as equied sumng (16) o deive fom (19i), as in the heoy of subectless nntives GR, o fom (19i), as inGR, hee is no eason fo (16) to hae dffeent status fom (1 5), contayto fac:



Lctre on goment and bndng the Pa lctr

(1 8) myse expecte [Bl t be ·a ar](1 () I myse expece Bl [t e a arJ

( I mysef expecte BlPO to be a arJ

In short, the fference been (15) an (16) olows om he assumpton that B s n the matrx clause n (15) n -structure an n he embeeclause o (16), n accorance th the LF-representatons an the projeton prncple. Rec that ase theory prevents ovement omyeto themmeate postverba poston n (8) as n (9)

Oter examples lustrate the same pont Thus, athough nsertono averbs an other quaers s ar ree so tha the snctonsare no sharp, he s srely eecy the ecton opreerrn

(2)to

(21)92

(2)

(2)

() John promse Bl wth hs hear (snerely) l t�t h wud) Vt hm; to

vst hmtomorrow

() John orce Bl angry to eaveJohn expecte (eleve) B sncerey o be more orthcomng

There are other smla exampes supportng the same concuson9 Buthe more funamental pont, I thnk, s that the alternatve approachesassung subjectess nntves or voatng the prjecon prncple wekenthe connecon between thematc an grammacal reatons, rasng thefcutes scusse above Ptng the matter n ferent terms, I assumethat the c acqung Engsh has prnce reasons or aoptng the0-crteron an the projecon prncpe an, corresponngly, the analyssNP-INFLP or rather than the uch more compex 4) (on the assumptons o GR) or (9) (on he assumptons o GR'), an thereore knowswhout evence that he facts are as lusrate n (15)(2) rather than

makng he mplausbe assumpton that the analyss accrng wth he0creron an he projecton prnple s slecte over the alternatveson the bass o such evence as ((2).

I assume, then, that the 0-crteron an the projecton prncple aremantane n ther strongest orms an that there are, hereore, nosubjectess nntves n D or stucure The ece o S-eeon s amarke propery o such verbs belee, sngusng the rom hercounterparts n Germa, rench, an Iaan, or example, anrom suchverbs as try, whch I assume to eprsent the unmae case In § .2 I wl

urn to a proposal b Kayne thahere s no S-eeton or other mocaton of synactc srcure nvve n Exceptonal Case-markng, an thaths phenomenon n Engsh erves ro an nepenen property tastngushes Engsh rom French a Iaan, ay, a erence nhow preposons govern I s proposal can be susane, hen Exceptona Case-markng verbs n Englsh are exactly ke ther counterparts nsmlar anguages, the apparen ferences resulng rom oher nepen



Subsstem of coe gamma 10 1

den popees of hese angages obviosly a sgnican mpovemen.o he pesen howeve e s entatvely keep to he evice -deleionths mainaning he connecion beween Exceptonal Case-makng andasng.

Lepeentation and theo

Having shapened somewhat o heoy of te base, le s etn to considaion of L. The fndamenal notion is ha of -ole. I have eenassmng tha a -oe is deemined fo each NP and clause in he complement of a head , including NP n PP n such conscions as put thebook on he table o end the book to Jon The sole exception is povded byidiom rules whch we may assume o apply in the base afe lexical inseion ecludng he ialiczed iem fom a genuine -oe n such expessons as ake caeof Bl" makemuchof Bll whle assgning an idomaicinepetation.94

In dscussng L above I poposed the -cieion whch eques thaeach agume bea one and ony one {-ole and tha each -ole be ledby an agun, as a easonable ceion of adequacy fo L. Let us nowassume ha arguments fal ino he folowng categories

(1) () over anaphors(i) pronominas(ii) R-expressons(iv) causes

Non-agments nclude ohe non-NP categores as wel as NPs tha arenonrefeenal" impesona it, existental there perhaps idiom chunks,and anaogues in othe anguages. Since NP-race ansmits its {-ole(if any) I wil ake race o be a non-agument it is not a viabe. Theituve idea is ha arguments are the eemens ha bea a {-oe. Thuseach argument or ts tace is n a -position hence an A-postion (cf § 22)Thee wll be sght revsons as we proceed.

Revewng biey he caegories of(1 ), over anaphors such as each otherreceive -roes and are herefore argumens. Possibly hey are to be analyzedin terms of variabes at L. Thus we might ene x as folows

(2) In an expesson of the fom (i), where Q is an opeao, may akeany vaue n and may tke any value n apa from he valeof() Q an . . . . . . x . . . (equvlenly, x . . . . . . )

or example (3i)wll be inepre as (i,ii)

(3) () he men ke each othe() for each one of he men kes x(ii) for al ( #) , one of he men lkes



12 Lectures on govement and bndng the sa lectures

his is onl a rs approximaion bu i wl do for presenurpses henhe variable o being an R-expression receives a 0-role bu he cmplex (which e migh hink of as involving he variable and an peraorbar) is no a variable and receives no 0role. A similar anaysis is possiblefor reexives hough for Engish we migh adop he anaysis of Helke(971) akng he reexive o be an N ohe form [pronoun [sef]]wih a bound pronoun so ha e quesions do no aise.

he second caegory of argumens pronominas includes pouns andRO ronomnals have he feaures gender number and person adperhaps oher grammaica feaures bu no hose of over anaphors orR-expressions A pronoun in addiion has a phonoogica marix andherefore mus aso have Case by virue ofhe ase Fer. Ris in effec a pronoun lackng a phonologia marix so ha i is immune o he CaseFer he erm pronomina hen simply refers o any elemen wih jushe relevan coecion of feaures. e us idenfy RO and AGR heagreemen elemen of he ineciona eemen NF reurnng someconsideraions relevan o his decision.

R-expressions he hd caegory of agumens incud noun paseswih heads ha are in some inuiive sense poenialy eferenia (e.g.John wood, sncerty book, ec) and variables whereweenaivelyundersand he noion vaiabe in e foowing sense subjec o laer renemen

(4) is a variabe if and only f = [ e] in bound by an operaor

We w undersand operaors o incude quaniers -pases or abinding in COM; or denie or indenie operars as in elaiveclauses Recal ha variabes appear o hve he propery ha hey areCasemarked races (cf. 2.42.(7)). is weknown from he sudy ofcrossover phenomena ha variabes share cerain fundamena poperiesof names; we reurn o his maer s we shal see here is godreasn obeeve ha variables like oher R-expressions are no subjec o hebinding condiions for ace and oher anaphrs

We reun o he anaysis of he noion vaiable an is oeriesNoe ha he eamen of vaiables as anaogus o names is naua f weegad he device of quanicaion as ideazaion of cooinaionbeyond lisable domains ha is o domains of inne size or unknownmembership. For nie domains of known size and knwn (nameablemembership quanicaion can be educed o coordinaion (conjuncion ordisjuncion) bu no elsewhere as is we-known. he inerpreaion ofvaiables as analogous o names while naua is no necessary. n ealierwork ook vaiables o be anaphos bu accumulaing evidence o whichwe eurn in chaper 3 ndicaes ha his was an eo. he crossephenomena provide one cass of cases; ohers w appea below

he fourh cass of agumens is clauses e have aready seen hacauses ad Ns end o pay a paralel oe n he complemen srucue of



Stem of cor rammar 103

exica entres and t seems reasonabe to assume that hey bear comparabe 8roles when they appear as complements Wemightaskwhethernplace o the syntacc noton "clause we shoud develop some oreastract notion correspondng to "propositon interpreted pehaps as a"complete 8system - a verb wth each 8role assigned to an argumentrelated to the erb I wl tentatvely assume tat there is no need or thisadditiona concepual apparatus witin he gramar (here may e in abroader theory provding richer nterpretations or grammatica strcturesand that the notions we need are expressible wtin he synta o F in anarowe sense discussing the consequences as we proceed

We have assumed a a complement o is mrked by Beyondtis we must a way o assign a 8rle to the subject o There is aamiar ambguity in the usage o he term "subject Somemes wespeak o the subject o a verb sometmes o the subject o a predicate (a)or a sentence et us assume the second sense o the term "subject Thenit is the that determines he 8role o th subject copostionally. Thesubject is not governed by the verb as he cmpements o the verb aregoverned by t 97

Tis decision whle not necessary is agan rather natura que aparrom the act that it subsumes 8markng in genera under govenmentc § ers requre tha her complemens be appropriately led ands as we have seen require that the subjec position be lednS9whehe or not a 8roe is assigned to the subject But as we have note in § , verbs do no in themselves reqie subjects Thus the verbbeeve lacks subjec in such srctures as hose o (

( (i John is (widely generay beieved to be a liar(i the bee that John is a iar is widespread (eef N

beeve]nom](i he beie s held by no one

In (i it is reasonable o take John o be the sujec not obeevebut othecopula99 an agen phrase (eg eveone) s added then a 8role isassigned to itsPby he prepoiion and is 8role is siilar (perhapsidentica with the 8role assigned to the agent by the n he corresponding sentence or to tha o the optiona adverbal n (i these being mutuallyincompatible elements.100 But i would be a mistake to suppose hat in suchagentless passives as ( hee is a suppressed phrase RO o someingo he sort (perhaps a deleed phrase as in the ealies versins otransormational gramar 0 Tis is clear rom such examples as (ii-(iior rom (i wh choce o the parentheszed adverbia.

Other consrctons lustrate he same ac Conside or examplecausatie constrcions n the Romance langages eg (6)

(6) aire mangerlapommepar erre("to have the apple be eaten by ierre



ectues on goenment and bndng the sa lectues

As Kyne (1975) bseves the embedded phase has the prperties fpassive cnstructins. As in pssives, n subject apear at r -stucture The exampe (6) dffers frm (i and smlar cnstructin in hat t

lacks passive mrphlg and there is n mement The tw facts create.Since ange antais its categrial status as a full verb ([ +V,)in (6Case s assigned t th bject a pmmes that mvement is unnecessay satisfy the Case Flte. Te exampe incidentaly lustrates the indendnce f passive intepretatin frm passve mrphlgy r mvement,but it als ilustrates in the present cnnectin the plausiblity f theassumptin that the subject is nt assigned a 8-rle by the verb itsel asblgaty cpemets are, but rather by the cstructin f which theverb is head wch ma r may nt have a subject.

T hep clarfy the issues that aise cnsier again the lass f nnalcnstructins such as (7) 0

(7) () the barbarians' destructin f Rme(i) Rme's destructn (by the barbaians

(i) the destructin f Rme (by the barbarians)(v) *the barbarians' destrutin

Example (i) is the nminal expected n the assumptins f X-bar they

anlgus t the barbarans estryed Rme. Since destoy requres anbject (cf. *the barbarians destryed), (v) is exluded. As () indcatesthe verb destoy des nt equire in itself that the subect pstin be lle,thugh it can e led receiving a 8-rle as in (i) The rul f insertinsaves (i) and ( ) frm the Case Fter, the ateative t (ii) being (i)where Mve- has appled. In (i we take Rome, ith he functin chain([NP, NP, [N ]) (analgus t ([NP, S] , P])), t have the GF-8bjet-f. gan te range f phenmen, whic flws frmCase they given lexca prperties fdestoy, ilustrtes the fact that there

is n necessay cnnectin between passive mrphlgy and mvementand that verbs d nt require subets. 10iven these prpertes it is naturl t regard he subject as subect•f

r subject-f-S rather than subject-f-verb, thugh it shuld bestressed tat ts wle questin is mre peripera than many thers thatwe have been cnsidering If s then we may assume that te 8-re fthe subject (whee it exsts) is determnd cmpsitinally by the ieneral (as may as be the case in quasi-idmatc cnstructns suc astake m seously) In (8) fr example Jhn is understd t be the agentf he acin n (i), thugh here is anther intepretatin in which he istaken t be instrument as in the hamme boke the ndo, where we thinkf the hammer ( Jhn) as beng wielded by smene wh s the agen;sentence (ii) has these nterpetains but its me nal interpetatintakes Jhn t be patient, s that (), b\t nt (i) might be the espnse tWhat happened to ohn?



ubtem of core gramar

(8) (i) ohn boke he windw ohn boke his m

15

Assmng he -ole of sbjec o be deemned composiionay by ,we may onine o associae he gammac eaions cosey o obigoy assgnmen of -oe.

Connng o expoe hese deas, le s consde how some faacases wod be nayzed, egding hese emks oe s n one of pogam o be execed han as a se of ress

In he senence (), he veb hit signs roe (pen) o B, nd he hit Bassgns -roe (agen) oJohn

() ohn [h B]

In he senences of 1) he verb break ssgns he oepen o indon () nd o he ce t in hs devavey o s neceden indo;nd he [y [ break]] ssigns s -oe o indo n (i), so habreak s, in effec, egve. 04 The oe gen is assigned oJohnby he break the in n () nd by b n (ii)

1) () ohn broke he wndow (= (8i))() he wndow boke

h window w [broken ] y ohn(v) e wndow was boken

Exmpe (v) s ambgos, dependng on whehe broken is ken s ndjecve or synacc (geness) pssve wih ace

Consde nex sch ems s eem, appear The exicon species hese smondic predces wh proposona rgmen o which hey ssgn roe So fa we hve no nrodced noon corresondng o proposon b have kep o noons expresibe he synax of LF e s seewh happens if we pess n s ven. Consid he senences 1)

1 1 ) () i seems [ha ohn hi B](i) ohn seems [ o hve hi B]

ohn seems sad

Sppose we ssme (I) ha here s a nform eny for eem n he exicon,we (II) pessing wh he ssmpon h he pojecon pncipe hods,so h he caegoa componen conans no es reevn o hesemers aher, he popees of weformed scres generaed y hecego componen re deemine by properes of he exicon,chcke a he LF-eve, n he mnne aredy descibd Cry, hesere he opma ssmpons

As l ) nices eem kes a csa agmen and hs ms have he



6 Lectures o govemet d bidig: the is lectures

exica enty: . By assumpton ), tis s its ony agument apat fom anoptiona phase, wich we may disegad hee. us {11i, seemmust assign to the embedded innitiva cause the same 8-oe that it assigns

to the emedded ause in (i. And in (i, eceie its 8-oedeatiy as antecedent o the tace ic is assigned a 8-oe b hit B asn(9 of tis sems unpobematic.

Tuning to (11i, b assumptions (I and (II the epesentatio atLFmustbefhefom(12:

(12 John seems ause

Te natua concusion, then, is that teF-epesetatin and Sstuc

tue is (13, derived fom the Dstuctue (14 by Move-, whee theembedded phrase s causa, as in (i,i:

( 13 John seems [t sad] 4 seems John sad

Thus the embedded phrase is a "sma clause n the sense of Wiams(1974, 1975. In tis case, assigment of 8roes is exacty as in (iIntuitivey, tis anaysis takes the representatin of i at LF to be of the

form (1 5, with sda monadic predicate hoding ofoh and seema monadic predicate hoding of the proposiion s{oh,butitout introducingany notion of"argument more abstact than tat of syntactic cause:

15 seems (sad (John

We are petty much led to these concusions by the ecision to keep tominima assumptins. There seems no obvious probem ith them butthey deserve carefu attention.

A smlar line of reasoning applies in he case o such ords as cosiderwic apears in the sructures (16:

(16 l the problemthat S

John considers B to be foolishBl foolish

it mpossibe that S

(ii }n· ·i (ivv

As usua, cosider takes NP or causa arguments, as indicated (i(i.It is erefoe similar to the believe verbs w have discussed. By theassumption (I of unformity of exica enr the nuhypthesis (ivand(v must aso invove ausa arguments; and by he sumpton Iackof stucture in the categoria component, the underyng Dand Sstucturesof (v and (v, projected from the exicon, shoud be oh cosiders use,as in (i, (. We must assume -deletion in (iv, (v as in (i, so that the



ubsystems of core grammar

emedded subjec is goerned and Case-marked, as required by he CaseFier Since he embedde subjec is goerned, canno be PRO, bui can be race or an oer anaphor Thus we hae ():

( (i) *John considers PRO foolish](i) John is considered [ foolish(iii) hey consider [each oher foolish

Again, no obious difculies ariseThe complemen ofconsiderin (6i ,), (,iii)is again a "small clause

a clausal srucure acking NFL and he copua The obligaory presenceof itn (6) again iusraes he fac ha subjec is an obligaory eemenof causa srucures; c § 2 nd subsequn discussion omparson wihlauages simar o English suggess ha -deleon is obligaory forsma causes, as conrased wih inniies, for which -dein is amarked opion aaiae in nglish for cerain erb ypes Puing hiobseraion in a more genera form, we hae he prncipe ( 1):

(1 ) Sma causes are no maxima projecions

is mos unlikey ha (1) is a sipuaed prncipe of UG We w assume ifor he momen, reurning in § 2 o he quesion of why i hods Gien(1), PRO is impossibe as subjec of a small ause since i wi be gorned,u race, xica anaphors, and oher phoneicallyreaized iems arepermied, as iusraed in (6) and (1)

Consider again such exampes as (19):

19 Joh prsuaded Bi cause

he ausa compemen ofpersuade can be nie or inniia, as in casesaread discussed Can i b a sma cause, as in (2)?

) John persuade Bi [NP AP]

Eideny no Small causes are excuded frm posnmina compemenposiion More generay, -deeion is rred in his posiion; we do non such expressions as (21), wih NP #PRO

(21 ) John persuaded Bi [Po here is a raher naura genera paern of expanaion for such cases,

which e wi appy o he case o (1 ) in § 2 1 Wha we hae o shw isha if he compemen clause in (19) is no a maxima projecion (forexampe, if -deeion has aken pace in (21 )), he eery possible choicefor he NP subjec of he compemen cause is barred, so ha he consucion canno exis Therefore, he compemen clause in (19) is a maxima



18 Lectures on govement and binding the Pisa lectures

proection In particular, te complement clause remans an in 21) sothat the only cice for te NP subect s PRO and (2) s excluded compltely, snce te concluson s ncompatble wth (1 8)

Supos, ten, tat te complement clause n (19) s not a maximal proection There are four possble choices for ts NP subect PRO ponetcally-reaized NP, varable or NP-trace We can at once rule out the

· possblty f PRO snce the ositon ofhecomplementsubectsgovernd te clause s not a maxmal proecton blocking governmen Phoneticlyrealized NP s also barred, snce Case cannot be assgned n tis postonas we have seen or can a varabe apear n ts poston snce by242(17) (from left to rg) varables must be Case-marked cf 322Therefre, the only possble cncluson i tht te smlcuse consruct

(2) and the nntval consruction (21) are generated solely wth NP-traceas subect hence ether n te forms (22) wt rasngtoobect (22i)wth rasingto-subet, or te passive forms (22ii)

(22) () () NP persuade NP; ;AP] NP persuade NP; [t ;to VP]

(i)(a) NP;persuade [t ;AP](b) NP;persuade NP [t ; to VP]

(i) (a) NP; be persuaded [t;AP

NP; be esuaded [t ; t VP]e ave to explain, then why such forms as (22) are excluded The casesof () wth rasngto-bect are bared at once because mvement o -positon s mpossble as we ave seen Te same s rue of () we wlsee beow (cf (38) and subsequent discusson) tat qute geerly transtve verbs assgn a -role to ter subec Tis leaves case (i) Applyngagan the lne of argument ust employed, we ave to show tat there sno ossble choce for n (i) Passve partcpes do ot assgn Case

since tey are not of he category [ N] but we have assumed, of thecategory [V] Therefore phonetcally-realzed NP and varabe arebarred PRO s excluded snce s goved Th only remanng possbiis that s NP-trace Ts s possble onlythe matrix NP is moved successely fro te poston of t to te postn of and then to the matrsubjct poston But te rst step in ts deraton s agan barred, as inthe case of (22) Terefore there s no possble choce for n (22) Consequently NP-trace s mpossbe n the embedded subject poston oft (22) Snce PRO phonetcly-realed NP and variabe are also

exclude, the small clause (2) and the nntve (21) cannot exst f theclausa complement of (19) s not a maximal projecton Terefore t s amaximal pojecton Small causes are therefore excuded by (1 8) so tha(2) s mpossbe and 21) must be a contro structure wth the N subjectof the embedded complement cause taken as PRO

Other verbs can be analyzed aong smiar lnes eg those of (23 )

(23) I ke (want prefer ) t ot



ubytem oore rammar 9

Here, it may be a referenia pronomina (as in ! like m coffee o rnonargmen it (as in lke i beer raining an snowing, anaogos o(6 n ese cases passies are ofen excded or margina ; cf noe 5

Consider nex e erb reard, as in (24:

(24 Jon regards Bl as foolis

A qesion now arises as o weer we sod ake e srcre o be (25ior (5:

(25 (i Jon regards Bill as [NP fools]( Jon regards [Bil as fools]

(i is correc en rearis analogos opruad (ii is correc, en iis anaogos o onider n (i, e embeddeNP sbec of e smal asewod ae o be aken as PRO, b is seems dbios, gien (, since isod en be goerned by a f ( is orrec, en rearddoes no asigna 8roe o Bin (24, and we sod expec o nd sc examles as (6,analogos o (27:

(26 (i regard i as obios a e wl win(ii regard ere as being many reasons o conine wi or

effors(i regard oo mc as aing bee mad of is fare

{27 (i cosier obios a e will win cf (16· ( consier ere o be many reasons o conine wi or

effors(iii consider oo mc o ae been made ois f�ilre

Example (26i is cleary grammaica, srongly sporing e analysis of(24 as (25, b e reaiely naccepable sas of (26,iii is nacconed for

Siar analyses are posible and similar qesions arisei aseof oer consrcions a ae been discssed n e same connecion Consider for example (2:

(2 (i Jon impressed me as ineligen(ii i impressed me as obios a Jon wold wi(i NP* impressed me case

Temaic properies of impre indicae ceary a e LF-represenaionms e someing lke (iii, wi e direc obec me nd a cas acomplemen n is respec impre is nlke reard, wic as only aclas -compemen as in (25ii or prios cnclsions are accraNP* in (2i is no a 8posiion, as we seefrom (2; cf (26i Wi regardo e -compemen of impre, e proecion principle reqires a i becasal, and e simpes assmpion plnly is a i sold be srcaly



Leture on govement and binding the Pia leture

identica o the -compement o regard, namey . ], a smcause with -deetion The NP subect cann be PRO in this goernedposition. Nor can it be a phoneticay-reed at Sstrucue sice

Case cannot be assigned in ths position or reasons aready discussed(c note 9) Thereore the subect o the sma cause can ony be traceThat is (2iii) must be raising constructins it the subecothe cuscompement moed rom its non-Case-marked position to the matrxsubect position whch is not a 8position as required.

The concusions sketched aboe merit much more careu exanationbut they seemprimafaiepausibe They conorm to the thematic structurewhere ths is cear as we as to the proection principe and they aparto yied the basic acts o surace strcture Tey aso yed e corret

binding properties as we sha see in § 323 C the discussion o 3.23. (37).These concusions der rom those oOB where it was suggested that certain "structure buiding rus appy to gie the causa represeationsrequired or these expressions as shown by the unctionng o the bindingprincipes (opacity). hat approach o course is inconsistent withheproection principe.

We can extend the anaysis in obious ways to more compex construtions such as those o (29):

(29) (i) it seems certain that S (it seems [ t certain ])(ii) John seems certain to be sad (John seems [ t certain [ t tobe sad]])

(iii) John seems (to be) cetain that S (John seems t (to be certain ])

(i) John seems (to be) easy to conincepeopeto ke (John seems tto be) easy ])

The parenthesed orms are the associated representations at L and

S-structure. n exampes and (i) the adecties (rtain eay) aedyadic and eem is monadic throughoutn such structures as (3) the presumaby assigns a 8roe to te sub

ect cmpositionay:

(3) John ooks (ees) sad

Correspondingy we do not hae such orms as John oos (ees) to besad etc

A probematic cass o cases or the 8criterion is that studied n Wiams(19a or exampe (3 1 ):

(31) () John et the room angry() John et the room empty

A possibiity woud be to assume that the S-structure and F-representa



Subsystems ofcoe gamma

tios ar rspctvy (32i,i)

(3) (i) Joh [VP ft th rom] [PRO agry](i Joh [V

ft th room] [PRO mpty]

h th VPwi assig a -r to ohnad PRO wll rcv its -rl i thal claus, which is somthig lik th clausa lmt (3):

(33) Joh t th room whi h was agry

h thory o cotro would th assig cotrol o PR, i trms o actorstha Wilams dscusss aguags wit ovrt adjctv agrmt, thadjctiv would hav th aturs o PROg, mascul sguar (3i)

Dcisos such as ths pmit th 0-critrio to b mt i a broad casso costuctis It is ot obvious that thy ar th right dcisios adothr cosuctios (g, pdicat oms, r rlatvs, ad othrs)rmai to b trt But th coclusio to which w ar l do ot smimpausb t us cotiu to assum that thy ar corct i ssc,adoptig th proctio pricipl withou xcptio I his is corct, war o compld to cstruct w ad mor abstract typs o argumt(g, propositos, i som ss) byod thos that ar ady xprssd th ta o S-structur a LF

h spcc aayss proposd ar t th oly os tat accordit th proctio pricp ad th 0critri I act, thy rais crtaiproblms tat suggst that som modicatos mght b ordr Cosidrour s f th otio "sma claus as th structurs (3

-

(3) (i) thy cosidr [Joh stpid](ii) thy prr [it hot](iii) thy cosidr [oh th bst addat](iv *thy prr [Jh th bst cadidat]

h xamps ilustrat th l-kow act that th matrix vrb colysubcatgorzs th prdcat of th mbddd phras, uxpctd thttr s a claus i which cas INFL is commoy sctd bt o thmbddd VP A possiby rlatd act s that ths sma clauss lackINFL, which w hav sggstd svra tims mgh b th had o S Omight approach both proms aog is suggstd by Stowl (9a)s aso Mazii (9) Suppos that X-bar thoy is grazd so thata maxima projctios may hav subcts, PRO or photically-rizd

udr th sual coditios h (3i), or xamp, cold hav th structur 35), withthsubct o AP:

(35) thy cosir [ Joh [ stupid]]

h vrb conide th, subcatgorizs or AP, so that th slctio o th



Lcr on gornn and binding h Pia cr

omme i 4 is o oger a robem or e absee of N. eP sbe is e seier of P i (5). P wi sbe is ow regardedas a roosiio i e sese reired a aogwiS. e exames

(), owever we oie o assme a sma ase is of e aegoryS raer a P, sie er is o seeio of P by e mai verb iis ase resmaby. arios adsmes are eessary o reserve emai ies of e argme aready oied b e do seem o ivoveesios of riie beyod ose aready meioed We rer o eesio of aaysis of sma ases i § . .

Coiig wi e assmio a e 8rierio ad e roeioriie od wio exeio e s osider agai some o eir roeries. Te 8rierio saes a ea 8-osiio is assiged e oeargme ad a ea argme is assiged o exay oe 8-osiiwere a argme is assiged o a 8-osiio if i or is rae ies isosio. Te 8-rierio was deed i § for e eve , were i odsas a eessary odiio for we-formedess (see oe 4). Beroeio riie imies a i is saised as we a e eves of adS-srre wii e rage of osrios a we are osiderig wiassigme o a 8-osiio rog e meim of rae irreeva i ease of -srre Ts we ave e geera odiio a e 8-rierioods a -srre S-srre ad .

Te reireme a e 8-rierio od a -srre exresses edea a -srre is (inr aia) a rereseaio of G-8 f. § .Tisreireme is sroger a e reireme a e 8-ririo oda S-srre ad ad roery so. As we saw i disssig .7),e reireme a e 8-erio od a srre s essia odemosraig a moveme is aways o a o8osiio e s owosider some oree exames.

rom e reirem a e 8-rierio od a Ssre ad i foows a moveme from a 8-osiio o a 8-osiio is oked siee eeme moved wd be assig a da 8-ro (i) froe osiio ioies ad (ii) from e osiio oied by is rae B is reireme s i iorrey aows moveme from a o-8-osiio Sosefor exame a Egis sed Jo isead of i i exressios simiar oi rais wereJo is a -exressio. Ad sose frer a EEMis a verb exay ie exe a i assigs a 8roe o is sbe Teosider e srres (6)

(6) (i) e] SEEs o o be ieige](ii e SEEs ove o rai]

Sie EM (ie is o rasiive (i) vioaes e Case ier ess·John moves o e marix sbe osiio f i does e 8rierio isvioaed a Ssrre ad i a ase i is vioaed a sreTs i deries o weformed seee. Simiary i ii e Cse ier



usystems of ore rammar

equeshatovemove o he max subject posto eldg (37):

(37) ove EEs o i (meaig: "i seems tha i ais'') ·

3

(37) he 0citeio is saised aF ad Ssuctue siceis assgeda 0ole b EEM, b assumptio But (36i) isDsuctuesouce volaeshe cieio a Dsucue Thefoe hee ca be o such veb asEEM Suel ths coclusio is coect: hee ca be o such veb Theefoe the 0cieio holds a Dstuctue as impl b he pojectopicple whch is volaed b he veb EEM Iuvel Dstucuepovides a epeseatio of GF The subject posiio fo a sig vebcao be a 0positio ad moe geea moveme to a 0positio isawas excluded 22(7) See aso 3 23 ()

Thee is he o veb EEM which is lke eem i hat i iducesdeletio ad is itasiive u ulike seem i hat i assigs a 0oleo its subec Coud hee be a veb EEM whch is lke sem i thai iQuces deetio ad assigs o 0oe o its subec bu ulike seemi that it is tasitive The EEM' pes Excepioa Casemakigo ied (3):

(3) it SEs [oh o e sad] (meaig: "oh sees to e sad)

Thee is o such veb ad pesumab the gap is o fouitous Theeaso wh o such veb exsts ma be that asitive vebs ed o haveage subects theefoe o ssig a 0oe o hei subec but EEM'vioaes this ve stog edec Isofa as ths edec hods wehave he foowig obsevaio:

(39) veb tha assigs Case to its obec assigs a 0oe o is subject

Lae we w see tha he (vua) covese hods: a veba eemet (specica a patcip) that does o assig Case to a ha t govesassgs o 0oe o its sube cf § 27 Geeazig sigh we theefoehave the fowg obsevatio:

(4 veba eeme assigs Case to a ha t goves ad o assgs a 0oe to subec

s stads (4) is too sog simla (39) as s cea fom exampesthat we have aead dscusse (cf (2)) Futhemoe isofa as saccuate ts status s ucea s t a depeet picie o as is moe

ike does i foow fom depede cosdeatios sofa as it isaccuate umbe of obems aise as we cosde these questospaca pobems coceig he ass of extaposed causescostats o omazatio ossbles of passiizao wth extaposedcauses ad so o I wi pu these questos asde pedg thei esouto



1 14 Lectres on ovement and bindin theisa lecres

t wod be ontess, thogh straightforward, o eformlae (4) n scha way as to hold of al bt the nwaned cases sch as (2)

Note tha (4) oes nt bloc ntanstve vebs that assgn a -ole

ther sbect. Rathe, we nepre 4) as holdg vacosly fom right oleft n he case of a vebal eement tha govens no

In smmary, consde he setences of (4) hee the -posons aretaczed:

(41) ) John expeced [Bill to wnJ) John pomised Bil PRO o win

John s certain t o wnJv) John was expec [t o win]

v) John was asked t [what [PRO o do tj]]v) John was kled t

In these examples, he criterion s satsed n he manner leady dicate John, for exmpe, ehe occpes a -poson or s assigned o a -posion by a race wch occpes hs posion Ths in case iv), toccpes a -posion and John is assigned o s posion, acqng is-ole fom he win b occpying no posion iself so ha we ndsch senences as (42)

(2) i) was expecte ha S) mch was expeced o be made of Johns explots

good cae was expeced o e taken of Johniv) hee was expected o be a hricane las nghv) s expeced o snow omorrow

Smlar, in (4v) John is assigned to e -poston occped b t• wlet is a vaiable bond he conexed qasi-qane hence is an

R-expression and an argmen), and is assigned o he -posiion at toccpesNoice hat the -crieon ovelaps wth he reqremens of Cse

heoy, b not compleey Normaly, an s Case-markeand on its assigned o a -posion Bt hee ae eios !n both direcions, asllsrated n (43)

(43 ) there seems to be some reason o beeve m(i) ried [ o wn]

In , there s Case-make bt lacks a -oe nethe the ase or sace s in a -posionn (i, PRO no Case-marked bt s in a -posonand receives a oe We retrn in §22 andchapter6otecnnectionsbeween Case heory and -role

Thee ae certain echncal adjstmens needed o ense hat he



Subytem of core grammar 5

8-ieon has he sense wenend. Conside he senenes ():

() (i who did John see

(ii) John bough a book [s o

May o ead ]](iii) John ead evey book

Wih espe o (i), he inuiive sense o ou poposas is ha thas a 8-oebu ha ho does no. Iwoud, inhesplae,makellesenseosupposeha he quasi-quanie in (i) beas a 8oe; uhemoe, his woudioae he 8-eion, sine leay he vaiabe i bns would hav isvey same 8-ole. Neveheess, he eemen who is apable o beaing a8-ol, given ha appeas in a 8-posiion in D-sue One appoah

would be o assume ha is only he ponomina onen o who haappeas a Dsue unde exa insion, he eaue [ -] beingadd in he synax We hen undesand is eaue o exemp he elemeno he lass o R-expessions Then he soue owho in D-suue beasa 8-oe bu who a S-sue and F does no Poeeding in hs way,we mgh adop he genea piniple (45)

(45) Move- an move o CO only onains he eaue [-]

The pinipe (45) is in a ean sense impli in he oegoing in ha ehave been aily assuming ha suh lea s asJohn the book, e, anneve moe o COMP Piniple (45) makes hs assumpion expii. Onemh onsue i as a vesion oEmondss suepeseving hypohesis.Fuemoe, opeaos now om a naua lass: [-}elemens andhei aes o quanie xpessions

Noe hoeve ha hese moes sll do no esolve he pobem y oin mulple -quesions suh as (46) what ppeas in a 8-posiion inSsuue and heeoe mus be an agumen:

(46) I dn emembe who ead wha

We mgh pusue he possibily o developing a sill moe absa vaiano he idea ha a [whJ eaue is added a some pon, exluding heelemen om he lass o R-expessions bu he aiaiy is appanSine i seem ha ile anyhing is involved beyond eminology es simply assume ha phases ae R-expessons and ha elemens nCO ae no onsideed agumens

No onside () ee, is an NP moved om he posiion o isae t Assumng he onvenions us disssed, he eaue [- is addedo o em i o move o CO, and when ihas so moved iis no longean agumen so ha () sases he 8ieion wh e vaiable beaing he 8oe assigned in he 8-posiion i oupies.

Example () woks he same way, essenialy. We ms now onside



116 ectues on govement an bining: the Pisa lectues

quante expeon to be -expeon ne eve book upe a potion at D- and Stutue When the quante-movement ue appen the LF-omponent, and the quante phae eanayzed aong the

ne we have diue, t no loge ount a an -expeon atherthe varable le bend reeve the 0-ole agned he poton toupe.

The example ( reveal that the 0-iteron mut be harpened another repet a wel We aumed earle that an agument agneda 0oe when t or t tae oupe a 0-potion But exampe () bngto lght an ambguty n the notn "t trae, n th ormulaton In() the NP a book -ommand and ondexed wth the vaabe nthe embedded S though the atte annot be egaded a "t e �fa book" n the ene equed or 0ole agnment, or thee be a olaton o the 0-rteron one agan ; a book now be agned one 0role nthe poton t oupe and another by vrtue o the oton o t traeEvdently, we mut exude the par (t a book) fom the relaton "trao " n (), and more genealy whenever the pang etabhed notby movement but by ontrua n the LF-omponent The only uh tuaton that an ae o t appea othetypelutrated n (), whee an ondexed wth an operato and t tae by a ue o onol. In thae the vaable bound by the operator not the trae of the n the

ene o th noton requred for 0-oe agnment We therefoe requrethe olowng enement of ou earlie noton of" 0-rol agnment

47) agned the 0-roe t f and only f or a trae ondeed wth oupe a 0-poton that 0-marked t; whre t not bounby an operato that fal to bnd

Thee noton wl be deveoped moe areuy n § 32 . and hapter 6.The ntutve ene of (47) lear vaable o not tranmit 0-ole.

One mght ak whether t orret t aume, a we hae o far beendong, that the operato n CO n () PRO athe than

eIthe atter, we would have a omewhat more uned approah to the tutureo COMP apart fom a omplementzer, only a exa phae or taeould appea n CO, ether the tae oueve-y movement rthe operato n uh ontruton a ) with the feature h- f 5 vad We ao ould overome a poblem noted n OB, name, thatPRO n CO n purpove ontutn (mlaly n othernaogouontuton) anno be btay n eerene. The queon no longe

ae n the ame manner under the eplaement of PRO by tae A o e] n COMP or elewhee, we ut eque that t e bound, but neth tue unfole do not have to dtnguh the COpoton fromothe n t epet. In part the bnng equement flow robndng theoy, ut we mght uppo t to reet a moe genera propeyo an element e], namely, that thee no nterpetaton atLFfouhaneement une t the bound by an opeator o agned ontent by an



Subsysems f re grammar 17

aneceden an assumpion ha seems generaly plausibe in iself and haaccommodaes quie naurally inerpeie accouns of gapping and simlarphenomena cf Wasow 1972 and much subsequen work) A quesionwould hen aise concerning he saus of race in CO wih respec ogoernmen; hs reduces ohesamequesionin hecasefrace in COlef by successie-cyclic moemen; we reurn o i in § 53

Whle hese consideraons gie some eason o suppose ha he moelemen in (i) is [ ]aher han PRO hs assumpion is inconsisenwih he pojecio pincple whch eques ha heD-sucureposiion of be led by n argumen; hence PRO no [ e] e reun o hsquesion in chaper 6 concluding nal ha i is eoid of conen

Aoun 1979b) noes ha here is a ceran paraelism beeen -roleand ase he former a propery of he F-componen and he laeressenially a propery of he PF-componen an idea ha he exploesfurher in hs paer and in 19b ) Inuiiely NPs are idenied by Casein PFrepresenaon and by 0-roe in LFepresenaion He suggessfurhe ha rules of e LF-componen disregard iems wih no 0-rleand ha ules of he PF-componen disegad iems wih no Case Wereurn o some simlar ideas Moe generay Aoun suggess ha feauresae nauray subdiided ino hose relean o he PFcomonen egphonologcal eares) nd hose relean o he LF-cmponen eg-feaures) and ha hese feaures ae "isibe only o rules of he omponens o whch hey are relean an idea wel woh exploing One canimagine how i mgh be adape say o yield he conclsion ha resumpe pronouns are indisinguishable from arables a he leel of LFrepesenaion and ha a pronoun or PRO coindexed wih a quanir andin is domain is auomaicaly eaed as a ariable bound by hs quaniea hs lee cfHigginboham 1979a) he poenial for such analysis wbecome clearer in chaper 6 I wl no explore hese possibiiies furherhere merel noing ha hey desee exanaion

27 Sme remar n he passive cnsrucin

We hae alreay brey dscssed passie consucons as in 1)

(1) i) ohn was killed (i) ohn is beieed o hae won]ii) ohn is beieed o hae been illed t]

We hae suggesed ha whereas in ii) and iii) is he subjec of he embed

ded S, in i) and in iii) ae wihn phases of he neuraed caegory[ V] as is he embedded clause in (i) iii) In conas exical passiessuch as e morphologcaly complex forms unexpeced semieducaed, ecor he lexial source of he amiguousfrighened, clsed,fuished, ec aesmply adjecies monadic predicaes ha assign o he subjec he 0-roe ofhe direc obec of a coresponding eb wih considerabe idiosyncrasy



1 18 ectue on goement an bining the Pia lectue

as one expets n the exion From these onventional an rather natuassumptions we erive the wellknown propeies o sytat n lealpassves syntati pasives are not estrit to iet objets of vebs an

eque no themati elation between the verbal base an th sufesubjet non-argumens appea in the sufae subjet position the aningof the passive s stitly etermne by properties of the D- an S-sutueswth no ontribution rom the ules fomng the ontution beyn thsan there ae no morphologiay omplex ases wheeas n onas elexial passives are sharply restrite thematiay (John a taught, ohna taught Fench, John untaught *French, John a knon to beaool,John a unknon *to be a ool, et.) assign a 8-ole an therefor nothave non-argument sbets (much a *unmae o ohn, e) hveo

snati semanti propeties as expete fo lexial tems a ma emorphologally omplex. In short the lustering of roprtes fsyntati a lexial passives foows retly fom the wa they ae geneate on the assumpton that morphologiay ompex passves ae neessarily lexial that there s an en option in English of the ateg y[+V i the VP having ts stanar internal stuue an the mpex beigpost-opula n lauses that there s a ule Move- an that vebs o ertan ategoes (eg theighten) e generate bo the exonas ajetives n uner the -VP option with the expete ambguty

Luigi i notes an inteestng istinton beween syntat an lexialpassves n Italian In the elatve lause onstution (2i) comunitas a syntati passve whereas in the paralel fom (2) the ompex fomconociuta (conciuta "unknown) s neessarily lexa

(2) () la verit he e stata omunata a Mara("the tuth that was ommunate to Maria)

(ii) la verit h e sonosuta a a("the truth tha unnown t Mari)

In ether ase the PP (a aria) may be lite as n ()

() () a verit he gli e stata omunatai) la vert he gli e sonosuta

In the orresponng reue relatves the PP lities to the syntatpassve from comunicata, as n (4) but not to the lex passe conociuta

(4) () a veri omunatagl() a vert onosutagl

e eason s that aetves o nt take lits an the morploalyomplex conociuta an onl be basegeneae as n ajeve entast shws the at most semaetva haate of the sytat



Subytem of core grmmr 1 1 9

passive and he necessaly lexical ence fully adjecival) chaaceof he mopholoically complex "unpassive.

Ohe dsincions beween synacic and lexical passves ae discussy Buzo (1981 ). He cies he Fench examples (5)

(5) () l a achev puseus consucons cee ann() puseus consucions on acheves cee anne

(many buldns wee nshed)

Exmple () s essenially he base-eneaed fom, wih pluieurs construction in · he dec objec poson and /-nseon correspondn onseion n he (que mainal) Enlsh analoue "hee weenshed seveal buldins. Example () deves fom he same baseeneaed fom by applcaon of Move-. Bu he correspondn mophloically complex "unpassves dffe

(6) () l es inachev pluseus consucions() pluseus cnsucons son nacheves

Sce he mophooaly complex "unpassves ae necessaly baseeeaed as adjecves, (6) is possble a an -opula-adjececonsucon. Bu hee is no souce fo (6i), hch hefoe conass asexpeced wh (5i) We eun opopees of such sucues as (5).

Buzio obseves ha he sae pae can be obseved n Ialan inconecon wh clciaon. Fo reasons o whch we wl reu nchape 4 cliczaon s possble om he objec pson bu no fomeerbal posion o fom he pos-vebal poson ha esuls fomadjuncon of he nvered subjec. Thus we have bu no (8

(7) () ne uono conscu mol ("of-hem were eonzed many "many of hem weeeconzed)

() ne sono sa la opp("of-hem were lmed oo many "oo many of hem weelmed)

(8) ( ne furono sconoscu mol("of-hem wee unknown many "many of hem weeunknown

() ne sono sa illa opp("of-hem were unmed oo many "oo many of hemwee unled)

In (7) he souce of he clc ne s he molti-ne, troppi-ne n he decobjec poson; herefoe liczaon s possible. Apa fom movemen of he clc ne he exampes of (7) e n baseeneraed fom, whchs pemed fo synacc passves n Ialan fo easons o whch we eurn.



20 Lecture on govement and bndng: the Pa lecture

But the examles 8) deie fom base-geneated structues of the fomNPcopulaadjectie, with a mophologicly complex adjectie hesubect moltine, troppne is moed to post-ebal osition y an inesion

ule hat adjoins the subect to the theefoe cltication is excludedIn ths respect, the mophologicaly complex passies behae the manneof odinary base-generated copula constuctions, wheeas the quite dferent behao of syntactic passies folows from the fat that the diectobect is base-generated in pace in the post-eba diect obect poston,optionally becoming the subect of S-structure by appication of Moe,o remanng n place as in (7)

Examples such as these ilustrate clealy the distinction between snactic and lexical passies, the fomer inolng a base-geneated direct obect,

the latter nothe categoy that is commonly caled "passie may not constitute anatural class eithe withn o acoss languages. Syntactic passies areunlike exical passies, and in anguages as cosey eated to Engish asGerman, syntactc passies seem to behae dffeenty and may inoe aather dfferent rule structure In other anguages, what ght be tansated as passie in Englsh has stil different properties the Romancempesonal passies, discussed biey in §24. , are a case n point o citeanother exampe, John McCathy has pointed out that Cassica Aabic

has a lexica passe combned with a Case-assignment rue that assignsnomnatie Case o the st NP folowing the eb and obectie Case to theNP following it, leading to such sentences as (9)

(9) (i) qatala adun a-waadan("klled-actie Zeyd-nomnatie theboy-obectie "Zeydkled the boy)

() qutaaydun("kledpassie Zeydnominatie "Zeyd was klled)

(i) sirtu yawma lum ?ati("taeled-acte- Fidayobectie "I traeled onFiday)

(i) sir a yawmu um ?ati("taelledpassie Fiday-nonatie "Fiday wastaeled)

he ast example, meaning sometng ke "one taeled on Fiday, is notdirecty transatabe into Engsh, but foows diecty om the ues ofCaseassgnment and mophoogy, wch gie quite a difeent aangement of data om Engsh syntactic o lexical passies

As a na case, consider the passie-ke construction in Naao, withsuch exampes as ()119

0) (i) hosemule-kicked ("the hose kicked the mue)(ii) horse mue -kicked ("the hose was kicked by the mue)



Subsystes of core graar 121

(e an kicked e ose")(i) an ose kicked(v) an ose -kicked (e an was kicked y e ose")

e -fos look like lexc passves, u a cuious paen ofunaccepaity and ungaacaly appeas n ote cases us e sentences of 1 1 ) ae unaccepale and wie (12 s gaaical, 13) is copleelyungaac

1 1 ) () ose anyikicked (te ose kicked e an")(i) ose an -kicked (e ose was kcked y te an")

(12 gl wae dank (te gil dank e wae")(13) wae gl -d ank (te wae was dunk y te gil")

He offeed an explanaton of tese popeties n tes of a ieacy ofnouns ased on suc feaues as uan and anae wic deeneswod ode tespoon 1977) suggests a ate dffeen inepeaonHe agues a a oe coec anslaon of (l) would e soeting ikete se execised ts powe ove ules y kicking e ule," and a(li) eans appoxaely: e ose let te ule kick ." Silaly,(li), (lv) But oses ae not supposed o ave geae nellgencean en, accounting fo e unaccepaiiy of 11 ), and snce e waecanno le te gil dink i, 13) s uled ou copletely. Assung soetng ke s to e e case, sl we undestand te -fos as passve?e queson akes sense fpassive" is a naual class, oug it s uncleawa te answe sould e e question does no aise f we sply assueta lnguages ave vaious ays o avoid focusng e ''logc sujec"o o avoid expessing one a all, we s osevin e synactc equieen a a suject NP e pesen. Sil consdeaions old of ea exaple, of e ipeson passve n Roance, o e passivesof nonals" suc as Roes destucon" (cf. 267)) o e assveswo oveen n Rance causaves (cf 266) and (),

7aove).

In so, i s no ovous tat e noon passve" efes o a uniaypenoenon, sl ess one a can seve as foundation stone o evenguidng inuon fo a eoy of synax. I ay e a usefu descpivecaegoy, and one can iagine funcon expanations fo e pevenceof soe suc devce. Bu e ange of penoena a fl win scaegoy n soe sense appea to e ae eerogeneous n carace20

In caper 1 , I poned ou a a central eeent in e wok dscussedere, as n recent wok fo wic evoves, s e effot o decoposesuc processes as passve" eavization," ec, no oe undaent

asact feaures": e Case Fer, te nding prncipes, ove- and tepnciples of ouning, etc. ; and I so enioned a ere n genre ony a weak eaion ewee e functional ole of suc geneal pocesses and er foral popeties In e case of assive, languages endo ave devices fo suppessing te suject, u ese can wok ou n anyways, dependng on ow opons are seected fo e coponens ofUG



22 Lectues on govement and binding theisa lectues

Thus the Itaian syntactc passve th passve orpholog and the mpesonal assve wth the ctc are oth pse" n sme eneal ensebut the formal devces are qute dfferent though each may (though t need

nt) ake use of the ule Moe- whic s gures •many othe constructins The same is true in he other cases isussed and many thes. Een thin a sgle language ta as sntactc passves h movement

and passve morphology we may nd passve morphology without movement (e.g. (14)) movement wth the sense of passve but wthout passvemorphology (e.g. (1 )) and thepassve sensew netherassvemorpology or movemen (e.g (6)

(14) (i) t was beeved eld easoned . . . ) that he concluson was

false() fu arrestato GovannGovann was arested")

(1) Romes destuton(16 i) fare manger la pomme par Pee

(to have the apple e eaten Pere")() s manga le mele

(the apples ae eate)

hie these are moe or less passve" n sens and have the characesticproety of suppressn of subject the selecton of fomal devces s qudfferent.

e have an explanaton f th geneal prpetes of these variusconstructons n terms of Case teoy along the lnes aleady dscusse.In he norm syntactc passve moveen s oblgaory because he passve aciple s not a Case-assgner . No movemnt s necessay n (14)because the claus complement s exempt from the ase Flte n (14)and 8) because Itaian assigns nonative Case i the post-verbl

postion for reasons to which we etrn chapte n (16) because thever assigns Case. Movemen s necessary wihou pssive morphoog n) f the nsertion opton yeldng destction of Rome s notakenbecause nouns are not Case-assgners. The resultng form s n effect thenomial of the passv Rome is destoye. n te Itaan case moveens ptonal gvng (17i) corespondng to (4 (16) respectel amaer o hich we reun n §4

(17} (i) Givann fu arestato

() le mele s manganon i) hee s verbal ageement with the deved subjec n (6i) theerb remans n ts unmarked form perhaps becausethecltcseveas theAG element n FL as suggested in Belett (98b. thid fo(1 8 des by the normal nverson opton of Itaan:



Subsystems of coe gmm 23

( ) s mangiano le mele

In the French counterparts, (i) s the only pton for easons dsussed

n § 45, relatng to the pro-drop parameter distngusing ItlianSpanshfrom FrenEngish The relevant pont, n te present context, s tat testructures are passveike and folow essentally the same prnciples asthose dscussed here

In the normal syntactc passve, as also n (5) and (), the drect obectbecomes the subect, ut ths is not a necessary roperty of passve, asshown by the examples (), (6), or by such exmples as (9)

(19) (i) John was beeved t to be stupd

() John was considered t supid() he as pronounced t dead on arrva(v) the bed was sept in t

In ()ii), the trace s the suect of an embedded clause, as n rasing withthe preicates seem, cetin, etc There s no grammatcarelaton betweenthe passivized verb and the poston occupied by the trace, and no 8-role isassgned to tis poston by the passvzed verb In such structures as (v),the postion of the trace is assgned ts 8-roe exactly as n te correspondngactve, ncludng actves that do not permit passvzaton There seems to beno dfference n 8-role assignment in the exampes of 2), houg () (like(19v)) can be passivzed as (ii), while () cannot be passvized as (iv)

(2) () they spoke to John() they spoke angriy to John(i) John was spoken to(v) *John was spoken angrly to

It may be, as has frequently been propose, tat in such ses as (9v),(2i), the verbpreposton constructon has been reanayzed as a verb, and as is weknown, ts device is more readly avlabe hen the combnato s somehow "verb-lke n its semantic propertes Tis reanayss rule, then, assigns to he poston of the trace the GF , ] utsuch dervatve GFs, assgned trough reanayss, do not seem to affect8-roe assgnment, as one can see clearly more omplex examples suchas (2 1)

(2) the Cadac was drven away n t

here s no independent sense of" obect n wich such examples as (19iv ,(2i) or (2 1 ) or, for that matter, (19i) are nstances of chang ofgrammatica relation from obect to subect As these examples furtherustrate, the 8roe of the phrase that becomes the suect of the passve



24 Lectures on govement and binding the Pisa ectures

need not be assigned by the veb that has passve mophology; n fact, theeneed be no such 8role at all, as in the case ofpassv nn-argumens

he tradtional charatezation of passve as nvolving a change of

objec to subject s correct n one mpotant sense ths s the core case ofassve. But t s otherwse unacctable on ounds of factual naccur�acy (eg., (4), (16), ncompleteness eg, (15), (17i)), crculariy (e.g,(19)(21)) and redundancy (n that ndependent princles of muchbroader scoe determine both when movement s necessary and that thenew grammatical funcion assigned is ha of subject).

We may aproach the syntactc assves ith passe morphology froma somewhat more abstract pont of view along the lines of the ealier dscussion of GFs and function chans in §22 as a pren to a more

general and abstact treatment (in § 2) o the entire complex of questionsthat I have been considering hat is usually caled "passve seems tohave two crucial properties:

22) ) [NP,S] does not reeive a 8roeI) [NP,VP] does not receive Case wthn VP, for some choice

ofNPinV

In the D-stucture (23), undelying "Jo was kiled, the subject positon

is assgned no 8-role (and so maybe led by non-aguments, as in (4)) andthe object is assigned no Case

(23) [ e] was ked John

Assuming that the paticiple s not a Case-assigner ropety (22)),John must be moved or the Case Filter wl e volated; the nsetionoption is excluded here (cf noe 49). John can only be moved to subjectposition as a consequence of the projection principle and the 8cteon ;cf § 2.2. In the subject psition it receives Case and is assgned a -roethough the medium of ts trace, whch is n a 8-postion. Thus movement inpassive, yielding a "dsplaced subject, is a consequence of more fundamental considerations, and where these do not hold for one or anotherreason, there is no movemen in assive (as in (14) or (16), fo example).A simlar congurion of phenomena is found in languages with no movement ules n the syntax; cf § 2.

It seems doubtful that propeties ) and I) of (22) are indeendent.Therefoe, it is easonabe to inquire to the assumptions necessay toderive one from the other There seems no wa to deive I) directly from), though as we have seen, I) vitually follows from ) on rathe reasonable further assumptions (cf 2.6.(39)) The example just reviewed involngMove- suggests how e ght derive ) n general rom I), quite apatfrom movement Suppose that the unique propety of the passive mophology s that it in effect "absorbs Case one NP in the VP with thepassive veb as head is not assigned Case under governmen by ths verb.




Call his N "NP*. By he Case Fle, P* ms eceve Case. By assmpion (II) now aken a he enng pope of passve mophology *ms eceve ase on he basis of some GF asmes ose of heThs new GF can only be [NP S] by he poecon pncple an he 0ceon. Theefoe, NP ms assme he GF [S n aon o sDsce GF, which may be VP (as n (23)) o someng else (as n(19)) The fncion chan of * n Ssce ms be (GF 1 • GFnwhee Fn s s Dsce GF (a GF0 * s an agmen) anGF (i n) s [NP,S. B a new GF [ asme by * s one owhch a 0ole s assgne, hen he 0ceon wil be volae, a we havseen Theefoe, passve mophology ms sasfy pope (I) of(22).

Moe geneally, we have he followng conclson:

(24) some N govene by V s asgne no Cae hen he ofwhich Vs he hea assgns no 0ole

The conclson exens ecly om clase o , whch cae we haveN an nsea ofV an . Planly, (24)s closely elae o 26(4) ana moe geneal fomlaon s possble nclng a well egave vebs haassgn no Case o he obec an no 0ole o hei sbec, hogh heposvebal hemac sbec eceves Cae n place (cf. §4 an Bo191 )) I wil en ecly o some ac assmpons ha ae eqefo hs agmen o go hogh n fll genealy e s assme now ahese gaps can be lle.

Sppose ha passe mophology s asgne o a eb ha ha nogovene by V n s complemen as n he case of (25):

(25) was beeve el, easone . ) ha e conclson wa fale( (14))

Sne he vebs believe, ec., ake clasal coplemens he Dsce,

poece n he sal way fom lexcal sce is a n (25) wh [ N en place of he pleonasc nonagmen it Snce hee s no P n lackng· Case, no movemen le has o apply; no ms assme heseconary GF NP,S o saisfy he Cae Fle In fac he Ssce sfome smply by he le ha nses it n he nonposon of he sbecThs passe mophology, once again, is no necessaily assocae whovemen an assmpon of a new GF

Mc he same be e n langages n whch nansves ca bepassv as n Aabc, Geman o Hebew 6

(26) () sia yawm lm?a ( (9v))() es we gean

" ws ance ancng ook place)(i) ba ba

("wasspoken abo he "she wa spoken abo)



26 Lecture on govement and binding the Pia leture

anguags dr as o o xnsvy passv orpoogy ay sIn Engs s rsricd o vrbs a ak o clauscoplns buno n Gran or Duc In br vrbs P copns s o

ak passv orpoogy rly Prsuay passv orpoogy can oyappar vrbs assgn (or parcpa n assgnng) a 8rol osubc n acv or ( no asng vrbs suc as eem), so oould xpc "uncna rol o passv s n ssnc o prsupprsson o subc bu ar urr consrans xord

us passv orpology nd no nvolv assupon o a n F byovn (vn n languags a s Mov opon o ovco Cas Flr pssv) or so or dvc As usad aov assvovn s no rsrcd o arguns and a assus

a n GF as a 8rol hs 8ol ay b on a s no assgnd by vrb pass orpoogy and sns and or proprs o psvnd no b assocad ovn or passv orpoogy or ay bassocad ovn ou passv orpoogy o convsly hsdssocaon o pops s a oud xpc on ou odua ssupons a s on assupon a suc pocsss as "passv acoposd o or undana absac aus suc as lnso Cas ory 8ory c I dos ran u ov a "cocas o passv nvovs passv orpology an assupon o a scondaryGF [NP] by drc objc prsuably a anguag av pasvorpoogy only hs cas xss

Exaaon o xapls () passv orpoogy bu n ov•n vas a gap n argun jus oulind W g as y vrb passv orpoogy ay no s assgn a 8rol o subjcr r s no ovn For argun o go hroug usassu a can "unioy prncp or psv orpoogy hay b o gnra applyng o o orpoogca procsss lL us consdr pncp a orpoogca pocsss ar uno rspc o 8o n gvn consrucons:

(27) Eac orpologca procss () ransis 8o unorly() blocks 8ro uno

or assgns a n 8ro unoy

Passv ncon s (27) nrnaly o a s vry 8o assgndby a vb hn s s assgnd by corrsponng passv parcpPassv ncon s (27) xnaly n o c assizd

vb s an vrb a s a 8ro s nv assgnd o subjc Oorpoogca procsss (g orpologca causav) ay assgn n8ols n a unor ann Assung prncpl (27) an assuingurr a s passv orpology n a anguag us aas appy o "cor cas o ransv vbs obcs n (27)ps a vrb passv non us aays condon



Subsystems ocore grammar 27

(22I) P,S] must not receve a 0role. Te reason s tat tis conclusonollows or tansitve vrbs wt objects, as we ave seen, so by te uniomty princple it must aways old. Hence no 0-ole can be assigne to tesubject even wen tee s no movement.

Te uniomity pinciple o morpologica processes as been let a bitvague. I tnk tat someting o te sot may well be coct Suppose tatit can be gounded in a teory o morpogy and word-ormaton. Tente agument pesented earlier deving (22I) om (2) goes tug nul generaly. 128 Bu notce tat tee are two respecs n wc we ae appang to someting lie (22I) as an independent priniple in oding (i)tat ebs tat never assign 0-roe t subect do not receive passive morpology, and ( ta passive morpoogy meets condition (27ii) we te"core case o passive is tat o transitive verbs wt direc obects. Bot(i and () reate to te unctona roe o passve n suppressing subec.

e noted earlier tat anaogues o ot (I and (II) o (22) aso old orraising verbs (c. 2.6) Consder (2)

(2) Jon seems t to be nteligent]

Te 'subect oseem is not a 0position (satsyng (22I)) and te postion te trace acks Case (satisyng te obvous generazation o 22) omP,VP] o governe by te verb). In tis case, we cannot deduce (I)rom te generaization o (II) on te basis o te Cae-absong propetyo passive morpooy, but te same argument goes toug, as an instanceo(2).

e question o te accuracy o (24) is also raised by suc impersonapassves as (17ii). We wl suggest n §45 tat te pncpe olds n tscase s well.

I Engs and simar anguages, te passive construction is copuar,and te verb wit passive morpoogy s, w ave assumed, o te category V]. n tese assumptions, (22) oows, and we can deduce (22I) ortransitive verbs directy and or a verbs gven te uniormty pincipeand te assumptions o note 1 . In oter anguages (eg., Hebrew), passiveinvoves movement as in Engis but te passive constuction s notcopar; rater, te verb simpy as passive morpoogy, wic by stpuatin absorbs Case, gvng (22), ence (22I). In oter aguages, tepassive construction is not copuar and passive invoves no movement(e.g., Casscal Arabc) Aain (22) is stpuated as a propety o tepassive morpoogy and (22I) olows Let us turn now to tscase, but ina somewat more genera setting.

28 Conguratonal and nonconguratonal languages

I ave been assuming so ar tat GFs are determned drecty by te structura conguratons o Dstructures and transormationay-derived Sstructures. A cuca assumpton trougout as been tat tere is a



12 ectue on goement and binding the Pia lectue

caegoy VP n he X-ba sysem of he base hus pemng Gs o bedened n erms of sucur conguraons Bu hee are anguages nwch hs does no seem o be rue Cassca Aabc wh VS srucure

s a case n pon. Aoun ( 1979b) suggess ha n hs case here s n fac a

knd ofdsconnuous VP Suppose we expess verba govenmen whndces say superscrps n he sye of Rouvere and Vegnaud (19)The verb and s cmpemens w be condexed formng an absrac VP;conguraona anguages ae hen a speca case wh no dsconnues nsupescrpng. The anayss goes hogh prey much as above.

Le us look a he maer n a somewha dfeen way As menonedeaer Hale (197) has suggesed ha anguages fal no wo majorypoogca caegoes conguraona and nonconguona hforme ae of he ype we have been consderng. In he ae s anguages) he fu range of synacc conguaons s ackng n varousdegrees and oder of consuens s ypcay fay free hough heremay be pefeence rues whch we wl dsregad. He has aso suggeseha n nonconguaon anguages here ae no empy caegoes henceno ransformaona rues n he synax assumng race heoy. Hae suggess ha Japanese s essenaly of he non-conguaonal ype; n facas has ofen been noed here s le any eason o suppose ha ues ofhe ype Move- apply n Japanese. Le us assume ha hese suggesonsare corec and ask how he framewk I have been ounng hee can begenerazed o accommodae a anguage of hs ype.

Suppose ha he cenral base ue of Japanese s 1) where sandsfor a sequence of zeo o moe caegores ha ae maxma pojecons(e us say P o ) and X s he head of he maxma proecon :

() X

n pacular he base ules w generae such srucues as (2) where weake = S = V

Le us assume furhe ha he excon ofJapanese s essenly he same asha of Engsh n respecs ha concern us hee ; fo exampe he verb tabe(eat) akes an P-complemen assgnng o he 8-roe paen and formng wh a VP ha assgns he 8roe agen o he subec; atae (awakes double compemen assgnng 8-roes accordngly; ec. Japaneseaso has a word-fomng eemen ae (causave) whch akes a causal

complemen as a lexca propery sgnng o he appoprae 8-oleand assnng he 8oe agen o he subjec of he verb V- asohas a wodfomng eemen ae whch serves as passve morphology.Assume fuher ha Gs are repesened exacy as n Engsh [PS]fo subjec [VP] fo objec [SVP] o clausal complemen n VPd [VP VP fo pmay and seconday objec n he case of



ubsysems of core grmmr 29

doube-object constructons. The basc dfference between Japanese andEnglsh, then, s that the conguratons that detemne GFs (whetherGF- o GF-) ae not repesented the synt in the X-ba system nD- or S-structues n Japanese.

Let us now compae D- and Sstuctues and the ues that relate themn the two languages. o the vebs ebe Englsh wilhavetheD-structure (3) and Japanese the D-structue (3)

(3) () s NP [VP eat NP]]() s NPi NPj tabe] i = and j = 2, or i = 2 andj 1)

The D-stucture assgns F-. Fo Englsh, the assgnment s dect,give the conguations, along the lines sketched above Fo Japanese

we may take the assgnment to be andom, wc s to sa that ode isirelevant. n each case, takeNP = [NP,S] andNP = [NP,VP]. Assumngessentialy the same Case-assgning ules in the two languages NP 1receivesnomnatie ase and NP objectve Case (GA and espectively, nJapanese). n both languages, -oles are assgned on the bass oGF-,n the obviou way. Note that if random GF assgnment had poceededdfferenty n the Japanese example, the -cterion would have beenviolated.

onside next the passive D-stuctues (4), generated by the base ules

(4) (i) [ s [NP e] [ ypwas [ V

]

eaten NP]]J

() sNP taberare]

Example 4i) s an instance of NP * V, wth NP * = NP and V = berreTe geneal popety of passive is that the passive element absors Case(namel, 27 .(22)). Teefoe, as we hae seen, no -ole is assigned toN, S J opety 2 7 .(22)). n English, Move- apples, giving the S-structure()

(5) NP was + eaten t]]J

Along the nes discussed earie, NP is assigned e function chan(NP,S], ENP,VP]). The second element determnes he -olen LF ad therst might pay a oe elsewhee n LF, as we have seen. Nominatve Cases assgned to NP wh the Sstructue GF [NP,S], the intial element of thefuncton chan.

n Japanese, the Dstructure (4) must be onveted to an appropate

Sstuctue in whch NP can eceve Case, snce the passve element rreabsobs Case, by assumption. This cannot be done by an applcaton ofMoe , as n English, since GF is no conguationaly dened. Theobvous anaogue of the rule Move- for Japanse s the rule (6)

(6) Assume a GF



0 ectures o oeet ad d e Ps ectures

e nerstnd 6} as assigning an he unction chai (G*F" GF where(G GF) ishe unction chain it alread snd G* is an rbitrar GF (4ii is to sai the 0-criterion te G

NPVP] ust hae been assigned b randoFassigent astructure ppling rule 6 we or· n Sstructure identica in or with theD-structure (4i) ut wth N assigne theunctin chain 7):

(7) (GF* [NP,VP])

What is G F*? t ust be a G F that lacs a 0role and tat will perit Caseto be assigned to NP so as to satis the Case Filter B assuption NPannot be assigned ase withi P sin rarsorbs Case so GF* ust be

NP S ] ust ashe rule oe- ust alwas oe tothesubectposiionheeoe NP is ssigned the unction hain (NPS] NPVP) iS-stucture eactl as in Engish and role as wel as Case ae assigned eact asin Enlish with the noinati G and the 0-ole patient assigned toP Recall that aerare cannot ssign a 0-oe to NPS] b irtue o27 22 hereoe the 0-criterion leads to the sae choice o GF* as inEnglish

Consider net aaeaard n Engsh we hae (i) in apanese (8ii)the onl choice o Dstucture that will not lead to a iolation o the 0citerion:

(8) (i) NP awar NP NP]](ii) NP NP NPk atae (where ( is soe peutation o

( ,23))

n each case take NP NP S NP P VP] NP P P]S-structure is dentica in o to D-stucture and assignent oroeand Case in apanese NP =G NP =NI N = is staightorwad

Conside net the coresponding passies n Engish the passie

orpholog absobs the Case assigned t P so that NP ust oe tosubect position wth 0role and Case assigne in the ailiar wa Inapanese passie absorbs either the Case o NP or NP (as in Englishdialects that perit both a boo was gien Bill" and Bill as gien aook") he rule 6) assigns the GF NPS] to whicheer P does oteceie Case giing either a G or GN o o passie Chice othe GF NPS] as the new eleent o the unction chain or whichee NP NP loses Case i again dctated independentl b the Case Filteran the 0-citeion

Consde nall the causatie os in apanese nael 9) (10

9) NP NP NP tabe-sase](NP causes to eat NP)

( 10 NP NP v tabesaseae](NP is caused to eat NP



bsysems o ore grammar 13 1

Fr cnvenience I ick a aricuar rderng.he eica reries f aberequire ha i bear he GF [VP 1 here

1 has an bjec [NPVP an VP assigns a 0-re [NS . B

rand GF assignen a D�srucure fing he (arbirar) nuericacnvenins aded in (9) e ake NP [NPVP and N [NPS hus he eica srucure f (9) i incude (11), hich is si a cnvenien shrhand fr a is f GFs assciaed ih eeens f (9):

Leica reries f sase require ha i bear he GF [VVP a verbhrase V ih a causa ceen S VP] here VP assigns a 0-re he [NP S f a senence S cnaining VP as is VP hus e eica

srucure f (9) us cnain he GFs eresened in (12), incuding (11),ifhe 0-crierin is be saised a LF:

nce again Ssrucure is idenic in fr Dsrucure. 0re assignen is sraighfrard given (12), hch as derived b rand assignen f GFs he Dsrucure (9). Caseassignenisassraighfrard.n he assuins s ar discussed e ec P G NNP G. F reasns e a u he side he fr NP hesubjec f abe s acua

Cnsider ne he assive (1). s nd assive rhg recudesassignen f 0-re he subjec heere he Dsrucure (1) necessari acks an N ha akes n he GF [NP] in he fu senence ie. [NP S keeing he nains used n (12) Rand assgnenfGF (1) in suc a a as sais he 0-cierin herefre gives a srucureha e a reresen as (13), keeing he nains used abve:

(13) [ [V 1 NP [yp1 NP [ v abe [ v2 saserare

Since sase is assivized as saserare e NP in is ceen i nreceive Case. Bu here is n NP in i ceen raher n an S.herere his requireen is acuus hus here is n reasn a herue (6) S-srucure is idenica in fr D-srucure and he funcinchans are unchanged. NP ih he GF NPS receies he ninavease G NP ih he G NP VP reies he bece Case res are assigned eac as in he acie cunerar

Ne ha (13) viaes he requireen 21(25) ha causa srucures

us hae subecs We igh assue his requireen be reed frn-cnguraina anguages r e gh assue ha here is an esubec f ne r anher sr issue are quesins cncerning hesausf PR r-dr he naure f ninaive Case-assignen and hrquesins cncerning he srucure f anguages he e under cnsderain. Ii si eave a f hese quesins en.



132 ecture on goement nd binding the Pi lecture

We mgh have appoaced he causaiv scues in sighly diffeen mae. Suppose ha geneal poy of ausaie is o ignhe GF ndiec obec (wich we migh idenfy by convenin wh he

pimay obec he doube-obec onscion) o he ubec of hecausl compemen Ts would accoun fo hefachawehaveAahe an GAG- in (9 and he pincipe gh be exene oanguages ha apea o have a ahe dfeen wa offoming ausaves,eg., he Romance angages. If so, hen wha we woud say a s poin,in connecion wih (), is ha s popey of assigning (dave)o he pmy obec is absobed by he passive mophoogy unde pincpe 2 7 (22I gi!K. sa us asnhe oegong accoun.

p o he passive of a doube-obec veb (namey, (4)) wih

he passve of he causaive of a singleobec veb (namy, 15))(4) P P aaeae15) abesase-ae

In (4), we have he Case sucue GA- o GA-, depending on whehehe pimay o seconday obec of he veb is passivized. In 15) we haveony he Case scue A-, whee he GA fom is he subec of heembedded veb in he coesponding acive. Bu no special ules ae

equied o aceve hese esus, wch smpl fall ou as he ony onespossible Since Japanese allows eihe obec o lose Case unde passiv,we deive ehe GA- o GA fo (4) Since se has no -complemen no Cas is absobed by he passive fom se-re (apa fom heconsideaion of he peceding paagaph no elevan hee), so ha heCe sucue f he coesponding acive is peseved

The passve of he causaive is hus analogous o he English exampessuch as (6) in wch he ule Move- did no have o apy o eld heS-scue of a gamaical senence:

(16) i was believed (held, easoned . ) ha he conclusion wasfase( = 27.( 14i))

Simlly in he case of h passive of e causaive in Japanese, he coesponding ue (6) did no have o apply. The eason n ach case, is haee was o P n he complemen of he passived veb o lose Caseunde passive mophology.

Summaizing, Japanese is noncongaional, Engsh congaionalThus GFs ae no epesened in D- and Ssucues in apanese i emsof he foml sucus bu ae assigned anomly o D-scues ad by(6) o Scues We may in of D- and S-scues as eing pais(,) whee is a foma ynacic scue and is a eenaion ofassociaed GFs such as ()(3): Fo Engsh is deved fom babsacion fom ode e. Fo Japaese, is a "a scue fomdby (1) and is essenil he sae as e coesponding elemen n Engish



Subsystems of ore grmmr 133

Case and bindig teory crucially consider the element f of the par( f in both types of langage but we need not make the distinction inEngish since f is a simple abstraction from Function chains are simar in

te two casesGien that Fs are represented congrationally in forma structures inEngish Engish uses the rule Moe to pert an to assume a new GFextending its function chain. Lacking this forma representation of GFs insyntactic structures apanese uses the anaogous rule ssumeGF i.e.(6). The excons are essentialy identical as are the systems ofgrammatcalrelations and functions Te comon property of passie its only stipulated property is that it absorbs Case In both langages the base rules aremnimal stipulating only the alues or such parameters as order. n otherrespects Dstructures are proected from lexical structure as are structures gien the paired rules Moe ad AssumeGF. We nothingquite as simple as this can be expected to work out without rther probems this eems a reasonable start towads generalizig the theoreticalframework we hae been discussing to what appear to be radically differentlanguage types. If ts reasoning is correct the dfferences ie essentiallyalong the parameter that Hale identies as congurationa s. langage.Eidently there are subtypes of each category not dealt wth here andit may turn out that these are not two langage types bu rather moreabstract properties that subsystems of a angage may instantiate in oneor another manner.

If tis approach to noncongurational anguages is correct in essencetwo questions arise concerning our earlier discussion:

(17) What is the import of the projection principle for a nonconguratonal anguage?

(1) Wat would be the result of alowng appication of random assignment of GF at Dstructure and the rue (6) in a congurationaanguage?

As for (17) the projecton princile is triialy satised or a noncongurationa anguage unde a ery sight reinterpretation where wenow undrstand the notions Dstructure and structure that appear in theformuation o this prnciple along the lines just indicated i.e as pars( with the principle referrng to the elementf of the par. In case for example the GF NPVP is assigned to at Dstructure and thefunction chan ([] NPVP) is assigned to it at strcture if theLFrepresentation is welforme. inceis subcategorized and 8marked

by tbe at LF in the conguration tberre, the same must be trueat D and structure according to the projection prnciple. Bt tis strialy true since exacty these congurations are assigned at the D andstructure levels though they do not appear in the formal syntacticrepresentations temseles we ae assumed. t is farly obous how theproecton principle (and also the 8crteron) can be formulated to ensure



34 Lectures on govement and bndng: the sa lectures

that they ae satised in these ses, bu thee is tte point in pusuing thequestion, since the projection princile is essentially vacuous, as is athernatural consideingthe oe of ad Sstctue in these anguages

Turning to question (8), suppose that random OFassignment and ule(6) were to app in Engsh To mke the discussion concrete, suppos thatcontrary to our earier assumpions, he only stucture nderying 9)is the surface structure (2)

19 ohn is considered stupid(2) [ [ John] [ s [+V] considered stupid]]]]

At the LFleve, we want John to appear as subject of a proositin ith

stupdas its predicate. For present uposes it does not mattewhch of theoptions discussed earer we adopt for sma clauses let us say that theproposition in question at LF is a clause S Then at LF, John must beassgned the 8roe determned fo the subject of S 1 > a clause with an NPsbject and the predicate [ stupd].

Suppose we proceed as ollows, cking the procedure for a noncongurationa anguage Take (2) to be the forma part ofthe Dstucture,exactly as in apanese, thoughithcertaincongurationsaleadydenedits case Then assgn to John the OF [NP,S] and to stupd the OFP,S ] (predicate of S ) by random OFasignment, giving the fulDstucture Suppose further that we constuct the Sstructure by ule (6)assgning to John the function chain [N ,S , [NPS ), exacty as in anonconguratonal anguage The resutng Sstucture is then mapped tothe surface structure (2) and the LFrepesentation

Ts procedure, howeve, s inconsistent with our eadng assumptionsand thus is uled out within the present framework We have assignedconcting OFs to John at Dstructure [NP,S by virtue of its position inth forma conguration (2 and [NP,S by random OFassignmentThe projection princple s violaed, since the assignment [NP,S] doesnot corespond o seection (subcategozation and marking) at LF suchinconsistent OFassignment ould be rled ut expcitly as soon as thenotions outned above re mad more recise. The Sstuture alsovolates he projection princie, since i contains no caego lling thesubject position of S a position ie. , no categoy with the F NP,S ]in Sstrucure. Thus the answer qustion (18 is hat i is impssibe oappy he noncongurational ules in a congurational language.

But these inconsstencies are readily overcome we look at what edoing in a sghy different ay. Supose e tae (2) to be not the formal

art of the Dstructure, as in a noncongurational angage, but ratherjus he surface structure of 19. We then proceed o construc D andSstrucures exactly as in he receding accunt, wih only one mdication: we assign an empy caegoy coindexed with John bearing the F[NP,S at Ssrucure, so as to satisfy the projecton prnciple. Wha ehave now done, in effect, s o constuc the Dand Sstuctures previously



Subytm o cor grammar

assued hat is this account sipl spells out one wa to ontruc anapropriate D- and Sstructure that will ap in the reuired a to Lgien a surace structure ne can narrow the prcedure outlined in aiouswas to ensure ore rapid conergence on the appropriate D- and structures, eliinating the rand eleents and proiding an algoritho se sort or aking th right choices, gien surace structure Wenow hae a parsing odel, in eect othing o an signicance is at stkeUnde this interpretation, there is no reason at to rule out aplication othe noncogurational principles to a congurationa anguage heanswer to uestion 1), under this interpretation, is that application otese principles is a rst ste towards construction o a parser

29 Modul o grammar

In chapter I I distinguished two classes o subsstes o the theor ograar sucoponets o the le ste ) an subsstes priciples 2)

I (i) lexicon(ii) sntax

(a) categorial coponent(b) transorational coponent

(iii) PF-coponent(i) LF-coponent2) (i) bounding theor

(ii) goernent theor(ii) theori) binding theor) ase theor(i contrl theo

Soe o he properties o these sstes ae been discussed in the oregoing rearks, and iib) has ben generalized in ters othe paraeter[±congurational] Further properties o these sstes will be elaboratedas e rocee Peraps this is a goo point or apreiinar sar

he sste that is eerging is highl odular, in the sese that theull coplexit o obsered phenoena is traced to he inteaction opartiall independent subtheories each with its own abstract structureI hae discussed two basic principles: the criterion and he projctiprinciple s a propert o LF the criterion ightlosbeegarded as

art o a denition o elloredness and in this sense, is relatil uncontroersial obined with the rojection principle, hoeer, it is arro innocuous wit conseuences extending well beond the nternastructure o graar Within the eo o graar one conseuenceo these principles is that the categorial coponent o te sntax is ighlrestricted to a substantial extent a projection o proertis o the lexicn



Lecture n geent and binding the Pia lecture

Base rules ae viuall eliminated. ere are also a variety o consequences with regard o prciples of grammar e.., movement is always to anon-position, hence to subject, if no adjuncion) and to specic proper

is gammars (e.g , the structure of verbal complements).iven hese principles and ohers o which we reurn, the transormanal component o cor gammr no educd o heruleMovwihperhaps some parameers as to choice of an landing sies can in effectbe dened by he conditions 24(2 repeaed here as (3), which belng,respectivel, o the theory of governent, 0-theory and bounding theory:

(3) (i) trace is governii) the anteceden of trace is not in a 0position

(ii) the antecedenttrace relation observes subjacency

Reall at (3i) derives from e 0-criteron and te projection rncipl.PR ifers from race n a three respects. It is ungoverned, is anece

det (if any) has an idependent 0-role, and he aneceden-PRO relation(if i exists) does no observe he subjacency requirement. Gven the rs ofthese properties, we have the following genera prnciple holdig of empycategories, ha is, caegories lackng phonetic conten:

(4 If is an empy caegory, hen(i) is PRO if and only i is ungoverned

(ii) is trace i and only i is governed

Principle (3), which restates 2 4 (1 3), is a bi too strong as we shal see. Iwll be rened as we proceed, and in part (namely, part (i))wll be reducedto the theory of binding. PRO is a pronomina anaphor, sharing propertiesof pronouns and of anaphors e positions in which PRO appears are

determned b these shared properties and by the theory of Case races ae of sevra tyes. NP-race is an anaphor, like each ther. It int Casemared A variable is a rae bound by n operator; it is anR-exprssion, fnctions in the · manner of name (with interesting exceptios, ase-marked and assigned a 0-role. I have also riey discussdtraces lef by extraposition and have noed tha theremay be other cases aswe.6 he distribuion of race oo is determned by the theories ofgvenmen, binding and Case. Gven hat hese theorie deterine theposions in whch empy caegories and nonpty categres appear, we

can aiin the pojecion prnciple withou quaication, assumng alas to be of he orm F a D- and -structure, apa frmll aUses, hich are o the fom NP-predicae and may or may not be ofh agy

e anayis developed s far is asicaly correct, wo related questions�· irst, wy do e have a partitioning of empy caegories into thetee ypes: ungoverned (PRO, governed and Case-marke (variale),




goveed ad o-Case-aked (NP-tace)? Secod give te patitioig wy is it tt properties are associated i just tis ae?e teory of bidig to wic we tur ext is particularly relevat to

tese questiosEc f te systes outlied adits of soe possibiities of paraeticvariatio wile certai priciples are xed We assue tat te lexio isbasicaly te sae i caracter across laguages toug differet tesay be sectd witi a arrow rage of possibiities By te projectiopriipe S-structres are also coparable across laguages diffeigaccordig to te ways i wic paraetes for coguratioality ad orderare xed At LF tere is always a category P laguages ar of te subect-predicate for a LF I coguratioal aguages P appars as a

category i sytactic structures as wellS-stuctue is te fudaeta level of sytactic represetatio receivig its itepetatio at te levels of PF ad LF by rules of te PF- adLF-copoets respectively At S-stucture eac NP apat fro trace isassiged a fuctio cai (GF GF n weter it is a arguet(icludig PR) or a o-arguet (idio cuks peoastic itad tere,etc GFn deteries te 8-role for arguets te GF s (i ) ay playoter roles i deteriig LF-represetatios as ay oter proprties ofSstucture

We ave decoposed S-structure ito two factors Dstucture wc isa ersetatio o GF-8 ad a ue addig GFs to a fuctio cai eiteMove- o Assue-OF For coguratioal aguages te ule Move•as te propeties (3) Popety (3ii) is ore geeral oldig as wel i tecase of te rue AssueOF sice it foows fro ore fudaetalpiciples e rule Move pays oter rles i te gaar eg reatig-prases ad ote eleets i CMP to abstract ariables extrapositio idio itepetatio e Cas Fte deteies te aicability ofte pair ues oe- ad ssueOF or costructio ounctio cais

Sice Move- plays oter roles as well tee igt be (ad apparetly are)aguages tat use Move- for say oveet i te sytax wileusing its couterpart Assue-OF for te costuctio of fuctio cains

Give te projctio piciple ad te 8citeri ad te retictedways i wic S-structure is fored fro D-stucture it folows taS-struures ae sapy iited i variety Xba teory iposes oter costraits o -structures ece Sstructues Makig o eferece tote coditios deive fro te exico via te pojectio priciple ate 8citeio ad fro X-ba teory te base ues will stipulate idosy

cratic propeties of D-stucture ece S-structueWe te paraeters of UG are xed a coe graar is detenedoe aog itey ay possibilities exico apart Marked structuresare added o te basis of direct or idirect evidece (cf capte I wiecertai optios are selected as uarked i te absece of evidece to tecotrary by te perso acquirig kowedge of te laguage t is possibletat so-caled "fuctioa cosideratios eg copatibility of te gra-



8 Lectures on goement and binding: e is ectues

mar _t arsn rn<les, sum gvegt ·ay a role n eternng c9c o rammar 9. ese an an oter qestons st beconse n eveoment of a comreense tery o {JG, a

caracterzton ofte ntal state of te language facutyVe will turn next to a <loser exanaion of government a1d binding the.ory nd o consiqe�ation of some paeers f language aiati(nurter questons, o a fe�ent sort, arse en we k e langagef�culty in its itial or stead state interats with other cognitive sstems suc as systems of cnceptuaJ structure and organization, which havetheir n pr(perties. 140 Te lexicon is one point of contact but not neces-srily t ly oe It alo goes without saying that he approa<hIhaveoutlin is t t ol e tht eseres seious consideratin, ier inis

secc etals or n ts genera organzaton an rncles

Noes

l . C. Chomsky 1980,)2 For urther isusson o what is at stke, se Chomsky 1975, 1980 )3 See ay 1977) or a pproah that I ll ollow in genal ee haper 4 orurth susn o moerules n the LFomponet

4. One mght argue that at surae struture, to- eom a singe wor Fr

expostoy puposes I ignore ths possiility here .. 5 It has oasonally een propose that wnn. lexial r, perhaps uasi-moal,n whih e the Sstruture o 6i) woul e e e as its srae tuture Th eroul ha a hihy eetie morphly an uniue syntat istriuion e.g., I waat aris, ''I ill anna is ars et.; ut not • he annas) ist Prs," *I wanna)isit aris yeseray, i I oul)," et) an semantis. ine exatly the poperis that woulhae to e stipulate or ths e llow rom he assumption that ntto is optionalytrate to nn n th PF-omponnt, assume that the nalysis in the text is

oet

Fr rther isi, s�e § 322 an reerenes ie tee

illor 1975) r isuson a ewhat sin iea7. That he a e assoiate at F-represetton wth the oet perde as o

opton s patuary ths marx ojet s a uante N sh as eone en oneoption o interretation o say, theanaogue to 39i), is: or eery person , waspersuae ta shul sh ollege." The option o interpreting a pronoun as iential toa arae un y omeutr is aalale only uner spei srtual onitins ohh we retun, onitin tat re satise in th as.

8 Conuson is not unommon en in the thnal lterature. See homsky 1980,hapter 4 or some isussion an or a lear anlyss o te issues, se Koster 1978,hapter 1. 9 For reent argment that they shoul e ientie, see Koster {1980).10 See homsky 1975, hpte 3), 1977a, hapter 4 1980, hater ; an ora nirle irement, gginotham 1979, c S� also Mer 1979)

II For eiene in suppo this iew, see Sag 1976), Williams 1978)12 , Note that the terament" is oen us ierenty n lint work, rerringto elements ouping argument positions," the latter eng asegenerat N positionsi.e positions in S other than auns orme y extraposition, exluing P n .

The akete expressons in 3) are o t egories N AP, PP, i.e., maximal

poetions i the X-ar theory. It mas an open ution wheter is a ml proeti] as I wll assume elow) r whether the Ssytem s a uther projeton o V theormer, ten the maximal projetions are exatly the expressons lng -roles on the




ssumption hat VP is n a -poston, namey, he postion predcate, on a pa wth subject,perhaps both adjuncts of the head INFL of S14. is a generalzation of the conditions of functiona uniqueness and functonarelatedness of Freidin 978). The atter conditions stipulat ony ha each agumen (n our

sense) eas one and ony one ole The second cause of 4) is welmoivaed To sayha ech ole mus be led mpes, for example, ha a pure ransitive verb such as itmus have an objec, ha a verb such as ut o kee (wih he sense hey have inut it in tecoe kee it in te gge) mus have the asocaed PP lo led, ec The additonaequiremen ha each role mus be led by ony one argument wi, for exampe, cudehe possby that a singe race is ssociated wh sveal agumen anecedens, a possiby rued ou i pncipe under he Move heory

Noe that he citerion, whe no unnatura, s no obvousy correct I is ejeced inJackend off's pioneeing work on his opic (Jackendoff1972)) He argues ha; eg, in "Johndeberatey oled down he Jon has a dua roe, s agen and as heme wlassume tha uch cases should be deal wh by modicaion of ole assgnmn athe

than by modcation of te citeion, thoug it s not obvious that ths decison is eight oneSuppose ha Jackendoff s coec, and tha an agumen may have a muliple oe in

the example cied and ohes ke While his equies a modiction of he formulaion fhe cieion, s modicaon s quite irelevan o he uses o which we wl pu thipinciple We are concerned here wih he ssgnmen of ole whn he bsic system ofgammaical elaions: verbobjec, vebsubjec or subjec), ec f 1roes ae assignedin some diffeent way outsde his system, the prnciples we are consdering can easy bmodied to accommodate such cses while continuing o hod hem as formulaed here wihinhe cenra subdomain ha s our pmary concern Sine the issue is irelevant o he uses owhih he citerion w be put in he subsequen discussion, w put it aside hee, adopng

he simper fomuaonApa from he reasons given in he tex, he behavor of arbrary RO suppos heciteion n "he hink that o help B woud be difcu, one mght say ha heinnitiva has an unspecied subjec or ha t is ts subjec (volng the cieion)he fomer intepretaion is foced if we lace B by tem a fac ha reduces o disoinrefrence we assume a PRO subec, in which cse this same PRO subec be subect ofe n he former senence, saisfying the creion15 Note hat we are inepreng he cieion as saing ha a single role cannotbe assgned in two different ways o the same argumen Thus if is marked by { and byy { y wh a· single role say, agenofacon), he cieion is neverheess violaedby this dual assignment of a singe role am ndebed o SJ Keyser for poning ou his

aci assumpon See chaper 6 for a more caefu account of his and oher maers, basedon a somewha differen noion of role assignmen ha wl be developed in chape 316. l of his can be saed more precisely and more absracty in erms ofthetheoryof gammaca funcions, in he sense of Chomsky 1955), rdmens of which w be discussed shorly But his w sufce fr presen puposes17 See chaper 1 on he poblem of denng "gammatical reaion See also Hae,Jeanne and Plaeo 1977) fo some emarks on his mae so Hae 978) for a generalzaon o whic w return in § 28 For more exensve discussion, cf Maranz 198),suveying seveal curren approaches and developing somewha differen ideas18. Cf Chomsy (965), or in a moe genera seing, Chomsky 1955).19. To be precise, his saemen hds only fo argument posions wthin Bu w

ae assuming a apa from idioms, each N complemen of a verb s an argument andfuthermo, once an expessio is esrctued as an idom by an dom rle, movemenino hi expresson is suey o be excluded by gneral convenion, so tha the saemen inhe tex ods n ful geneay n effec, resuued doms are eial items, us mmunto nseron of under he ue Move Under he ssumpon ha idom cunks have hrole # as suggesed ea, he posiion of an domcomplemen i a kind of posiion,hus in any even no a ag for movemen



1 Lecture emet ad bidi the Pia leure

0. Or just heads, complements and adjuncs, f we take INFL to be head of S, and issubject anVP o be complemens of the head. Note hat ths is in pa a matter of executon. One mgh suppose that the phrases in 2)-4 are base-generated, restatng contextual features accordingly. Jacken

doff (1977). On X-bar eory, see also van Remsdj (978) and many papers n e currentieraure. George (1980), for argument that prepostons do not constute a category.22. See chapter , note 1.23. On he satus of clauses, see Koster (1978a) and references cted here. soPera(1979). Note hat ese cases can be unied ifNFL s aken as head of S.25. For example, n Russan, dative Case may be assigned to he subject of an nntvalindirec quesion in cerain cases Or i Hebrew, where the prosiion () s ·sometmesused n rougy the sense of the Englsh compementer fo nnitval indrec questonscan appear wh overt leical pronouns citiczed to as subect (ni yoda- a'

aso-"I don 't know what for-me to do, meaning that I don't knowwhat am supposed to do).

The case of accusative subects of innitves in Geek or Latn remans more problematic,however, among a host of other questions that ase when we turn to a wder variety ofanguages.26 In case 4), Move wil not permt he consucton to escape he Case Filer, sncegetve Case is not assigned in pre-ajectiva position. herefore the onserion opton isobgatory One mght ask why ts s so.7. n the assumptions of Chomsky (977b), there s a furher projecton of heSsystem to S = TP Nevertheess, it s naural to take to be the mima projecton nthat as dsnct from P (etc.), is an optonal proecton of ; thus ke P (etc.), s themama oblgatory proecion ternatvely, we mght deny and , appeaing to other

properties of he system to deermne whether the expansion may be recursve, as maybe p_ssbe n some anguages (perhaps Japanese, f -constuctons are ncoporated ntothe system). It may be at properies of elements at he pephery of the cause can bedetermned by genera pncples. See Maran (979a) for some nteresng deas o he subect Also Baltin (979). I wl not pursue he ssue here8. Perhaps he Modals also appear win !FL. I will omt ay dscussion of heirstatus, as well as other questions relatng to the auxiary system whch have been the opicof much study and debate. See, among others, Pum and Wilson (1977), kmaian, Steeleand Wasow (979), Fiengo (1979), asnk (1979), Misark (1980) Perhaps oher elemenstoo (e.g., as in "I found rnning on he beach) should aso be asociaed wF. See Chomsky (1955) for dscusson of parallels between ing- and claus. For

discssion of vaos yp of clases wiin he GBframework, see Reland 980.e might regard V as a verbal comple, assignng Case and assumng citcs asa unit, anaogously o causatves and restrctung constrctions n he Romanceanguages. Rouveret and Vergnaud (980) cf. aso Rz (1978a), Burzo (1978, 981), and muchother work. gain, I skrt these mportant quesions here.29. On simlar compementizers in French and Italan, see § 52 It mgh be, as suggestedn Chomsky and Lasnk (977) that s n CO in such strctur as " wonder f Johnwll eave, and that and as ae not complementers (elements of CO) but rather,perhaps, preositons. On s matter, see also Chomsky (1979b).30 Noe that these assumpions raise probems f we assume hat PRO moves toCO, as n the anayss of puposive nntvas in OB, a suggeston wih consderably

broader potentia scoe ee § § 242 2.6, 3.2.3; note 52 chapter ; and chapter 6 31 . his approach does no accoun for *"a man whose broher o give e book oand other smilar exampl, blocked by the *[PVP] lter b�t not by the deletion-torecoverab approach, snce the -phrase s undeletable (C.L Baer and E. Wiams,persona communcaion). But it may be hat ndependent consideraions bock caseThus t is not obvous hat such phrases as "a man to whose broher to gve he bookare cucally dfferent from the cted example, as predcted by the *[P-VP] lter. hemore general pont may be hat there s a tendency to avoid comple phrases n nitvas,




wth deeton up to ecoveaby as an obgatory exteme case. hee appeas o be aherarchy of accepaby; n apposive eaves, complex -phrases ae farly fe; inrescve ne elatves, hey are less a�cepable; in escve nnval elaives, theyare unaccepabe. Corespondingly, -phrase deleion is excluded in apposives, opional in

resctive nie reaves, and obgatory up o recoverabiy in rescve innitivalsFor a dffeen and que promising approach o these quesions, see Cnque (978, 1980)32 aegg (1980b ), where i s argued ha there is no -phrase deeio in COa apparen cases of hs sor beng in ealy insances of PROmovemen. §§2.4.2,26, § 3.2.3, and chaper 6. See also Fiengo (1979) for agumens agans deleion fro adfferen poin of view33. Cf Maranz (1979a), Balin (1979) for fuhe deveopmen ofthe assumpion ha-movemen is a ue of aduncion o he cause self, no involvng .34. On his maer, see Gmshaw (979).35 There is a age and gowing eraue on hese quesions. Fo varying ponsof view, see Bach ( 1980), Bresnan (1980), Hendck (1980), Keenan (980), Lightfoo (980),

and references cited in hese pubcaions. See also Kayne (980b ).36. One mght argue ha in the sucure of (18) here is a causal emnan lackingINF enely, or wh a varian of INFL, so ha we have a ue insead of a -phase.For discussion of such constuctions, see Kayne (1980a)37. For some reevan dscussion, see apoine 1 97, 1980), Fiengo (1 979), asnik( 979), Milsak (1980), among many ohes.8. Hale, eanne and Plaero (977).9. assume ha here is only one kind of aduncion, namey, peseing e categorial sucture of he phase o whch the elemen is adjoned, so ha no sucturalnformaon s os" by he adjuncion ue, and he Ssucue of () conains [ [ behere] [ who ohn knows]] Anoher possbiliy is ha exrapositon n () adjoins heelaive cause o S, as suggesed by Baln (198, 1979), wh suppoing argumen. Thispossbiliy woud be excluded f we wee o adop he Pncipe of xernal Adjuncion suggested in van Riemsdk (978b, p. 284). I w ignore hese quesions here.40 Ceain examples siar o (l) would be accepable, in conras o those cied,bu ony in a devian meaphoc use: e.g., i ceainy knows how o an," in the sense ofsuch examples as i's been rying o an a day, bu us can' make i." chaper 6,f fuher dscussion of he satus of eaher."4. Technically, he subjacency condiion s no saised if S as we as is a boundingnode. Bu this canno be wha is invoved here, since he senence is also ungrammacal indialects ha do no ake S o be a bounding node, and furthermore, the volation n (l)is far more severe han in correspondng -island violaions tha rey on he saus of S asa (weak) bounding node. Similary, in anguages such as Fench o Italan for whch S is no abounding node, analogues o (li) are s ungrammaical.42 These facs were brough o my aenion by ugi Rizzi. § 4.5 for some possbly eaed facs concening impesonal i taian.43. Tha his alenaive approach may be he corec one is suggesed by someobservaons by uigi Burzio, who cies he examples () and ():

(i) pgioneri sognavano d sare per essere berati(i) *i prigionieri sognavano di sare per berarsi

(he psoners dream o be abou o be feed")

n boh cases, he embd clause has conroed PRO as subjec, and the doubyembedded clause has race as subec, namey, he trace of he ased PRO. hus inboh cases he doubyembedded cause is (), hug (i) is grammaical and (i) is no

() er V

In (i) the VRB is iberri analogous o (18v); and in (i), he VRB is eere Iberi analo



14 ectures on govement and binding the Pisa lectures

gou to 18iv). Te ditinction between i) and (i) follow ife umethathePROsubjectf be i nt accible to control, bUt do not follow if we take the crucial ditinction to be governmen by See § 4 fr frther dicon4 Note that here another poition in which RO may appear, nely, in

a poiblit that realized if we identify R and AGR, eem plaible, gienhat theyhave the me featr We etrn to h qtion in chapter3 ·4 Jaegli 80b). e retrn to the ton in chapter4. The tendency to takehet e ditinct i referee from i omewhat reduc when emphatic reexiv areadded, in " John would prefer hi going to the movie himef\�· acqeline Guro raithe tion wheth one might relate the void ronoun principle to the impoibility ofch entence a i), given the alternative optionii):

(i) l; vet 'l; venne(i) il veut venir

"he want to come)

46. We retrn to ch exampl in chapter4 On btract movement n the LFcomponent in Chinee, ee Hang {1980).4. Whether "may govern oul be trengthen to mut gove depend o howwe treat the alternation between i) and EQ example ch a "I wat to take pa: prence or abence of , or variation in properti of related to eletabiltyWe return to the uetion directly.48 . We return to a more general conideration ofpive and Ceignent in § 2.49. One might ak why inertion i no poible in ce 0). narrow anwer ithat the inertion rle wold have to be more complex to permit thi option, extending thecontext fro [ +N] to ariciple - i.e., to: [

V] bt not [

N} more "functional

explanation might alo be pur. Intitively, the role of the inertion rule i to permitcertain Dtrctr that violate the e Fter bt conform to bar theory and the projection principle to rface, would oteie be impoible. T, ch trctr "their detrctin of the city or "prod of John can rface in no other ay. Bt in thece of uch trctr {10), Mov i alway n available ption o that a complication ofthe ineton le i unecary.0. Te tacit mption here, with regard to i, i that trict adjacency i rir foreignment in Englh, excldng both a) and b):

a) John want very mch Bil to win

b) John belev incerely Bil to be a foolBt the apparent imilaity i illuory the comment that follow in the text are acrate. . Some of the verb do not reely ake pve morphology, but othe do e.g,"it wa preferred that John leave, "what w wantd w fo John to leave omewhatmarginal, bt much better thn the ungrmatical {19)).2. noted earlier, language e othe marked option to perit phonicallyrealized ubject of innitive to rface e.g., nominative bject in ortuguee withinnitive with GR, dative bject of indirect etion in Ria, protional phreubject in Hebrew. See note 23. For dicuion, ee Brnan 96), otal 19a).

4. nd if nite, indicative or bnctive, a omewhat marginal tion in Englihtat I will ignore. In ce iv an v, t the trace of the phrae.6. I am indebted to MariRita nzini r bringing the exampl t my attention,in thi connection. We return to qtio concenng the analyi of EQ and the tat of.8. It h been pointed out by a nmber of lnguit Gille Faconnier, Nathalie vanBcktaele, and the) tat te reirement eem le trict n the Romance language



Subsystms of cor grmmr 43

than in Enlish. Rochette (1980), developin ids of Boelois (1974) and oan Brnan,ss tha theffeence ma be trace to the fact tht nntval complements e NPsin the anes, control bein freer in the cse of PRO tha is strcrll more remotefrom the ver See anini (1980) for frther discssion from a dfferent point o view

and ihtfoo (1979, 1980) for discssion, of the sats of innitv in the hisory of Enish59 C. Chomsy (1977a, introdction and OB). Note that ohn ws promis t to win " is ecded by the overnment reqirement 2.4.1 .(2i) for trace60. As anini (1980) points ot thi is possile for pssiv t not for intrnsitives,s ilstrated in (i)(iii)

(i) they decesed the pice o help e poor](i) the prce ws decresed [to help the poor(iii) the pice decesed [to help the poor

hs there is some rson o sppose that psves ae aentve" n a sense in whch other

related constrctions are not, whether o no they have an aent hse.61 . C. ackendoff (1972).62. he (rather elsive) facs are noted by ohanan (1980), who relat them toapparently mch er facts in alayalam and other lanaes.6 Otsie its own VP, that is compare (2).64 See, e.., Hale, eanne and Patero (1977) Nsh (1980)65 here hs been mch insihtfl stdy of sml qesions in wor hat I will notattempt to sey, particlarly, in wor by Dwht Bolner, .R. Ross, and ohers.66 hs s obvos in cses (i) and (ii), where the trace is the direct oject of the ve ofthe embedded clase, bt not in cse if te analysis of relative clases is [ NP ,s is sometimes ssmed In this ce too, the trace is ove y the hd non of the fl

NP nder a modication of the notion of overnment" to whch we rern in § .22. I wlleae the atter open, since it is not ce that anthn tns on he qo of whether thetrace of etraposition is indeed overned. See chapters 4 and 5 for rther discssion oftrace overnment.67. here are many open and mch-debated qtions concein the sjacency condition that I wil not discss here, thoh I wl ret to some o them later on It hs eenproposed ha thee is a mch more nimate etween bondin and indin theorithan I am ssmin here (cf ilkins (1977, 1979), Koster (1978b,c), (1980) I wlnotdiscss these possibiiti here, bt m septical, for reasons implicit he analysis that Iam presentin. It hs also een proposed that sstantial parts of ondin theor ca ederived from overnment theory (cf. ayne (1980)) prolemsconceinthsproposalare

dscssed in Aon (1980a) with reference to Araic I wil pt aside ths qtion, andlo the qestion of whether sjacecy is a reqirement on movement or on its otpt,s proposed by Freidin (1978), and other qtions on the natre and scope of the sbjacencyprinciple; cf., amon others, ant (979), Endh (98), and the efeenc of§5.elow68. In some cses of he sort reviewed, jdments are ncertain and other factorsintervene. C. Gron (1978) for an importan discssion. Bt the eneral patte seemsclear enoh69. I assme hee that reative case strct ae of the form NP ]. hessmtion is not sential to the arment, which oes thoh nde othe possibleanlyses.

70. On sch constrctions, see Roveet (978) nd referenc cit thee.71 he intepretation with the exraposed phrse ssociated with eve men is alsocld, s has feqenty een oseed perhaps ecase of the mbiity that woldothwise reslt C. Gron, ct amon othe discssions reevnt to his qestion.72. I am ssmin that across-the-oard" phenomena (cf. Williams (1978)) do notinvolve a sinle movement re appyin o pai posiions cf. adsen (979), eoe(1980) Sjoom (1980).



1 Lectues on goement and binding the Pisa lectues

73. In pars of he form (8 he disnction beween cse (i and case ( is oenunclear as noted b oss ( 1967 But where there is a clear distincion in judgment i is in tedirection indicated in (8. seems to me reasonable o assume tat these conguaons ooillustrate (though weaky the distinction beween movement and construal and that other

facts as yet poorly undestood interfere o cloud he issue For an argument o the conrarysee Koster (1978bc .74. An actual advertising slogan in his cse.75. The reevance ofthese examples ws ponted out byMThrse inet.76. The eariest version of ace heory in the curent sense is in Chomsky (1977achapte 3 which appeared in Anderson and Kiparsky (1973 nd was circuated in 1970.The theory deveoped in vaous was in T dissetaons of he early 1970s Wasow (19721979 Sekik (1972 nd ptculay Fiengo (1974 977 979; and much other work of thepast severa years.77 C. Buzio (98 fo discussion of ere in a reated framok see lso tehe references cited there prticularly Misark (1974 1977 Stowell (1978 Aso Couquaux(1980 (fothcoming.78. Poined out to me by Guiseppe Longobardi. We return to consideaion of suchstructures in §4.5.79 . Thus depth of embedding appears to be a factor n determning peissiblecoindexng beween a pronoun in S and a noun that appears in the specication of thecategory of a vaable in the preS position in LF. Compare or exampe he sentences(i(i:

(i whch pictures of John did he lke?(i whch pcture of te woman John married did he like?

( whch people wh John lked did he meet?It is much more natural to take Jon nd e o be corefeential ( and (i than in (i.Futher questions ase in the cse of (iv and (v:

(iv he atacked someone who John kes(v someone wh John lkes he attacked

In (iv e and Jon are disjoint in reference presumably because e c-commands Jon sin v

(vi he attacked a friend of John'sAssuming the rle Q that forms the LF-representation (vi fo (iv and ssumng furtherthat disjoint reference is determined afte the appcation of hs rule (iv s to be disinguished rom (v and considered palel o (vi in terms of c-commnd at te LF-levelwe are appareny ed to assume tha Q paces the quantier prse withn rther thanoutside of S

(vi for some x, x a person who John ikes he attacked x

This assumption however ras further problems in the case of wide scope (eg. everyone

thinks he attacked someone who John kes" someone can have wder scope thn eveone; and many other more complex cases of ths pe involving mutiple -constrctions andoher stcures.

The exampes above are due to Crag Thiersch For recent discussion of a range ofsimlar problems see einhrt (1976 1979b Hggnbotham (1979ac Brody (1979 vanemsdijk and Wlams (1980 Aoun Sportche Vergnaud nd Zubzarreta (1980.

Other examples rase questions about the adequacy of a copying account in pace ofreconstcion of some sot. Consider for example cases of the ype llusrated in 241(17



ubsystems of core grammar

such as (vi):

(vi) it is [PRO to be 18 yeas old] that eveyone wants most

145

he oe inteetation of PRO ould have to involve econstction athe than coyng the focus element in clefts is base-geneated in lace. he oint is even cleae in wheea coying anayss is out ofthe questn:

[ PRO to be 18 yeas old] is what eveyone wants most

Fo dscussion of ths ssue see Buo (1981 ).80 Fo some discussion suggestng that heoy Ia s efeable n ths egad seeChomsy (1980b chate 4). See note 94.8 1 . I will not consde the intena stuctue of the lexicon hee While failue toconside thismatte does not seem too seious with egad to the tocs with whch I am

concened in the case of the sma selecton of languages that have motivat most of thswo ths s not tue in geneal82. Fo agument that lexical insetion shoud athe be at Sstuctue see Oteo(1976) den Besten (1976) Fiengo (1979)83. On ths matte seethe discussion ofmno icates in Rouveet and egnaud(1980). Geoge (1980) agues that eositon s not a natual class and that those esitional aticles that ae tansaent to seectiona featues of vebs (i.e. the veb selectsthe object of the aticle) ae Casemaes not eositons n the X-ba system. Dstinctions n status n this connection between eostions assgnng dative n Fench andSanish ae discussed n aegg (980b) following egnaud (1974). I am assuming thatPP-comlements eceive a -ole. Little tus on ths decison in the esent context.

84 t might be that the comlement fo g is P o as in I was eage fothe ootunity what I was eage fo was fo you to win with a ule of/deletionaccounting fo was eage fo you to win. On such ules see Be (980).8 I we accet the aoach to subject sentences outlined n Koste (978a) thenthee will be no ovement ule alyng to the disjunction P o clause86 C. Aoun (1 979b) fo a moe geneal aoach to Case-assignment ncooatingsome ideas o Rouveet and Vegnaud (1980) with aications to Classcal ad LebaneseAabic· Aoun shows that on hs assumtions VSO anguag eesent a maed (andesumably unstable) otion and daws a numbe of othe consequences C. aso Emonds(1 98) on the status of S languages. Aoun extends sma notions to honology in ( 979c)Cf also van iemsdj (1980). On the adjacency condition see also Fengo (1979).

he adjacency incile as stated is too stong to hold in geneal hus in SOY languagest is common fo PP and othe elements to intevene between the V and its P-comlement.I wl not usue the oblem f evelong a moe adequate geneal vesin of the deahee87 Anothe ossibty is that the veb and the imay bject fom an intenalVP (cf Williams (1974)) whch assgns Case to the seconday object. C. OB aso §322below88. t follows then that n anguages that allow fee omssion of onouns the missingelement is no PRO It mght be that such languages ae -languages in the snse of Hale(1978) and that as he suggests such languages do not have emty categoies at a hencedo not hav th le Move C §2.8.

89. We have gven onl infoma account of ths oe of Case-assignment towhich we etu in § 3.2.2. Wht must be assum clal is that thee is no ExcetionalCase-maing acoss clause bounday fo seconday Case as a matte of incle. his squite natual given the semantis of double-obect vebs. We etu to a ga in this agumentin § 2.6 (cf. 26(20)(22))90 ltenativel the emedded hase miht be taen to be [ to VP ] wth a lesimla to contol to assign the subject ofVP at LF. As noted eaie (§2.1) ths aoach



146 Lecture on ovement and bindin the Pia lectures

introduces a superuous category ith complex properti, and in additon suffers fromthe defects of (8ii).9 1 . Nor is it a GF- in the sense o the preceding discussion, thoug it would be i eadopt a variat of GR' involvng raising to object in essentially the sense of Postal (1974),

ith be-generated [ NP e] object of the verb This variant is ru out by the requirentthat trace be governed (cf. 2.4 1 .(2i)), unles e ruire deletion in addition to raisin, ihich case raisng is superuous. Such deletion ould have to be rtricted to th ce inhich the basegenerated object is a nonargument or the crterion ill be voat. Thereis surely no point in compicatng the grammar by extending the class of -eleton cas toinclude the context: V[P e]; ie., exactly the context that volates the projection prncipleand criteron. Cf also note 0892 Note, hoever, that the interpolat adverbial cannot relate to the matrix clausein such sentences as "John promised Bill that To sincerey ould in "Jhn referr forBill sicerely to in. he ar uch loer in acceptaby (21 ) The reon may bethat is an absolute barrier to such interpretation hile S is a eaker barier, and that

is in fact deleed or nonunctional in such sentenc as (21) in accordance ith the theoryof Exceptional Casearkng that e have been assuming.93. Baltin notes such pairs as "persuade hm though I may to be polite, verus*expect though I may to be poite. Again, hile the dstncton is not sharp; hetendeny is in the predict direcion See Wilias ( 979) for additional evdece9. Folloing Lanik and Kupin (977), e may think of an idiom ue for an diomith a verbal head as a ule adding the string y to the phrase marker of each tenalstring y here s the do, no understandng a phrase marker to be set otrins.As a matter of execution, e mght assume that the idom ue assigns special features tothe verb hch, at the LF level, ill deterine the meaning of the idiom. Some iiomsrequire the verb to have a lexical compement at LF (eg, the buet = die the bucet

ied t); others permit the idiomatic interpretaton to be assigned indiectly throghtrace, as in good e ten othe oh ho e w tn t otheoh( LF"ho much , care, taken ofthe orphans, here is coindex ith t) See iengo(197) for some discussion of the distinction Thus idioms i general have the formal prperties of nonidiomatic stucur, and appar either in Dstructure or Ssucure form,but not ony in Stucture or LF-for. D-stucture, not Sstcture or LF, appears to bethe natural place for the operation of idiom l, since i is only at Dstcture that idiomsare uniormly not "scattere and it is only the Dstucure forms that alays exist for theidiom (ith marked exceptions), stcture sometim being inaccsible to idiomatcinterpretaton Thus at D-stucture, idioms ca be distingused subject or not subjecto Mov, determining the asymmetry jus noted .

t may be that the fundaental distinction is beeen idoms that ruie a subject(such as i the bucet) and those tha are strictly inteal to (such as te e o andcan therefore freely undergo Move- On t umton one cn ·e e omeimportant obseations of Kayne (1975) on the to typ of idioms in Frenc, particuarly,in causative constctons here there is no overt movement but here only the nonpassivizable idioms may appear See Jaeggi (980c) here this suggtion is proposed and develop.

It is not a cear that there is a sharp disincion beeen idioms and gurativeinterpretations of a varety of types. The are qutons that dee much more study, asdo properties of doms n general. Higns (undat) nd Vergnaud (forthcomng)

See chapter 6 for a sighly diferent nerpretaton of role assignmen idioms.95. Cf Higginbotham (1979b) for a much more farreaching analysis oftheseanicsof reciprocals96. Perhaps thee operaors are also quanters . Cf Chomsky (197a, chaper 1),Cushing (1 979) on denite deteriners, and a considerabe literatre on indenites.97 In the termiology o Williams (1 980b), subject is an "exteal argumet of theverb, hile complemens are internal arguments98. There are issues at· stake here, but e can put them aside no The satement isaccurate i appears only the expansion of S. Ths ould foll, for example, the Sbarsystem s regard as a projecton of verb and f the expansion ofX as . . . X . is restrct to




mximl projectios i . . . If the sumptio is wrog, we hve bee smg, theit stll my be tht ppes oly i the expsio of S. I cotry to ou sumptios here, lso ppers complemet, the the sttemet the text ust be modied obviouswys tht re ot elevt hee99. Moe sticty, of he copu costctio. his ssuptio ot oy

tul, but etes ito expltio for the fct, oted Chomsky (1965), tht ebsof subject cotrol lckpsives ude cert coditios. See Chomsky (1977 itoductio),OB, d § 2.43 bove for some discussio1. he get phrse eed ot be phrse. hus "it is kow to everyoe thtS, he phrse o eeone hs the sme fuco s the phrse i "it s eev by everyoe tht S. Note tht geetio of theory beyod the frmewok sumed here isecsry to ccommodte the role of the optiol dverbil i (5i) O the role of getphrs, see Fiego (1979)101. Nevertheless, thee is some reso to believe tht pssives re "getive i ses i which other elted costctios e ot, eve where thee is o exps getCf ote 6 bove . 102. We coside here the derved omil, ot the ms ou decion i tht dtructio w wful (comre *"ll tht destctio of the city ws wful). Notetht (iv) do ot corespod to the geeric "brbris destoy, costructio tht lcs ssocitd deived oml. We lso disegrd possible epticl iterprettos of (iv)d the socited cluse103. he dissocitio of movemet d pssive iterprettio is lso llustted i theRomce pesol costuctios oted i §2.4.1 (cf. (18)), to which we etu i §4.5.o discussio o costits oNPmovemet iNP, seeM Adeso ( 197), Kye (1980b )104. Figo (1974, 979) d Buo (198) ssume tht derives by Movfrom costuctio logous to (i), cosidebly impovig ere popols to this

effect. I this is correct, the ole ssigmet d grmmticl eltios re still morecosely relted.105. Assumig deletio i (16iv), we expecto d tht hvy NPst is plicble, s i "they'd coside foosh y cdidte who woud tke · the touble to ru ievery pmry, copodig to (iv). 2.42.(22i).106. Cf Schei (1980) for discussio of this ptte i Russi, though he suggtssomewht diffeet coclusios.107 his is the gp refeo i ote89.108. Siml perhps elted questios rise i coectio with such verbs

focetht tke NPcluse complemets, s i (i):

(i) they forced Joh [ PRO to wit]

Oe would expect, the, ht such exmples s would be ugmmticl:

i) () they foced it to i (by seedig the clouds)(b) they foced bette cre to be tke o the orphs (by pssig lws)

But the exmples seem modertely cceptble I my be tht the exmpl re olyderivtively geeted (i the sese of Chomsky (1965, p 227; 1972, pp. 27f)) Evidecesuportig this coclusio is tht these exmples e esistt to futhe grmmticl etios; cf. (ii):

(ii) () *it ws foced to i(b) *better cre w forced to be tke of the orphs

he sme my be true of exmples such s (iv) (discuss i Postl (1974, 1977), Br(1976)), which should lso be ugrmmticl ifeenssgs ole to its object:

(iv) they peveted it fom riig



14 Lectures n gvement and bndng: the Psa ectures

In ths case too, furher grmmatical operatios are blocked:

(v) *it was prevented fro rainn

The exaple (iv has been proposed as n arumetor raisin-toobjec, but quite apar fromits dubios status, i is difcult to see how any arumen can be based· on it, since e rulfor enerai it would appear o be diosyncrati, eve if i is acceped as rmatical.

On deivative enerai, see Ge (1980 pricularly, hs law oaavation;"109. Othe exampl mh be treaed in a smilar way, but withou bvious motva�ion. Thus cosder (i, (ii, whee him = John:

(i John ted he chld aains hm (hmsef Joh rned he umen aaist himsef (*hm

Cosideraions of bdn heory would ld s to assgn a clasal srucue he compl

ment of t in (i b no i Bt here is no depeden LFfom JohntedceThe problem is o oe of ndi a dciptive device withi he pen amewok, bt ofmotivatin i ha is, he poblem is to ain some undesndi of the naue of thecostrucions.

In some cas, a clausal srucre, involvin some knd of pedicaion n he sense ofWilliams (1980a seems ue plasible fo exampl of ype ( e.., (iv

he kt he ca in he arae (he car is in he aae(iv he lef the able nea he amchair (he table is r he amchair

I ohes, he device seems uie aricial, e., (i, o (v and (vi, whee choice of hie

o him in the case of coefeence seems somewha idetnae:

(v he p he able towards hm(vi he pshed he book away fom hi

Cf. § 5.2. fo frhe discssio1 10. To say tha ey o certin is dyadic" s a bit msleadin in he pet famwok. Rahe, ey ad certin assi a ole to ther clausal complemen nd tke paro he compositioal assinmen of a ole o he marix sbject On (29iv, see § 5.4.1 1 1 We mih the expec coodinae sructr s conterpars to (31 in somelanga This is he case i Aabic, Ao obse. Mazini (1980 ss in PRO

in (32 as he AGR element fo adjeciv, nd enea his id n n intein wayo he enre class of coto sruct. See also Stowell (1980a.112 The followi emarks on SEEM ad SEEM' ae pmpted by poblems oted byLii Bio See Buo (1981 fo discssion of he bicondiional o whch we euin he next secion. On he opics see also Boe (1979 1980 We e to the amplfom a diffee point of view in chape 61 13. Thee ae, of cose, cions e, John eceiv a book fo Bll" Bu heseem o be few tnsiive vebs hat is, vebs tha assin Case o hei amaical objctsha assin o ole o he sbjec, e., KLL, ike ecept hat i emis it KILedJohn" ih impsoal it, meann hat John was klled Thee ae some ecions amoidioms (e.., i ained cas and dos", b the obseation seems to hold uie eally

H(1965 Noe ha hs obsevaion do not exclude eaive vbs" n he sese ofBuio (1981 , whch assin o hei maical object he -ole of sbjec Te vebs aeo Caseassines, hece no asitive in he elean sese We e to sch cosrucionsn § 45114. Moe pecisely, i o ems, paricipa n assni a oleo he sbjec of he of whch it s he head1 15 . The fac is ie enal, hodin of he empy caeory i CO no only in




purposives but in the constructions ofthe type studied in Chomsky (1977b) and of coursenormal relative clauses. On the other hnd PRO in S in these constructions can be arbitraryin referece In chapter 4, we suggest that in pro-drop lnguges PRO cn ppear s thesubject of tnsed clauses but here too the arbitrry interpreation is excluded. The latterthen is resricted to subject of innitival or gerund. See the discussion of 45(25) See chp

ter 6 for an approch tht my provide an explanation for the fac.In the case of purposives there is signican evience to suppor the nalysis invlving

movement-to-COMP tht we are ssuming here (cf. OB append; Chomsky (1980b)).Further evidence bed on binding properties ill appear in 323 note 54 of chapter).In a review of Chomsky (1980b) PH. Matthews (980) argues tht this analysis of purposives is undermined by he fct that PRO in COMP cnnot be arbitrar in reference noted in OB. His argument desees some attention sce it is fr from unique. The work towhich he refers noted some curious propries of purposive consrucions that hd not prviously been investigated or even obseed to y knowledge. Extensio o thee constructions of an approch that ws independently motivated in Chomsky (1977b) explaed someof these properties but left one unresolved namely the failure of arbitrary reference forthe non-subject "gap in purposives Matthews' conclusion that ths indequacy underminesthe pproach entirely follows only if we adopt the principle tht if somehng is uneplainthen · nothing is explained His argument migh have some merit if he problem le unresoled were specic to the movement-to-CO analysis that resolves the other problemsbut of course it is not. The same problem rises so far as is known on ny oth analysisof tese consructions. One migh even argue to the contrary that the movementtoCOanalysis is actuy suppored by the fac that the non-subjec gp in purposive constructionsmy not be rbitrry in intprettion since the problem is now localzed to the COposiion where it rises quite generlly: in relatives clefts complex djectival constructionstopiclization etc.

Arguments of the sor tht Mtthews presents re unforuntely too common in thelinguisic lieraure Th are bsed on ssumptions tha can only be regarded s pahologicalAny non-trivial proposal is likely to unerh new problems while solving oths. The presenteample is a ce in point: new problems were discovered and some were resolv b theprinciple proposed which s noted w ndependently moivted elsewhere. I the factht some problems (in hs cse newly-discvered problems) remain open undermines theproposal then rational iquiry mus cese Surely this is obvious.1 16 On hese maters see Wsow (1977) S Anderson (1977) and he references ofno 35 bove117 See hiersch (l978).1 18 . McCathy (1976).

1 19 Hale (1973). I omit the Navajo forms and the required morphological changes120 See Keenan (1979) for an illuminating suey of so-ced pssive construcionswhich he chracerzes in terms ofidentity of semantic relations in the ctivepsive pairwhen nam are in argument posiion (thus John Blis synonymous with B enby John) but mny o ddnt ht the tget hs a different range of meaning from thetget nt h by mny o) Keenans own proposal for the analysis of pssives ineffect tres beeve to be ncometent a trnsiive verb with the object B in beeB to be ncometent simiarly in relted construcions Clearly recusion ms be inrduce into the system since there re inniely many propositions of the form to- thatyied such "trnsiive verbs s VtoV where VtoV is in fect the transitiveverb and is its obect See Chomsky (1955) for development of an pproach bsed on

genelzed transformations incorporating he recursive propy and adoping ths"complex verb nalysis.12 . Wiliams (1980b )obses that some ofhese verbs d not ow the "trposedS to ppear in the pre-veral position e.g. *"that S ws held reoned) as compared with"that S ws believed) Thus we cnnot ssume that n general there is pssivfrontingfollowed by exraposition in such ces122. . Buio 1981) for discussion of such examples which he argues are bs



0 ectures on govement and binding the Pisa lecures

enerated n thi form, wth Gonn optionaly moved to ubject postion leavin a race that can then be "pelled u b an emphatic ponoun s in (i), where ·ls te poitionof the trace left by Gonn:

(i) Gioanni fu madato ui ad occupars d quea faccenda("Giovanni wa ent hsef to dl with that matter)

The behavior of the taia emphatic pronouns i rather different from hat f their Enhcountepars. Burio aru that quite enerally, they f the position o trace, and thapaive tructures uch a () herefore differ ccially fro uc copulaadjtive contuction which he taes to be much less acctable than ()

Giovann era oroloo lui di aver terminato a tes("Gioanni a proud hmef to have completed the thesis)

The dierence o acctabiity seem to me fairy clear in the Enlih counterparts,where perhap it may e attributed to derivation of (i) from (i), ith Mov appyinto Gonn instea of Gnn he a option that mposible in :

(i) [ NP e] wa ent Giovanni hmelf to da with that matte

123. § 45 for further discuon ofthese tructure. See aso Buro (1981), and for alexcait anayis, Grimsha (1980). Some problems in the lattr, or in any anayi thatdoes not ivolve movement or some equivaent and that does not include h tripartiteclasication of verb a tranitive, intransitive and erative, are discussed by Burio (1981).124. The device may be asinment of a new trin to the phramarer, the latter

taen to be a cas of trins a in Lasni and Kupn (1977). See note 94125 f. Davion (1 980) for an illuminatin discusson.126. I oe example ii} to Hat Borer See Borer (1979) for dicuion of Hebrewpsive Note that Hebrew does not ruire that the ubject position be , a by Ensht or German e § § 2.1 2, 4.5127. h w pointed out to me by Aec Marant.128. There are auxliar asumption, discussed rer that te citerion holds atDtructure, that a role i ained to every poition verned by the hed erb apar froidioms, and that movement into ioms i mpossible, either by virtue of their lexica stator becaue the idiom chun ha the role the symbol ' "

129 See note 86.

130. A noted earer, e mht lo athe matter a bit dierently, tan hese catories to be not propertie of anuae but of ubsytem of lanuaes disreard thiposibility ere.13 he foowin discusin, larely excerpted from homsy (1980c), adat omrecent wor of Farmer (1980) See aso Otu and Farme 1980) and yne (1980d,e) fofurther discuion of ome o the isue that are, often reachn quite differen conclu�sions from thoe am asumin here.132 hs is an example of 2.7.(27i.13. Noe that we are bypsin a problem concein asinment of nomnativeae n Japanese.134 poposa ha been eveloped y relationa rammaran; cf. sse and Perl

mutter (196) Pota (1977b). am indebted to Pau Pota for these referenc. SeMarant (198 1) for extenive dicuion.135. Whether the rule Mov may apply when it ne not apply depend on how wetreat such entence a that the conclusn wa fae wa believed. See the referenc ofnote 23 The qution doe not arse in the cae of (6) n any meaninful way136 I have aid ttle or nothn about many other important quetions, amon them,the taus o PPmovement, minor movement rules and rot transformation in the sense f



Subsysems of core rammar 1 5 1

Emnds (976 mvemen rules in he PFcmpnen (n mvemen rules in he Fcmpnen see chaper 4) There is n bvius reasn why applcain f Mve in he PFcmpnen shud leae rae. Fen (1979 us ha mnr mvemen rues (r mreaccuraely a simlar caery are resriced he PFcmpnen and ha her applicains f Mv are excluded frm hs cmpnen. There is a rea deal mr say abuhese pics bu I will n pursue hem here.137. An e nre er knds f race. The fac ha hse ypes f empy cary are in exhausive cmplemenary disribuin suess he pssibiliy f a mreabsrac inuiry in he cncep empy caery" and is subvarieies. We reu hispic in chaper 6. 138 See Vernau and Zubrea (1980 fr a frmalian f simar ideas aassumes an absrac cnsiuen a S and Dsrucure in lanuaes f bh cnuranaland nncnurainal ypes wih realiain in surface srucure nly in he frmerype and Kayne (980cd fr a uie differen apprach his rane f prblems Recalals he suesn f Aun (1979b a appes as a cnnuus cnsuen n SOlanuaes bu as a discninuus cnsiuen in VSO lanuaes. On he laer ype seeEmnds (980.139. I is fen reed as bvius ha ths is s bu h pin is much harder estabsh han is cmmnly assumed. See Chmsky (1975 chaer 2), (1978 ad (1980bchaper 3 fr iscussin f sme fallacius umens See als ler and Chmsky(1963 Chmsky and asnik (1977 n ways in which funcina cnsiderains mih beexpeced ener in he her f rammar wih sme examples Weinber and Berwickfrhcmn fr discussin f many fallacies n nerpreain f bh experimenal andmahemaical resuls relain parsin heries in parcular rsuls cncernin parsabiliyf cnexfree lanuaes s hey bsee he experimenal resuls ae cmpaible wh jusabu any rmaical hery dependin n wha prcessin sysems are assumed and he

mahemaical rsuls i hey have empirical releance a all sues ha funcinal cnsiderains shuld fvr exremely rch heres ha prvide shr rmars fr ivenlanuaes. See chaper 4 ne 39.140. C. Chmsky (1975 980b. Als he discussin by sera auhrs f excerpsfrm Chmsky 1980b in The Behaviora and Brain Scinces, l. 3 number 1 March 1980nd aricles and discussn in PiaellPaarni 1980.



ater 3

On government nd binding

3. Te DBramewor

So far, I have been assuing the theory of governmet and binng out ned n OB The bnding theory characteres two domains as opaue inthe sense that an anaphor cannot be free in these doans and a pronouns disont in reference from an antecedent" within them These twonotions of fredom" are generaed n the OBframework n terms of thenoton free()" (cf OB appendx). Thus anaphors and pronouns cannotb free() n n opaue doman, in the sense made precise there The twoopaue domains are (1) the subect of a tnsed sentence (the NomitveIsand Conditon IC); the c-command dmn of he subect of an

NP or S (the (Speced) Subect Condton SSC). These two bndingprincpes have a wide range of appication and reate in an nteresting wayto the theory of movement n that the transparent (nonopau) potionswhn causes are those rom hih movement s free ou o e case(name and subect of ntive)

Le us brey review the aor exampes of opacty Cosder thestructures (1) and (2) causes nd Ns, respectvey, wth ony the bascstructure exhbted

(1 () (i) S

NP VP

sfor S

to V



()

(2) (i)

Lectures on government and bndng: te Psa ectures

S*

NP VP

v

NP VP

NP*

-

{ NN pp

1p 6

(ii)

* 7 N

ee the s ae anaphos (say eac oter) canno be ee n •L =[+Tense] AR] C: w thoght [• each othegave thebooks to Bl"; mst be bnd b (SS: te ntdced each othe

to Bll " *the expected [• me to ntodce each oth to Bil]") mstbe bond y eth o SSC thy ponted the gns at each othe"wth ambgs antecedent *they expected [• e to ont the gn ateac ote"; 4 cannot be ee n S* (SS theyd pee [o ach otheto wn]" *we expected [• m t pee [o each othe o win]]" cannot be ee n S(SS: we beleved each othe to b ncometent]"*we expected • hmo beleve each othe tobe ncometent]")

In (2) 6 cannot be ee n * { is a sbject (SS the stoesabot each othe" *we head [• hs stoes abot each othe]" we

head [ some stoes abot each othe]"); 7 cannot be ee in thedomain o the sbject o whethe S o (SS: we ead [•eachothe's books]" *thy expected [me to ead [•each othe's books]]"*they ead mY evews o [ each othe's books]]" they ead[eviews o

N•each othe's books]]").The nstan<es o 2) llstate the act at it s a congatinal po

pety pesaby c-command tha detemnes the opeaton o thebnng theoy not a eqement taanphos (o ponomnals seebelow) seach o sbjects o objects as antecedents in some sense o ths

noton at has n ndependent sense apat om the congatonal popetes Ths n nomnals coespondng to vebal constctons theantecedent-anapho elation holds when the anapho s withn the head (as n thei [ hated o each othe]" the [ admaton o eachothe's wok]" etc) bt not when it s otsde ths n whch casec-command wold be volated (eg. *the date ate each othe'spates" etc) Smlaly when the ongational popetes hold theelation o the possessve NP to the nomna head may be qite abtay



On government and bndng 155

(e.g. heir aiudes owards eac oher" (. . . owards each ohersfrends"), heir peasure in each ohers company," he sories aboueach oher," ec.). Whie oher facors inervene eading o a range ofuncerainy of udgmen, neverheess he bsic operaive princie appearso be as us indicaed.

If we have [ ng 6 insead o in (2i), he siuaion is esseniyhe same. uppose ha we have [ng . . . in pace in (2i), s in()

() we preferred * each ohers reaing he book

This is ngrammaica, conrary o wha is preiced in he OB-frameworkWhere i is a pronoun, he siuaion is reversed i mus be free here

he corresponding anaphor cann be. he one excepion is 7 in (2i), whchmay be boun n (hey read * heir books"). Ths se er) mayrefe Mary in S, P and e (m is son n reference from onand no in he scope o eveone in ()

() (i) Mary hough she gae hebooks o B ()se = (iohn (everyone) inroduced m o B (), e = i) Mary expeced me o inroduce her o B (),

er=

(v) everyone nrodced John o m (), m = 3)(v Mary expeced me o pon he gn a her() er 3)

() John (everyne wou prefer fo him wn ( m )

(v) May exced B o prefer for her o wn ()er= 4)

(v) ohn (everyone) beieved hm o be ncompeen (iii)m= )

Mary expeced B o beeve her o be ncompeen(ii), er= )(x) ohns (everyons) sories abou m ((2) m = 6)

Mary heard * Bs sores abou her (2, er = 6) John (everyone) heard [* some sres abo m ((2i),

m= 6)

These exampes re counerpars respecivey, o hose invovng eacoter.

R-expressions (e.g., names and varabes) mus be free everywhereP-race behaves exacy k he anaphor eac oter in (1), bu meesaddona consrans, as we ave seen n chaper 2. hus, 3P-racecanno have as aneceden, a conseuence of he 8-reron and heproecon prncipe, wch preven movemen ·he subcaegorizedposion Apar from hs, Prace can appear 3 nudng parecases where s no presen ony unde condiions a perm preposion srandng (cf. §5.2). Prace canno appear as 4 because of he



6 Lectres on govement and bndng the sa ectres

overnen requeen or ce; we eu o s clss o cses below.Conons on eoson nn exclue -rceo e son o n (2) n oer conon exclue ro e 7 poson n (2 ; c.

21 (1) us e only osons oen o ce e 1 n (n e llel srucures w sn rece e x senenceS) n 3 subjec conons on reoson srnn In ese osons rce exbs e se beor s ove nors.

RO s lke oer nos n s bevo w e o ocy bu us ee e onl conon be unoverne (c § §24 12)Is roeres e only lly cue n e OBewok s we veseen Noe ncenlly RO y lso e n INFL s AGR n ossbly n COM eenn on e esoluon o e quesns scus

n §2.6ese re e bsc exles o be el w n e eory o bnnou ee e oe cses o be consere s well, sn uerquesons o wc we reun In cer 4, we w un o soe onlconsns on vrbles n e oson o 1 o (1).

le e OBework o ssuons s ny esble ro ees n conserble ecl suo, nevereless ee re nuber o ecncl n conceul obles soe o wc ve rsenn e ecen scusson T ecncl obles ve o o ly

w soe unexlne erences beween RO on e one n nNrce n ove nors, on e oer e sncon beween eler wo ceoes ben reuce now o Cse eory). e osonso RO e eerne n le esue by e bnn ncles onos RO ke oer nors, y e s subjec onnve o, c ure cruclly n suo o e ojecon ncleBu e necen-no elon of RO s no subjec o ese ncles n e cse o lon snce conrol, s n ()3

( 5) { o ee }ey ou I s [R ec oerwoul be culee

In (), they s neceen o RO voln SSC n e OBewokFueoe e bnn ncles o OB o no exln wy RO ye n cen osons ro wc ce s exclue s n (6) wee ts e ce ohn n wy RO s excue ro cen osons cce over nors, s n (7)

(6) () () Jon e [RO o wn(b) Jon e [ o wn(c) s cu [RO o wn() Jon s cu [ o wn

) () Jon wne [RO o wn(b) Jon wne [ o wn



On govement and bndng

(c) *John was anted [t o wn] (a) s unclear how PRO to solve he problem]

(b) *John s unclear how t to solve he problem](7) () *hey expected that pctures of PRO ould be on sa

157

() hey expeced tha pcures of each oher would be on sae

In he exampes (6ib b) we know tha race s mpossibe from he fac that non-arguments canno appear n he marx subject posion IOB it was suggested hat (7i) is excluded b a subjacency requremen forempy categories bu ts is fasied by long disance conrol as n (5).

A prnciple was suggesed n § 24 o account for the examples of (7)namey he princple a PRO mus be ungoverned. This constituteone par of a more genera principle concernng government of emptycategores he prncple 241(1) 29(4)) which staes that an empycategory s PRO i and ony i s ungoverned and ace i and ony i is governed. The prnciple is suceny genera so ha ould no be unreasonabe o adop it as an irreducible principe of the theory of governmen everheless would be neresing to see to wha exen can be related o oer princples of he GBframework As we see

he part referring to PRO is reducble to he prncpes of bndng heoryhen hese are formulated in a way that w overcome the oher problemsas wel

There are other probems in the OB-frameworha are more concep ua in nature. In the rs place ere are various redundancies in this system and earler versons of simlar ideas a fact that provded part of the moivaon for he development of very suggestve atrnave models by Jan Koser and Rchard Kaye.4 For example the heory of Case an e theory of binding have rather siilar properties. Consier the tree basic posiions for n S nominative subject o Tense subec o annnitive compleme of a verb The theoy of Case snges ou he subecof an innitive as he one posion tha is not marked for Cs The heoryf binding independenly selects this positon as he sngle trasparet domain.

In a foonote in OB (note 0) I menoned ha oe mght caacerize he properes of PRO in indirect quesions and other contro strucure in terms of a heory of Case rather than eory of bnding by stipulating that PRO canno have Case. Tha w permi PRO to apear exactly n he one ransparent poson namely subect of an inntive I reected this approach because it did not genere o other cases of binding and because he spulation seemed· raher ad hoc St he silari between he structural properes of Case and bnding seems more than foruousand raises the queson wheher opac canno somehow be reduce oCase theory jus as he Tensed-S (Proposona Island) Condon was reformulaed in terms of consdeations of Case whin the OB-frameworkas theIC.

A reated queson abou the B-framework s wheher here is some



8 Lectres on govement and bndng the a ctres

xplanation or th act that th tw oadomains solbthsbjto a tnsd snnc and h c�cmman domain o th sbjct o anycatgory As ormlatd n B and arlr woral0ng th!sam lns, th

two opa domans n o way rlat, an nithr is particllymotivatd xcp tms o rathr vag ctoal cnsidrations. Ocors, som o th prncpls o UG mst smply b stplatd, at last

i th langag'acly is a indndn cogntiv sstm,and th two nding prinipls do srv to ny a arly impssiv rang o obsv tions and aso ntract as on wold hop wth othr prncps, as notdabov Bt nvrhlss i is rasonal to ask hthr thr ar sommr ndamntal consdratns rom whch h distrbtio o ans parncy and opacity drvs.

A thrd prblm arss rom a consdraton o som asymmtrs btwn and SS, ad whatpars o b a nar ntrnal contra dctin concrning N. i 978b) obsrd that n langags schas talan hat trat crtain violatons o th -island constraintnamly, violaions that ollow rom taking onl nt S, to b aondngod or sbjacncy in hs hory, th e dos not hold or movmnt, as ilstratd n 8):

8 to ratlo, ci m domando ch stori abbiano raccotato t,

ra molto proccpato"yor brotr, to ho wondr whch stors ty tld t, was vr ol

Hr t -ras a c movs in a singl t to its Sstrctr posiionrm th postn mar t trac t voltng t Ts volanappars vry natrl in t lh o th sart btn varabs ands, as lstratd or x ndr th conditions o strong crossovr n t ss o WW 972, 1979), moding idas o Postal 197 . What mor, as Fridi and Lasnik 979a) point ot, th simarty bt vaabls nd nams rvald by th strong crossovr pnomnon xtnd to th domain o Tns, i., to th N In 9), th variab t cannot bnxd with th pono e

( 9) i) ho di h sa Mry kissd t() ho did h say t issd Mary

In ths rspct, th N nd SS a: nitr appls to vaals, wh hav n t nnro nams n s constrctons ·

vrthlss, ovnt dos pr to os th Nor,s wl sggst latr, a contio ratr lk it. That s, -mov oto a las s pssil ro t nonatv sbjct poston n con strctons in whch -movmnt is possib rom t domain o a sbc.opar, or amp t Engls tanslaton 8 wit 1):



On govement and bndng 59

1) the men who I wonder which stories t told to our brother] wereer troubled

In 10) the phrase who moes from the position marked b t just aso whom moes from the position marked b t in the translation of (8)._Clearl the staus of hese senences is quite different, een for dialectsha mark (8) unacceptable because of a -island iolation In 10) itaears tha he IC applies oer and aboe the codiions subjacencwith S a bounding node assume) ha lead to -island iolains huswe hae an asmmer between he I and the SSC ; he former appearso hold in some manner of -moeen whie he laer oes no urthermore, hie examples such as 10) appear to indicae ha the IC holdsof he ariabe lef b moement! example 9ii) shows ha i does not

hod.he effec of he IC or sometng ke i) on -moemen, as in

10) canno be directl obsered n Italan because oan neraction withhe pro-drop parameer and its conseuences Bu i is clear in Frenchcf Sporiche 1979), who extends Ris heor o French), and can beobseed in English as well as examples (8) and 10) indicae. o deeche phenomenon is a bi difcult in Englsh because of he effec of the-island condition, which renders the relean senences unacctableto a greaer or lesser degree but it can neeheless be obsered as in the

examples (8) 10), or in strucures in which, fr somereason, he -isandcondiion is reaxed In hese we nd a sharp difference beween exracionro nominatie subject and from other posiions Conider he examples11)

1 1 ) i) his book, I wonder how well ohn understansii) these men, I wonder how well ohn knows

i) wha did ohn wonder how we Bl didi) wha does ohn know how Bl did

In each of these cases, he ebedded cause is of the form 1) here ishe trace of the elemen exraced from he clause and we omi he race ofhowwe

1 how well)] V t]]

Consider in conrast the examples 1 3), wih he embedded cause of theform :

13) i) ohn I wonder how well undersands ths bookii) ohn I wonder how well knows these meni) who did ohn woner how well did hs worki) ho does ohn know how did is work

14) how well)] tV NP]

Whie the sentences of 1 1) are perhaps somewhat marginal such ex-



10 Lectres on govement and bndng: the sa ectres

amples as 13 are compleel unaccepabe on a par wh 10) In seen n consrucions in whch he -island effec is somewha relaxedexracon from he -sland s sll mpossble from he nomnae sub

jec poson. hese obseraons ndae ha he -slan condon has wo quieseparae componens. 5 One of hese relaes o he choce of oundng ndesn Rzs heor. he second lusraed b 10) and 1 3) relae o soehng se he IC one mgh suppose comparng an 1)helaer apparenl a olaion of he C. Whle -moemen s no consrained b e SSC is apparen consrained b he C. I s noa al clear wihn he OB-framework wh here should be hs asmer e a race os o apear o e subjec o eher

he C or he SS n he srong crossoer conexs smpl exends heproblemWe are herefore led o he conclusion ha he C i he OB

framework ad earer work along he same lnes expresss a spuiousgeneralzaon and a n fac wo dsnc princples are inoled in hecaegor of phenomena ha had been cassied uner he C Pursuinghs possbli le us resrc he C proper o he caegor of phenomena n whc we nd complee smmer beween he C and he SS.hus arabls are exemp from boh condions whe P-race is subjec

o boh Some isnc prncile hen wll accoun for he fac h moemen appears o be subjec o someng like e as in 10) 13I wll reurn hs dsnc prncipe call i he residue of e C"RESIC)) � in chaper where i be relad o he queson ofgoernmen of race Where here s smmer beween he IC andSSC s reasonable o assume ha he penomena fal under bndingheor.

Such examples s 10) 1 3 e remscen of he - ler ofChomsk and Lasn k 1977) and he se of phenomena relaed o i

deeabl of subjec free inerson of subjec ec. In fac hese examplessugges ha he I and he - er are relaed phenomena possbii nesgaed b araldsen 1978b) an Pesesk 1978b) wodeeloped araldsens dea ha he-lercan bereducedohen a differen wa. Kane 1980a) smulaneousl deeloped a differen andndependen approach o explaning he phenmena relaed o he -ler n erms of he C acuall a mocaon of he C ha heprooses. hese arous sudes ar moaed b anoher problem cfeaure of he B-framework namel he curous characer of e -

ler. gain some roperes of UG jus hae o be sipulaed and hsparcular sipuaon does sere o unif man phenomena relaed oong moemen of nomnae subjecs in an enlghenng wa. Buneerheless he ler s so srange-lookng ha one woud ceranl wano dre if possble from more naural prncples. I wil pursue hepossibl of derng he ler from RESC) properl formuaed inchaper




ecal that the *[thatt] lter does not app in anguages that aowmissing subects Permutters generalization"; cf. Chomsk and Lasnik1977)) Let us continue to refer to the atter option ofUGas the pro-dropparameter." Seera properties of anguages custer in this connectionincuding appicabit of the * [thatt] lter. We want to expain thisclusterig f possibe in terms of a single paraeter which shoud berelated to RESIC). I wl return to these topics in chapter 4

Te indein conentions of the OBframework are another aspectof the theor where improement is desirable f possie. While te workquite neatl the are fairl complicated and it is worth asking whether itis not possible to eliminate the concept o anaphoric index" entirel interms of some more basic and simpe notion whie retaining the desirabeproperties of the OBsstem.

related question arises in connection with the phenomenon of disointreference. s is welknown pronouns enter into isoint reference underessentiall the conditions under which other anaphors enter into coreference as ilustrated aboe. This seems an odd state of affairs. Wh shouldlanguages hae this pecuiar design which in fact gies rise to the complexit of the indexing conentions and of the notion free)" dened inOB? Wh shoudn ponouns hae coreference rather tha disointreference where for exmple reciprocas do? gain it is orth askingwhether there is some dfferent approach that woud gie a somewhat morenatura account of these phenomena.

Summarizig I hae mentioned six conceptua problems that arise inthe OB-framework and earier work aong simar ines 1) redundanciesspecical between Case theor and binding heor; ) the problem ofxpaining h the subect of Tense and the domain of a subect should bethe two opaque domains ; 3 the failure of correspondene between thetheor of moment and of binding as reected in the phenomena that Ihae assigned to RESIC); 4 the probem of deriing the *[thatt]ter fom mor fundamenta considerations and relating it to RESIC)

hile determining the exact naure of the pro-dop parameter; 5) theprobem of simpifing the indexing conentions ; (6) the probem of ndingsome more natura account of the relation between coreference and disoint reference In addition there are certain technica probems.

2 Te GBramewor

I woud now like to deeop and expore an approach to the problemsust reiewed that seems to me more prinipled than the OB approach to

show how it deas with these probems and to examine its further empiria consequences. s in chapter , I wil proceed in stages rst giinga preiminar ersion in which the basic ideas ae sketched and thenturning to renements probems and amications. In the course ofthisdiscusion I wil return to notions introduced in chapter and w suggestsome possibities for deeoping them further as wel. t this point



Lectres on govement and bndng the Psa eres

maes become rahe delcae and decsons abou execuon aecomplcaed consequences

.2. Te concept ofgovement prenar dscuson of he eores of Case an goernmen and herconnecons was presene in § 3. Le us now consider hs maersmore carefull he basic concep we hae o deelop s he concep ofgoernmen We hae such examples as he folowing

) i) [ V NP NP')]ii) [ P NP

ii) [ for [ NPo [ V NP]]) X[NP o VP]](v)

[VP s

COMP [s NP INFL VP]]J )

v

NP s N]]) [ V[A of) NP]]

i [ V P NP]]

In goerns NP and NP') In i) P goerns NP n (), he preposiional complemenizer for goerns NP bu no P; he lae s

goerne b V In i) X goerns NP where X ma be a erb such asbeeveha induces -deleion a marked case in ngsh a nrmal rasngeb such as seem r a rasing predicae such as certa ey hen s or P s X is V or . here are also some cases f rasng predcaenomnls generall more diom-ke eg. ''o s a cnch o n oea s simar o i) and s a special cas o ) we egard OMas he head of Srucues ( and ) where he V of s a markeder suc as Engsh beeve are he nsances of Exceponal asemarkngIn ) V does no goern P bu INFL does s ense e INese GR ore generall INL goens he sube

con

ans R which e h assumed o be ndsngushabl from Oence an N O n ) ma be nu h red PR win" orlecal lled ohn wondered [wha PO o do]") r ma be ecomplemenzer that or for INFL arng accordngl I i) V goesNP bu no NP n case ii) V does no goern NP; he laer isgoerned b ofand e phrase NP which ma be a PP or perhaps anNP nseron s regarded as aduncion) s goerned b In i)NP s gerned b P bu no b V; P is goerned b V

hese are e basc cases; we reun o some exensions and possiblemodicaons

In a general wa e we are assumng ha a lexcal head goerns scoplmens n e phrase of whch i s he ead and ha INF goernsis subec when i conans G R and n he nmaked case s ensedhe wo cases fal ogeher f we regard INF as ead of S Furhermore




we hae goernment across S but not across n structural congurationsha are formally siar to hose of a head and is compements as in ))

s is often tue the core noon of goernment has cear thematccoen bu he operatie notion inoes strucurl congurationsgeneralzng the core noton

he notion of goernmen must meet seeral kinds of condions

) i) conditons on choce of goernor) condions on goerned terms strucura condiions on he reation of goernment

hus under ), V is a goeror bu not V or N under ), the Nn PPbu no he P he goerned erm s for (), in a anguage such as Englishwe woud expect the conditions n queson t be coguraonal; perhapshis is rue generally

here are a number of specc proposals concernng the condtion) n he lerature One approac s in erms of he noon mnmalccommad, consrued as n (3):

(3) goerns { f and ony f) = X0

c-commands { and f ccommands { en eherc-commands or is comandd by{

hus s [±N, ±V]; e, t is one of N, V, or P For ths pproach to workpropery he noton c-command mus be reised so tha there s nodisincon between brancng and nonbrancng in such categores V, since neiher transe nor nransitie erbs goern her subjecssmary in oher cases); and sipulatos mus be added o ensure thaNP nd are absolute boundaries o go rnmen

I pursue a sighly dfferen approach Consider the sructure 4:4 [ , where

i) = X0) where s a maximal projectionf dominaes en do

naes is an immediate consituent of{

gain is one ofN V, P In he usua case,/= bu not in I),where

= forand{ = , uness we take to hae COM as ts head wh eher = P andfora P, or = COP whforof he category P,CM properly specied in feature terms) Here and below we mean 4 andlater modicaions to be inerpreed wh either to he righ or efof



16 Lectres on govement and bndng: the sa ectres

Let us assume further that V is a mimal projection and tha theSsystem is nota pojection but ather fNL and hat Imaycontain the eement AGR and must contain it when INFL contans

+ense], hee A is identied ith RO and hence s excalcategoy (N)and hus a proper choice fr in () e ay thk ofLitsef as a prope choice for in () where INFL contans AR regarding IL as a feature compex incuding +NVJ in this caseThenwe dene "government s in (5)

(5) govesin (4)

Thus he maxmal projections (, NP AP, PP, V) are absoue barriers to

governmen; by (4i), none of these maxmal projections ma doinateuness it aso donaes if governs Note hat governmen is closely reated o sucategoraton e

mght (almos) say that the subcategorization features ofV ar acuy thegovernors, and tha he cagoy V inheris government from ese fea tures ; similarly, for other categories But as we have dened govemen,''his woud not be quite accurate; in cases ()v) of()(ney, the cases ofExceptional Case-marking and rasing), he head governs the NP thatfolows it but is no subcategorized for this eement We may, however,

take the subcaegoriation eaues to be the Case-assignes, withoutexceptionThusfor in (1) or beeveasXin ( iv) has the subcategorizationfeatureNP (and in addition, beve has the feature) and an thereforeassign Case o the subjec of the emedded innitive, he the eemensseem certan, ec, taken as Xin (iv), govern but o not assign Case o thesubject of te embedded iniive Siarly, X in ( iv is the psiveparticiple beeve i wl governbut not assi Cae, or reasons scusein § 27 Ony transiive verbs can e Exction Cae-making vrbs ; andif we tae varabes to be Case-mrk traces, suggested in chapter 2

(cf 242(17)), hen rasing vebs mus be inransitive, sinc the NPs thygvern in rsing onstructions are not variabes9 We now tae NFL tosubcategorize for NP and V), which s a way of expressing 2 1 ( 25) (obgaoriness of subjec in clausal sruures)

A varian o deniion (4}5 proosed by Dominique Sporiche andYoussef Aoun, strengthens the then in (4i) o --and deetes() Thus we have (6 instead o) and a oresponding chnge in thenotion ofgovernment:

(6 ] where(i) : X (ii) where ¢is a mim projectio, ¢dominates ifnd ny if¢

domnates

Then and are contaned in the same maximal projectionsSporche




and Aoun point out that this modication has empirica consequences inconnection with the distinction between gerunds and NPs noted but left unexplaned in §.4.. We have such examples as (7), (8):

(7) (i) I ike [ PRO reading books]() I ike [ his reading books](8) (i) *I like [ PRO book]

() I like [ his book]

The NP obects of (7), (8) are (9), (9), respectively

(9) (i) [NP* VP]() [NP* ]

Under the denton of "government bed on (6), the head of V in(9) does not govern NP since t is domnated b a maxima proection(namel, V) that does not dominate NP*. But the head of N i (9) doesgovern NP*, since NP s the least mxima proection domnating NP* orthe head of N and t domnates both of them, so the are contaned n the same maxima proections. Thus PRO is a possibe choce for the ungoverned NP* n (9i) (as in (7i)), but not for the governed NP* n (9) (asin (8i)). A phonetic-realzed NP (e.g.,hs) is a possible choice for NP*in either (9) or (9), snce genitve Case is assigned in this structure.On the same assumptions, if the structures of (0) are as indicate, thenprod wl govern its compement and certan wil govern he embeddedtrace subect despte the faure of c-command, as requred:

(0) (i) John was [ [ very [ proud]] [of Bil]() John s [ quite [ cerain] [ t to wn

Note that prod and certan do ccommand ther complements, ust asthe head f Nc-commands NP * n (9), in the extended sense of c-command dscussed by Renhart (976). Pursung this observaton further, wemight restate (6) as (11), redening "government accordngl:

(11) [·Y·· . . . . ,where(i) = (i) where � is a maxima proection, if � dominates then �

dominates

() c-commands

The struture (1) dffers rom (4) ony n that (4) s repaed b (i)i.e., the requirement that be an immediate constituent of { is changed tothe requirement that c-command We now understand "c-commandas in (1)



6 Lectres on govement and bndng: the Ps a ·ectres

(1) c�commands an ony i(} does no cntan () Supose ha YI> Yn s he maxma sequence such ha

(a) Yn=(b)= (c) Yi mmedaey domnaes Yi+lThen i 8 donaes en eher 8 domnaes or (8 =and Y donates

To lusrate he sense of 1, conser he exampes (13):

1 () NP p V .. ]]() A que

[

certan]] o VP]]() V NP*]( ) e N] NP* .. .]

In (), does not ccommand NP snce (= Y of (1))dmnaesbun NP. n (), howeer, ccommands he race sbject f$ snceP (=1 of (12)) oes donae he race Slarly n () a srucue o whch we wl reurn n chaper 4 ccommands * jus as N c-commands NP* n ().

Suppose ha we now construe "goernmen so ha goernsn l ) wh "c-command dened as n (12). Earer results stand bu heeesome new possbes. he ructures (13) and (13) lusrae some of

hese In (13), V commands NP* n the sens o (2, and heeoregoerns NP i "goernment s dene n accordance wh houghnot (6) snce there s a maxma projecton (namey he nerna VP) hatomnaes V but notNP*. Wel see subsequently that there s edence hat V goerns NP* n 3); namey meent can ake lace fromthe NP* poson n Iaan and the race e by hs oemen s goerned by V, as requred by 2.4.1.(2). On the oher hand, here s aso conctngeence. I (1) V does not "ccoand NP* n whaeer sense of"c-commnd s reean o permtng ctcan n Itaan, whch smpossbe from the poson ofNP* V appeas, en a ccommandmust be undersood n bot a sronger and a weaker sense, he srongersense beng the one reeant o goernmen of trace and the weaker sense beng he one reean o tracebg. Bu he bass for he dsnctonremans uncear for the me beng.

The srcure (13) aso may see t usrae some of he emprca possbles allowed by the characteraton of "goernmen n terms ofc-command as dened n (12). Consder the expe (1):(14) () hey ga me somethng boken]

() they gae me somehng roke nto small peces]() *he gae me a ase broken]() hey gae me a ase broken no small peces]() they gae me a ase ha was broken no small peces]




Throgho he brackeed expresso s aN Comparso of (iv) ad (v)sggess ha i (v) he reaive is a sma case i e sese of Wiams(1974 197) ih he srcre of (15):

(15) [[:a vase] [s[ N* [AA broke] o sm peces]]]]

(15) N* is govere ad acks Case Therefore i may be PRO, adms be PRO. We oed §26 ha deeio appears o be he mared case for sm cases Sppose we ow modfy he reireme

26(18) ha dee is obigaory for sm cases resricig heappcaio of his re o "shor adjecive phrases sch as broen bo broen nto sma peces The (14iv) s grammaica wih he reaivzedN of he form (15) NP beig PRO Trig o (14i) he N is o he form (16iii) respecivey:

(16) (i) [ somehg [NP broke]](ii) [ soehg [s[ N* broke io sma pieces]]](i) [ a vase] [ N* broke]]

N* acks Case hrogho ad herefore ca oy be race or PR. (ii) may be PRO b o race sce is govered; herefore (ii) isgrammaica wih N* PRO. (i) ad (i) he esio redces o oeof ierpreaio of he crierio a area where we have so far e heesio ambgos Sppose we were o dersad he creriosch a way ha a roe is assiged o he NP head of he reaive cosrcio This is o obviosy correc for exampe excdes he possibiiy of a "rasig aaysis of reaives as i Vergad (1974) b e

s assme ha i is correc The race is excded as a choice for N* () ad (i) Therefor NP ca oy be PR. case (ii)N* is gvered

by vase his is a isace of (13iv) Therefore (14i) i grammacaas reired case () whe N* is o roeced from goverm by amaxma rojecio as i s () everheess i s pasie o arge ha here s o exca caegory o serve as a goveror for N* i he f N.Therefor NP may be PRO givig (14i) Wheher or o hs aaysis iscorrec israes he empirca dffereces bewee (11) ad (6)

The argme co be preseed a bi more arrowy so as o be depede of he esio f a raisig aaysis for reaives wod sfce for sm case reaives o ack COM so ha iera movemeis imossibe ad he esio of rasg o he marx N does o se

We wod he be reaig he reaive cases i (14) aaogosy o schiva reaives as " fod a ma o he sik] Chomsky adLasik (1977) hese were aayzed i erms of moveme b haaayss is excded i he prese framework sice he embedded sbjecis govered ad o casemarked ad ms herefore be PRO {cfWiiams (1980a)) Tere are however frher coseeces wih regard o he moivaio for a raisig aaysis erms of idiom chk heads whch w o prse



6 Lectres on govement and bndng: the Psa ectres

Luigi Burzio poins ou ha evience rom ian suppors he conclusion ha he subjec o a small clause relaive is inee PRO Exampleso he sor cie in noe 43 o chaper llusrae he ac ha mpersonas is impossible in a conrol srucure, hough i is possible in a rasingsrucure as noe in he ex a ha poin Oher ypes os (eg, reexve)

perm boh rasing an conrol Bu small clause relaives allow only oher ypes o s no impersona s Thus consier (7):

(7) (i) vaso roosi ier e quello cinese("he vase broken yeseray is he Chinese one)

() vaso che s e roo ieri e quelo cinese

n (7i), wih he sma cause "roosi ieri, he impersona- inerprea ion is barre, bu (7ii) wih a ull clausal relaie is ambiguous, wih a possible impersona- inerpreaion (roughly, "e vase ha broke (ise)yseray is he Chnse one) ollows ha he subjec o he small clausein (i) is PRO, barring imperson s The rgumen is no enrely persuasive,as Burzio noes, because here may be oher reasons why impersona sis barre Burzo (9)

Le us now reurn o he exampes (79) As we have seen,NP* mus be governe in (9) o bar PRO rom his posiion, an i"governmen

is ineree in accorance wih (6) or () he posiion is inee governe,as require However, race is also barre rom s posiion as in li)erie rom (l):

(l) (i) *who(se) i you see [ book]() you saw [ wo(se) book]

We canno appea o subjacency o accoun or (), since he same siua on obains in languages (eg, lan) wch S is no a bouning noe,so ha subjacency als o block he equivaen o (i), assuming he heory Rizzi (97b) The naura conclusion is ha whle * is governe in(9i), s kin o governmen is somehow "no srong enough' o permi

race We wll see in chaper 4 ha here is goo reason o suppose ha race mus no only be governe, as we have been assumng since §4 bu aso propery governed where "proper governmen s a narrowernoion han "governmen: ie, properly governs f only i governs{ an some aiiona conion is saise There is hen, a gap beween"governmen' a "proper governmen Wha we wan o say hen, is

ha in (), NP* is govere bu no properly governe b he hea oN · The exra conions on "proper governmen' be ormuae in§ 45 so as o esabsh s concluson Where an NP posiion is governe

bu no proery governe, neiher PRO nor race can appear The posiiono P* in (9) is such a case

Suppose ha an NP posion is governe bu no properly goerne,an urhermore is no a posiion o wch Case is assigne n s case,




NP cannot be PRO or trace, but it aso cnot be phoneticay reazed, by virtue o the Case Fer Thereore such constructions cannot exst anysuch construction woud ecessariy be ungrammatica, or any choice oNP The conguration (9ii) escapes ts consequence because, even oughthe governing eement or NP* (namey, the head o ) is not a Caseassgner, nevertheess genitive Case is assigned in ts conguration

Bearing n mind these characteristics o government, proper government and Caseassignment we may return to a probem e unresoved in§2.6 We noted there that deetion s obgatory n such sma causesas (19)(= 26(7))

(19) () *ohn considers [ PRO ooish](ii) ohn is considered [t ooish](ii) they consider [each other ooish]

In (19), is no, or reasons that arenow amiar But we oered noexpanation or the act, that is, no reason why there coud not be a verb ikeconsder but with the anaogue o (1i) grammatica and the anaogue o(9ii,ii) ungrammatica We are now in a postion to expan the act that in (19 cannot be a maxima projection, i we combine the concept ogovernment expressed n 6 or () with the anayss o sma causes

proposed by Stowe (c 26(34)) Suppose, then thatn (ii) is aken to esoe projection o adjective (ie., [N, thus = Ai or some choiceo Ca it A* Then the sma cause o (9) is a conguraton exacty ke(9ii) in eevant respects, namey, (20)

(20) [ANP* [A ooish]]

In (20),NP* is governed by the adjectivefoosh butexacty as in (9ii)itis not propey governed byfooshThereoreNP* cannot be PRO, becauseit is governed; and NP* cannot be trace i is a maxma projection

The ony emainng possibity is that NP* is a phoneticayreazed NPBut (20) diers rom (9ii) in that there is no rue that assigns Case toNP*intea to the category ; there s no anaogue to the genitive Caseassignment rue or adjective phrases Thereore,i is a maxima projection in (20), * cannot be a phonetcayreazed ether Thereore,there is no possibe choce or NP* i is a maxima projecton, assumngthat it s a projection o its predicate

We thus estabish principe 26(8) in the eevant cases i the smacause is o the same category as its predicateie,i what is seected by

the matrix verb is the predicate o the sma cause as in (19)then is not amaxima projection Thereore NP* o (20) can be propery governed bythe matrx verb, and can be trace or a phoneticayreaized NP, but notPR, as in (19) Note that ts concusion oes not aect the anaysis o (14)discussed earier, or other proposed anayses in wch the sma cause is othe category S, since there s no seection o its predicate; eg, 26 (3)



70 Leture on govement and bndng: the Pa/eture

I folow hen ha here· can be no verb ke onder excep ha iinver he diribuion o in 19 nalogou mov can be made in hecae of ohe ype o mal laue a eg in1 :

(1) John conider Bl a fool

The paer of argumen here i ilar o he one folowed n § 2 ohow ha in (22) he complemen claue mu e mximal projecin:

(22) John peruaded Bil Claue 2.6.(19))

Thu, he complemen claue in (22) canno be a mal laue, nor can i

an inniive wih -deleion e eabhed he fac in § 26 y howingha i he compemen claue in (22) wee no a maximal rojecion henthere would be no poible choice for i ubjec In the cae of (19)folowing ilar reaoning we howed ha annot be a ximal projecion becaue i i were there would be no oible choice for it ujectIn he cae of (9) the ame reaoning how tha PRO an trace are exclude a poibe ubject bu no a phoneicalyreaed N hu inthi ae the caegory analogou of (20) a mximal projecion nameyNP. The principle of government and Cae heory thu intereave to

xplain a variety of phenomena that eem o hold quie genralyLater on in § 5 I wl dicu ome oher poibe odicaion of hention governmen" Thee and other uggetion have variou racation which become raher complex a the noion governmen" i embedded in a richer theory given the central role of hi noion in heGB-framework For he momen we may aume ome noton of government" wth he general characer of hoe ju dicued exaning conequence of variou deciion a we proceed

3.22 Ce theo and roeTurnig now to Cae heory, e u uppoe folowing OB) hahefundamental ropertie o Cae�aignmen are a in ):

(1) () N nminaive i governed b GR) objectve f governed by V wth the ubcaegorization

feaure N {ie ranitive NP i obique i governed by Piv) i genive in [ ]

v) N i inhereny Caemarked a determine b roertieof t [N] goernor

Le u refer o he Cae aigned under }iv) a cural ae" an heae ined under v) a inheren Cae" he only example f eaer we need conider here i he doube N" contrucion a in

(2) John gave Bll a book



On oemen and bindin 171

et us say that Bli this costuctio eceives its stuctual Cse ude() ad ha a book receives heet Case ude (v) Stuctural Case geeal i dssocaed from -ole; s a stuctual popety of a fomal

cogurato Ihee Case is presumably cosely lked o -ole If his s corec, the (2) we have a sucure wh a veb head oowed by sucural Case (Bl) ad iheet Case (a book)heeas (3)wehave jus sucural Case:

(3) Joh gave a bok o

Bu the role of a book s the same 2) ad (3), so tha -ole adCase are o assocaed. Exceptoal asemakg s other example of

his dssociatio. I geeral, vaious -roles may be assged to a eleme wth a gve sucural ase.A alteatve to he aalyss of (2), suggsed OB, would be to

assume hat he V coas a iteal he sese of Wllms (1975),so ha ts sructure s (4)

(4) Joh [ [ gave Bil] a book]

We migh he assume tha Bleceves stuctual Case by i) he

ormal way ad a book eceves structural ase from (ow dmt agoveor) by (l ) as well The each goeor assgs oly a sgle ase.Jaeggli (180b) pots out ha this las assumpto has eresg co•

seueces i the Romace laguages. Thee is evdece ha Frech thestucue aalogous o (3) s (i), whle Spash s (i):

() N [ V N] Dative](i) N [ VPV N Daive]

he evdece deves fom causate cosuctios. I Fech the sruc ure V s preposed, as (6; while Spash, he sruture = V s preposed, as

(6) (i je feas [ lphoeJ Jea ses pares("Ill make Jea elephoe o his pets)

(i) je feas [ mage cee pomeJ Jea("Ill make Jea eat his apple)

(7) le hicimos [ V amar a sus padres] a edro

("we made edo call hs paresThus the dave phase s preposed i Spaish causatives alog wth he ve, but o Fech There s a secod deece beee Fech aSpash hese costuctios The dative i Spaish behaves themae of a tue pepositioal phase, whle the coespodig-phase Frech is a N, Jaeggl agues followg Vergaud (1974)cf ote 6. These wo differces ca be coeaed, Jaeggl obseves, o the



72 Lece on oemen and bndn e Pa ece

assumption that a verb can in principle assign only one Case so thatCase-assignment in (5i) to the second N must be by V hen the dative inrench is a stuctral Case assigned by V to an NP, whereas e dativen

Spanish is a stuctural Case assigned in a PP by the governing P there being no "small V" as the causative constructions show Jaeggi goes onto show that the poperties o li tic-doubing in several varieties o Spanishand in rench olow rom these and related assumptions e take theassumption that verbs assign only a singe Case to be general, then it oowsthat (4) is the correct analysis or the double object constructions

Returning to the rules () or Case-assignment, a ew urther commentsare in order Whe assignment o nominative Case under overnment byAGR is natural or Engish on the assumption that the base structure is

NP-INLVP it ay be that this should be regarded as a special case andthat the general property is that nominative is assigned as a concomitant oagreement (ie, he NPAGR relation), which may or may not involvegovernment e return to the uestion in §45 Case () be modiedslighty in the next chapter to accommodate verbs that are "ergative inthe sense o Burio (98) i e verbs that subcategorze or a ormal Nobject but do not assign Case to it As or have tentatively beenadopting Kaynes proposal that the Case system has in part been ost inEngish even at the evel o abstract Case, so that prepositions assign

objective rather than obliue Case a. §5 In languages withricherCasesystems, assignment o Case by inherent properties o the governor woudreuire a much more extensive analysis, and examples o many other types would have to be considered urthermore languages may have otherase-assignment rules not involving government in addition to (iv) Thesecomments are only the bare outine o a possible approach to the development o a proper theory o abstract Case and its morpholgical reization

Reviewing some related topics, I have been assuming that Exceptional

Case-marking in the case o verbs such asbeee

involves -deletion aidiosyncraic marked property o these verbs Rii points out that wecould not assume that the structures in uestion re base-generate ithS rather than compements, or it would oow that such sentences as(8) would be on a par with -island violations such as (9) with"ong movement o the -phrase directy to the M o the matrixsentence

(8) who di you believe [John to have seen t](9) (i) what did you wonder [who saw t]

() to whom did you wonder [what to give t]

Recal that Exceptional Case-marking impossible in such structures as (i)o note 3 or (0)

(0) it is uncear [what N to do t]




I pae odeto we might assume-taspae to Case-assgme(as OB) o a ue hagig o S. I the amewok o as adKupi (197) he ae opio oiides with -deetio i the e o

mssig COM I wi eu o ts ad eaed quesios i § § 52 53Coside ex he pbem o assigig Case i -movemet ostruios as i (11)

(11) (i) who(m) did ou see() who did ou k [t saw B]() *whom did ou thk [ saw Bi]

The pheomeo s ahe maga Egish ad is pehaps a atiia

oe Suppose we assume it to eet a popet o oe gaa Thesome devie is eeded to assig Case appopiae o the -pase. IOB i was assumed tha Case is assiged b he rue ove- itse so thathe pase eeives the Case o the positio om wh i s moved toCOM. Feidi ad asik (1979b) ague ha ts suggestio s dubiouso he gouds tha i udemies the homogeei o the pipes oCaseassigmet Thee migh aso be pobems with esumpive poous.Coside he exampes (12)

(12) (i) he ma who(m) I do't beieve he am tha aoe sawm() he ma who (*whom) I do' beieve he aim ha he sawaoe

The exampes ae ve dubious. The esumptive poou sateg ismargia i Egish ad pobab ivoves a diaet ash with he wowom dstiio where exists so is ot at ear ha a rea pheomeo is iusraed i (12) I it is he the OB approah ao be susaedsie hee is o moveme i (12) Oe mght seh or reeva exampes

i a aguage with a ive resumptive poou stateg ombied withmaiesatio o Case i he -phase positio.The questio eates to the proper reame o ee eatives i he

siuato i wh the Case o he -pase head o he ostrutio isdetermied b its strutura posito; eg ausaive i he ee eaive isthe obet o a veb. Aou observes tha o the OB assumpios i eis a resumpive poou suh ases he i shoud reeve its Ce o he

basis o its posiio i the ree reative wie the pase head shoudeeive its Case o he basis o the struura positio o he ree reative

Aohe possibii woud be o assume that he -pe i COM whehe moved o base-geeaed "iheits the ase o the vaiabe thatit bids (apat om ee eatives o the sot ust metioed) wh ma

be a rae o a resumptive poou. Suppose that the -pase is oidexed with moe tha oe trae i a Aposiio. The i wi oow omother osideatios ha o oe o these is Casemaked so that oambigui aises Note hat there is o motivatio o assigig o a rae



4 Lece on oemen and bndn e ia ece

in MP the Case of he vaiabe i binds, so we wladno convention tpvde o such assignment It emans possibe, howeve, that a tace iCOMP eceives ase fo a ve goveng he CO position as ug

geste Kayne in o o whch we etun.An intesing conmatio of e atte possibity is epote by uliaHovath, in ungaian Conside exampes of th folowing abstctfom (the actual fom is smewhat diffeent, fo easons that we may putaside):

3) phase [ N V [ . . . [ . . ]]

This s an exampe of successie-cyli -movement fom e positio f

the mos depy embedded ace, as in the Engish alogue 4)

4) wh do [ you thin [ Bill sad [ t saw ohn]]]]]

In Hungaian in case 3) the -phase is not nominaive, as in eEnglish exampe 4), ut athe takes the ase assigned y the max ve. atua expanation is that this veb assigns Case in the COosiionof the embedded ths Case being inheited by e hase (o, on theOB assumptions, that this veb assigns Case to he -phase in he ast

sage of ovement epacing is ase, a cumsie mechanism). The exampe is ineesing fo the easons. Fist, it ustates that Case may beassigned in the embedded CO posiion, as ayne suggests. Second itpovides an agument fo successive cyclic movement. Thid it ovecomes an appaent obem eating o "eute's geneaizaionconcening the *a}phenomenon (e.g., *"who do you hink hat t swBill). he geneaization saes, in effec, hat the aphenomenonhods if and ony if e anguage in question is not a "po-dop anguagesuch as Italian o pansh, a act that is a consequence of the analysis in

tems of *[a] lte (cf. Chosky and Lasnik 977) fo iscssion)Hungaian appeas to be an excepion o the geneaization in that it is ap-dop anguage ut excudes suc sctus as 3)whee the -paseis nominative and the tace in the D-sucueposiion o he -phase the vaiabe hat it binds in 3) folows the ove compementize e. , iappeas hat Hungaian obeves hat *[a-] lte ough it is a po-dop anguage. But as Hovat points out, he exception is ony appaent. ei is ue hat a noiaive phase does not apea, the eason lies in hefatosust eviewed. Thus the [a-] te does not apy, as expeced.

Anothe possibiity tht might be consideed is that Case is assignedno the N tse bu ahe to is index. Then any N wth ths indexmay (opionly) be assigned Case. This mechanism povides a sense fohe ntion f "Cse-neitance just discussed hough it mus e shpened to deal with a wde ange of sucues. The same might be tue of-oe assignment in the case of anecedent-ace eatons. In th case of



On oemen and bndn 5

-ovement, then, the index o the vaabe bound by the -phase isassigned Case, and any phase beaing this index may (optionay) eaethe Case the vaiabe, the phase, o both. nteaction othe pn

ciples wi then equie that Case be assgned to the vaiable and the pase. inciples of -theoy w equie assignment o ole asappopiate. The suggestion s devloped by Aoun (980b), who notesuthe consequences. e etun t some elevant consdeations drectlyand to a moe pecise omulation in chapte 6.

Conside again the Case Filte, a undamenta pnciple of the theo oabstact Case as we ae deveoping it, folowing Vegnaud. e gave thse n §23 as 5)

(5) *N, whee N·has a phonetc matix but no ase ( .3.(6))

e have aso bee toying with he pincipe (6)

(6) [ e ] is a vaable i and ony i it hs Case (= 242(7))

Suppose that (6) is indeed a pincple o GB theoy. Ten the Case Filtecan be extended to the Extended Case ilte ()

( *[ i has no Case and contais a phonetc matx o is a vaable

Again, vaiables behave ike names, in ths espect.hat about the status o (6)? Note that om let to ght it amost

folows om the Case Filte (c. OB). By the Case Filte, the prasemust have Case, but i e vaiable t binds acks Case, then it w not beable to nheit Case. Hence tis vaiable must ave Case, estabishng (16)om let to ight. Consde o examle (18)

(18) *who does t seem [t to see ayee wo cannot nheit Case om its tace which, whie govened byeem is not assigned Case. So e sentence is bloced by th Case Filte;i.e., by the violaton o (16) om let to ight.

Thee ae, howeve, some poblems n this appoach. One is that incases o RO-ovement to OM the vaiable must s be Casemaked,athough RO equies no Case.A second poblem is at in examles othe Hungaian type ust discussed the Case Fte is not vioated by the

phase whethe o not the stuctue tace o the -phrase has Case but hee too the vaiable must be in a Casemaked position. The same istrue o ee elatives in which the -phase is assgned Case by tue ofthe stuctual positon o the entre constucton. A tid pobem, noted by Fedin and Lasnk (199b), is illustated by such examples as (19), whee



176 Lee on oemen and bindin he Pia ece

is he ace le by relaivzaion

19) (i the man [ha [you ried [[ o win

]]]]() *he man [ ha [ I ond [ ha to see In (1), i we assume tha the -phase is deleed and heeore n submited o the Case File, he laer prodes no bass for excludng heseexamples and thus guaanteeing hat he vaable has Case

Such examples as these ustrae gaps in he aemp o derive (16), lefto-righ, from he Case Fter

One possble appoach to sch examples as (19) is o assume (contraryto OB) tha the Case Filer is in he LF ahe han the PF-com

ponent or

tha i appes at S-stucture pror o deetion in he PF-component Ineither case, the phase of (19) woud suce, by means of he CaseFer o excude examples (19 beween hese aernaves i seemspeferabe o assume he Cae Fer to be a S-sucure, because o suchexampes as (20):

(20) ohn ied [everyone to leave]The examle is blocked by he Case Fer applying a Ssucure (or in thePF-co!onent) bu i he rue o quantiermovement assigns o 20)the LFrepresentation (2) he Case Fier appying a LF would not assgn unless we wee to assume hat the quanier itsel requires Case,whch seems aicia:

{2) ohn tied, or o leave

Assume he tha the Case File appies at S-stucue One consequenceo hs assumption pointed out by Freidin and Lanik, is ha thee cane no deetion analysis o EQU, a least on the assumpions o Chomsky and Lasnik (977) and OB Ts is no an unacceptable resul owever;we have aeady ound good reason o suppose ha EQU involvesPRO no deleion · The motivation o the conrary assumption ineare work is no opeave he curen amework, or he mospart

evetheess it seems reasonab o exec ha the Case Filer wbe in he PFcomponen Some diec eidence Arabc ofeed byAoun (979b) ts is corect, he a dieen anaysis is requred or(9), as is or he other wo pobems cied

The approach o s complex o problems ha seems to me mospromising is one ha inegraes Case heory wih -theory Le us assumetha elements of the form [ ae invisible" o ules of the LF-componen unless contains some eaure Thus PRO is visibe as is Casemarked trace, bu e is invisible when i conans no Case I so thenno role wl be assigned o he invisibe tace in (18), (9), and in act



178 Lece on oemen and bindin e ia ee

(i is dfcul or soe eber of e band o ply erypiece by Elingon]

() ee piece by ingon is dicut for soe ee' ofhe

band [to play JWhe jugents are nsecure, i sees ha (i(i are unabiguouswhie is aiguous, with eihe order oquantiers. These judgenscould be explained on the assupion ha he brackeing is as indicaedwih = clause hroughou wh PRO subjec in (ii)), where lausesend (in he unarked case) to bound quantie raising, whe he/phrase is in he atrix clause i

nthe possible counterexape o he requreen hat ariables

us be Case-arked is aised by the analysis of -construcions inSowel (1978) He takes he base for o be (28, with Noeentyielding (29):

(28) [ e] is P . . (eg., thee is a an in the oo," afe einseion)

(29) P is i . (a an is in he roo)

But oeen ay also apply fo (28), yieding (30):

(30) -phrase is [ e] . . (who is here in the oo," fe einsertion)

Thus boh P-oeent and -oeent apply fro e sa posiion ;i i is Case-ked en P-oeen shoud not appy and f i is noCase-arked hen -oeen should not apply, on the suptions weare now consideing Fro these and ohe exaples Borer (979 1980) concudes tha he equireen tha ariables us be Case-aked is oo

strong Aoun ( 1980b) points ou hat any of the probes do not arise we assue tha Case is assigned o indices, then opionaly o eeentsbearing hese indices cf. is paper forfurther deelpen of this iea.

Assuming tha arabes us nde be Case-ared we mght approach he quesons we hae been considering fo slghly dfeenpoint of iew Recal the discussion of graatical functins (GFs n§ 2.2 e disinguishehere bewee A-positions in whic �GFs rdned, coresponding to what ae oen caled arguen posiions"and -posiios wih -GFs The A-GFs are subjec and copeents toheads of construcions object clausal copleent, ec. GFs eadjuncts in construcions fored by oe-: fr exape the GF of he-phrase in OM r of an exraposed ie or of an N adjoined to aV by inesion in pro-drop langages (cf 321.(13i) and chapte Recal hat each N has a gaatical unction GF 1 gien by its S-sructure positin and a unction chain (GF GF whch represens itsderiational hstory, GFn being the GF o is Dsucue posiion an




AGF, a position in the case of an agument. Suppose that we now estrictattenton to functon chans wch each GF s an AGF ca theseAfuncton chans" An eement in COM wi not have an Afunctionchain, but an P in an Apositon w have one (we etun n chaptes4, 6 to the case of inveted P n taian o Spansh) n the Sstuctue (31 )fo exampe, whee and ' ae the taces of wo has an Afunction chain(namey, ([PS], [PVP])) but wo does not

() who t was [ kied ]]

Te tems that the postions associated wth the Afunction chain ahave the same · index. We may now bring togethe the ncpe (22) and

the suggeston made nfomaly bove that 0-oe (ke Case) s assgned to

an index, then optonally assumed by elements wth that ndex reformulat-ng (22) as (2)

(2) Suppose hat a has the Afuncton chain (GF , GF,and thtfi s he eement beaing GF · Then the chain s assgned a roeony f some i f has featus

Speccay, f may have the feature of PRO, o i may have Case andmut have Case by he Case Fte t s phoetcay eaed). Bu foreach i f s N e ackng Case hen te Afuncton chain s ssignednoroe; and deatvey the eeents f udng a = have no oe

Suppose ha oter propetes of the system equre that the eementf with featues be a tsef Then we can educe (2) to ():

() Spose that a has the Afuncton ain GF 1 GF, ene chain is assgned a oe ony i a as featues

By denton, each f s a trace f i = Theefore, to guaantee educbiiy f (2) to () t sufces that f ack Case for i = Such f cannot be a

sujec w nonatve ase or he IC w be voaed If t s assgnedgenite Case in the conguratonX] the trace eft b movement wnot be popey govened, as e have seen, so tis case s excuded too.Condtons on peposto standing excude the pssbiity that f sassgned Case by a peposition (cf. § 5 2) The ony remanng possbiiy isthat assgned Case by a transitve veb but this case s rued ot by269) an the equementhat movement be o a nonposton aongwith the SSC wich guantees that movement cannot e past the subjectof the verb to an Aposton (f .22(4) s the correct anayss for doube

object vebs then 26(9) must be extended to V which ases no pobems) Ts exhausts the possibiites wth te excepton o postvebaP wth nonative Case wch we w conside in the next chapte Aswe sha see however, these stuctues ae gammatca oy f a hasfeatures, so we may dsegad ts possbiity. Theefoe, we can reduce(2) to ()



80 Lece on oenmen and bindin e Pia ece

Restrcton f () to A-function chains is natural in that it maes nosense to assin a role to n opeator in CO but nl to the variablehat it bnds Furthermore the case omovement-to-COM requres this

restriction Thus consder4):(4) Johnfound book whch hewanted ROtovetoaryHere wc has features but t s the Case-feature of , the sole elementof the A-function chain wth index j, whic perits assinent of roleThus (5) s unrammatical since t}acks Case

5 John found a book whch he wanted t to seem t to please

ary]]]]The point is made stil more clearly by consderaton of free relativeconstructions in whch the phrase n COM receives Ce from outsie the construction as in the examples noted earer As we haveseen such a construction wil be rammatical only the variable is in aCase-markin position (but see note 6)

Princple () states an only condton for assnment o -role Tostrenthen t to i and ony i we add the requirement that some elemetof the chain be n a postion that is marked In effect then role sassned to the chain and derivatively to the arment that is e heaofthe chain ie that bears F I e develop these notions more carefulyn chapter 6

Summarizn a role is assned to an A-function chain that has avsble cateory (a cateory with lexical features PRO o asemaredtrace) and a cateory in a -position Note that e derive prncple 26(47)speccally thouh a book and the trace have the same ndex n (4) theyreceve -roles independently since the belon to diferent A-functonchans e return n § 2 to some problems that arse n his connecton

t now folows that a variable us have Case e (6) s true rom ett riht It emains to determine whether it is also rue from rht o lefte whether Casemarked traces are variables and also to deal somehowwth such cases as (2) and those cted n note 6 where the requirementappears to be too stron

Te princple ()eers to he LF-component but t s qute smlar toa prnciple that appes n the PF-omponent Recal the discussion ofcontraction n § 2 The basic examples are these n S-structue representation:

(6) (i) they want PRO to vist Pas they want Bil to vsit Pars(i) who do they want e to vsit ParsJ(iv) who d they want PRO to vsit e]



On oemen and bndn

The simpest form for the (optiona) contraction rue is (7):

(7) want+to � wanna

8

Let us assume, then, that the rule in question i s (7) It apples in (6i) and6iv), but not in (6ii) or, obviousy, in (6ii) Thus we have (8) correspondn to (6):

(8) () they wanna vs Paris() they want Bl to vst Pars(i) *who do they wanna vist Paris(v) who do they wanna visit

Evidenty, the trace in (6ii) acts n the same way as the lecal Bln (6ii), blockn contracton another respect n whch variables behavelke names ut PRO does not block the rule (7) t s nvsble" to therue

Now consder (6v) which does undero contraction, more carefulyUnder successivecycc movement the Sstructure, which enters thePFcomponent, is (9):

9) who do they want

[t

[PRO to vsit t'

]]Here too contraction may apply We must therefore conclude ethe thatthe trace n COM may be optonally erased, or that t does not blockcntraction for some reason Deleton of trace COM was a reasonabeassumpton n the framework of Chomsky and Lasnk (977), as a specalcase of he eneral rule of free deleton n COM In the OBframeworkwhch I have been assumin and etendin here, there is no suc eneralrule for deleton, as we hv seen Hence there s no eneral rule that wllsubsume deleon of trace COM as a specal case We herefore ook

for some other reason why trace n COM wl not block contracton,whle trace with an AGF will, as n (ii) The obvous answer is thattrace with Case s vsbl to the contracton rule (7) while tracewthout Case s not recal that we added no conventon to assin Case totrace n COM, and f we prsue the dea of assnn Case to ndces, thenrealzaton of Case on trac n COM s optonal, correspondin in thiscas to the opton of applyn (7) Then we conclude that to be visble to aPFrule, an empty cateory must have the feature Case

It s qute natural that the features of PRO should not be visble in the

PFcomponent These are eatures with purey semntc, morpholoicalor syntactc content So we may assume that such features as person,ener, number are not visbe to phonoocal rules We miht say thatthese features may partcpate n morpholocal rules of the PFcomponent, but are elinated bythe operaton ofths subsystem, whch precedes



8 Lecre on oemen and bindin e ia ecre

the phonolocal rules We are then et wth a prncple very slar to (33)

() s nvsble to phonolocal rues t lacks approrate eatures

he approprate eatures are the honolcal eatures, and also asehe common property o (3) and () s tat ase ats as a mrke orempty cateores, markn them as vsble to rules o both ntepretvecomponents o the rammar

I all o ths s on he rh rack, then fllows tha -races and NPtraces wll der n ther phonetc consequences e latter are nvsble tophonolocal rules, whle the rmer are not There as been much dscusson o ths topc snce the work o elkrk ( 972)wo susd suc adstncton on the bass o propertes o French lason, n partcular Pullum and Postal (979) arue or the sme dstncton on the assumptn tasemauxlares such as ae o o o (he has to o," wh oblatorycontracton o ae�o he ouh to o, wth optoal contracto oo} etc are rasn verbs, wth an NP-trace (n our terms) betweenthe verbal part and o A stroner arument s ven by onoard(978) who shows that a lter preventn successve nntves n Italan sblocked by an ntervenn -trace but not an ntervenn P-traceThe dea that Case s the relevant eature dstnushn NP-trace and-trace ths connecton has been suested ndependenly sevealtmes and ollows n a very natural way n the ramework we are nowdevelopn

Returnn to the prncple (6) haracterzn varables n terms oCase, we see that the requrement that varables be Case-maked ((6)ro let to rh} ollows rom a easonable prncpl that relates loselyto a smlar prncple opeatve n he PFcomponent and probably allstoeher wth t thouh uestons reman s or the codton thatCase-marked trace s a varale ((6) rom rht to left, ts valdty andbass ( t s vald) reman ope We return to these questons n a somewhat

derent ramewrk n haptr 6The condton that Case-mared trace s a varable has some desrable

consequences but also some questonable ones thouh none o these consequences ollow we assn Case t ndces n the matte dscusse earerConsder or example, (4 ) and (42)

4) ( ohnht t *advantae took t oohn

(42 ) the shp sank

() the bok•reads easly

The sentences o (4 ) are marked unrammatcal by the theory o bndn the Case-marked trace s a varabe The crteron rules out (4, and alsuch cases or whch 26(39 s vald, requrn tha a verb that assnsobectve Case assn a -role to ts subect I the structures of (42) are



On oemen and bndn 83

derived by NP-movemen from the direct obect to subect position, as assometimes been proposed, then some mechanism is required to bockobective Case-assinment Casemarked traces are variabes We returnto exampes of this sort in prodrop anuaes in the next chapter Thereare many reated questions, some of wch we wi consider beow

I have so far eft open the question of where and how Case s assin inthe rammr In OB, it was proposed that inherent and obique Case areassined at D-structure, that structur Case is assined a S-structur,and tha a -phrase and its trace are assined Case as ove- appiesTe as f these conditions it be repaced by ase-inheitance, asiscussed earlier and moe carefuy in capte 6 It has been sustdthat Case shoud be assined as a exica property of nouns ad hat instadof Case-assinment rues, a ter (not to be confused with the ase Fiter)shoud determine whether it has bee proper ssied We are nowassuin tha such Case-checkin is in the Pcomponent or at S-structue Caseassinment can be no later than S-struture since t ures in thF-ompoent as we as the PFcomponent the precin discussionis corect in essence I wil leave the question n this state for he timebein, returnin to it in subsequent discussion

323. Te eo of bndnIn its essentias Case theory orms part of the theory of ovrnment That

is, th basic and centra instances of ase-assinment are instances ofovernment by a aseassiner One o the proles in the OB-framework noted earlier (§ 3) was that there was considerabe redundancetwen notions f Case and bindin Ts suests tat indin heorytoo shoul be deveoped witin the fraework of the theory of overnment, with the later expressin thei common core et us now proeto investiate this possibility

Notice tht e have been usin the erm bindin" in severa sensesIn the sentence ( the tace is bound in one sense th -prsea

kind of quantier at LF and the trace ' is boud in anote sense by asits antecedent

() who t was kied t'e trace is a vaiable with Case et u say that it is opeao-bonwo he race ' is an anahor ackin Case et us say that it is ancedenbond the variab

Conider a case of crossover say (2)

(2) (i) who did he say ary kisse t() [swho he said [s t ary kissed t'

Here ' is operatoround by wo (or perhaps by its trace i the owerCOM) but it cannot e antecedentond by e In fact, the relation of



84 Lece on oemen and bindn e Pia ece

disoint refrence hods between ts trace and e so that (2) does no havethe nterpretaton (3)

(3) for wic sa hat ary kissed

ay be that the two notns operator and antecedent-bndn reduce to the same more eneral notion but t is not obvous that ts isthe case Antecedentbindin relates anaphors and proximate pronmnalsto ther antecedents controlers in the case of PRO Varable-bindinrelates variables to the operators that bind them perhaps thruh hemedium of a trace The notions see conceptualy distinct One is a loicalnotio te other (antecedentbindin) a syntactic notion relatin to thesyntax o LF

n fact the appropriate distinction for our purposes may not be thatof antecedent versus operatorbindin bt rather antecedent-bindinversus eripherabindin whee the former holds when the c-commandinelement is in an Aposition and the atter whe it is not hus moementof an empty cateoy to COMPRO or trace see § 26 leaves a variableut the empty is not an operator n the intuitive sense° urthermore the notion operator" has been eft too vaue Let us thereforedistinuish the two notions A-bindin" and bindin" the formerholdin when the binder is in an A-positin and thus has an A-GF and telatter when it is in an -position th an GF the former notion iswhat I have been calin antecedent-bindin and the latter operatorbindin"

il use the terms of indin theory (ound" free" etc) for bothtypes of bindin adin the specication A-" or -" when the contextdes no sufce to ndicate wich kind o bindin is under discussion Thetheory of bindn is a theory of Abindin

A trace n S is an anaphor i is A-bound and a variabeit is-bound(cf 264)) Note that i is a kin of local bindin" that is involved nthese characterizations Consider (4)

(4) who [ t seemed [ t to have been klled t]]Of the three traces ' and " ony is a variabe the others are anaphorsthouh they are coindexed with the trace that is locally bound b wohence a variable n the sense in which wil use these terms then in4)is -bound and ocaly -bound by wo ' is -bound by wo and sAbound and ocally A-bound by and " is -bound by wo A-bound by

and both Abound and localy Abound by 'The basic notions of the theory of bindin may be dened as in (5)

and (6)

(5) (i) is X-bound by f and ony and f are coindexed fc-commands and f is in an X-position



On oemen and bndn 185

() is Xree i and only it is not Xbound(i) is locay bound by / i and only i is X-bound by / and i

-binds then either Y-binds / or /

(iv) is locally X-bound by / and ony i is ocay bound andXbound by /(6) is a variable i and ony

(i) = [ e]() is in an A-position (hence bears an AGF)

( ) there is a / that ocally -binds

Cases i) and () o (5) dene bound" and ree" with X" replacedby A" or " Simiarly case (5iv). In (i) 'X" and Y" may be independently replaced by A" or " We have excluded the possiblitythat an element may be ocally bound by two dierent eements hence thatit may be both ocally Aound and locay -bound Nteurterthat is Abound by { and -bund by then { binds or conersey b properies o c-command.

In the case o a variable he binder / in (6) may be an perator trace in CO an empty NP in CO or some other element adoined o S or i ormuato leaves open a variety o quetionsabout the class o rues I have been caing movement-toC" asa loose esignation.

These notions suce or our purposes with one signicant exctionthey do not provide an approprite notion o variable or such cases as (7)

(7) (i) the n [to whom gave the boot](ii) the man [whose piture I saw t]( ) John [a picture o whom I saw t yesterdayJ

The trace is not the variabe bound b he phrase in CO in suh casesas these I will eave this problem ope pending answers to the questinsraise in § 2.4.6 conceing movementto-CO in such cases: oes suchmovement leae a u copy as race or is there a reconstrction rule rshould we distinguish NPmovement rom ovementtoCO in someundamenta respect, perhaps as suggested by van Remsdik and Wams(1980)? nd what is he proper way to handle examples the sortmetioned i chapter 2 note 79? Letus put theseproblemswhcarear romtivia to the side restricting or attetion to structures in whch they donot arise

So ar I have been assumin a very simple indexing teory; see § 2.6.

Plainly every trace must be coindexed with the moved elemet a requirement in the case o A-iding sinc the trace transers -role andin the case o -binding to account r the associatio o the variab toits binder. Our assumption has been that conexngomoved eementandtrace s simply a part o the rule Move- by conventon but we have nyet stipuated that distinct ndices be assgned by dierent appctons



86 Lee on oemen and bindin e ia c

o Move, obvious a necessi Thus consier (8)

(8) whom i ohn see b [ o have wae [ [ PRO o

visi {

Here is he variable boun b , an Aboun b on Theassociaion o he races an heir biners is eerme b he rueMove Successiveclic mvemn resres iices Suppose ha iha been chosen ienical o in (8) Te hor o bining requires hahe variable be Aree; c he crossover example (2) ereore hebing coniins wl be ioae i , an he senence asign *he sae conin requires ha k i he heor o conro requies haPRO in be oun hereore, = k In shor, no iexing conveniois require o ensure proper inexng in (8).

Apar rom ace, have een assuing ha inexing is re; in �c,we migh assume a races n ove eens are also ree inexe,sa a Ssrucure, bu or convenience o exposiion l coninue suppose ha he rule Mve coinexes in he mnnr alrea inicae.To ersis wi hese opimal assupions, we mus sho ha example (8)is pia in ha unwane inexi is rle ou b inepenen coniion iusrae wih noher example, consier (9) in Enish an

Iaian

(9) (i) he ma [ who[I on know [ who[nows ]JJJ luomo [ phrase he non so [ ch[ consca ]]]]

he races mus be boun, an k /bhe requemen ha variables beAree Suppose i an j = k n English, hs is a islan vioaion(i.e ., a violaon o subjacenc, iS a bouning noe, hence assigne he

egree o unacepabi accore such examples, ening n onialec Bu in aan, he senence is grammaical accorngo h heor Rii 978), he reason s ha lian oes n ave a bouningcaegor, so hee s no isan ioaion in his case. Suppose alernaivel h= k an n Engsh, he exampe is rue ou b he coniionha cale S( n §J bun aan his coniion ppies sucha wa as o pers assignmen o nices, a isincion eween he woanguages coningen on he prrop parameer. a § 3 1 . Thereore hesenence (9) is ambiguous in aan bu ungrammaical in Engish (ubec ialec variaion i he case o k i /) gain, he choice o inicesis eermine b inepenen coniins, an no sipulaions are requrein he nexing eo e same is rue in l such cses

ha ab\ pronouns? wassume ha he same inexingeais o pronouns. Thus prnouns areproximaeifhearecoexewih some oher emen an obviaive if no coinexe ih an oheelemen Ne hahis s a eparure rom he OBramewor, in which



On oemen an bndn 87

anaphoric and reerentia indices were assigned to pronouns and names toaccount or the proxmate-obviative distinction and more generaly orisoint reerence I am now assuming ony reerentia indices in the snse

o OB This is also a departure rom the sprt o Lasnis weknown proposa (Lasnik (976)) that pronouns are ree in reerence subect to otherconditions I wll tenaively adopt this approach putting qestions o ioin reerence to the side. I this simplied approch is workal then one the concptual problems in te OB-ramework ntd in § 3 is overcome. The proposal does not appe to be easibe however a matter twhic I wll return in § 5 ; but et us assume i no anyway r ease oexposition.

At the leve o LF-representation eah must be indexed by a sinleindex. et us assume that each exca lent is insrted in D-structurwith an index (incuding PRO) indices being copied by Move- Thenonsider such structures as )

(0) (i) Jhnwas ked John seems [a to have been here

In these examples [NP e with inx ter movement Suppose (0)had been genrated directly with RO in the position o . Ts is impossibe by the requirement that PR be ungovened. hat o the possibty o generating (0) with o in ts S-sruture position and ei the base with the coinexng assigned by a ree indexng convention?Kayne points out that ts possibty should be barred on enera grnds;since there is no ambiguity in (0) we do not wnt to ave a interpretiveoptio aongside o the movement option. In act the inerpretive option iruled out by the proection principe sinceJonappears n a non--positionin D-structure.

hrere all interpretive options e enated an e an distinguishthe class o phenomena that ise in movement cases rom those ou in

interpretive cases appropriately aong the nes discussed earr. ·Let us now turn to the binding theoy itse. Reca that in te Oramework anaphors and pronouns were subect to te C and SSC. Thetheory had many good consequences and unied quite a wide range o actsin a principled way but aced a variety o problems some empirica andsome conceptua as discussed in § 3 hen we have a ary successutheory that aces a number o problems a reasonable strategy is to try toderive its desirabe aspects rom a more principled teory hat avoidsthese problems a neverending quest. I will now expore two di

erent appoaches to this question then suggesting a way o combining them to yied a principled and think raer successul eory obinding.

Let us investigate the possiblity that the theory o bnding lke Casetheory is developed within the theory o government. t maes use o theundamenta notion governing categry" which we may haracterze



Lece on oemen and bndn e Pa ece

flows

( ) a is he govening category or i and ony a is he mni

category conaining and a governr o, where a = or SWe may assume tha as at ost one governing category. Note that f isCasemaed by a governor (cases i), (ii), (iii) (v o 322()) thenisCasemarked withn its governing caegory. The same is ue in case (iv)where X = N.

We have come across severa possible exceptions to Casemarking undergovernment: nominative Case-assignment contingent on g!genitive aseassignment, and idiosyncraic Case-marking as in the subject

o iniives in cerain languages (eg, Russian, Lain). In terms ohedenition ( ), there is no governing category for he Case-marked eementin these instances (but see the discussion of 32()) The rst possibilitywas let as an open opion perhaps reized in anguages in which theagreement eement AGR does not govern the subject as we have assumedto be the case in Engih. Geniive Case-assignment might be reduced oCase-assignment b government by assumng an abstrac eement GENadjoined o theP that receives the CASE where GENis both a governorand a Case-assigner, in the spirit o Siegel (974) In the thd case, thereseems no reason to suppose tha the Casearked element has a governingcategry, and I wl tenatively assume hat this is true in he case o geniives as wel, eaing the quesion of nominaive Caseassignmen byagreement or later discussion.

Let us entativey ssume hat the binding condiions appy a the eve ofLF. We have subdivided nomina expressions into hree asic ategories:(I) anaphos, I pronominas, and (III) Rexpessions cf. 26() Intuitvely anaphors are NPs that have no capacity for inherent reerence."e eturn o som fure commets on this category of eements. o hepresen, we consider two types o anaphors: exical anaphors, such as recipocas and reeves and NP-trace.Le us now propose that the binding theory has one principle or eacho these aegories namely, (2)

(2) Bndn eo(A An anahor is bound in its governing caegoryB pronomin is ree its governing category(C) An expression is free

Throughou, th binding is A-inding Apar from invered postverbalNP, t which we rn in §45 each anapho, pronomin and Rexpressionis in an A-position, within the range of constructions that I am consideringhere.

Let us now return o the mao exampls f opacity reviewed in § 3We conside rst binding wihin cluses with the basic structure 3()



On emen nd bndn

repeated here as (13):

(13) (i) S*

NP NFL VP

q V NP PP

I p 1

S*NP VP

v s

A

a3

(iii)S*

V

s

189

f S NP �NP V

Is

4

Consier rst the case of ovet anaphors suc as eac e Sice thiseement has phonetic content it must be assined Case and thfoe mushave a overnin cateory in (3). By bindin prncipe A) it mus ebound in this overnin catery

Beinnin with of (13i) suppose that eac in this position isthe subject of tensed caus wth IFL [[+ense] AGR] The it is

overned by INFL and its overin cateory is S* But ec emust bebound in S* which is impossib so the sentence is rued unrammatica.This is the cse of C

Suppose that eac e is th objec o a verb or a prepositon iVcas , of (3) Then te overnin cateory once aain is S* andeac e must be bound in S* f in , it mu be bound y te uject n in , it must be bound y eier e subect in or the objectn 7 is is one case of SSC.

Suppose nex that eac e is the subject of an innitive as in he womarked constructions ( 3iiiii); such constructions as (1) (15) respetively:

(4) (i) [ theyd prefer [ for each other to win] they want for each other to win

(iii) [theywoud beappy [for ah other to win]] (iv) [theywoud hate t [for [each other to win]]



On oemn and bndn

() (i) John expected Mary to catch () John expected that he would catch Mary

9

n6) m canno be coindexed with on or Simiarly if eitheron

o B is replaced by eeone m annot be coindexed ith eenehence ultmatel interpreted as identica wit the variabe bound by thisquantier cf § 5 and note 2, above Example6iv) miht be rearded asfain under the Avoid Pronoun Priniple 22(5), since there is acrrspondin EQ case with PRO instea of m but this is not the casefor 6v) in some dialects or fo (6vi). n (), the pronoun is free in itsovernin cateory and thus not subject o these constraints

We miht incidenty ask why there is no E analoue to 6vi)ie. ( 8):

(8) John is too clever PRO to expect us to catch ]

Note that ( 8) is no unrammatical bt rather is interpretable oly witte PRO suject of expec taken as aritrary in reference not controlledb on thouh tis is a position of contro as ilustrated in (9)

(9) John is too clever to exect us to catch Bl

wl reurn to hese examples in discussi rinipe (C) of the bindineory from which their properties follow

Consider next pronominals without a phonetic matrix ie PRONte that PRO is ke over pronouns in that it never has an antecedentwithin its cause or NP. PRO also resembles anaphos in tha it has noinrinsic reerentia conten but is either assined reference by an antecedent or s indenite in interpretaton acin specc reference t resonable then to reard PRO as a pronominal anapho. f so it ssubject t both the bindn conditios (A) and B Then PR is und andfree in its overnin cteory a contradicion PRO has a overnncateory Therefore PRO has no overnin cateory and is thereforeunoverned. We therefore derive the principe 20), which as w found in§ 2.4, is the essential property of PR

(20) PRO is unoverned

f PRO is unoverned then it satises principes A and B of the bindintheory vacuousy (cf note 35) We thereore derive the basic properties ofPRO reiewed in § 4 The bindin theory determines hat te positions

of PRO are essentially those of other anaphos (amon them subject ofinnitive or of P but the reation of PRO to its anteceden (if any)is notdeterined by the bindin principles so hat e have lon-distance controas in (2)

(2 ) they thouht said that PRtfo f

ded each other woud be

difcult (=3. (5)) ee



192 Lece on oemen and bindin e a ece

Furthermore, PRO s permtted n the strctues of 31.(6) from whchtrace and ovet anaphors are excluded, and PRO s excluded from hestructures of 3.1.(7) where overt anaphors are permtted (trace beng

ecuded by subjcency), by vue of pncpe (2), whc n turn folowsfrom the bndng theory, gven that PRO s a pronomna anapho. Tefact that PRO s ngoverned namey, (20) now folows n a pncplway from the theory of bndng. The fundamenta prncple 2.9.(4) of thetheory of government must therefore be stpulated only fo race

We tus overcome the technca probems of the OB theory noted atthe outset of § 3. 1 One of the conctua poblems s aso esolved,namely, the st redundances between the theoy o Case and te theof dng Tese ndances ae now elmnated, reduced to the

common contrbuton of the theory of government to these two subtheoes. The suggeston n OB cted n § 3. 1 (namey, note 30 of OB) wasmore or less on the rght tack, but was mstaken n that t was based onCase athe than the moe fundamenta concept of govenment.

Note that the ful ange of propertes of PRO and tace dscussed n§ 24, as we as the pataly smlar propertes of overt anaphors, aedetermned by the nteacton of fou heores he theory of boundng(for trace), the theoy of control (fo PR), the theoy of Case (foreements wth phonetc conent, ncludng over anaphors), and he heory

of bndng (for al NPs ) The latte wo theres ae developed thn hetheory of government Agan we see the hghy modula characer of heheoy of grammar, wth the basc subsysems of pncpes dscusse nchapte 1 servng as qute smple and fundmenta abstract componentshat nerac o yeld a complex range of popertes.

have so fa been assumng a ery smpe ndexng theoy: namendces ae freey assgned, whee we are consderng only refeentandces n he sense of OB n OB PRO was assgned a referenta ndexn he cases of contro and the ndex ab (dnct fom al eferentandces) n the case of ndente eference, as n (22):

(22) t s unclear what PRO to doBu the OB approach does not wok, as we can see n the case of PROmovemn as n (23):

(23) s annoyng PRO to be cheated tHee, PRO and s tace ae condexed b the ue Move-, so ha PR

canno be assgned the esgnated ndex ab by the contro rue, as n theB theoy Yet must receve the abtray nepetaon. So the OBheoy woud eque a athe obvous, bu ad oc suppementaton oaccount fo hese cases We obtan the same posve esuts, so accommodatng (23), wh he smpe essenaly nul theoy of feendexng. PROarb s smpy PRO that s fee. a § 24.3.



On oemen and bndn 13 ile such examples s (23) certainly exist, stll it sems to be true that

PRO with arbitrary reference is rather resstant to movement in ndectquestons. Examples such as (24) are awward i possble at whatever

the reason ay be(24) (i) it is unclear how to be fed() it is unclear what presents to be given

Recallthat the erm pronomina is used here as a purely dscriptiveterm for an item containing PRO PRO or pronouns rather than as anexplcit feaure . At the level of executin we might assueha the lexcalrules insert he features person number gedr in te cntext NP[N

and may o ma no insert a phonetic marix we, prferng (r rquirng) noninsertion where possibe by the void Pronoun principle2.4.2. (5) I phonetc matr s insrted, we have a pronoun; i not PO.Tere is o feature pronomina. A proxiate pronominal ound byNP mus match N in the features gender, number and person whether ts PRO or pronoun Recal as well at the inherent number of unboundPRO is a parameter of G cf. 24 1 (1 1) .

We have brey discussed princpes (A) and B of the bndng theorywhere hey are plany cosey reated. et us turn now o princpe Cwich asserts that Rexpressons are free For names, ths gives the familarpropertes as iustrate n (2):(25) () he sad that ohn woud wn

( ohn said that ohn would wn

Where there is no emphatic stress these are understood with the embeded occurrence of on dstnct n reference from the matrix subect.There s n fact a strong tendency to take naes to be distnct n eferenceeven apart from ccommand a matter that I wl not pursue.

The case of variabes is more inteesting Principe C gves the bascfacts of strong crosover in the sense of Wasow (12, 19) for exampe(26):

(26 (i) who dd he sy Mary had kissed for hich x he said Maryhad kssed x)

(ii) ho dd he say had kssed Mary (for whch he sa x hadkssed )

(iii) who said Mary had kissed him (for which x x said Mary

had kssed hm(iv) who said he had kissed Mary (for hich x x said he ha kissed Mary)

In (i) nd · (i) e cannot be repaced by te varabe x in the associatedLF-representation whereas in (ii) and (v) it can; (2ii} are o possibe



9 Lece on oemen and bindin e Pia ece

inerpeaions of (26iii) respecively bu e ae psible inereaionso (6ii) especively:

(27) (i) fo which said May had kissed (ii) fo which said had kissed May

Waeve he exac mechanisms of inerpeaion may we can expess the centa facts in tems of he binding theory. In the LFepesentation fo (26iii) e must be indexed diffeenly fom wheeas n (26iiv)i may o may not be giving the nterpetationsus indicaed hee theoption of inerping e as identic o he vaiable bound b ohic is coningen on coindexing. These possibilities ae consequencs of

pinciple () of the binding theoy with vaiables behaving ike names inhis respec.The same basic obsevations hold wih quanties in plae of

phases thus vaiabes e by he quaniemovement rule f the Fcomponent behave exacl ike those left by ove movemetn 2)fo example e canno be eplaced by in the LFepesenation as aconsequence of pinciple C

(2) he kissed everyone (fo every he issed x

Insofa as wide scope of eeone is possible in (29 he facs are exactlpaael o (26):

(29) (i) he said May had kissed eveyone

(ii) he said everyone had kisseMay

(i) eveyne said May had kissedhim

(iv) eveyone said he had kissedMay

(fo eey e said Mayhad kissed fo eey he said hadkissed May)(fo evey said ay

had kissed h(fo evey said he hadkissed Ma)

The cossove facs indicae ha variables whethe bound by quanieso by quasiquanies such as phases behave aike fuhemoehey behave as names genealy hough as he weak cossove facs showhe anaogy names is not oal an appaent fact of naual language asyet unexplaine. The similaity of the seve types of vaiables suggests hat pinciple

Cof the binding theoy appies a he lvel of LF

epesenaion as we have so fa been assuming hough ohe facs owhic we urn diecl run coune to this assumpion.

The similaiy beween bound variables and names is eected in hefact that vaiables ae not subect to the sse as iustaed fo exampein (26i) whe is fee in the domain of the subecMaof is clause ndsuch examples as (26ii) as poined out by Feidin and Lasnik 99)



On oenmen and bindin 95

ndcate that they are aso o subjeco ·N (o he Tensed-S o Poposona sland Condiion of eale ok). ha is hey do no fall undepinipes (A) and (B) of he binding heoy fom which SSC and Cfollow in hei essenias bu ahe fom pnple (C). We heefoe facehe appaen paadoxes noed in § 3 since in ohe especs boundvaiabes seem o fal unde somehng ike he NC as llusaed in(30)

(30) (i) *who do you wonde ho well [ liked Bill]](i) *who oes John know ho well [ t explaned he hery]]() *who does John know how did his wok]]

As noted eale suh examples nvolvng movemen of ominaivesubjec ae no o be confused wih ohe volaions of he -isandcondion as in (3 )

(3) (i) who do you wonde [ how well [ Bill lied ](i) wha does Jhn know [how Bill did ]

whch heoy does John know [how well Bill explained ]See he discussion of exampes 3(9)) Conary o earie wok ofmine and of ohes cied abov wil assume ha he genealaion of the

o such exaples as 30) s spuious and ha in fac RES(C) aneniey dffeen pincple applies in hese cases. e eun o his opicn chape 4.

Pinciple (C) of he binding heoy aso elinaes cases of impope-movemen as n (32)

(32) (i) who [ red [ o win]]](ii) *who hought [ ' John woud see ](i) *who is pssible

'

John w see ]

he examps of (32) d be devd by successive applcaion of he uleMove- moving from he Dsucue posion of " o he COposion of ' hen o he max subjec posiion of and nally o hemax poso of Since is a vaiable by deniio issubjec to principle (C) of he binding heory and herefoe canno beAbound by so ha he srucures ae ungraica he argumenis essenally ha of May (979 reca in the GB-famework.

Examples ) and (i) mgh be excluded on dferent grounds namely

by a revision ofhe -crion rquiring tha all occurrences of a vaabemus be assigned a role by a single posin Bu his is an unmovatedmove which is furheoe ubious in severa respecs ; for one hing concs a eas in spiri wih he conclusion in 26(7) ha t" doesno assign a -role o t in (32) Noe ha we would have o appeal o hisprincpe o ba (iii) if e bndng heoy were inapplcable; recall ha he



96 Lece on oemen and bndn e a ece

ibe n R-expressin, mst be ssined ole Gien 26(4), then,() is bed independnly of the indin they

e h s f been ssmin tht he indin theor ppes t the

-leel Anothe ossibiit tht it ppies t-strctee choie hno effect on the foeoin discssin pincipes (And (B), it doesffect the ppicblty of pincipe (C) Thee e nmbe of consdetions tht sest tht in fct the bndin eoy does pply t S-strcte,contry to the ssmption of the OB-fmewok tht we he so frdopted here Sstcte differs from LF-repesenttion by the rles of theLFcomponnt. Thee e tee sch res tht ente into or discssion,nmely, (33)

(33) (i) the re of qntie-moement(ii) the LF-le of moement(iii) the re of focs

Rle (33i) mps he S-stcte (34i) to 3ii); re (33ii), n conctionwith te e ntepretn wo mps the strcte 34i) to (34i);e 3ii ms theSstctre (34) o (34i):

(34) i his mother loes eeyone(ii) for eey peson , his mothe es ( dont remeber who t expected his mothe to oewhom (i) don't emember [for whch persons , y expeted s

motheo loe () is mothe oes JO (JOHNwith foc stess)(i) for = John his mother oes

The exmpes istrte he phenomenon wek cosoer (cf the references of notes 6, ) n ech cse, we he th clse his mother

NFL oe t LFrepresenttion. n ts strcte my of coserefe to someone nderstood rom te iscorse Bt it cnnot be ntepreted s ibe denticl to , s it cn, s, n eeyone oes his mother" fo eery peson , oes s other,' nder one interprettion)thoh, s Wsow notes, the effect s weker thn in he ston cossoercses

To detemine hether the bindin theor ppies t S-stcte o LF,we sk wht effect he es of the F-component he on the fntioninof the bndn theory n the cse o ec of the res o (33), it pes

tht the bndn theory pples po the pplction of the re Theefoe e conclde ht the bindin theoy pplies t strctre rtherthn LF

To lstr, consider the folowin exmpes

(35) () which book tht John ed dd e ike



On govemen and bndng 97

( he liked eery book tht Joh red(i) on't remember who thnks tht he red which book tht

John ike(i) John sid tht Bl hd seen HM ( with foc stress)

n (i), he my be proximte to John bt not in () or (i) ; nd in (i),my be proximte to John These re the predicted rests the bindintheory ppies t Strctre At this leel, he does not c-commnd Johnin (i), bt it does ccommnd John in () nd (i); nd in (i) is pronomin so tht it my be bond by John Bt t the Flee we ethe representtions (36ii) for (3ii), respectiely:

(36) (i) for whch book tht John red, he lked

() for eery book tht John red he iked () don't remember or which person y nd which book thtJohn likes, y thinks tht he red

(i for he, John sid tht Bll hd seen

n (36,), s in (36i), he does not c-commnd John; nd in (36i), hs been replced by rible which mst be free, hence not bond byohn in ccordnce with principe (C) of the indin eory hs therles (33) of the Fcomponent obterte he distinction between (35i

nd (35iiiii) nd they conert (35i) to strctre tht preents bindin,contrry o fct Sch xmpes indicte tht syntctic moement nd moeent in theFcomponent he qite different effects ith respect to the bindintheory This theory ppes properly fter syntctic moement, bt echrle of he Fcomponent conerts Sstrctres to whch the bindintheory pplies correcty to F-repesenttions to whc it ppe incorrecty Therefore tese exmpes proide prma face eience tht thebindin theory ppes t S-strctre, concsion tht l now dopt

t sold be noted, howeer, ht the rment is only of mited weihThere re mny pen qestions bot exmples of these types hs,exmples (35i,ii,iii) re drwn from the css of rey nsoed probemsbriey noted in chpter 2 note 79 nd in the text t th point; nd s eshll see in chpter 4 there remin open qestions bot e interprettionof focs F in ddition to welknown problems bot e effect offocl stress on choice of referent in other constrctions tht do not seemto relte to bindin theory (e, John hit B nd then H hit HM)

As noted, ths reision pcin the bindin theory t S-strctre rtherthn F ees the precedin discssion nffected except s rerdsprincile C) Preiosy we treted ribles creted b syntctic moement-toCO nd those creted by qntier moement in e sme wy,nder principe (C) Bt with the bindin eory ppyin t strctre,ony the former ribes pper; in pce oftheltter, weheeqntier phrses eveone etc Prncipe (C) stil pples s before, since qn



98 Lectres on goement and bndng the Ps ectres

tiers are Rexpressions (c § 2 We can thus reta the bindg theory inhe form (2) The prinipes app at S-structure; thebiigi questionis A-ning The results outined earlier follow We mgh take principle

() be an esewhere coditon" reading �er s ae freeThe conclusion that the binding theory appes at Sstructure yedscosdeable insight nto the properties o ths levl snce tese propertesmst be such as to permt he prncples f the bndng theory to apo menton a few exampes cnsder (37)

(37) ) *they persuaded Bill to vsi each other() they regard Bill as oo critical o them (*themselves *each

other)

Bl regards them as too critca of themseves (themeach other)

(v) I impressed them t as too critcal of them (*themselves*each other)]

(v) they impressed e t as too crtical of themseves (*themeach other)]

a. aso chapter 2 note 09 For the bindng theoy t appy propery inthe ce f examples (37) t is nessary to assume appropriate S-strcues In the case of (), the correct resuts follow fro the sumption that

the to complement is causal wth PRO subect as ipled by the proecton prncipe In §2 we concluded that the proecton prnpe impliedthe analyss exhibted n (ii) and (ii)(c te discusson o 25)27))hough soe questons emaned his anlyss ieds the bnng properties ustrated n (i) (ii) e analyss exbted n (v (v) foowsrom he proecton prncipe and Case theory cf the dscusson of2(8)) and agn yeds correc binding cnclusions

h general pont is that i te binding theory holds at S-structure consdertions o bndng provde evdenc to he naure of Ssructres

e y therfre ask whether this evdence supports postuat ofSstuctures tha are ndependently predcted by the precion princileand he system of rncipes n whch t s eedded specaly Casetheory and the princpe tht causes hve subects at every eve of syntctic structur (cf 21 (25)) I this is te cae we hav inpendent cnrmation of this syste prncips In any interesting cases theconcusons seem to ho

ie the bnding · teory appies at Sstucture thee are oherprncipes that must appy at the eve of LF One is the pricpe noved

inweakcrossoer(see(34)andreferencesofnotes447)snethspncipeaples to variables created b Lrues as wel as those rsutin from heapplcaton f syntactic movement ues nothe example t hic wetu n the next chapter is the incipe that w have so far abeedES) Some further F phenomena are discusse in ay (980)he prncpe that e must be bound (c § 2) is lso presumaby an



On goement and bndng 99

LF principe t remains to ive a principed account of the distinctionbetween the conditions that hold at the two evels an the distinctionbetween their forma properties and indeed o deterine the nature ofthese properties more cosey We continue to consider these questios inconnection with the bindinheory and RESC) in this and the folowinchapter respectivey

Let us now retur to the exampes (32) iustratin improper movementNot that there are examples exacty ike those of (32) exct tha hec-commandin element with index is in an Aposition ther than in an-position as it was in (32) ie examples which omit the nal step inhederivation of (32); for exampe (38):

(38) (i) *ohn tried t [ t' to win

(ii) *ohn seemed t B woud see t'(iii) ohn is possibe [ t [ B w see t'(iv) it seems [ t [ t' ( rainv) *it seems [ t that hn expectd [ t' t to rain

The surfae structues of (i) and iv) ar rammatical but not with thederivation indicated with th atrx subect movin fro testructurepoitio of t t the COMP position of t and ten to its matix posiinxampes (v) are excuded The structure are once aai

barred by principe (C) of the bindin theory exact as in the case of(32Thi concusion owever is robeatic as we can see by returnin to

cetain exampes rather simar in form o (38 that we dicussed in § 2.6for eame (39i) drived by Move from the Dstructure (39):

(39) (i) ohn bout a book [ [ fr ary to readii) ohn bouht a boo fr ary to rea

We assmed in § 2 that the emp is assined t featre- pmittin movementto-O (cf 26(45)) thouh the otivin asnot stron. Two other questions were discussd namey the pions of(40):

(40) (i) = e or = PRO in (39)(ii) Move applies in the synax or in th Lcomponen t

form (39i) from (39i)

sntactic movement is seected in (40ii) then 39i) is e Sstructure

if LF-movement is selected then (39ii) s the Sstructure n either case,(39i) is the Frepresentation with t a variabe bound by s or(40i) we saw that athouh there miht be some advantaes to choice ofa = e this hoce is inconsistent with the proection princpe whchrequires that = PRO (see chapter 6 for dssoution of the issue fromnother point of view)



2 Lecres on goemen and bndng he a ee

oee we anwe the queton 40), the Freentton 9 qute mlar to 2) and 8). Cealy, the a bok n 39) condedth NP; ], hat the Lreeentato n fact 4 ):

4) John bout [ a boo [ for [ to read t

dtnc fom 3), 38), hoever, the tructure 4 rammatcl. emut teefore determne wy rncle C) doe not aly to 4) barrngth cotructo on the ground that the varable A-bond, wherea 32nd 38) t doe aly, barng thee vey mlar contructon

The tructure we ae now condeg are o te form 42 at LF'

42) ) [ -hrae [ . . . [ t . . . . t . . . ]]]] [ . . . . . . t . . . [ . . . t . . . ]]]

he examle of 2) re of he fo 42) the examle of 38) and 4)are o f te fom 4). In 4), a trace wherea n 42) t a lexcaNP hee 42) reeent 38), moved from the Dtructue otonof hee 4) rereent , baegeneraed n lace. Ou roble to elan wy 42) aay ungrammatc, wherea 2) unamatcal hen t rreent 38) but raat when t rereent

' (41)., e c ty to account for thee fact n term ofdfferec n manne ofdervaton or dfference n form. Let rt conder manner of dervatonThee an obvou dference n th eect between 32) and 38) onthe one han, and 4 ) on the other namely, n 2) and 38) the vableof 42) condexed wt the that A-bnd t by doube alcatonof a yntactc movement rule, wheea n 4) the condexng of and nvolve a rule of cotro aocatng wth n COM. Lokng at theS-tructure, n the ungrammatc cae 32) and 38), condexed wthan threfore bd , wherea n te gramatc cae39)thecondexngllurad n 4) not et etablhe. But the bndng theo ale at-trucue. Therefore rnce C) mark 32 and 38) ungammatcalhle not ayng at to 39) whether ) or ) aumed to be theS-tucture, .e. , whatever anwe we eect for 40)) therefore 39) grammatcal. Thu we make the roer dtncton f the bndng theoyale at S-tucture

he argument whe atractve, bad on a dubou nd robabyncorect aumto concernng ndeng. Under the mlet ndengconvento, the ule of control that relate a bo and [ n 4 )

not a ru gnng ndce ut rather a e that check ndc readyagned by random ndex agnment at S-tructure. hu a the S-tuctue evel, we already have condeng a n 4), 42) Therefre ttructure are ncorecty rued ungammatcal by rnce C) of thebndng theory even though the contro rue that determne that he condeng of and of 42) legtmae ale later. e can thereore



On oenen and bndn 2

sustan the argument based on anner of dervation ony if we adopt a theory of ndexing n whch the contro rule of the LF-component assgns indces, a slght but undesrabe compcation.

et us ty te to appea to a dffeece of fo Putt 38 asefo te oet let us copae e uaatca 32 c s f tefo 42 t te aatca 4 c s of te fo 42 Tees a obous dffeece betee 42 ad 42 aey 42 teaabe ad te NP tat bds t ae bot t te scope of aopeato te pase c bds bot ad eeas 42te Abd N s outsd te scope of te uque opeato tatbds te aabe t Suppose tat e ecast deto as foos

43 s fee f ad oy f tee s o / su tat

bds · f bds te o bds

Ts odcato s acuous fo aes ad s easoabe fo aabes.ts cotet s effec tat pcpe C of te bd teo euesta a aabe ust be fee te axa doa c t sboud oy eeets t te scope of te axa opeato tatbds a aabe cout as poteta Abdes o t We t tk ofte deto 43 as aaoous to a otatoa ceto stadd

quatcato teoy tat takes to ocueces f t aable x to bedstct f oe es t te scope of a quate Q e te ote esoutsde te scope f Q

Te deto of ee 3 s effect a deto ofAfeefo aabes t educes to te foe oto fee ote casese cocept deed 43 s aeady faa fo teoy §2 esa tat a auet ca be assed a oe by a odexed tace oy fte tace s opeatofee c 247 Te deto 43 s sa tspot.

T effect of te eso to 43 s to pet 4 e ba 32. Butte exapes of 38 ea a pobe ey ae ot baed by pcpeC of te bd teoy sce tey ae just ke 4 ude te eso ote oto Afee s tee te soe depedet cosdeato tatbocks te exapes of 38? fact tese exapes ae baed by pcpe245 c estcts oeettoCO to eeets t teeaue . But te atx subect te exapes of 8 be exca caotae te featue Tee s e a dstcto of fo betee teatca ad uaatca staces of 42 te aatcastaces suc as 4 does ot ae e featue [ sce t s base

eeated pace eeas te uaatca staces of38 aste feaue [, sce t s oed fo te CO posto ad ts spossbe de bous tepete coetos

O te assupto tat 245 s ad t foos tat te otofee deed 43 sufces to estabs te dstctos e eque



202 Lees on govement an bnng: the Psa ectes

hs cncusn s s smwha unsasac snc 2.5 whln nasnal was v sngl mvad mpcall. Is nlfncn n fac was ns ha nnpas wll nmv OM

a slha cld asl an alnav cnvnns. L usas hn whh h a ndpndn cnsdans ha a h x

ampls 3). n fac cnsdans f h shw m ndcl ha h

xampls f (3 a ngammacal. Rpang (3 w hav h fllngcass

3) () Jhn d [s [t' wn]]() Jhn smd s ll wld s ']]() Jhn s pssl s ' ll wll s ']](v) sms [s ' an]](v) sms [s ha [ Jhn xpcd [s [ an]]]]

Ths xampls xhas h ang f lvan cass. nsgang hmw s a ach s ld cn nd h pcnpncpl n cas () h suc las cn snc hmax sc psn lacks an agmn. Examls (v) and (v)a ldu h cn applng a LF snc h vaal has n l andvaals ng Rxpssns and hnc agmns ms ha a l.

T sam cnsdan xcluds sc xampls as wha ans]" had hnk sms ha Jhn wll wn]" Nw cnsd () and ) . nhs xampls h agmn ohn appas n a nnsn n L sa h xampls a gammacal nl f ohn s assgnd a l sac Th ac s n n a psn s cann assgn l. Th act s n a psn s n h rac f ohn n accdanc wh(4. Rnng h cnsdans f § 32.2 pncpl 3.2.2.(2)assgns l an Afncn chan n (3) h a wAfncn chans n cnanng us t' and n cnanng s h

la s assgnd n l s h xampls a ngammacal hn applng a LF hf al h xampls (3) a a h c.

ha hs agmn ds n xcld h gammacal xamp ) hch s smla n fm (3). h asn s hah Dsrc(3) n hs cas sass h crn snc f (42) s asgnad n plac. Th pcn pncpl hs dsngshs pplwn h cas f mvmn and h cas f cnl n hgh hslng scs a dnca a and als a sQc f w

ss ha s snacc mvmn ha pdcs h fm (4 ) ha sf slc snacc mvmn as h qd pn n (). wms slc hs pn snc hws h xampl wll ld ngammacal a Ssc h cn. h asn s hah scrs (3) (wh a boo s nw assnd h ndx andm ndxng aSsrc) hn a boo an NP ] ng h sam Afuncn cha w dsnc ls ar assgnd vlang h crn




Ths analysis provides an answe to question (40ii): Moe- must appyin the syntax to ensure that he matrix a bo and the trace in theembedded clause (namey, and t of (42ii), respectively) are in dfferent

Afunction chains. Furthermore, indexin mus be at S-structure, afterthe appropriate Afunction chans re distinuished by appiatio ofMove-, or the -criterion wil aain be vioated. As for question (40i,the projection principe requires that PRO, thouh we shal see inchapter 6, nothin is reay at stake in the choice between PR and efor the moved eement.

Note further that he same analysis rues out exampe (42i) indpendently of the bindin theory fo exacty the reasons ust revewed inconnection with (38) which is of the form (42i). James Hinbothampoints out that there are other exampes of improper movement that arenot blocked by the bindin theory thoh they are barred by the arumenjust outined in tems of -theory. onsider, fo example, (44):

*who did you ve ictures of t to t'

Suppose to have been derived by movement from he position oft to the position of (or conversely), an then to he matrix M position iedin the iterpretaton: "for whch persn you ive pictures f to " here is no semanti constraint aainst ths interpretatinnevertheless it is not an interpretation assind (44), which is unmatica. he bindin thery is not vioated by the sructure 44). heopertor binds the variabes t and t but neiter variabe bindseother, so that conditon () of the bindin theory is not iolated. Bu thecriterion is vioated f (44) is derived in the manner just described. Sincethe varables are aruments, they must appear in positions. But at eastone of these positions mus be a nonpsition since it is led by a nonaruent in fact, e] at Dstructure, or the derivation wl violatethe rcoverbit condition, whch in th case uarntees that Dstruct

is an urate characterizaion of GF-. But s is a ontradiction. xames of the type o (42ii) and (44) therefore indicat tat it is teorrather han bindin theory that provides the fudamenta rason why impropr movemenis barred in (42i .

Notice that it is the dervato of (44) just cnsidered ather than the strcture itse that must be barred. The structure itsel des nt ioatean of the subsstems of pinciples . (2) of the GB-theory, bu it is notderivabe by the rue system .( ) f is theoy. Thus, it woud be pssibeto add rues (presuby, marked rues) of some sort that oud alw us t

derive structures with the enea propertie of (44). . Tardsen (99}for discussion that bears on ths possiblty. Examples of "across theoarddeletion in the sense of Wiliams (978) are a possie case, thouh ehve assm that they are in fact enerated in accordance ith the rulesystem .( ). See th reerences o chapter 2, note 72

Note also that there is aain crucia relance on properties of D-structurein connection with (44).



2 Lectures on govment and binding: the Pa lectures

Smmarzng ths dscssn, -thery e , the -crtern nder herectn prncple stngshes e grammatcal examples (39), (4 )frm the ngrammatical cass (38) reyng crucally n the

dstnctn bewen vement and base-geneatn, the rperes D-strctre and the rle system ncldng the syntactc rle Mve-. ehave als cnsdered w ther pssbltes, each rh cnsdering btwth lesser explanatry frce n these cases: (l) wth a cmplicatn f hendexng thy, the examples are dstngshed by the bndng hey atS-strctre (2) the princple 6.(45) reqrng [wh-J fr mvement-tCOMP cmbnes with the dentn (43) fr Xfree" t mae theapprprate dsnctns ether (l) nr (2) accnts fr t seemsclea t t argen n terms f -thery s the mst prncpled

apprach, well as the ne wth bradest emprcal cverage. therefre assme tha t s crrectn the lght f these cnsderatns, let s retrn t examples (1 8), ( 19),

repeat here as (45)

(45) () hn s t clever [PRO t expec s t catch(ii) hn s t clever [PRO t expect s t catch Bil

As nted earler, (45) s nterpretable nly wth the PRO sbect f theembedded clase taen t be arbtary n reference, nt cntrlled byJohn even thgh t s n a pstn f cntrl shwn by (45ii, wherePRO s cntrled by John. Ths was eft as pen prblem n the earlerdscssn Let s n have anther l at t.

he embedded clase f (45) s (46) at the level f Sstrctre andL:

(46) [ s [ PRO t expect [ s t catch t

Sppse hat PRO n (45) (e , PROn (46)) s cndexed wthJoh,

(45). Therefre John th ndexj The empty ctegy n Cmstbe cndexd wth Jhn; cf. §.6. Therefre i j Bt nw the varable t n (46) s bnd by PROj wch s wtn the scpe f the peratr that-bnds t Therefre, (46) vlaes prncple C f the bndng theryThe sentence (45) has a grmmatcal nterpreat ny when PRO( PRO) s free, .e., arbtrary n reference The estn des nt asn case (45ii). Therere t may receve the gly preferred) cntrlreadng. he crcal prpertes f45), f (41) , e nce again capredby the cncept f bndng dened n (43), r evlently, by theclselyrated nt f -rl ssgnment t -nctn ans. te tht thesame anayss applies t (16v) even h s permtted t be ndexedwth John c nte 40

smila analyss s applcable t sch examples 47)

(47) () they are t stbbrn fr each ther t t t



On ovemen an bnn

() hey re ey for ech oher o k o(i Jhn i oo uorn o k o

205

The correponding repreenion Srucure nd LF re 8):

(8) hey re too tuo for ech other o k to ]]() hey re ey for ech oher ROo k to ](i) John i oo uorn ROo tk o t]]

Bochner (97) noe h ce () i necery interpreed with heemedded uec ritrry in reference though conro i poie in poiion in (9) nd woud ed o no mntic nomy

(9) John i oo uorn o k o BiBut in (8) in (45i) in COM i necery conroed y he mriuec Therefore f RO i conroed y he mr uec i foowh i j o h principe C of the inding theory i vioed in (8Therefore RO mut e free ccounting fo he interpretion of (7)mpe (7) (8) contrt wih uch ce hey woud e hppyfor ech oher to tk o Bi; cf noe 38

Turning to (47i) in ce (i) ROof (8) mu e controed y hemtrphre in uch trucure (50)

(50) they re ey fo B ROo k o ]]

Bu eah ohein (8) i conroed y hey Agin i foow tht i j nce i o necery contro y hy in (50) Therefore (7) i orred y principe (C) of the inding heory. A ir rgument ppiein ce (47i)

There re mny oher queion out the choice of ntecedent forpronoun h re not nwered y he inding heoy; ee for empe

23(7 repeed here (5)

(5) (i) John ked B pn(ii) John od Bi hi pn( John promied Bi h conent(iv) John promied Bi h dmion to the univerity

Among other empe re (52)

(52) (i) John od B too mny thing for m to undertnd() John tod B hing h were oo dfcu for h to undernd

(i) John herd too mny tng for him o undernd(iv) John conider B too tupid for m o p ger(v) John gve Bi ook for hm o red



0 Leures n gvemen and binding he isa eures

he determined or prefeentia choice of antecedent for the pronoun whentaen as proximate in these cases and oers ie hem aries in part on thebasi of conditions extrnsic to his discussion but in part raise questions

wch ot ursue ee that are evan o it. e binin theohowever extends to a considerabe range of cases where choice of aneede epends n sctur ongurains nvovng empty categoias the dscson ndicates.

There are few eated proems that eserve soe mention. Consider again the structures (53)

(3) (i) ohn V Ls t (for) s . . . t . . . (i oh is possibe t (for) s . . . t . . .

These mig arise from successive-ycic appicaio of ove withJhn movng from the Dstrucure poston of 'to CO and hen o themaix osition exacty as in (38). e ae seen tha hese evaions aeexcuded y he &critron. So far ter s no robem.

ut how do we enure tat strutures of he form (53) are no begenerated with Jn in the matr subect position cidexed with theemp caegories of he embedded aus by a contro rue as in 4)?We might excude this possibiity on the groun tat the base rues donot perm geratio ofP in CO bu supposeha we o not adop

this constraint hus permiting base-genertion of (53). e oy possbeinerpretain of (53) is as a purposive cause. Suppose that the mbeddedcause is ne as n (38iiii). This possiy is exudd by the principewhateer i may be

that requires that uosive causes be innitiva

an me geneay tha causes of the fr of he emeddd cuse in(53) are nniiva in many oher strucures as weeg. compex adectivaonstructions f vrious sorts.

Sppse hen ha he embedded cause in (53) is innitiva as n (54)

S () *ohn though for B o vsit(ii) *ohn came over ast nigh for B to spea to he boo was e [for ar to read(iv) the boo is here for you t read

As and () indicate the stuctures are ermissibe and therefore shoudno be rued out by any srucu condton of the so we ae considerng.Properties of thematic structure presumaby rue out e intrpretationas a purposive cause in (i) and (i) this being the inerpretation assigned

to hesecnstructons a the LF-eve.his taes care o exampes of the om (53i. Wha o(3i)? Whetherhe embedded cause is ne or innitiva ese ae xcuded by the&crierion since Jhn is no n a poston and cannot be assigned aroe y j since he two beong o distnct -unction chains. Redundanty these cases are rued ou by he cnsideratons us mentoned theembedded cause is nite.



O gee a bg 20

n § 26, we dscussed the ery margna, and perhaps utmateyvacuous queston of whether the rue Move should be nterpreted as amappng of Dstructure to Sstructure or, alternatvely, as an nterpretverule of the Lcomponent wh exactly the speca propertes of Move,these beng crucaly dstnct rom the propertes of the rules of construaof the F-compnent (the latter dstncton beng substantve) Theanalyss ust presented of (53) n effec corresponds tohe second ofheseoptons: nterpretaton of Move- as a speca rule of the LF-componentOnce agan we se ha eactly the same prncples operate crucalythe assgnment of -role to A-funcon chans or equvaeny, adoptonof (43) wchever pton s selected, revealng agan the margnacharacter of ts queston the proecton prcple ence race theory)s adopted

The precedng dscusson has been lted to the functonng of thebndng theory for arguments wthn causes The prnces{12) are coseto bare saemens of fact and are mnmal, so far as can see he bndngtheory has one proematc feature, howver, at conceptua leve: tgves no answer to e queston (55):

(55 Why are and S the two governg categores?

w return to ths queston shortly

Before ong so, let us brey conser the applcaton ofhe ndngtheory to arguents thn NPs, as n 3 1 (2), repeated here as (56)

(56) () NP*_

� AN pp

p

()

INP*

-

Prncple (C) apples unproblematcaly s for anaphors, we need onyconsder overt anaphors such as eah he snce trace s excuded frompostons and n genea for reasons noten § 3 hough there smore to say about the subect, whch goes beyond the bounds of tsdscusson See the references cted n § 2; aso Obenauer (976), ner1979), Cnque (1979, Sterade (980)

n poston , he anaphor s governed by so that� ts governg

category, n wc tmust e bound hs gves the rght resuts where�s a subect, as n (57,), but the wrong resus where � s not a subect, asn (7,)

(57) () ther stores about each oher() *e heard [ther stores about each otherJ() we heard [some stores about each otherJ



208 Lectures on govement and binding: the Pisa ectures

v) we eard [te sores abo eac ter (a ae beng cclaed)]

n ts case, SSC gves te g eslts togo; noe a n ts caseSSC does no ollow n genera rom te bndng eoy o he GB-ramewok, n contas o te case o argments whn clases Te same stre n moe complex cases, eg , (58)

(58) we tog [a ctres o eac oterJ wold be on sae

Here, te OB-teory maks te senence grammatca we eGB-teoyncorctly reects t he (58) s perap omewa mra and my

be a marked constrcton, as consderaton o some oer langages sggests (c lner (1979)) neveeless n Engls t srely as a derenstas rom sc volaons o te sse (59)

(59) we og [a [Jons pctes o eac oteJwold be on saeJ

Tnng to poson , te qeston ofweter o no s govened wtte goveng caegoy NP depends on e esolton o a qeston dscssed n § 3 .2. 1 . Neter decson concernng govenmen gves exactly

te rgt eslts Sppose ta s ngoverned and s lacks a governngcaegory (tog as Case) Ten we derve te rg esls o (60)b ong-dstance bndng s ncoectly admed n (61)

(60) we read [• eac oters books(61) ey foced me [PRO o read [• eac oters books

Sppose hat s governed by e ead of, so taP* stegovernngcaegoy Then (60) s ncorecty bared and (61) s corectly bared,

tog or wat seem o be e wrong reasonsSppose we ave [VPVing . . . J place of (56) n (62)

(62) *ey preered [ eac oters eadng te bookJ ( 3.1.(3))

nder any o te concepts o governmen dscssed n § 3.2. 1 each others ngovened n (62) Tereoe (62) s no exclded by te bndng eoy,snce each other lacks a govenng caego n s case Smarly, (62)s admtted n te OB-framework, ncorectly B te examle may

no be crca, snce mg elate to e play eqemen oecprocas (see note 57) Compaave evdence sold be elevan ns case

Trnng now to ponomnas n (56) we need ony consder ponons,PRO bng exclded rom e governed posons and , and nproblemac s eplaced by [ V-ing J Te predcons o eGB-teoy ae ta a poon ms be ree n ts governng caegoy P*



On govement nd bndng

n case (56) gvng (63) for the cse of hm proxmate to John

(63) () John saw [mypctre ofhm]() * saw [Johns pctre of mJ() John saw [apctre ofhm](v) John thoght saw [a pctre of hmJ

209

The OB-framework gves e same rests for () d () t marks ()ngrammatc whch appears to be the correct rest for sch cases anote 2.

Wth regard to case (56) consder the examples (6) and exampe(65) where we have V n pace of n (56)

(6) () John read [ hs book]() John thoght saw [ hs bookJ

(65) John preferred [ hs readng the bookJ

Sppose h to be promate to John. fh s governed n (56) then (6)s predcte to be grammatca by the G-theory as s (6) f h s notgoverned and ths lacks a governng category the predctons are the sameThe OB-framework predcts that ( 6 s ngrammatcal and (6)grammatca As for (65) t s marked nacceptabe by the Avod Pronon

prncple 22(5) whch may accont for ts statsSmmarzng the GBframework s a consderabe mpovement overOB on emprca and concta gronds bt there are st probems nthe case of argments wthn s namey case (56). Let s retrn tthese n the context of a somewhat dferent approach towards nyngNIC and SSC

Consder agan the basc strctre of S whch we are assmng to be(66)

(66) FL V where FL [±Tense (AGR)

Here AGR PO and s obgatory wth [+ense] and excded wth[Tense]

Sppose we were to conse AGR to be n some sense e "sbectwhen s present servng as a knd o antecedent to n (66). To avodconfson et s ntrodce the term "SJECT havng the folowngsee the sbect of nntve an NP or a small clase (whether ornot these are of the category A etc as sggested earer) s a SUBJECT

AGR n (66) s a SUBJECT bt n (66) s not f !FL contansGRThe noton SUBJECT accords wth the dea that the sbect s the "mostpromnent nona element n some sense takng FL to be the head ofS Ths we take the SUBJECT to be the captalzed element n (67)

(67) () John [ past AGR] wn



210 Lectures on govement and bndng the Psa ectures

() he ants (very much) for JOHN to wn(i he beleves JOHN to be ntelgent(v) JOHNs readng the book surprsed me

(v) he onsders JOHN ntegentIn cases ()(v), the subject of the embded phrase s the SUBJEC Incase (), the subject s John and the SUBJEC s AGR FurthermreAGRs the UBJEC of the matrx cause n ()(v)

Notce that on these assumptons, NIC reduces to SSC f we reformuatethe SSC n terms of SUBJEC rather than subject hat s, John n () sn the doman of the SUBJEC and ts poston s therefoe paue naccordance wth SSC Rec tat we are consderg INFL o be a cll

ton of features, so at AGR n () c-commands JohnActuay, t s not qute accurate to say that NIC n the sense of theOBframework reduces to SSC rather, what reduces to SSC s a versonof the Propostonal Isand Condton (PIC: the predecessor to NIC)proposed by George and Kornt (1978), whch takes the crcal elementdetermnng opacty to be agreement rather than tense (n the latter cas,the ensedS ondto) In Englsh, there s no dstncton, snce ageement s one-one correlated th tense But ts s notrue n certan otheranguages George and Kornt show that n urksh, where tense and

agreemen are dssocated, t s ·agreement rather than tense that determnes opacty he same s tre n Portuguese, as oserved by Rouveret(see note 59). he nected nntve, contanng the agreement element,assgns nomnatve Case to ts subject, thus creatng an opaque doman the sense of the NIC or te George-Kornlt verson of the PICWe have tactly been assumng the accuracy of the Georgeornt theorall along, takng AGR the governor of the subect to be he crcaleement detmnng opacty Now assumngR to be the SUBJEC,we have only one opaque doman: the doman of a SUBJEC hu NIC

and sse are uned, but along dfferent lnes than those we have so fardscussedhs approach has a conctual advantage over the one presented

above Namely, t provdes an answer to the queston 5) why areand S the two governng categores? he answer now s that and arethe two categores contanng SBJEC, and t s the SUBJE thatcreates an opaque doman In fact, we now have somewhat fferenand more compex concluson S s a governng categor for a n theformer sense, because t always contans SUBJEC (cf the dscusson

of 2 1 (5)), but P s a governng category for a ony when t conans aSUBJ a thus n (68) b not (69)

(68) ohsstory aout a(69) a story about a

Furthermore, other categores (eg, adectve phrases) may also be gove-



On govmnt and bndng 211

ing ctegories i they contin subects (hence SUJES), s in the nysis o sm cuses discussed in §§2.6, 31

ey, then, we wil hve derent nswers in this theory to thequestion o how nphors nd pronouns behve in the probemtic

cse s we hve seen But this pproch wil reduce to the binding theoryo the GBrmework or the cse o rguments in cusesBoth the binding theory reviewed erer nd this new tetive hve

ttrctive etures Let us thereore consider the ossibility o mgmting them, then turning to the problemtic cse o rguments within We ssume the binding theory proposed bove (nmey, (12)) withouttertion nd the oowing two bsic principes, where (II) repces thedeition ( 1 1) or "governing ctegory

(70) () AGR is coindexed with the it governs(II) f is govng tgo for a nd only f is the nimctegory contining a, goveor o a, nd SUJEccessibe to a

It olows tht is governing ctegory ony it hs SUJE Thus Sis wys potenti governing ctegory, nd is so potentil governing ctegory when it hs subect, is A etc under the theory o smlcuses discussed erlier The choice o goveing ctegories now receives

rther ntur chrcteriztion in terms o (70), overcoming the conceptu probem (55). As we shl see number o empric probems reso resoved The question whether S or should be seected s thegoverning ctegory no longer rises

It remins to expin the notion o ccessibty in (0). As or principe(70), it expresses the phenoenon o greement, given the more generlcondition tht when NP nd pronomin (pronou or PRO) re coindexed, they must shre the pproprite etures Thus (70) reduces thephenomenon o obgtoriness o subect-veb greement to gener pro

perties o proximte pronomins, ncuding controlThe intuitive ide behind these constructions s tht n nphor orpronominl serches or the cosest UJECT o which cn be inkedwhere inking invoves coreerence or n nphor nd disoin reerenceor pronoun t cnnot be nked to more remote element "Serchngor subect s stndrd device or nphor in mny nguges, incuding those tht pper to empoy somewht dierent bnding theoryor cetin nphors he SSC nd lso the C (under this interprettion) thus my be thought o s constituting "oc version o this device

o serching or subect Note however tht the "ocity in question isto be shrpy distingushed rom subcency the bounding condition ortrce C § 2.44

We re ssung AG R to be identic to PRO hence noun But it isnot n NP I it were n N, nd i its positon s n Aposition (which isnot cler) then AGR woud be bnder w respect to the binding



212 ectures o govemet ad bdg the Psa ectures

theory, leading o violatio of the principles of tis theoy Thus, principle(C would be violated by (71 ), sinceohwould be -boun by AGR andwe would expect to have such sentees as (72), since ea otheroul beboun n its goveing category:

(71) ohn [N past, AR] wn 67i))(72) (i) each other won

( [N each other] [N[ + Tense], AGR ] win]]

Wile AGR creates a governing category in wich an anaphor must bebound and a pronomnl must be ree, GR is not itself the binderrather, binders are selected as before If we restrict unction chains o as previously, then AGR does not enter into such chains

Returng to the principles of (70), it remains to dene accessibility"The denition is given in (7) in terms of the we-formedness condition736

(73) *[ · ], whereandbearthe same index(7) a s aessbe to f and ony f is in the c-command domain ofa

and assignment o f of the index of a would ot violate (73

ote tha (7) refers to possible not necessily actual indexing of he

condiion {7) holds fr'a variety of constrctions apart from those we areconsideing here, for example, those of (75):

(75) (i) * [N ;the friends of[ each others] parents]( *here is N; a picture of [N ;itself]] on the mantelpiece

(i) * N; the owner of [[ N; his] bat]](iv * [ N; the friends of [[ N their] parents]]

The wel-formedness contion (73) deseres further consideration Per

haps it is too strong as it stands In part, it may be reducible to other conditions peraps e -over codition Let us assume at it is basiclycorrect and considr the notion o accessibility" incoporating it Seenotes 63, 6

For the case of arguments wtin the new theory wors n exactlythe sam way as the GB-theory ust reviewed The nominative subect ofaclause has an acessible SUBCT namely, the AGelement ofF,wich aso governs the subect Hence the lause is a governing categoryand the nomnative anaphor must be bound in is category (wich is

impossible) and proninls must be free in is ctegory (relevan only nthe case of pronouns, since the positin is govee byFL ) The governing categories in the other cases revewed reman exactl as hey were,since clauses must have subects, hence SBES, and these are waysaccessible So ning fuher has to be said about tis case

I the case of arguments witin (c (56ii), te situation is rather




deren, however Conder he example (76)

(76) ore abou ] ene], AGR] durb John

Here he uec NP "ore abou condexed wh AGR whchgovern , by prncple () o (70) Hence NP nonave and agreewh AGR, umaey wh he verb o hch AGR aached. GR acceble o NP, o ha he claue (76) a governng caegory for NP. war we have e grammacal enence (77)

(7) ore abou war durb John

Bu AGR n (76) no acceble o becaue o he wel-ormene

condon (73), whch woud be volaed were condexd wh AGR,hence wh NP, whch elf condexed wh AG R. Correpondngly, oe no ener no an agreemen relaon w AGR.

Conder he exampe 78)

!my

)(78) ey heard �e ore abou each oher]

he NP obec conan a SUBJEC accebe o each other ony whent pecer my n (78) hereore, u n th cae the anaphor each otherm be bond n h caegory, yedng he re ndcaed n (78)

Conder next he exampe (7)

(7) () hey expeced • me o hear ore abo each ohe]]() hey expeced ha • pctre of each oher] wold be on

ale]

( i ) they expeced a [s• [NP* {P

P

R

R

O

O

f

eed

i

ed

ng eac

h

h o

t

h

her

}J would be dfcu 0 e · eac 0 er

n (), NP conan a governor oeach otherb no SUBJE accebe oeach other herefore, no a goveng cegory or e anaphor S,however, doe contan a SUBJEC acceble to each other namely, tbec me hereore S the governng category or each other whchm be bond n th caegory hence he ngrammatcalne o ().nterchange o and they n () woud yed a grammatcl enence.

rnng o cae () o (7), NP contan a governor o each otherbno SUBJE accebe o t. ereore t not a governg caegory oreach other Wha abou S? he ony canddate a an accee SUBJEC agreement element AGR. B h eement condexed wh NP byprncple () o (70) and theeore no acceble to each other becaueo condon (73) hereore S no a governng category or each other



14 Lecture on govement and binding: the Pisa ectures

The element AG R of the matrix clase is, however accssibleo each oth.Therefore the matx clause is the governing category foreach otherwhichmust be bound in this category hus (79) is gratic with coindexingof they and each other But (80) is ungrammatic since each other is notbound in*:(80) �the thought * epeced that ictes of ac other ouldb

on sale]

Case (i) of (79) is simar There is no problem about the anaphor eachother which must be bound in its governing caegory N ie. , boundby PRO. hat abou PRO? As the binding theory requires P is un•govrned in (79 ) and ca e coindexed in any manner consistent withthe theory f control (cf. § 2.43 Therefore (79) is graatic, as i(81 ), in contrast to (&0)

(8) {eeing eah othe} they thought S* I expected that t f ed h th woud bedifcult o e eac o er

Consider next he examples (82), 83)

(82) they tink it is a pity at pictues of each other ae hanging on thewa(83) they tn h said that pictures of ch the ae hangig on the

wl ·

Example (82) is grammatic we (83) is ungrammatic. The differencemigh be attribute to a phenmenon that has bee fequently discussedin connection wit the SSC, namey, that the natue of the suject thatcreates the opaque doman gues in determining the degee of violation

f opacity with agentive sujects inducing maxim violatin and nonaguments miiml vioation. But othe exaples suggest a differentapproach. Consider (84):

(8) (i *the tnk it bothered each other that S]() e thinks it othered that S](i e tinks it botheed him that S] (im poxiate to e)

These differ in grammatic status, with (i) and () ungamatica and ()

gammatical In (84) AGR in the embedded clause is a SUBEC accessible o te itaicid anapho or pronomin and ts cause is thereforete governing category fo tis ement. h examles therefore fltoethe with 83) and contrast ith (82), indicating tha t crucial distinctio between (8) n (83) is not the agentivity (or ome other propertyof he suject it e are left then with the pobem of explaining the difference between (82) an (83), and explaining wh (82) dffers from (84)



On government and bndng 25The crucia difference between 82) and (84) is that i (82), the anaphor is

interna to the extraposed clause associated wit twhile in (84) it is extera to that clause Suppose that the association beween and the extraposedclause is given by the standard device of coindexing Then (82) is of theform (85i), while the examples of (84) are of the form (85ii):(85) (i) they think [ it AGR [ V is a pity] [ that pictures of each

other are hanging on the wal]](ii) NP think(s) [ it AGR [Vbther ] [that S]]

n (85i), GR of S* is not accessible to each oter since coindexing of thetwo would violate the welformedness condition (73) Therefore S* is notthe governing category for each other Rather, the ful clause is thegoerning category, since its GR element is accessible to each other. uteach other is bound in the full clause (namely, by its subject they) so tat(85i) ( (82) is grammatica Note that in (85i), AGR is coindexed with by (70) and t is coindexed wit the extraposed ause with whch it isassociated, accounting for the coindexing of AGR with the extrposedclause

Consider (85ii) Here, AGR of S* is accessible to , so that S* is itsgoverning category Therefore (4i,ii) are ungrammatical (cf note 68)while (84iii) is grammatica in the intended interpretation Exmple (83)fals tgether with (84), not with (82) The relevant distinction beteen (82)and (83) is not a property o the non-argument t as compared to h butrather accessibility of the SUECT

The eement tere should have the same effect as in (82) (cf § 25),sin (86)

(86 (i) they thnk there are [some letters or eac oter] at the post· ofce(i) *they thnk he saw [some letters for each other] at the post

ofceExampe 86i is anaogous o (82), hence grammatic; (86ii) is aogousto (83), hence ungrammatica Again, the differenc in judgment seem tbe in the predicted direction

The considerations just reviewed provide strong evidence that pleonastic and there are coindexed with the postverb phrases associated wththe: lauses and NPs, respectivey There is indendent evidence t thseffect in the case of there namey, it must aree in number with thiseement (cf §45) n the next chapter, we will see that ths assumptionyieds additiona consequences in the prodrop languages

Consider example (87):

(87) they found [ some books [ for each other to read]]

The O-system permits binding of each otherby they does the version



26 Lcurs on govmn and binding h Pisa curs

of the GBsstem we are now considering; but the earlier version of theGB-system, not invoving accessibiity, rejects it as ungrammatic. Thelatter accords with my own judgment (cf. Chomsky (979a)), but I havefound in ectures and discussion that most seakers tend to regard it asgratic, so perhaps this is not a probem for the version of GB-thoythat we are now considering.

Compare he examples (88), (89):

(88) I think it pleased them that pictures of each other are hanging onthe wal

(89) they think it peased me that pictures of each other are hanging onthe wall

Example (88), lke (82), is grammatic. udgments vary concerning (89),but it seems to me to be much better than (83). On our current assumptions, it is grammatic, and comparison with (83) supports this concusion.Again, we see that it is an intervening (accessibe) SUBECT, not anintervening possible antecedent, that creates opacity, in accordance withthe e m being a possible antecedent in (89).

Amendment of the GB-theory to incorporate accessiblity thus yiedsa variety of rather complex and desirable consequences. It is quite possibetat the notion accessiblity admts some deree of parametric variationand that other factors intervene (e.g, the agentive character ofthe subject;cf note 66) Furthermore, it may be that this entire discussion properlybeongs to the theory of markedness rather than of core grammar, andthat the phenomena we have been discussing reect marked properties ofEnglish. If so, then the discussion may serve as an ilustration for anobservation in chapter , namey, that we do not expect to nd chaos in thetheory of markedness, but rather an organized and structured system,buiing on the theory of core grammar. This appears to be true in thepresent case. Cf. Chomsky (979a) for some further discussion, ongsomewhat different lines.eviewing the basic points, we are now assumng a binding theoryappying at Sstructure and incorporating the binding principles (12) andprinciple (I) of (70), which is required in any theory, in some form. Thenotion governing category is dened as in (70) in terms ofaccessibiity as dened in (73), (74). This theory ieds th positive resuts of theearlier version of the binding theoy not involving accessibiity and soaccommodates a compex range of exames of anaphors as arguments inNP that contradict the earlier version. Of the examples involving anaphorsdisussed earlier, only one is not propery handed by the revised binding theory, namey, 9 which, as noted earl, is aso incorrectymarked grammatic by the OBtheory and our ealer version of bindingtheory

(90) *they preferred [ each other's reading the book] ( (62))



On govemen nd bndng 27This is ungrmmtic though th nphor is bound in its govrning ctgory in trms o th prsnt thory As notd rlir howvr it my btht (90) violts dirnt rquirmnt o English nmy th plurlityconition discussd thr

With rgrd to xmpls such s (90) th rvisd binding thorynvrthss my constitut improvmnt ovr th rlir vrsionConsidr xmpl (9 ):

(9) *thy thought * I prrrd ch othr's rding th bookJ

In th rir vrsion sinc eh ohe lcks govrning ctgory thbinding thory dos not prvnt it rom bing bound by hey in (9 ) Butth rvisd vrsion dos prvnt tis sinc eh ohedos hv govrningctgory S* its AGR lmnt bing ccssibl SBJECT Thrfor(9) is rud out prt rom th plurity rquirmnt On might xpct(9) to b still mor unccptbl thn (90) on ths ssumpons whichmy b tru though on cn hrdly rly on such udgmnts As notdrlir comprtiv vidnc should prov rlvnt

It rmins ny to considr pronouns in rgumnt positions o NPc (56) As w hv sn ths ris vrious problms th primry onbing tht thir bhvior is not consistnt with tht o nphors Lt usrconsidr gin th xmpls (6365) rptd hr s (92):

(92) (i) John sw * my pictur o im](ii) *I sw * John's pictur o him]

(iii) *[* John sw pictur o m](iv) John thought * I sw pictur o ]](v) * John rd his book]](v) John thought I sw his book]](vii) (?) John prrrd is rding th book]

Troughout w r considring th cs o he proximt to Jon; NP*nd S* r th govrning ctgoris in th sns of th rvisd bindingthory In xmpls (i) (iv) nd (vi) e is r in its govrning ctgory ndth sntncs r grmmticl In xmpls (ii) nd ( ), hes bound in itsgovrning ctgory nd th sntncs r ungrmmtic (c not 2) Thsttus o (vii is prsumby dtrmind by th Avoid Pronoun principlThis lvs only (v) s problmtic cs is vidnt tht ithr (92v)or (93) dos not undr th binding thory sinc in ths constructionsth pronoun is not r whr th nphor is bound:

(93) thy rd ch othrs books]

W r ssuming tht (93) lls undr th binding thory nd tht somothr condition must prmit (92v) ovrriding th rquirmnts o thbinding thory It hs somtims bn suggstd tht s n (92) s n



2 etures on govement and binding: the Pis etures

obigatr variant o hme's wch is n act excude in (92v) contraryto the redictio o te binding theory Wheter or not is correct does focus attention n phenomenon tha is only patiay captured y

any f the approaches we have been investigating here namy h nercompementary distribution between proximte ronouns an reexives. notes 2 6 and § 52. For an accont o such constructions as (92v) indierent terms see Fiengo and Higginbotham (1979) omarativeevidence suggests that something othe than the binding theory is invoved given dierences among aguages as to whether the analogue hisin (92v) can be regarded as proximate to the matrix subject

One problem eft unresolved in the preceding discussion rates to thestaus f sch exampes as (94iiv):

94) (i) there is a man in the room(ii) there arrived three men() il est ariv tois hommes ( (94ii))(iv) NP* u arrestato Giovanni

(Giovanni was arested)(v) ohn is s worst enemy

In (i and (ii) there is coindexed with the NP a man three en simarlyi

is coindexed withtrois hommes

in (i) On the status oNP* in (iv) see§ 4.5 ; whatever it is it is coindexed with Giovanni as we sha see In eacho these cases then the post-verba NP is coindexed with c-commandingeement in vioation o principe (C) o the binding theory Ts fact suggests that the coindexng in these ase is o a diferen natu than thecoindexing reevant to the binding theory One possibiiy is that it isdetermned in th LFcomponent and is thus exemp from te bindingtheory but this s�ems rather doubtul It seems more atural to supposethat the coindexing say in (i) is determined as pat of te rue insertingthere or ese piced up" rom the NPtrace reation i (i) is based one Simiar in the other cses Let us assume then that there is adiferent stye o indexng in cases (iiv) of (94) ay o-superscptngTe same then must be tue o the clsely noous case involving itnd acoinexed extraposed cause In view of the ineraction o ts coindexingwith tht invoving AGR and subject ilustrated above i is reasonae toassume that the subject-AG R eation establshd b (70) ch isaso not · binding reatio as we have seen s csuperscipting ater thanc-subscripting I wil henceoth adop these assumptions which have certain consequences in the susequent discussion

Case (v) o (94) iustrates a diferent pobem There is at least strongtendency to require hi own in this case when he is taen as proximat toJohn On this topic see dwards (979) Higginbotham (190)

The concept anaphor" has been et rathe vague i he precedingdiscussion; an anaphor has been characterzed loosey an NP with nointrinsic reference s has oten been obseved the cross-linguistic staus



On govemen and bndng 29of reexves s partcularly problematc; cf. note 62 It s orth notng thatthe opacty condtons seem to hold for certan lements that do notfuncton as anaphors n the narro sense that appes to Ptrace, echoher PRO, etc., but that fall under a somehat looser characterzatonof the noton. For example, the trace of extraposton (cf. § 24.4) appearsto meet the opacty condtons, as lustrate n (95)

(95) () Johns nove t arrved ast eek that you orered]() [the oos t arrved last eek [at you orere) a certan book t arrved last eek that you ordered(v) [the fact t s clear [that hs arguments are nvd

In case (), the subject NP s a governng category for the trace of theextraposed clause, and the sentence s corresponngy ungrammatcal,h a trace free n ts goernn category. xamples (v) sugges att s not a speccty constrant that s nvolved, as t s n te case ofmovement The argument s not entrl strghtforard, hoever, sncerelatve clauses are ess than perfect even n the non-extraposed cas thpossessve subjects Stl, (95) seems much orse than ts source (96),ndcatng that the effects of opacty may be nvolved

(96) ohn's novel that you ordered arrved last eek

Such examples agan suggest that the noton governng category denedn terms of accessbe SBECT s reevant, and that the conceptanaphor should perhaps be extended to the trace of extraposton, sothat (95) ould fal under prncple of the bndng theory.

Fengo and Lasnk 97 6) and Qu co 976) provde evdence suggestng that the relaton of an NP to a dsplaced quanter related to t(perhaps, the eaton of the trace of the quanter to the quanter ssubject to opacty, though the concluson s not unproblematc. he same

dea s pursued n the GBframeorkn Belett (98a) Cf. aeggl (198b)for further dscusson, ncludng a de range of exampes and offernga prncpled bass for a generazaton concernng oated quantersdscussed n Baln (979) I no pursue these nerestng opcs, chare aso relevant to a proper understandng of the noton anaphor

A problem concernng anaphors noted by Lug Rzz s that anaphorsmay be governed but lack governng categores because here s noSBECT accessble to them, as n (97):

(97) [for each other to n ould beunfortunateOne mght assume that (97) s barred by the fact that t has no nterpretaton, but ths move not resolve the problem properly, snce t prevent us from adoptng the smplest rule for terpreaton of eachoher (smary, other anaphors): namy, apply the rule to any condexed



220 Lectures on govement an bnng the Pa ecture

pair NP, each other) This simpst ru woud, in fact, incorrcty assinan intrprtatin if w wr to xtnd (97) to (98):

(98) for ach othr] to win] woud b unfotunat for thmTh point is that th stuctura ration btwn th antcdnt and thanaphor shoud b xprssd in th binding thory, not by a (quitgnray rdundant) stipuation addd to th ru of intrprtation

A simp way of ovrcomng this difcuty (suggstd by Norbrt Hornstin) is to adopt (99) as a princip of th thory of govrnmnt

(99) A root sntnc is a govrning catgory for a govrnd mnt

Th proposa is ratd to th probition of e discussd in § 26Aopting (99), both (97) and (98) ar rud ungrammatica by th bindingthory, sinc thy contain an anaphor fr in its govrning catgory

Othr qustions aris that mrit furthr considration Rca thdnition of govrning catgory givn as (70

(70 is a govrning catgory for a and ony { is th mimacatgory containing a a govor ofa, and a SECT accssibto a

Suppos that w wr to simpfy this dnition to (), dropping thrfrnc to govrnmnt and introducing th obvious chang in trmnoogy

() is a bnng catego or a if and ony is th mnima catgorycontaining a and a SECT accssib to a

Corrspondingly, w rcast principls (A) and (B) of th binding thory as(101 ), nd rstat (99) (102)

(10) (A) An anaphor is bound in its binding catgoryB) A pronomina is fr in its binding catgory

02) A oot sntnc is a binding catgoy for a govrn mnt

Ths modications clary hav no ffcts fo mnts that ar govrnd,sinc for such mnts th govrno wil aways b containd in thbinding catgory. Hnc thr is no ffct for NPtrac, wch is awaysgovrnd, by virtu of 2.4 1 (2i) a principl concrning trac-govrnmntthat w hav bn assuming throughout and to which w rturn in th nxtchaptr n th cas of ovrt lmnts, th only ungovrnd position, whav assum, is that of subct of grunds, as in (03)

(103) (i) thy prfrrd ach othr's ading th book] ( (90))() ohn prfrrd s rading th book (himslf)] ( (92vii))



On govement and ndg 221e have already discussed the problematic status of (i). It remainsprobematic under tis revision of binding theory, even more so, perhas,in that we now lack an account even of (91 ); but it is doubtful that tis is a

serious probem, since whatever principle bars (103i) w also bar (9),presumably. As for (103ii), we have attributed its questionable status withproximate hs to the Avoid Pronoun principe Ptting the effects oftisprincipe to the side, the status o (03ii) differs under the present andformer theory In the former theory, (103ii) was admtted since s lacksa governing category under te revision, it is barred sinc hs has abinding category (namely, the ful clause) and is bound in tis category,violating (10B) But again, it is doubtful tat tis is a meaningful difference, since as we have seen, other considerations must apply in anyevent in the case of possessive pronouns; see the discussion of (92v)

In summary, there seem to be no meaningful consequences to theproposed revision in the case of overt eements or NP-trace Tis eavesony the case of PRO e basic property of PRO is that it is ungoverndTs property is a consequence of the former theory, since PRO, as apronominal anaphor, must ack a governing category by principles (A)and (B) of the binding theory But this result no longer foows under therevision to ( 0 1). The ony consequence that folows from (10 1 )s that PROlacks a binding category, wich does not imply that it must be ungovernedBut the conclusion that PRO is ungoverned nevertheess folows under therevised theory, namey, from (101) in cojunction with (02), wich, as wesaw, was also required in the forer theory. f PRO is goerned, then b(102) it always has a binding category in wich it must be both free andbound by (10 1 ) hence PRO is ungoverned.

It seems, then, that the former inding theory can be simped, with(70) repaced by 0 There remains, however, one probem, ustratedby (104)

(104) (i) ohn epected im to win(i) ohn tried PRO to win]](iii) ohn knows how PRO to win]]

n (i), hm cannot be coindeed with John or (10 1B) wll be vioated Butexactly the same argument shows that PRO cannot be coindexed withJohn in (ii), (iii), an incorrect resut Repacement of binding categoryby governing category gives the correct results, in tis case thereforeappears to be necessary to introduce a crucial reference to govement inthe binding theory, as in (70), though its effects are so narrow to

suggest that an error may be lurking somewhere.Wie there are a number of remaining probems,3 in gener the GBapproah to the theory of binding seems quite successfu in overcomingthe empirical and conceptual probems that arose in the OBframework,wie extending empirical coverage. Of the probems raised in § 3 . 1 , thosenvoving PRO are resoved in quite a natural way and of the concetualproblems, we have reached plausibe answers to ( ), (2) and (6): namey,



22 eure on goemen and bndng he a eure

(1) the pobem of edudaces etwee Case ad bdg heoy, owesved tems ofhe commo compoet the theoy of govemet2) the poblem of exaiig why the two ueated domas subect-of

G ad doma-of-ubect shoud be opaue 6) the pobem of diga moe atua accout o disoit efeece ut seeote 39. heeoftheobems asd § 1 emai to be discussed: (3) the S(C)heomea (4 the pobem of deivig th *[ha]te fom moe easabeassumptios ad eatig t to S( C) (5) the pobem of smplfyg hedexg covetos of the O-famewok, educing them if possibe toadom assgmet of efeetia idces. s fo 5), I have be assumgthat the eductio is ossibe thus takig the pobe to be soved, butthee ae seous difces to whic I will etu § 5 1 fo te peset,

et us cotu with te assumpto fo expositoy puposes. Pobems(3)ad wil be the topc of chapte 4.

Notes

One mig appea o he Avoid Pronoun prcipe 22.(5) o acoun for hiscase, snce PRO s permied in he position f the pronoun Bu he same phnomenon canbe observed evn where PRO is (for whatever reason) no accepable eg, "John wudae for hm o win, "Jon would ha i o win Furhermore, the Avoid Pronounprnciple generally seems to assgn preferential readings, a least n Englsh (bu cfJaeggli (980b), where a stronger inerpretation is suggted in te Romance languag),whereas n he example (v) disjoint reference is obligaory; and wth eveneas anteceden,te inerpretation as "for al x x would refer for x o win is comletely excluded2

For some reason disjoin referece seems s ha obgaory in may c as

and reexv can argnally appear when te marix suj is eg, Jhn; touh wen hemarix subjec s evene he n (xi) canno be in its scope; ta s, (xii) cannot be interpredas "for al X X eard some sor abou X" f Coms (977a, capter 3) were heres an appeal to the NA rncple to explain e margina properies o tese constructions3 The assumption here is at while (5) is grammatical, (i) is no

(i) ey though I said tha pictures of each other were on sae

Judgmens in the ase of such examples as (i) are no very solid, bu I thin ta there is adifference of judgmen in the assumed direction. I wll return o the question oflong distancebindng for over aaphors i § 323

There are unresolved problems in this connection Thus English, ) is ungrammatical,by virue of SSC, but in Dutch the equivaent is grammatica

(ii) hey forced me to read each others boos

Recal ha here s no long disance bding for race because of e subacency prncile;cf § 2.. Cf Koster (l978b,c), (980); ane (1979c, 1980a)5 In fact, there is aso a third componen to the w-island condition, asn such forms

as *"who did John wonder how wel o do the wor, were the ungrammaticansapears stl more extreme han in (1 1). We will sugges in §322 that such examples arbaed by the fact that the varable acs Case and role Cf Vergnaud (97), who presents arguments to the effect tha ndirect objectNP prases in French are NPs; some interestng consequences of ths and reled assump-



On goemen and bndng 223

tions in French ad Spansh are deveoped n Jaeggl (980b) to whch we retur. We mightthk of n Englsh as a simlar element, in effect, a asearker.7 f. Kaye (1980d,e), Vergnaud and Zubizarretta (980).8. Jaeggl (1980b) dstiguishes s-government (naely, goveent by a subcategoriza

ton feature) fro c-governent (aely, b categoy). He ponts out that the litatonson s-governmet just noted mght be overcoe we assume that the Exceptioal marker believe) is sub�ategorized for a clause and that s-goveent of the clausepercolates to its subject.9 But as we have see in chapter 2, there are other reasons why rasing verbs tend tobe ntranstve. f. 2.6.(38}39), 2.7(24).10. he geund ght be analyzed as cotaining a clause nteal to the We putths questio aside here, as elevant to the poit at ssue. 1 . ontanment in (12) need not be proper contanent; thus s contained Lr ]. he sae holds for domination. ai is awith i bars

12. opare "I want the vase broken], wth obigatoy -deletion i the cople-

ent postion of a verb, excludig PRO and requirng a phonetically-realized subject fothe sall clause as discussed in § 2613. Hence there can be no possble Exceptional ase-markng i such stuctur as

() V s ' . . . ]]

Suppse there is -deletion in () hen inherent ase must be assigd to whch ispossibe, inherent ase is linked as suggested to -role hs sees not unreasonable.See chapter 2, note 8914 f van Rmsdjk (1980) for a moe geeral discussion, and Vergnaud (forthcong) for a mre ully develped theoy. O ase-assignment b nouns n the Semtclanguages, see Aoun (1979b), Borer (1979). See also arlson (1978), Babby (1980).5. f. Bresnan and Grmshaw (1978), Groos ad van Remsdk (979), Fehr 1980),for vayng approaches.16 . See Aou 1980b) for relevant discusson also Borer 1979, 980) for discussio ofexamples that appear to vioate the assumption here that variabl must have ase.17 opare the argumet by Kayne ad Pollock (1978) that stylistic inversion ispossibl n French oy after a -phrase or its trace. See also Kayne (1979a) Note thatt s ot mportant n ths context to dstnguish a theoy of -oveent fro an alternativen whch the -phrase s generated n its Sstucture postion or moved to ths 'postion inone step, wth traces or some euivalet) n th OM position of succsivecyclic

ovemet, as proposed, e.g., in Bresan and Grshaw 1978). f. § 2.4.6.8. hs is ot the only possblty. We eur i chapter 4to the possibility that thecopleetzer that in English taks on properties of the reatve pronoun, in whch caseit mght be assued tat t too must pass the ase Filter. But even so, the sae proble

ould arse whe that too is deleted.19. f. ay 1977) and work revewed there, along with many subsequent studi.Note that the exaple 20) with the LFrresetaton (21) is presuably not excluded onany ndependet seantc grounds Silar exapl are gramatcal n dalects thatpert/-clause complemets to t. f. hoskY and Lasnk 1977).20. ote tha this conditon would not be operative in the case of a viabe i anon--position, as in applcatio of -movemet to an elemet i the italicized positio of

i)) (a) they took advantage of John

(b) it is rainig

But suc possibiti are presumaby excluded by the requremet that varables, asR-expressons, require a role. here remain prolemaic cas, for exaple, ) (copare"I cant ake anythng of that suggestio) ad :



22 Lecture n gvement and bindng the ia ecture

(ii wha do you make of hat suggesto?(iii how muh advanage did you ake of John?

We reurn o suh exames as (ii in haer 6' Exame (iii is ehas margina, bu as

Roger Higgins has obseved, it is fr moe· aetabe than (iv, indiaing that oneestruuring has aied by an idiom ue, the omlex hrase reatd and resumablyassigned a exial aegoy by this ule is immune o futhe oerations

(iv *how muh advanage was John aken of?

he exa status of he varable in suh exames as or (v, et., remains an oen uestionin he sysem we ae develoing here

(v how muh food did hey et?

21 See aso Couuaux (1980, forthoming; Burzio (1981 22 Reall tha these ases may fal togehe if NFL is taken as the head ofS23. oe eisely, he -funtion hain of is ([NP,S, [NP, [ V, whee is heright number of bars for he maxma roetion, unde the assumtions disussed eaieA moe reise formulation will be given in hate 624 Real ouns roosa tha he PF-omonent ays no aention o NP akingCase whle he LF-omonent disegards NP laking -oe, Case and -roe layinganaogous roles in the wo omonents; see he last aagah of § 2625 he fas of liaison ae diult to estabish, in art beause the releva asesare somewhat aiial and erhas taught. As fo the semiauxiaries, whh diffesignianty among themselves, while there ae arguments showing hat some esemblerasing vebs, thee ae othes indiating the onay (eg, "John seems not o be interested,*ohn has not to be interested On Longobrdis ter see aso van Remsdk andWilliams (1980, Aoun, Sorihe, Vegnaud, Zubiurea (198026 Cf. Kayne (978, Jaeggli (1980a, Chomsky (1980b, hate 4, noe 24.27 Cf. Fiengo (194, 979, Burzio (198 28 Cf Jaeggli (1978, 1980b, Aoun (1979b, ergnaud (forthomng. A obem inthis aroah is that Case must someimes be assigned o NPs wih no exial N as head, as ingeunds. Cf § § 23 and 4.529 Note hat we may exlude ses of extraositio from this disssion, sine theydo not enter into binding theoy, the trae not beig an NP-tae; butsee the disussion of323(95 We may also exlude fom onsideration ases of ighward NP-movement bduntion, sine in ths ase am assumng that we neve have a rae remaning at LF; theae is led eiher by a onomina element (ehas PRO; f § 45 or by a leonastielement suh as thee A possibe exeption is Fenh stylisti invesion (f Kayne andPollok (1978, Kayne (1979a, Jaeggli (1980b. We restrit attentio in ths disussion tomovement-to-OP (o adjuntion o S or S; see hae 2, note 33 nd sruturreseving movementto-NP30 Uness we invoke the opeato "fo x = NP, as in omsky (1975 o Kayne(1979a (in the later, rea use is made of this ossibility3 Cf § 24.3 on some uestions that arise as to whether the -oand reuirementis too song32 n unublished wok, Rny Huybegts suggests a deniion of ths so fo thenotion "variable (seially, taking the loa binde to be an element bearing an GF,not neessarily an oeato of some sot, and exoes the onseuenes on the assumptionhat liis bind tae so that the bound ae is a varabe.33 n the Psa leures themselves and some subseuen wok of mne an by ohes was given as the denition of "minma goveing ategoy. A govening ategoy o{ was dened as a aegoy onaining { and a govenor of { and a mnima goveningategoy s a governng ategoy otain in all govening ategories Note the tai



On govemen and bndng 225

assumpton that governng categores are nted I no usng only the noton "mnmalgovernng category of the Psa lectures, no called "governng categoy Note alsomlar o he concepts of ouveret and Vergnaud (1980) partcularly ther CaseIsland Condton I return beo to the choce of govenng categor

3 Ths as the assumpon n OB and n he Psa lectues, but I ll later suggestthat t s ncorrect and that the bndng theoy apples at Sstctue The dscusson thatfollos s ndependent of ths queston, except here noted35 To elmnate any ambguty n (12) uderstand t n the foong moe explctformet f be a governng categoy for Then

(A) f s an anaphor, t s bound n f(B) f s a pronomnal, t s free n f(C) f s an expresson, t s fee

Thus t s not presupposed that has a governng categoy, an mporant matter, as eshall seen the lectures n Psa on hch ths text s ased gave the bndg theory n a somehat

dffeen fom Snce t has been dscussed n hs form n subsequent terature, I ll gveths alenave verson for eference:

(A) f s an anaphor o lacks a phoetc matrx, then () s a varabe or () sbound n evey governng caegoy

(B) f s Casemarked, then () s an anapo or () s free n evey govengcaegory

(C) f s a pronomnal, then t s free n evey mnmal governng category

In ths formuaton, the terms "govenng categoy and "mnmal govenng category areused n the sense of note 3 and the term "anaphor s used ony fo ove anaphors suchas ech other, excludng trace

Consder [NP e] th Case n hs theory Snce lacks a ponetc matx, t s subject o(A), and snce t s Casemaked, t s bect to (B) Therfore, snct s not an anapor bydenton, t s a varable and s free in evey govenng ctegor Thus pncple 322.(6)follos from rght to e; Casemaked trace s a varable Snce t plausbly holds fromleft to gh, as e have seen n the pecedng secon, he prncpe hods n fu genealy nths system3 As noted several tmes, the entre GB-heory mus be exended oer cases

eg, left dslocated tems and topcs, predcae nomnals, heads of eatv Anotheconstucton to be consdered s the AtoCOM case nomnatve subjec sudn (1979b ) As notes, ts sland popet foo from the NC But hey do notfollo fom the GBtheory unless there some sense n hch he conscton s a govengcategory for the subect, th, peraps, the NP sect govee by Aux n COM, as suggests But probles arse n the mpoed verson of the bndng theory to hch e tun belo, nvolng accessblty of sbject Cf Chomsky (198).

·

The remark n the ext has one excepto: empty n COM We assumed n § 26 haelements n OP (e, operatorke elemen) receve no role et us assume furtherthat they ae not subect to the bndng theory ttle tuns on hese decsons37. Consde such examples as (), ():

(i) I spoke to the men about each other() I spoe about the men to each other

The order of the to PPs s free, th a preference for the phrase precedng ("e spoke toBll about ohn, "e spoe about ohn to Bl) But only n case () can the of therst PP be the antecedent of the anaphor·ase follos fom the bndng theory, snce



226 ecture on govement an bnng the a eture

eac oe is ot boud by e m wic does ot cc�mmad it Case i mig be teesult of a eaaysis ule applyig to speak , tus pemitti ccommad tis case.If tis is coect, we woud exptiiio be pefeabe o iv, ad we ud expect disjoitefeee to be moe easily iolable i vi ta i v:

iii te me wee spoke to aout te ew egulatioiv te ew egulatio was spoe about to te mev we spoke to Jo about imvi we spoe about Jo to im

O te same assumptios, te pase sould be like te pae we te eaaysisis iapplicable us vii sould be as bad as ii, ad viii sould be pefeable to ix:

vii I spoke agily to te me about c oteviii a I spoke to Jo ad ill about eac te

wic e did you speak to about eac teix a I spoke to Jo ad to il about c oteb to wic me did you speak about c ote

Some of tese cosueces seem plausible toug judgmets a ucetai. Otes aewog specically vii. t is ot clea wete tis appac is o te igt tack.3. Recal tat we ae assumig a ate idiosycatic ule ofdeletio i immiatepostvebal positio fo cetai vebs wit some diaectavaiatio. § 24.2

My o udgmet about 4iii,iv is tat tey ae magia at bt but ave foudtat may speakes d tem quite acceptabe. I ay evet, tey sey do ot ave testatus of tue bidig teoy violatios suc i:

i *tey would be appy if eac ote wo

e itea stuctue of te complemet of te matix veb i 14iv is ot etiel cSuppose it wee agu tat i is a P of te fo i-S. e te exampe would fal udete discusio of bidig ito NP to wic wil tu soty.3. Note ta te eampe give below ae tict to distict efeece O disoitefeece moe geey, see § 5. . 4 is eampe is ot i ac , alog wit ad i.41 We actualy deive te possibly stoge piciple tat PR lacks a goveigcatego. Give te deitio Iof "goveig categoy, te to iciples ae equivaet,

but oe migt exploe a boade otio of goveig categoy tat tk l to be a goveigcategoy fo if l is te miima categoy eat to Caeigmet, i.e., i wic Caes assig o ceck wete is goveed i l o ot. Cf elleti ad ii 10,Jaegli b. Wi tis boade oti call it goveig categoy icludig tisca as well as te case de i 11 it olows om te bidig teoy as sat ttOacks e. e poit may ot be icseuetal Supose fo exampe, tat oiative Case i some lguage is siged o ceck by ageemet wit te veb ate tagveme by NF, as is suggted fo podo lagu suc as talia ad Spais ite eeec cit. Supose ute tat te epty subjt i su laguages s RO, Jaeggi poposes It is still cucialy equied tat 20 old i te old sese, toug PROow as a goveig categoy*

42 Peaps etedig to i C OMP cf te discussio of 2.6 .ii We etuto tis qutio diectly, ad cocude ay i capte 6 tat o suc extesio is ecsay.43 I am idebted to a oymous eviewe fo Liguisic Iquio tis obseaio Aote case teat as PROmovemet i O wic, ot tee, excludabitay itepetatio is te case of movemettoCOMP. Cf. te discussio of 26 iiad ote 15 capte 2 See capte 6 fo a possibe explaatio.



On govement an bnng 227

45 There re furher rmictions, n prtculr, hen stress vries, but they do notseem to me to ber directly on the questons no t issue

For the subsequent dscussion, the crucil cses of principle (C) re those in hich nR-expression is not permtt to be bound by pronominl, n () or (ii):

(i) h sid tht ry kssed John;i) ho; dd he; sy ry kssed t;

For our purposes, e could restrict principe (C) to this cse, hence to (25i) but not (25i)Though the question is peripher, let us consider the sttu of princple (C) s given

R-expressons re free Cery, this is the simplest nd most gener princple ccountngfor such cses s (), (25) Therefore, e ll dopt this princple unless there srelevnt empric evidence to the contrry Supercy, there ppers to be such evidenceit s possible to conrive contexts in hich such structures (25) re cctble (cf Evns(980)) But it is not cler tht such contexts provde counter-evidence to principle (C),

despite ppernces The reson is tht there ppers to be gener discourse prnciple ofthe rough form (ii), th the corolry (v):

vod repetition of R-expressions, except hen conditions rrnt(iv) When condons rrnt, repet

Suppose tht some gener discourse condtion of the form hence (iv), ccounts forthe contex th permt (25ii) Then these contex do not consttute counterevidece toprinciple (C) rther, they indicte tht principe (C) my be overridden by some conditionon discourse, not very strtling fct By the sme token, the judgment tht (25i) is ungrmmc oes not consttute positive evidence for principle (C) (though t folos from s

prncpe), snce it fs under ()Simlr considertions pply n the cse of leged counter-evdence invovng precedenceconditons to the principles goveing pronomn bnding

t my be tht there is evdence to sho tht princple (C), s stted, s too strong, but toestblish this is not s simple s is sometmes ssumed

Pincipes (i) nd (v) uite possibly f together th the void Pronoun principle, theprinciples goveing gpping, nd vrious left-to-right precedence conditions s prnciplestht interct ith grmmr but do not strcty speing consttute pr of distnt lngugefculty, or t lest, re specic reiztions n he nguge fcuy of much ore generprinciples involving let effor nd tempor seuence Still, interctions ith grmmrmy be very close s is prticulrly cler in the cse of the Avoid Ponoun prnciple

4 Sy, those of Higginbothm (1979) ihin the OBfrork or Higginbothm(1979c) ithin the GB-frmeork47 But not in other respects, specicly, not in contexts of e crossover iWso's sense, s in exmples (34) belo For discussion, see Chomsky (977, chpter41980, chpter 4), nd the references of the precedig note48 Te sme is true of ek crossover, nd the simlrity extends to the vrbe eby foc stress See the references of the lst o notes nd (34), belo49 n this cse, m sumng rule of LF-movement for the embedded phre book long the ln o Chomsy (977, chpter 3) Aoun, Hosten nd Sporiche(1980 We eturn to this topic in the next chpter50 Exmples such s (i), (i) re cited by Brody (1 979) i suppor of the conclusion tht

the binding theory holds t S-structure Exmple (v) is suggested by Domniue Sportiche5 Ths problem s pointed out to me by Robert Freidin52 We hve restrcted the theory of control to choice ofntecent ny)or PROTherefore, technicy the sttement in the text is correct only e ccept the opton =PRO in (39) But it is reonbe o ssume tht f = e, then it is n extenson of the theoryof cotrol ht determnes the codexing of a bok nd p ] in CM in 4), gven theys in hch -roles ener into determning te nteceden in purposive constructions Letus herefore ssume such n exenson of the theory of control, n ce e. This ssue



228 Lectures on govement nd binding: the is ectures

diappear under the einterpetatio of the notion "empty category to wch we etu inchapter 6 whee in fact we wll ugget a omewhat dfeent analyi but one that doe notcrucially affect the dicuion hee.53 I aume here te analye propoed in Chomky (97b wch are analog!to

the analyi of purpoive contruction in OB asmed throughout. I have put aide thequetion of the tatu of in (48ii). The concluion that the-phrae i in e matixclaue in (48ii) i baed on conideration dicued in Chomk (977b) and efeencecited thee. If the -claue i regaded a iternal to the embedded claue in (48) thent exampe reduce to (48i). On tructue o the fom (48ii) ee § 5.4.54. One mght ugget a dfeet principe to account fo example (48iii) nameythat an anapho canot ee a a antecedent. Th would alo exclude uc example as (i)wth he taken a proximate to hey; and alo (ii) ( and (iv)

(i) they expected each other to get Bll to ke hem(ii) they expected each othe to like each othe

() they expected each othe to hurt themeve(iv) they peruaded each other to ente the competition

Cae (iv) i cetainly grammatical idicating that the popoed principe canot be gvein t general form. Exampe of the type (i)i) have been dicued in the teratue onrecipoca. They eem to me rather marginal but do ot eem to cotitute vioation at alla cea-cut a thoe I have been dicuing.

Note that the example jut dicued provide an argument idependet of oe ofChomky (77b) ad OB fr movemet-to-CO eaving a varable uch conruconsa purpoive and complex adjectival contruction uch as (47). Namey uch movemet irequired to form the S-tructue that wl yield the proper interpretation of RO ude

the bindig theoy55. I am indebted to an Kote for everal of thee example56. One quetion for wch I have no oution arie in connection wth exampleuch a (39i) Hee P ] in CO doe not c-command the variabe t becaue o thepeece of yet it bind t e wll ee n the next hapter that there i ome merit inthe popoal that at leat one type of govenment doe not hold in ilar tructue. Weght ovecome the poblem by edening "variable replacing "bound by "condexedwith an opeato in a c-commading CO a chapter 2 note 30. Peding furtheiight wll eave the matter in uatifactoy tate.57. But the analogue to (6 ) i grammatical in Dutch; note 3. Thee i urthe variation among laguage that houd be exloed n Engh ea oen impoe a kind of

plualty equirement elhee in he entece a in (i)iii):

(i) *they ead each other's book(ii) *they aw a picture of each other( *they ued the chld againt each oer

Thee become gammatical piur ad ild are pual (and ambiguou i cae (i)).n Fiih ad Noegian t condition doe not hold ; the equivalet of (i) fo exampleae gammatical (Lari Calon and arald Taalden peonal commuication). Theitatio with regard to uch cae a (iii) in Engh i obcue. Th (iv eem moeacceptable a poied out by Dominique Spotiche:

iv) they kicked the bal towad each othe

Furthe nvetigaion i neeary to determne he charace and paramete of thee ontucin a § 5.2 for futher coment.58. On the behavio of ponon i ee Fego and Higgnbotham (979).59. have aumed that t i the unmaked cae and that nected initive as in




Portgese, consttte a marked excepton. On the latter, see Rouveret (1979 1980)Zubzarreta I980)60 Recal tat tere are mportant advantages to the IC ove the PIC or TensedSConditn, for example, n te case of long-dstance construal as in (i), (ii), wic areadmtted by te IC bt excluded by te PIC or TensedS conditon without ad ocstpulations:

(i)()

tey expected [ tat [pictures of eac oter] would be on sale]tey expected [ ta [ I PRO feeding each 0. ther jJ would be dfcul] PRO to feed eac oter

In bot cases, S is ensed (inected for agreement) and ence woud block construal ofech other in (i) and PRO in (ii) wit they gven the PIC or TensedS Condition, toug oare admied by e IC. . also noe 36 for a prolem in te GBsystem.6 1 Tere is, plainly, more to be said abou agreemen. I will assume ere a agremen of determiners and adjectives resls y percolation from AP and , were absors e feaures of INFL in a manner to wic we t in § 45 For more developed andsomewa deren approaces, see Wiliams (1980) Manzini (980)62 For example, in Japanese, Korean and many oer langages, te elementranslated as reexve in Engs does no osee te binding teory setced abo�e, butrter can e lned o a sujec a c-commands i. It as been arged ta suc elements(in some languages, a eas) can e subjec to pragmatic control, i.e., witot antecedents.In oter respects, tese languages seem o ave a binding ·heory in some ays sar oe one oulned ere, tog ere are numerous open qestions See Kim (1976) Osma(1979) Farmer (1980) Moanan (1980) and many oter sources.63 Peraps we soud add to (73) te condition (i):

() unless 8 is condexed with te ead ofy

Ts unlesscondition wll accommodae reaive clauses, permitting percolation of anindex to e NP ead of a relative clause, f te correct analysis of relatives s )

For example, (iii) is excded from (73) y (i) and is tus grammaica:

(iii) p1 te man [ [ wo [ t saw p1 mself]]]

As we wll see directly, te only subcase of (73) ta acually plays a role in s dscussionis (iv):

(iv) *[ . . 1 . [l • y1 •] . . . . .

were 1 appears eiter o te left or te rigt of e emedded congration of 3) andy1 is no te ead of l; Terefore if 3) proves to e too strong as sated, we could placeit by (v) in te dention of "accessiliy64 Noe that tis consequence is surey correct, and is al ta we need to pursue tebinding teory. Te question hat may e rais s weter ts property ha is, (iv) of

te preceding foonote is "isolated or raher folows from a more farreacing prncplesuc as (73) wic may tsef derive from some oter prncipleIf in (76) is an anapor, i may sometimes be bound by te object of disturb yieding

suc constructions as 243(8) despie te failure of ccommand. Suc cases are notaccommodated by any of e teores rewed ere and may require a slig modication ofindng eory, reaxng e noton of ccommand I ave pu tis queston asde ere,roughou



20 Lectures on goveent and bndng the Psa ectures

65. Whe the dgmets ae less tha cystal cea, he cotast bewee (80) a(81 ) seems to me coect. C. ote 366. C. Chomsky (1977, chapte 3), based o obsevatio by Richad Kaye adIvoe Bodelos. See also Koste (1978b)

67. Th oowig dscsso s basd o sggestos by T Stowell ad DmqeSpotiche.68. Some speakes dge (8i) to be moe acceptable tha the same setece wiheexve (themelve) i place o he ecipocal I so, the easo may be hat hee s aateative i the case o the eexve, amey, a poo (i this case, them) whees theeis o ateatve costucto i the case o the ecpocal.69. Exampes smla to (82) (86) ae dscssed i Postal (197) ad elsewhee i heliteate.70. . aeggli (1980b) o dscussio o the status o ad smla eemets, based oideas o Kaye (197271 Note that we caot estct bdes to agmets; oagmets ae egaly

bdes o ace, o exampe, ivokig picpe A) o he bidig heoy.72 The olowig discssio is sggested by some obsevaos by DoiiqueSpotiche.73 Fo example, I have said othig about sbcves, a somewhat magalcostucto Eglish tha behaves the ma o tesed claus wit egad to bdig,thogh thee is o ovet AGR elemet. Fo he pet, we mst simply stiplate that theeis a ll AGR i Eglish sbctv May othe qtios ase whe we t to othelagages eve cosely elaed oes



aptr

Spitn f mpty tgrs

and SI

From th binding theory, it follows that a variable, whle A -bounbydeniion, is A-free and hus exemp from any effect of heNe or sse,hese beig viruay heorems of binding theory - "vrtually, because wa in fac is dervabe in hs heory difers somewha from heNeand SS as formuated elsewhere. Varables are therefore similar to nameswi regard o th binding heory, a naura resut hogh not a necessaryone

We have com acoss sevea espects n which vaiabes do no sasfyhe bindng condtons (A and (B o anaphos and ponomnas which

yield h and zzi poned ou ha movemen in Itaan volates the a c aso ilustated in stong cossove Feidin anLasnk extended hs obsevion o Stong cossove puposvesand ohe constuctions suded in 323 llustate tha vaabes obsevepincipe (C) o the binding heoyahe han pnciples (A o (B .

As we hav seen the conclusion ha vaiables do not obey heses poblems because in ohe espects they do seem o obey condion The s ucue (is excuded i is non-null whee s nominaiveand is he vaiable bound by which may be a -phase o its tace in

(1 . . INFL VP]]

This seems prima aci o be a vioaion o he Exampes ncudeindiec uesions -ace eecs ace eecs (which I wll henceo disegad subsuming hem unde categoes (i and ( and hesupeoy condon as (2)

(2) ( who do you wonde [ how soved he pobem]]( who do you hnk tha saw Bi]](iii who do you wonde i solved he pobem ]](iv i s uncea wha who saw ]]

In ( he ace is bound by and n (ii i is bound by o pehaps bya ace in the embedded t that] Smilay in ence these cases



232 Lcturs o govmt ad bidig: th Pisa lcturs

fall under (1. Example (v) lusraes he same phenomenon, ifeassumeha a movemen rule n the LF-comonent adjons who to its C,gvng the LF-representaton (3), wh contrasts wth the gramatical

example (4) wte rereseao 4):(3) it is uncear [ [Mwho [ Mwhat] [ t;saw ]](4) (i) t s uncear [ who [ t;saw what]]

( it s uncear [ [ Mwhat [ Mwho;]] [ t saw t]]

Cf. 3.2.3. (35 ).The exampes of (2), then, are cases of (1 and appear to show that

variables are ndeed sect to NC, a fact that motvated the work by

radsen, Kayne and Pesetsky cted above at amed o derive the•[that-t ] ler rom NC or some sar condton The examples just lustrated ed sothng close to a contradction in

the Bramework. It s only a near contradcion, snce one ght assumethat the NC hods ony for the referental ndces of variabes but not theranaphoric ndces the case of crossover), or that NC does not hod in thecrossver cases for some oter reason. I am skeptcal about any attemptto avod the probem along these lines, snce the concusion at variabesare not subject to the NC seems right on other grounds, in vew of the

concepua reation etween names and varbes, whch, va and rele vat, would exce varables from the NC in prncpe, a concusonupported by te general applicabiity of prncipe C of the bnding teryto varabe. Note furthr hat any suh attempt would exclude te superioiy conton rom the cmpex of caseslustrated in (2), snce the reevantform (4ii apears ny at he eve of LFrepresenton wle the bndngtheory holds at Sstructure. ne ght ask furher why varabes shoud besuject to the NC wle exempt from the SSC, raer an conversey.Furermore, we know that pro-drop anguages suc as Italian and Spansh

e nt sujct to the -trace effets, so that varaes n ese anguagesdo not appear to be subject to NC Why, then, do we not nd anguagestha exempt varabes soey from the SSC?

Such consderatons as these suggest that the phnomenon lustratdn (2), wle smilar to the NC effects, s really a sarate henomenonwhat av ced "RESC)an at the generao wth Nsaspurous one. Some oer princle s nvoved n RES(N), a phenoenon tt holds at e vel of LFrepresenttion ather than scture,if (2v) does beong to tis compex Lookng ahd, I w suggest at

the relevant rincp s that traces are goerned n some manner a LFWe have oserved ths propery wth regard to NP-traces (cf §2.4), asustrated n (5:

(5) () *John was asked how t to solve the probem]] *John was known how [t to sove the probem]]

Jon was preferred t to wn](v) John s legal [t o parcpate]]



Spccaton of mty catgor 233

Example (i) is an impossble S-structure, and e sentences ()iv) are ungrammatical. We saw in § 2.4.1 that these results folow from the requirement that races must be governed, and that ths requirement is indendent

oother properies of empty categores Extending the principle from

trace, as in (5) totraces, we may hope to derive RESIC) as lustratedn (2) If ths line of argument is correc thenESIC)snotrelatedtoNICo to the binding theory at al, but rather to a different prncipe othetheory of government, stl to be formuated propery, namey, theprinciple at traces must n some sense be govened at LF. It is ts approach thatould now like to pursue For the moment, I wi use the term "RES(NIC)somehat vaguely to refer to phenomena of the type (1), defrringtheanaysis untl ater.

Basc Proprts of SI

What are the properties of RES(NIC)? e can sharpen the question byookng at languages for wch it does not appear to hold, e.g., Itaian Thusthe Itaian example (1) appears to be a straightforward vioation ofRES(NIC), contrasting wth (2) in English

(1) uomo [ ; che [ m domando [ c[ t abbia visto t]]]

(2) *the man [who;[ I wonder [who[ t saw t !]]]]

In Engish, exampe (2) s excuded by the -island condition f = and = k, and s much more severey ecuded by RESI C) = k and = (cf 31()14) 3.2.3.(3)31)). In Itaan, (1) s grammatical wth = and = k (snce the island condton does not hod n such cases seeRzzi(17b)), and also with i = k and = voang RESC) Nevertheess, though RES) appears not to be operating n Italan theNICdoes hod in ful generaty esewhere as lustrated in (3)

(3) (i) *NP sembra [che t Tense VP] () NP cede [che pronomina ense V]

In (i), with the matrx verb smbra (sms), rasing is mpossbe. In (ii), wththe matrx verb crd (bvs), the pronominal n the embedded clausenee not be dsjoint in reference from NP. hse examples lustrate the

NIC. The trace and the pronoun are free n their governing categories (theembedded tensed cause), so that () s ungramaticl, and is ramma

tica wheher or not the pronona is coindexe with N, by prnciples(A) and of the binding theory, respectvely. In contrast (1) s gramatca wth the interpretation = k, lustratng agan at RESC) seemsto be a dfferent phenomenon than NIC, since the former but not thelatter s noperable in Italian, as in other prodrop anguges It appears,then, that RESC) holds of trace, whether -trace as in (2) or N-traceas in 4.1.5), but not of pronominals. At east, so tngs appear at the evelof supercial data arrangement.



234 Lectures on govement and bndng the Psa lectures

Des S(NC) ol fall vables or only o trace? f the lattrthe e wud expec t be a pnploperang at structu or n hePFcompot. f it holds of vrabes incui tos formed by ules

o the LFomponent, th t is a prncple hlng in e LFmontafter he operaton of rules yeldng these varables say as a condio Frepresetation. We have already seen some reason t suspect atRES(NC) holds of al varabes at the LFlevel namey; te smariyeteen te suerorit condition and the oter RES(NC) phenomenacf. 1(2)) Let us now loo at s question more closely.

Kayne (1c) povied direct evidence that what we are now callng"RES(NC) hods o variables formed by LFes, ence at the levlof LFrepresentation. He cites such examples as the following in Frenc:

(4) () je nai exigqu'ls arrtent personne(ii) *je nai exig que personne soit arrt(ii) j'a exig que persone ne sot arrt

The coresponding Frepresentatons are (5)

( 5) () [for no x] jai exg qu'ls arrtent x

("for no x demanded that they arret x"

(i) [for no x] jai eg que x soit arrt("for no x I demanded tha x be arrested) j'ai exig que [for no x], x soit arrt

(" demnde tar o x x be arrsted)

xample (4i), whle slightly margnal s much eter than e ungrammatical (i), whle (i) s unroblematic. The LFrepresenatons are derieon the follong assmptions

(6) (i) The partcle ne is a scope indcator determnng the scope ofpersonne(i) personne unergoes te quantirmovemet rule i the LF

component

We ca explain this array of data we assume that RES(N) holds aL he ungratical exple (4i)5i)lustrates a trace effec,exactly as n 41() and thus fals under 4.11. Let s assume, then,that ES(N) holds at he level o LFepresentatio for al varables.

f his s correct we shoul epecto nd some indicationof RES(N)applying to varables not bound by whin Engish as well. ayne suggestsexamples of he following type:

(7 n all these weeks he's suggested that() they see no one() they wrte not a singe term paper



Speccaion of empy caegories

(iii) no one see hem(iv) no a single erm paper be wrien

235

In cases (i) and (i) he negaed can have wide scope inerpreaion but not n (ii) and (iv). The examples of (7) are somewhat more subtle thanheir French counerpars presumably Kayne suggess becaus there isno over scope marker in Englsh o force the ntended inerpreations.But I hink ha Kaynes udgmens are correc If so, en RES(C)holds in Engsh oo a the level ofLF-represenation

Kayne suggess furher ha he same phenomenon can be obseved inconnecion ith muliple -quesions of he sor sudied by Baker (1970).onsider th sentence (8):

(8) who remembers where we boght which bok

There is a narrow scope inerpreation of which book as i (9)with he possible answer (9i) and a wide scope inerpreaon in ( l) ith the possible answer (10i):

(9) () for which erso x x remembers for which place and whih book y we boughtyat

ii) John remembers where we bought which ook(1 0) ( ) for whch person x and whch book y x remembers for which place we bough a z

ii) John remembers where we bought the physics bo and Bilrememers where we bough he novel

Assuming as n our earler dscussion he analyss n Chomsky (1977a,chaper 3) a rule of the LF-component moves he phrase whi bookoCP, giving eiher (9i) or ( l). A condion n hs rule s ha it moves

the -phrase to a CP conaning an ove -phrase Presumably,hen,he rule is a one-sep mvemen rule, no a successive cycc ovement rule such as synacc movement or rasng. If so i should notoserve he sandard island condiions hat folow from subacency.6

Judgmens are no enrely clear, but i seems hat hs rue olates moscondions I is mmediately obvious hat it vioaes he -sland condio cf. ( li) Simiary violaon of he complexP-consrain seems quitetolerable:

(1) I wonder who heard he cam ha John had seen whatThe rue aso violaes he specicy constran h blocks (12) compare(3i) wh he LF-represenaton (13i):

(2) *what dd you hear( John's}sories abouhose



236 ecures on govemen and binding: he Pisa leures

(3) (i) I wond who had John's stois about what I wond fo wich psn and whcthng, hadJohn's

stois abouty

ot tat th spicity constaint is a constaint on ovmnt, notintptation; copa (1), which is gammatical; also 3...57iv andot sima xampls citd ali:

(14) thy had th habit of fding thmslvs (ach oth)

vthlss, t appas hat h movnt ul of th Lcompnntdos not obsv th constaint, wich suggsts that th constain holdsonly of boundd movmnt uls (uls of th syntax and quantimovmnt; cf ay (977))ahan ing an "output constaint at LF.

In gnal, thn, it sms that t ul in quston dos not obsv thusual condtions on boundd movmnt us.8 thfo conclud thatit is indd a "onstp movmnt u to a position ld by an ovtphas n COM Sinc th ul appis in th LFcomonnt, it ismmun to th doublyld COM t of th PFcomponnt. Lt usassum hat xactly lik th ovt movmnt u, tis LFcompontu adjons th phas to th lft, say, to th ft of COM. Cucaly,n "long movmnt, th s no tac in COM mdiatly pcdnga movd subjc, sinc th ul is not succssivcycic.

Th sms to b a makd diffnc, howv, btwn applicationsof th ul that lad to th S(IC) iolation 41(1) and paid xamplsthat do not, as Kayn suggsts:

(15) (i)(a) who mmbs wh John bought what(b) *who mmbs wh who bought that book

(ii)(a) it s uncla who thnks (that) w saw whom() *it is uncla who tinks (that) who saw us

a) I know pfctly wl who thnks (that) h s in lov withwhom

() *I know pfcty wl who thinks (that)who is in lovwithhi

(iv)(a) I don't know who would b happy fo whom to win th piz

() *I don't know who would b happy if who won th pz(c) *I don't know who woud b happy that who wn th

piz(v) (a) I don't mmb who blvsh to hav ad what

() I don't mmb who bivs whom to hav ad th book

(c) *I don't mmb who blvs (that) who ad th book

In a of ths xampls, on must b caful to xclud th choqustion



Speccaion of empy caegories 237

intrptation, which is always possibl h judgmnts ar not prfctly sharp, thy sm to m to go in dictionndcatd; that thyr not sharp is again hardy surprising, givn that thr is no ovrt indica

tion of th intnd intrprtation Th starrd xampls ar al of th form4() at LF, gin that th movmnt rul s no succssivcycic,conrming Kayn's concusion tha th pincipl ES(IC) holds at th

lv o LFprsntationAssuming th distinctions markd in 1) to b vad, what is thir

signicanc? Th starrd xampls ar al of th form 4 (1), or morgnraly, of th form (6), whr is nonnul, s nominativ and is th

variabl localy bound by , and may b an oprato (no ncssar aphas) or its trac in COP:

(6) *[ [ t L ]]

Exampls (i) ilustrat th supiority cndition (cf 4(2iv)) Th sts{iv)and (v) show that th phnomnon in qustio hods of nominativ subjcts

but not subjcts of innitivals, and th othr xamps show that it holdsony of subjcts Th starrd xaps o (ii)(v) in ffct xibit th hatrac ffct (cf 42(2ii)) Th again llustrat that syntactic movmnt isnot a cucia mnt of ts ffct and furthrmor that t prsnc of thcomplmntizr is immatrial Thus th phnomnon capturd by th*[a-] ltr or othr dvics that hav bn proposd ds o cruciayinvov ithr th compmntizr or ovrt movmntRathr, th fft issubsumd undr a mor gnra conition, RES(NIC), which hods at LF,including (6) as on cass of cass and NPtrac xamps such as 41() asanothr class

h this conclusion sms o m gnray prsuiv, it facs anumbr of problms Th most srious o hs ariss in connction withth prodrop paramtr ssuming th mdication in Chomsky andLasnik (977) of Prmuttr's gnraization, trac ffct should bfound with languags that do not aow missing subjcts and only hs:thus, rnch and Engish, but not Itaian and Spanish, for xaml 0 T*[ha] sub cas of RES(IC appars to void for Spanish and Itaan,a xpctd, but Rizzi (1979a) points out that th appication ofRES(NC)to variabs formd in th LFcomponnt hods for taan and Spanish aswll, contrary to what is prdictd In prticuar, th Frnch xamps (4)ar dupicatd in Itian and Spanish onsidr th folowing xampls inItaian:

(7) (i) non vogio ch tu parli con nssuno(for no x I want at you spak with x

*non vogio ch nssuno vngafor no x I want that x com)

(iii vogio ch nssuno vnga(I want that for no x x com)



Speccaion o empy caegoies 3

stress a act that might be expaned on the grounds that they do not permtan interna anaysis o ocus as in () or some reason.

A reated probem has to do ith broad scope interpretation o quanti

ers, ich ead to a vioation o (NC) hen the quantedexpression is in subject position, as in (3

(3) (i) everyone expected that some of he al (cerain al) oud be too dicut or the audience to oo

(ii) he told me hat eveone sad at the conerence(iii) he tod me hat eveone did ast summer(iv) onder ho anyone understood that talk(v) no one knos ho e any o us did in the exam(vi) they couldnt te me ho

any ofu did in the exam

(vi) onder ho many problems anyone here has solved

ide scope interpretation is possibe or the itaiczed quantied expres sions in such cases as these then there is an apparent violaton oES(NC). erhaps one ght argue that ide scope inerpretation is a marked option outside o core grammar in some o these cases. Or it mght be that the quantier is not subject to quantier movement bu is used in the quasi reerntial sense stdied by Higgnbotham in othcong ork in tis

case, one oul expec at substtution o none of he al or some of heal in (i) oud prevent ide scope interpretation, ich appears to be he case

With regard to any theres evidence that in soe cases it is interpretedas a narroscope exstentia quantier (c. Linebarger (980) or a reve),

though tis does not seem to be an option in (3) My suspicion is thatany shoud never be regarded as a idescope universal quantier but raher in the manner o a ree variable in a system o natua deduction, hence name le th corresponding ide scopeAoun Hornsein and Sportiche

(980) n orthcomng ork, Hornstein deveops an interpretation in terms o substitutiona quantication tht has similar eects and many interesting consequences Among any other exampes he points out that idescope universa quantier interpretation cannot be the correct anaysis or any in such discourses as: ick any number i it is odd, hen . . . "

Examples o the sort just revieed raise probems that mus be overcome i the proposa tha ES(NC) is an LFproperty iso be sustaned one o them appear to be insuperabe, but cleary they require urther thought andanaysis

In summary, e have some strong evidence that ESC) extends beyond trace to variables in genera and thus is a principle applying in he LFcomponent, presumably, as a condition on LFrepresentationand e have a number o residua problems that arise in are hat are not very eunderstood incuding one maor problem concerning prdrop languages, to ich l return Let us eave these probles to the sideand tu to some urther prperties o ES(N).



40 Lecures on govemen and binding: he isa lecues

Te prodrop parameer

e mos eesg opc coeco w ESIs e cluseg of

popees elaed o e po-dop paamee waee s us ou o be I po-dop laguages (eg, Iala), we ed o d amog oes e folowg cluseg of popees: 4

(1) () mssg subjec() fee veso smple seeces

l log -moveme" of subjec(v) empy esumpve poous embedded clause(v) appae volaos of e [ha-] le

o-po-dop laguages (eg, Fec ad gls lack of ese po pees, caacescally Examples of (1) Iala ae as ):

(2) () o ovao l lbo(I foud e book)

() a magao Gova(Gova e")

l luomo ce m domado [ c abba vso(w e epeao: e ma x suc a I wode wox saw")

(v) ecco la aga [ cem domado [ c cede [ cepossaV(s s e gl wo I wode wo ks a se mayV"

(v) c ced [ ce paJ(wo d you k [ (a) leave] )

I (, Iala as o ove subjec, as dsc fom Fec o Egls Le us eavely assume e subjc o be [Ne} I(), e subjec s veed,

a opo a s ope Fec bu oly ude gly esced co dos e epeao dcaed l s excluded Fec ad Egls case (v) ake fom aaldse (1978b), we kow a e mssg subjec of possa s o e ace of -moveme (sce s would volae subjacecy), so mus be a emy esmpve oou, base geeaed, accodace w e esumpve poou saegy a opeaes Iala (peaps o-sadad) aga, ee s o aalogue Fec o Egls We may asume at esumpve poou oo s[Ne, fo pese puposes Case (v) llusaes e [ ha-] peome

o, aleady dscussedo e as of veso le us asume a e pos-vebal s codexed w e empy caegoy subjec poso, oug a fomsc fom e dexg eleva o bdg; see e dscusso of323(94) We mg k of Case-assgme ad -ole assgme

s cosuco as a sace of asgme o e dex o fuco ca, e mae decbed § 322; we eu o a sape fomula



Speccaion of empy caegories 24

tion elow and in chapter 6 otethattis discussionissoarindependento the uestion o the conguration in wich postveral Ns appear (witin o adjoined to VP) and of whether the postvera is moed y an

inversion ule or asegenerated in place. We retun to these uestions.The optimal assumption hence the assumption that we w assume to e correct pending evidence to the contrary is that there is a single parameter of oe gammar the podop paameter hat distinguishes taian type rom Frenchtype languages. hen tis paameter is et one way oanother te clustering o poperties should folow. The language leanereuipped wth the theory of G as a part o the nitial state reuies evdence

to the parameter and then knows the other poperties of the language that olow om tis choice o value.

T egn ith et us ssume oowing araldsen 978) that the paameter involves the nectional·element F or more precisely theagreement element AGR ( = PRO that is the crucial component of with respect to government and inding The intuitive dea is that where there s overt ageeent the suject can e dopped snce the deletion is ecoverale. n taiantype anguages with a richer inectional system theelement AR permits suectdrop wile n Fenchtype languages t does

not. A language mght have a mixed system permitting suect dop in some cnstructions ut nt n others a poperty that we might expect to

nd varying as necton is or s not overt Taaldsen gves examples from Irish Heew s another case Thecorrelationwithovertnectionneednot e exac We xpect at most a tendency in tis direction. Thedea is then that there is some astract property of AGR correated more or ess with overt morpholoy that dstinguishes prodop rom nonpodop anguages rom wich the custering o proerties in folows.

There are varous ways to reae tis eading iea. Several w e considered as we proceed. Fo the moment let us simpy say that in taian type anguages AGR is ale to conto the sject in some sense whereas

in Fenchtype languages it is not We contnue to assume then at al of these languages have the asic core structure (3):

(3) S F VP where F =[[±Tense] (AGR)](AGR =PRO)

We may now tentatvely reormuate S(NC) as in (4):

( 4) [ e mus t e ocaly contoed

The noton loca conto" must e made pecise One case o local control" wil e ageement n podop languages Recal that the eementAG is condexed with the suect that it governs. We have assumed tis condexing to e distinct o that o the inding theory say cosuper scripting see the discussion of 3.2.3(94). n the prodrop anguages we take such codexing to serve as ocal contro" n the eied sense. A



242 Lecures on governmen and binding: he Pisa lecures

second case of local conrol" s conden wih an adacenphrse race of a phrasen CO as in (5):

(5) () I wonder wo] t wll be here]i) who dd you nk [ [ would be here]]

e us enavely assume cosuperscrpin o be assined auomaically in hs case We wll modif hs prnciple and ry o deermne is saus me closely as we proceed For he momen le us smply assume Prncple 4) s a varian of he dea, whch has appeared in several cnes in he course o hs dscussion ha race mus be oened ee 2.(4).

hs assumpion immedaely yields properes (i)v) of he comple

(1) In a prodrop lanuae, he subec [ e] s locally conrolled b R in ensed senences herefore he subec may be missin e, may be[ e propery ()); free nversion leavin he race [ e] s permi(propey (ii)); lonmovemn is a free opon (propery (ii); nd anempy resumpve pronoun may appear an embedded clause (propery(iv)) In each case, he elemen [ e] n subec posion s locay con rolled by AG R In a nonpodrop lan�ae, none of hese opions ess, since [N e] will no be loally conrolled Shor movemen, as in (5, s permssible, however snce he subec race is hen locay conrolled

from he analoous remrks hold of oher variables prnciple (4) is a condiion on Frepresenaon oe ha prncple (4) does no affec he aus of nniives ( cf 42(15)). hus a cases of (6) are barred:

(6) () *Giovanni pensava di [Mara venre]() *Govanni pensava di [[ e] venire]]

*Govanni pensava di [[N e] venire Mara]](Govanni houh Maria o come")

Cases (i) and () are ecluded by he Case Fer, snceMaria lacks Case;and (ii) and are bared by prnciple (4), snce here s no AGR o lcally conrol he empy subec he surface srucure correspondn o s, of course eneraed as a conrol sucure wh PRO insead of race as heembedded subec We wll eurn o he case of raisin verbs below. heseeamples hen, are smlar o 4.1.(5).

I remains o consder propery (v) of he comple 1 he raceeffecs Recall ha we have dssocaed e former C no wo dsinc caeores, as llusrae n (7 and (8

(7 (i) *he hin ha each oher are here(i) *hey in ha PRO are herei) hey hn ha hey are ere (wh he promae inerprea

on for he wo occurrences of he)(8 RES(IC), which apples o variabes



Speccaion of empy egories 243

Caegoy (7 fals under he binding heory whch apes a S-srucure. NC mus appy a Ssrucure or in he LF-componen because of he of (7 (we concluded in § 3.23 ha i holds a S-sucure) bu RESI)

now issociaed from NC migh be in he LF- or PF-componen or asrucure.Suppose conrary o wha we have been assuing so far ha RESI)

is in he PF-componen e s say as a ter foowing deletion. In ths caseoe way o incorporae the *that-J ter into RES(C) now stated as (4,is to adop an idea of Pesetsky (1978b) and to reate the *hat] ter tothe ter (9, whch bars douby-led CO as in (10

(9 *[M ]

(10 *. [the man [

[ Mwho that] you met t ]]]In either who or ha or both must drop by vrue of (9Assume that(9 hods as we for = trace Consider the a typica exampe of the*[ha- effect such as the S-strcture (1)

(11 who do you tink [ [Mt that[8t eft]]

If neithe nor ha deetes we have a vioation of (9 If ony deetes

we have no violation of(9

but we have a vioation of RESIC)= (4

since the trace in subect position in (11 is not ocly controed. If hadeletes and reans the strcture is gramatical exactly as in ( n the pro-drop languages however the anaogue to ha need not (and doe not)delete since the trace in the embedded S is in any event locay controed by AGR in INFL so that RES(NIC) is not volated Thus the *[ha] ter holding ony for non-pro-drop languages is dervd from the doubly ed CO lter (9 and ES(NI) (= (4. Note that it foows thatin languages that do not have the rstriction aganst doubly-e COthe *[ ha] effect shoud not be observed Pesetsky gives supporing evidence counterevidence is presented in Bennis (1980.

A variant o this idea suggested independently by i and aye is·tat quie apart from the doubly-ed CO lter the trce is no loclycontrolled if ha remans because its potenta ontroller n CO doesnot c-command t Thus assume that -movement is aunction toas proposed above so tht the embedded CO n (11 s (12:

(12 [ Mt [ Mthat]]

Then ha is present does not c-coand the subject trace n theembedded S of and RES(NIC) is violated oca control requresc-command

On these assumptions RES(NC) wi appy ony to -races not to vaables genera since it is n the Pcomponent. Thus we fal to accom-



246 Lecures on governmen and bndng he Psa /ecurs

ssyng RES(N<) Th s pproch is osbl f contrr o ourprsn ssumpions RES(NIC}is lot nthPFoponnt Pts'ssuggstion ht th ind on th phrs or its tc s bsory th

comlmnizr is s h not wll-motivtd in rc by th ququiltrntion th provids n "scp fro th ffc o th [htlt s in (17)

(17) l quj crois qu s rvlpmr("th girl who I thnk ht [=qui] hd rrivd rs)

Hr qumy b rgrdd s form of th complmnt quech ispronominl in tht it hs bsorbd h indx of th trc fth (ultimly

dltd) rltiv prooun hus srving s lol ontroll 21Considr som urthr obsrvtions of yn (198) on h -trcffcs nd rltd mtrs H nos cti dffrncs btwn rnsiivvrbs on h on hnd nd intrnsitiv vrbs nd dctis on th rs mtrix lmnt in construcions r ld o RES(N). onsidr hsxmpls (18) (1 9):

(18) (i) John who it's ssnil [sh tlk to ] John who it is snil lk o hrJ

(i) John who i is ssnil ht sh tlk o (v) John who it is ssnil [ht lk o hr (19) (i) Frnch whh i dosn't sm [ry knws ll wl]

(ii) Mry who it ds't sm [t knows Frnch ll wl](iii) Frnch whch dosn' sm [h Mry knows t ll wl](iv) Mry who it dsn sm [th knows Frnc ll wll]

Th xmpls (i) of (18) nd (19) r grmmticl nd h xmpls (v)ungrmmicl s xpcd Th crucil css r (i) nd (ii). Kyn's

judgmns r th xmps (i) of (18) nd (19 r or ccp t() suggsts dring th n bwn gricl nd unrmmcl so o istiu h (18) (9ii s grmmtil from (18ii(19iv) s ungrmicl uppos w do s Thn (1 8ii)n 19ifll. gthr with (14) whil (18iv) n (19iv) fll oghr wih (14i)Kyn suggss unifying ths css in rms of "cs-binding. Rprsinghis propsl in our rms hr th locl conrolr of inCO posionmus hv s for (4) o b stisd Assum th rnsiiv vr cnssign in h CO posion of its complmn hough no to h

rc i doubly-lld COMP. Tn h grmmicl xmpls r hosin whch h locl contror i O h C nd ungrtlons hos in whch i dos no.

My wn conclusion diffrs It sms o m h hpmry disinction ibn (i) of (8)19) h ungrmmic s nd (i) (ii)i) whichr grmmicl (long wih (14iiv)). I hink th Kn is corrc innoting subl distincion wn (i) nd () of (18) nd (19) (tough for



Speccaon of emp caegores 247

m (18i) is mor ccptb with ha s mbddd complmntr). But think this is scondry ct. onsidr th sts (20) (2 )

(20) (i) who dos it sm to you tht Johnwi visit t(ii) who dos it sm to you John visit t(ii) who dos it sm to you wi visit ohn(iv) who dos t sm to you tht wi visit ohnJ

(i) who is it ssnti tht John s t who is i ssnti John s

(iii) who is it ssntil t s John(iv) who is it ssnti tht t s John

My judgmnts r tht th ssntil dnc is bwn (iv) o (20)21 which r ungrmmtic nd t othr css whch r l grmmtithough vrying in ccptbility Css (i) o (20)21) sm to m complty ccptb nd css (ii) nd (iii) mor mrgin. Furhrmor

Kyn nots or mny djctivs thr sms to b no drnc bwncss (ii) nd (iii) th sm is tru with nonl hd whch so cnnoCsmrk into CO Considr (22) nd (23)

(22) John m not crtin (sur convincd(i) t wi vr win th ction(ii Bi wi vr ik t

ht t wl ik ths book(23) John don't hv th imprssion

(i) t l lk this book(ii) Bi wi ik t(iii) tt w i ths book

Agin th xmps (ii o 22) (23) r ungrmmtic violting * ha rquirmnt; but xmpls (i) nd (ii) sm to m on pr wth

rgrd to ccptilty nd r surly rdicldirt in sttus rom (ii)· sms to m thn tht th primry phnomnon to b xplind

th dirnc in stus o (ii) s opposd (i)(ii) in (22)(2) nd corrspondingly th drnc bwn (iv nd th othr xmpls in (18)2 ).

Th primry distinction is givn by RES(). scondry ndmuc mor sut distinction might b trcd to oth cuss. t might brtd o th slight prrnc or rtining th complmnir ha incss (i) nd (ii o (18)2) which somhow ts th judgmnt (8ii) (19ii) (20iii) (21iii). Or on gh pursu dirnt pproch

rtd to th on Kyn roposs (bu now rgding it s scondyphnomnon rr thn th xpntion or th RS(NC) phnomn).Suppos tht kind o Excption Cs-mrkng ppis to trc inCO thus prvnting trcdltion in (4i iv but not (14i). nwith rnsitiv mtrix vrb structur wi b grmmtic undr vryoption (sinc th trc in CO cn nvr b dltd) but with ntrn-



28 ecue on oeen an nn he a ecue

sv vb n djcv n 8) 9) 0) 2 )) h scuwll b gcl ony h cdosodlonhwopons)hus 4v) gcl long o oponl phs hn 18)

9) 20) 21 ) hch y ccoun o h o gnl chc oh s spcl hn bou h p o ccoun o h RES)

phnon on ·h bss o Csng o c OM vhssh l popy y hold Ap o h vdnc yn hs dducn h cd pp nd lswh h s ddonl suppo o h ssupon so o whch w hv cd l c. 221) concnng

ungn) vs so xhb hs phonon wh hchnss y b Goos nd vn Rsdj 1979) gv vdnc h

h hd y b n COMP wh s Cs y b h o h vb hgovns h lv W un oh possbl xpls n § 52

he ey eo nce P

us now un nlly o h sus o RSC) whch w hv nvygvn n h o condo on psnon:

I NP e us b locly conold = 4)

h nub o concpul pobls h s n concon whhs oulon

2) ) Wh s h noon o "ocl conol h pps nRESIC)?

) Why s h n syy bwn ubjc o vb nd objco vb?

) Why dos RESI) hold o nonvs buno subcs o

nnvs?v ow os RES) l o covy odonndwh s h chc o h py subjc n h podoplngugs?

v) Is h conncon bwn hP-AGR on ssudo h podop lngugs nd h lon o clcs o hposons n h vbl copln ssocd wh h

Pobls nd ) obvous As concns ) n dlcs o Englshh lc h

• o-ol RESIC) dos no pp o hold o

o- nnvs n h cs o ov ovn hquson s unsblwhh •o-o l hods) so h w hv such xps s :

) who dd you y o o V

Chos nd Lsn 1977 ll lso xpls 4215vv such



Secaton of ety cateore 249

s 4 ()

(4) i I don't know who woud b hppy for whom to in th pr

I don't rmmbr who blivs who to hv rd th book() i *I dont know who woud b hppywho won h pr *I don't rmmb who bivs th who rd th book

Ths xmps oo show tht RESC s void for subjcts of innitivsWith rgrd to 2iv h intuiti ccount of th pro-drop pmt

givn rli suggsts rtio to th prncip of rcovrbty of dtion nd on might hop tht this pincip t st th cs of pronounsmght foow n prt from prop fomution of RESC. Qustion2v w dfrto § 46

n ddtin to th concptu probms of 2 thr is on mjo mpricl pobm nmy th probm of vibls in po-drop lngugs Thr lso sv oth mpiric pobms notd bov which I wlgno sinc I hv no usfu ids concrning hm byond wht wsmntiond

onsid st pobm i of 2. Th mjo xmpls lvnt toRESC hv nvolvd such congutons s 6:

6 ] GR . . . ]

W v so fr ssumd tht is e thoughout this clss of css s it iswhn it s th tc of movd mnt: , phs o quntiphs Th lmnt GR my or m not b cosuprsciptd with thmpty subjct hv so f ssumd th this option constituts th podop pmtr Th lmnt my b -phs o ts tc o qunti phs movd in th LF-componnt co-suprsciptd with th mptysubjct Th mnts nd AGR "locy controlh mpty subjct whnthy co-supscriptd with t hsthonly css of"loclconto

W dy h notion y simir to "locl contro in this snsnmly th notion of govrnmnt whch hs n cntl o this ntirdiscussion As st ppoximtion to n nswro 2i thn lt us simplytk "locl contro to b subcs of govnmnt s in fct hs bnssumd sinc § 24hn RESIC is rfomutd s7

7 ] must b govnd n som sns

Lt us now turn to poblm ii of 2 Why should thr b n symmtry

in RESIC btwn subjcts nd objcs? W cn lt is fct to thsymmtry of govrnmnt vrb gorns its objct but dos not govnits subjcts th INFL govns th subct o somthing n CO o inth trix sntnc govrns th sbjct s in th cs o nntivsExcptonl Cs-mking nd rising rbs nd djctis Th sytryof subjct nd obct thus folows without stipultion Simly w h



50 Lectures on oement and bindin: the Pisa lectures

n nswr to qustion (iii) subjcts of innitivs r ungovrd in thunmrkd cs nd hus r xcludd from th collction of phnomnltd to RES(NIC). In th mrk css (3) nd (4) th sujct oft

inv is govrnd so (7) s sisd w rurn cs nd (4i) . h s ofclussTh prdrop prmr lts t th ss n which R govrns sub

jcts n h prodrop lngugs Principl (7) mgh b clld "th mptyprncipl. hv dscussd such pnipl numbr of ms lrdybgnnng wt § .4 1 whr t ws obsrd th tc mu t b govrnd.Tough rlvnt dnc s sprs wll nttivl ssum h hmpy NP prncpl xnds o tr in gnrl hus hvh followng prncplof th thory of govrnmnt

8) h Empty Ctgory Prncpl (ECP) [ e must b govrnd(n som sns)

Rcll th his s on prt of th or gnrl prncpl 9 (4) holding oPRO s wll

In wht sns must th mpty ctgory b govnd? To clify hisnoion w mus rst xnd our noion f govrnmn. nchptr 3 gvrnors wr rsrctd to lmnts of h form Xof th Xbr sysm .

[ ±N ±V But w r now ssumng h condxd n CO myb govrnor for ECP Suppos hn th w modfy h dniton of"govrnor givn n chpr 3 (nmly 3 1 .(1 1)) xtndng h clss ofgovrnors

(9) onsidr th structur (i

(i) [ . . . y . y . , whr) = or is condxd wih y

(b) whr ¢ s xml projcton f ¢ dns y thn ¢dmns (c) ccommnd y

In his cs oernsy

Rcll tht "ccommd s usd in th xndd sns of 3 1 .( 1)W now tntivly dn "propr govrnmnt s n (10) nd rformu

l h ECP s n ():

(0) proprly oens f nd only f govrns { [nd AR(1 E [ e must b proprly govrnd

Th brcktd hrs 10) is h prorop prmr Th noion ofpropr govrnmn for prodrop lngugs xcluds his condtion whli is rnd for non-rodrop lngugshs notin rplcs h dvcof cosuprscping ntrucd n th rlr xposon. Now AGR s



22 Lectures on government an bining: the isa lectures

chrctrisics of rc nd PR c. § 2.4) now fs into plc undrthory o govrnmn incuding ECP nd th thory o inding ith itsdrtv rncipls concrnng PRO. thr rcnt work (sciclly

Kyn (1980b) nd othr pprs som o thm briy discussd in chpr5 indics ht h sop o ECP is in ct sll brodr h h consrions o ths chptr indc. Thr s thn goo rso to blvth so vrson o ECP is ctrl princpl o h hory govrnmn.

Fnly considr gn vrbs o h -yp tkng/-complmns.In § 2.4.2 (c. 2.4.2.(18)(19)) w concudd ht vrs o hs cgorydo normt dlton wi nnitvl complmns; rh hcomplmnzrormy dlt (wh dictl vriion) in mmdit postvrbl

positon in th PF-componnt. Cnsd gin h xmpls (14)

(14) (i) B ws blvd to hv sn Tom(i) *Bll ws prfrrd (or) to hv sn Tom(i) Bl ws wntd to hv sn Tom

Th corrsponding orms th vl o Ssructur r (15)

(15) (i) Biws bvd [ t o hv sn Tom]

() *Bll s prrrd s or o hv sn om]] *Bill ws wnd s or [ to hv sn Tom]]

Exmpl (i) is unproblmic. Th mbddd subct trc is proprlygovrnd y believe nd s not ssignd Cs. Th snnc tis thbdng thory nd ECP. Exmpls (i) nd ov ris nrsingqusons or th thoy w h bn dvloping hr. In ths xplsth trc is govrnd nd prsumbly ssignd Cs b h govrnoror,s w s rom such xmpls s (16):

(16) () hy'd prr [s or [ Bil to lv]]() y wn vry much [s or Bill o lv]]() s r [ Bi to lv]] would b stk

Why xctly r ths xmpls ungrmmticl?Thr r svrl possbl wys o pproch ths problm. Wh t

sms to m w should sy is th xmps (15iii) r omprbl o4. 1 .(5) tht s rul ou by ECP. W cn mntin this concluson i w

xclud rom th clss o propr govrnors hough vidntly is govrnor Th simpls wy to chv this rsult is to xclud prpostonsntirly rom th ctgory o propr govrnors thus rstrictig proprgovnors to lxic ctgris in th sns o § 2.3 .. t cgoris hth urs [+ N] or + V]. This propos hs r-rching cts. Thus w wr o rgrd AGR s no"lxcl in h ppropr sns i woudlmin h possbility o hvig AGR srv s propr govrnor tus



Speccaion o empy caegories 53

undrmning our pproch to th pro-drop prmtr I wl suggst in nxt sction tht ts concusion is corrct fr othr rsons. Anothrconsqunc of this propos is to rul out prposition strnding sinc th

trc ft bnd wil not b ropry govrnd Prposition strnding wlony b possbl thn som mrkd procss pps I wl rturn t thistopi in § 5. bscly dopting this d nd considring futhr prblmstht rs n connction wth vrbs tht tk-complmntizrs.

. Te prorop parameer

Lt us now rturn to th mjor mpric robm risd r Accordngto Kyn's thory wch w hv doptd in ssc ECP is prncp ofth LF-componnt pplying to ribls formd n th LF-componnt swll s o trc o -movmnt nd trc mor gnrly thus susumng th supriorty condton nd th xmps dscussd n 4 On sof ECP nmy th cs of -trc nd longmovmnt phnomnis inpplibl n th cs of prodrop lngugs bcus subjct sproprly govrnd by A GR so tht t is mmtr whthr propr govrnor pprs n CO W thrfor prdcttht vrbls with wd scopshoud so ppr n subjct poston n th pro-drp ngugs contrstng wth th situton n Frnch nd Englsh. But s is fs s w hvsn Th fcts r s lustrtd in ( ) ( = 4..(17))

() () non vogli ch u l con nssuno() *non vgo ch nssun vng (whr nessuno is ntrprtd

wth wid scop) (iii voglo ch nssuno vng

W thrfor fc n intrn contrdicton in th thory so fr outlind solution to this problm s suggstd by zzi (979) who pons

out tht in Itlin nd nish thr s fourth optin in th st ( )nmly ()

() non vogo ch vng nssuno("for no x I wnt tht x com)

hus wh s brrd its sns cn b xprssd by () in wch thsubjct folows th vr Exmpl () of cours dos not volt th ECPn mor thn (i) dos As w hv sn on mnt of th clustr ofproprtis connctd ith pro-drop prmt is th fc tht th pr

drop lngugs prmit nvrson qut frly (cf. 43.()). As izziobsrvs ths fcts suggst ht w rthnk th structur of th clustr ofproprtis (3) (= 4.3 .(1)) tht r chrctrisic of th pro-drop lngugs:

(3) (i mssing subjct fr invrsion in simpl sntncs



254 Lecture on govement and binding: the Pia lecture

"long -movemen of subjec(iv) empy resumpive pronouns in embedded ause(v apparen violaions of he [tatt} e

Pehaps only poperiesi) and (ii)ropery beong o his cluse and e pro-dop anguages acualy observe he consrain h blocsong hmovemen of subjec empy resumpive pronouns and violaions of he [thatt] er exacly as he nonprodrop languages do. If so he apparenexampes o he conrary ilusraed in 4.3.(2iiiv) are spuious wha infac is happening is ha movemen in hese cases is no from he subjeciio bu om he pos-verba posiion in whih subjecs may appear by

vire of (3ii); i is now naural o assimilae he case of resumive

nouns o case (3i). Specicly -movemen of he subjc in prodrop languages which appears o vioae he �hatt e is acualy from e posverba raer han he subjec posiion and conray o appearncsmovemen does observe he [thatt er in po-drop languages. heunderying srucue fo (4) hen is (5) aher han (6)

(4) chi pensi che ver("who do you hink (ha) wi come)

(5) pensi [ che [ ver chi]]

(6) pensi che chi ver]]hus movemen does no vioae he thatt] er. ssuming henha we somehow seec in (5) so ha here is no violaion of he er inhe "inversion cases we may assume ha he * [thatt ler brooks noexcepions ha ong movemen from subjec posiion is aways impossibe and ha empy resumpive pronouns are now simply a special caseof epy subjecs wihou excepion. Crucialy i now follows ha here isno conradicion beween he apparen violaions of he * [thatt er

he pro-drop anguages and he assumpion ha ECP (frm which e erderives) holds of variables uie generay as a propery of LFepesenaion. hus he major empirica problem ha we faced is overcome. Iremains o sudy he "invered srucures more carefly and o revise e

pro-drop parameer in accordance wih he anaysis jus ouline.Rizzi's argumen signicanly modies ealier assumpions concerning

he po-drop parameer. In Chomsky and Lasnik (1977), i as assumedha he rule of pro-dop eliminaes he sujec race hus voiding eeffecs of he * thatt] er and incidenly permiing free nversion

(hugh he laer srucures were no discussed hee). Simiarly in he vrsion of he ECP jus oulined i is assumed ha he pro-drp languages permi prope governmen of he subjec posiion by GR husperiingfee inversion and voiding he effecs of he * [thatt] ler.Rizzi agus inconras ha he fundamenal propery of he prodrop languages is hahey permi free inversion leading o apparen (hough no real) violaions




of *ha-] r (s w s pprn bu no r ong-movmnfrom subc bsd on h invrd congurions)

Rzzi prsns furhr vidnc h momn of subcs in Iin

is from pos-vrb posiion, guing on h bsis of possibiiis of nciiciion from h movd subc, mhgos byond h scopof hs rmrks, hough I wi rurn ohphnomnon Wh is impornfor us hr is h his rgumn ovroms conrdicion concingRES(NIC), hnc ECP, in h cs of h pro-drop ngugs

Bfor urning o h nysis of invrsin nd sus ofin (5) usconsidr som indpndn vidnc nod by Jggi (980b) in suppor ofRzi's bsic concusion Rc h mong h insncs of RES(NIC)(hnc EP) iscussd rr r hos h f undr h suprioriy condion, for xmp, (7) (= 4 (2iv)) s conrsd wh (8) ( = 4()):

7 * is uncr wh [ who sd ]](8) is uncr [ who sd wh

h ru of h LFcomponn ring h mbddd -phrs producs voon of ECP in h cs of (7) bu no in h cs of (8) Jggobsrvs h h nogu o (7) shoud no b ungrmmic n prodrop ngug f ccp Rzzi's nysis, which sums h h subjcis xrcd om h pos-vrb posion ; hus h fcs of h suprioriyconon shoud b vodd in hs ngugs On cnno chck h prdcon drcy n Iln, bcus, fo som rson, mulipl -consrucons sm n gnr o b unccpb (cf Rzzi (978b)) Bu, Jggpoins ou, h prdcion s• rid n Spnsh, whr w hv suchxmps s (9):

(9) () qun compro qu ("who bough wh)

() qu compro quin("wh dd who buy)

(ii Jun sb qu do qun("Jun knows wh who sid)

(v) Jun sb un djo qu("Jun nows who sd wh)

hus w hv conrming vdnc h h ssnl proprs of h prodrop ngugs r (3i,i): h possby of dropping h subc nd offr nvrsion Apr from hs, ECP pps in hs ngugs s i

dos n h nonpro-drop lngugs Th xmps (9), ncdnly, indc h ws corrc o ssim h suprory condion o h compxof proprs ssocd wih h prodrop prmr I foows hES(NIC) (hnc ECP) is pncp of h LF-componn, hus offrngndpndn conrmon for Kyn's hory dscussd n § 42



56 Leures on govement an bining: the Pisa lecturs

e mus now revse CP and he pro-drop paraeer o accor whRzzs anayss The basic roble is o deerne he naure of n hesucues of (0, where s ssng n surface sucure:

(0 VP NP

(mangia "he s eang(arriva Govani, "vann s cong; ha mangiatoGiovanni, "Govanni ae

n our s aemp o omuae he CP and he o-drop paameer nhe pecedng secon, we ook o be [ e. Buhano do,ncehis ssumpon des no dsngush cases and { of {{hich ae examples of cases and , especvey, of he cluser of poperes(3))from he

case of -moveen and in genea, he ohe opers of he cluser (3).Bu hs dsincon s wha we now have o esablsh.The obvous suggesion s ha s PRO, he second of our empy caego

res The podrop languages wl dffer fom he nonpo-dop anguagesn ha PRO may appea nsead of a ponoun n subec posion. We mighsay n accordance h he void Ponoun Princple cf 4{aevery anguage ries o use PRO insead of a fll pronoun n is posonn fac, n every posion, bu he po-dop languages have some poperyha makes hs possble wle oher languages do no. Wha s hs ropery?

Moe genealy, wha s he popery ha pevens recourse o he vodPronoun prnciple o dop a ponoun say, n obec posion n ngish?We have assued ha he propery s ha PRO mus be ungoerned, acncuson ha follows in a princpled way from he bndng heory and ssupored b subsnia emprica evdence xending he prncple ohe presen cae, we ae nauraly ed o he conclusion ha in he po-dopanguages he subec posion may be ungoveed, hus acceping PRO,while in he nonpro-drop languages, hs posion is nvarabl governd.Our assumpion uni now has been ha he sube posion s governed by

he GR elemen n NFL. ssung so, i follows ha n he pro-doplanguages he subec maY fa o be governed b G We sll followTaradsen's basic nuion ha a popery of GR deermines he prodrop paameer bu now nvering he logc, so ha GR n he podop languages s a "weake raher han a "songer govno fo hesubec posion Pursung he nuon ha he po-do paamee selaed o ove necon, we gh say ha n he pro-dop languages heelemen GR s more closely conneced wh he verba elemen wiwch s mophologcally manfesed, and hus ne no goven he subjec posion

There are varous ways o execue his dea To selec one, les focus onhe fac ha while NFL is a consiuen of S ousde of a Ssucue,s elemens speccall,GR appear wihin n verba mopholgy insurface sucure. Theefoe here s a rue c whch assgns heeemens of NFL o he niia verba eleen of . ssue o be, neffec, a ule of fxmovemen. If appies in he PFcoponen, hen



Speccaion o emp caegories 27

GR governs the subject position at S-structure and at LF. If appes inthe syntax, then the resuting S-stucture is 1 1 )

( 1 1 ) NP VINFL . . .]In (11 ), AGR (in IFL) does not govern the subject position at S-structureor LF. Therefore PRO may apper in tis osition.

Suppose that we now take e pro-dro parameter to be (12)

(12) may apply in the syntax

The pro-drop anguages accept tis option appes either in the syntax,

yielding (11) or in the PF-component, as in te non-pro-drop languages.Th nonprodrop anguages reject the option (1) so hat appes onlyin the PF-component and the subject is always governed by AGR atS-structure and at LF.

Before proceeding, et us sette a nor techncal issue. he rue is aocl rue in the sense o Emonds (1976). It does not share the basic properties of the general transformationa rue Move, but is more simlarto mrphoogical rues ; in fact, in the nonprodop anguages, or whenever appies i the PFcomponent, then is a rule of the morpholog. Asnoted earlier, there is no reson to beeve that rues ofthePF-componenteave trace, and we mght assume that even when the rue appes in thesyntactic component, it does not eave trace ten the Sstructure windeed be (11) rather than an analogous stucture containing Fe ] thetrace eft by appication of the rue . e ght say that in general, onyes moving some major caegory e.g., oreave trace, or we mightrestrict trace in some othe way to rues that are not simpy oca rules with amorphoogica character. Suppose, n contrast, that we pert to leavetrace when it appies in the syntactic component. Then tis trace is technicaly a governor as we have dened· ths notion, estabshng a governingcategory for the subject NP of (11) and excuding PRO, contrary to what einend. We might vod tis consequence by an appeal to the reasonin of§ 32.2. Thee, e deveoped a vesion of oun's poposal that to bevisibe" in the iterpretive omponents an eement must have appropriatefeatures: the features of a lexica item or of PRO (in the Fcoponent),or ase (in either the PF- or LFcomponents). Suppose that we nowextend this notion o government; specca, to quafy as a governor,an element must have such features. Then even leaves a trace it w notbe a governor.

e therefore adopt one ofhefoowing conventions

(13) (i) Loca rues such as do not eave trace(ii) If [ ] is a gveror, then has appropriate features

We wl see in chapter 6 that (i) is the better of the two alternatives. t is



258 Lectures on goveent n bining: the Pis lecture

als sipe and, I hnk, e na. Le s heefe cnine adp ihee. hs appcain f e ieds , wheheapes in he synacic cpnen n he PFcpnen.

F expsy ppses, I w hencefh efeence feaes fNFL apa f AGR. I wl s asse ha afe adjncin fNFL V by , bh and Agven whaee was gvened b V pi appicain f , ng echnc deais.

Renng he ain hee he idea ha e ae nw ying esablshs expess in (14)

(14) he sbjec f a ne case is PRO and nly has appediQ he synax

ppse ha he sbjec f a ne clase s PRO. hen he bndig heyeqies ha he sbjec PO acks a gvening aeg specicaly,i i n gvened by A GR. heefe, s have apped p heappcain f he binding hey hence he synax, n he asspinsf chape 3, whee we cncded ha he binding hey appes a sce. heefe 14) hds f ef gh .

Le s nw cnside (4) fgh ef. ppse hahas apd inhe synax he NP sbjec f (1 1 ) nwmybe PRO, b e s ense

ha must be PRO We d n, f exape, wan e nnpn�na anaphs in hs psin. ee he discssn f (38), be. We needn be cncened wih NPace s cann appe in he sbjec psii,y ECP, snce he psiin s ngvened a LFbvef(3). I sfces,hen, ense ha Case is n assigned he sbjec in 1 1 . Ths wexcde ve eeens by he ase e, and excde vaabes by heeqieen ha vaiables s have Case (cf. § 3 .2.2).

The n Case ha can be assgned n he sbjecpsin s nnaeCase, hch is assgned nde gvenen by AGR, he echans beingha f 3 .2 3.(70) AGR s cndexed wh he ha gvens (naey,he sbjec), assignng nnaive Case and shang s gaaicfeaes. B Case is assigned ( checked) a sce. ppse henha has app in he synax en he sbje in 1 1 ) cann eeivennaive Case since i is n nge gene by AGR. heef, hesbjec in (11) cann b an eeen ha eqies ase phnecalyeazed a vaiabe. nce P-ace is excd f hs psinby ECP, fws ha ny PRO ay appea as he sbjec in (1 1 ). heefe, (14) hds in bh dicins

hee is a gap in he agen shwingha ( 4) hlds f gh efhe gen shws ha Cas cann be assgned irelby AGR hesbjec f a nie clase afe has apped, b, as we have seen, he sbjec gh sl inhe Case a cindexed wh Case heny cicsance nde whch s s pssbe s afe invesn. ppse,hen, ha has apped n he synax in a nie cas and he sbjecis inveed he ps-vebal psin, eaving a cndexedace t BECP



Speccation o empt categoris 59

is now vioated by uness moves to CO eaving a variabe govenedby the opeato in CO The latte onguation is mpossibe, howev,fo seveal independent easons The iteion is vioated, sie hepostveba subjet and the vaiabe have he same ole the stutue hasno intepetation give that the lause is tensed pinipe (C) of the binding theoy is vioated sine the postveba NP is Abound by e vaiable,whh annot seve as an impesona element osupesipted wi itHene () does hod fom rght to eft Furthemoe, we see that whmovement is impossible fom the vaated positon afte NPinvesion Notethat we have not exuded the possibity that PO may appea i thesubjet positon of a nite ause to wh has appied, inherting Casefom some oindexed NP In fat, tis situation arises, as we sha see

Note that not ony NPtae, but an tae is exuded fom the subjetpostion in ( ) Ts means, in effet, that the tae phenomena andelat mattes ae independent of whethe the anguages o s not a podop anguage

The option () equies that we be a bit moe preise about the mehanism for assigning nomnative Case unde ageement Ths mehanismatuay has two omponents

(5) (i) AGis oindexedwith theNPitgovens = 33(70!))(i) nomnative Case is assigned to (o heked fo) the NP

govened by AG

ondition ( ) expesses the phenomenon of agreement We have assumedthe oindexng in question to be osupesipting see the disussion of3 3(9) As fo ( i), it expresses the assumption that nominative Caseassignment (o heking) fas togete with othe majo types of Case•detemination in that it equiesgovenmt seeedisussion of3( i),below 3(7), and note of hapte 3 Ceay, (5ii)hods at SstutuePio to onsideation of (), thee was no need to distinguish the two

omponents of ( ) Now, howeve, we must detemne whee ( i) appiesIn fat, it must apply at Dstutue, po to the ue that foms ( ) Letus theefoe stipuate that ts s the ase:

(6) Pinipe ( i) appies at Dstuture

To see why ts ondition is equired, onside the Sstutue (7):

(7) *NP semba Giovanni leggee i ibi]

(NP seems Giovanni to ead the books])

The stutue 7) is ungammatia But appies in the syntax, thenembra ontains AG at Sstutue so at AG wi govern Giovanni(7) If AG oud be oindexed with Giovanniby ( i), then both onditions fo nominative Case assignment woud be fuled Giovanni woud



60 Lecures on govemen an bining he Pa lecures

eceve nomnative Case n (17) and aisng of the embedded subject wouldnot be obgatoy But the aeement phenomenon is detemned atstucue, then the stuctue (17) s baed as equied athe, As

condexed at D-stuctue wth the empyNPmatix subject, and t goensGiovannae aisng assigning it nomnative Case, if does no appl ; weetun to the question of what happens does appy, tggeng invesnafte aisng

The conclusion that (i) appes at D-stuctue is aso equed n oassumptions, to account fo cases in which poximate PRO s the subject ofa tensed embedded clause, as oad Lasn points out In such a casePRO wi she l featues with its antecedent But t wl aso_hav toagee with AGR in its cause (ie , to agee with its veb), guaanteeing

ageement between its antecedent and the veb of whch it s subjct,though at S-stuctue GR no onge govens t, ue havng appid inthe syntax to pemit PR subject

Let us tun now to the assignment of -oe and Case when the subject ispostveba and the element in the subject position of (i) is PRO Foconvenience of exposition, I wi hencefoth efeto an dawn fom thelexcon as lexical if it is not PRO, noting that th is a bit seadingin that PRO too is dawn fom the exicon

In cse () o (10) the case of simple missng subject we assue ha

PRO i base-geneated in subect position just as a lexca ponoun wouldbe geneated in this position in a nonpodop language Thn mustappy in the syntax, fo if wee to apply the PFcomponent, PRO woudbe excluded by the bnding theoy, being govened In contast, if doesnot appy in the syntax, then a lexica must appea, by 14) With egadto -moement o quantie movement in the LFcomponent, such aexica subject behaves exactly as in the non-podop anguages

uning to case ii of (10), we have such examples as (1 8)

18)() telefonano mot student

(many students tephone)(ii) avano moti studenti

(many students aive)

Thee is stong evidence that the stuctues diffe in the two cases In case() we have the adjoined stuctue (1) in case (i), the VP-intena stuctue (1ii)

(1) (i) [ [ VP

teefonano] [NP

moti studenti](ii) [ VP aivano [ moti studenti

One type of evdence suppoting ths concusion is the fact that -citicization s possible in (i) but not (i, gving (0)

(0) (i) ne telefonano molti(of-them many teephone)



Specton o empty tegores

() n arrvano moltof-thm many arrv)

261

Assumng that th raton btwn ne and ts trac rurs ccomand, th facts ar xpland by assumng th structurs 19) Burzo 198 ) prsnts substantal vdnc supportng th analyss 19), spccaly, thconcuson that n cas ) a rul of nvrson from subjct poston hasappld an adjuncton rul, adjonng th subjct olt stuet (or moltne) to th VP whras n cas th subjct molt stuent (or molt ne)s bas-gnratd n th objct poston of th s rgatv vrbs "t us assum that hs «on lusons ar corrct Thn n cas (), tPRO that w assum to appar n subjct poston n th ful tructur(2) s nsrtd aftr th applcaton of Mov- adjonng th subjct to hP:

21) PRO [[ tfon-AGR][ mot studnt]]]

t s rasonab to adopt th sam concluson n th cas of th basgnratd form 9) n th lght of th crtron, whch stpulats atDstructur s a rprsntaton of G-thmatcaly rvant grammatcal functons. t s th ovrt argunt molt stuent n th fu structur(22) that has th -ro ssgnd to th subjct, not th nsrtd mnt

PRO:

(22) [PRO [ arrv- GR [NP mol studnt]]

f so, thn PRO mus b nsrtd n ts cas as wl n th cours of thsynactc drvaton. h uston s dcat, howr, gvn th concuson n chaptr 3 that -rol assgnmn s to Afuncton chans, thus nffct to ndcs W rturn to ths toc. Howvr th uston s sovd, wl assum that a ru of PROnsrton nsrts PRO n (22) as must b

th cas n 21) on th assumpton that an nvrson ru has appld n thattr cas On fundamta poprty of rgatv vrbs n Burzos sns s that thy

do ot assgn or partcpat n assgnng) a -ro to subjct poston, utony to objct poston (cf not 35) h ru of RO-nsrton or pro-droplanguas s analogous to h rul of nsrton n nglsh or /nsron Frnch, as n 23):

(23) () thr arrvd thr mn

() l st arrv tros homms = ())Agan, prodrop anguags by vrtu of th paramtr (2), adopt thAvod Pronoun stratgy n ths cass.

ot that PRO cannot b nsrtd n pac of th trac lft by mov mnt from any govrnd poston or th bndng thoryb voat. nths conncton, consdr agn th pr of xamps (24) = 42(3)):



62 Lecure on govemen an bining: he ia lecure

(2) (i) *NP sembra che Tense ](ii) NP crede che pronomial Tense ]

Exampes are (25i,ii)(25) (i) * gi amici senbrano he partiranno

(the friends seem that the wi eave')(i) gli amici credono [che partannoJ

(the friends beieve that they wi eave")

We are now assuming that in case (ii) the embedded subject is Potice, however, that ii) is not a control structure. The PO here is impy

a basegenerated uncontroed pronomina wch an e PO rather thanexical in Itaian because the prodrop parameter permits the subectposition to be ungoverned. Thus, PO in (ii) may refer to the friends or tosomeone else, as i the case of a lexical pronoun in Engish or French.Note that when PO in (ii) refers to someone other than thefriends, itisnotarbitrary in reference, as PO is in a structure such as it is unclear whatPO to do]]" or ohn doesnt know how PO to behae oneself inpubic]]" r their Italian equivalents ather, P iii) or in (i, etc,refers to some specic persons like its overt pronoun analogue in a nn

prodrop anguage (cf. note 32. In general, PO coindexed with AG isnot subect to control, hence cannot be arbitrary in reference. Simiay,PO inserted by the PO-insertion rue, which is coindexed with thepostverbal NP, is ot subect to control In general, then, PO bearing asuperscript s not subect to control. PO may therefore be arbitrary inreference only in the position o subject o an innitie or gerund, i.e.,in a position that is assigned neither agreement th AG or Case (assuming te analysis of Caseassgnment to wic we turn directly). See note 5 f chapter On the status of Case on controed PO in ussian, seeSchein (980)

Consider now case i) of (25). y the £-criterion, the subect of theembedded cause must be trace; otherwise the matrix subject lacks a £-r.ut trace is impossible in tis position. If the rule has applied in thesyntax in the embedded cause, t position is ungverned nd ECP isviolated race appears in it the le apies in the Fcomponeninthe medded ause, hen the bindng thery is violaed since the raceis governed but is an anaphor free in its governing category; edundantly,ECP is violated since the trace is not properly governed (see below).Therefore (i) is ungrammatical

Once again, we ave a direct contrast betwen trace and O. Note thatPO in the embedded subect position of (25i) is not inconsistent with thebindng theory since this position may be ngoverned because of the rodrop parameter ut the £-crition excludes ths possiblity

In our earlier discussion of -insertion we assme that here iscoindexed with the postvebl and shares eatures with it, specially,




number Note that number-sharing is not true for French (cf (23ii)), andthus represents parametrc variaton Applyng the same assumption topost-verba subjects in prodrop anguages, we assume tat the inserted

PRO is oindeed with moli stuenti in (2 ), (22)and shares al ofitseatreswith the post-verba NP But reca that the coindeing of there or withthe post-verba NP s distinct from the inding relevnt to th bindingtheory Therefore, a different stye of indeing is require in ths csereecting a different kind of assoiation, distinct from indingweassumedit t be co-superscripting, as in ( i) The same must be true for the insertPRO, wch, like impersona it or impersona is nonargumen lacking an independent -role

We now have to sette the question of ssignment of nominative Case

to the pstverbal NP and its agreemet with the verb ere are two pssibiities:

(26) (i) Case-assignment is to the postverbal N(ii) Caseassgnment is to the preverbal NP subject and is then

inherited" by the post-verba NPfrom thec-superscriptedPRO in the pre-verbal subject position

The Sstructures relevant to this discussion ae tose of (2):

(2) (i) PRO [ P[ VP V-AR] NP = (9i))(ii) PRO [ VP V-AR NP] = (19i))

The co-superscripting of PRO and te postvrbal NP epresses the relation of the impersonal pronoun to the associated NP, ust discussedRecall aso that PO is cosuperscripted with AR by te agreement rule( ), snce PRO s inserted into the position governed by A Rat D-structure Therefore PO, A R and the postverb NP are Uperscrpted

In (2i), PRO and the post-verbal NP are furthermore c-subscrptedby the movement rue we might assume convntions to ensure that thesemodes of association are correated, a straightforward matter that I wiignore

Suppose now that we adopt (26i) In each of the S-structures of (2),AR governs the postverbal NP and is coindeed with it Therefornominative Case is assigned to ths NP

Suppose we adot (26i), thus dropping the government requirement fornominative Caseassignment Tis apprach too is teable, if we no

rely on the idea tat Case is assigned to an inde and then realed optionallyon an NP with this ine, it quaications to which we return, his beinga way to reaize the informa notion inheritance, cf § 22 riciple(26ii) does raise a problem, however, in that we have been ed to assumethat Case cannot be assigned directy to the subject position in (2), crucial step in establishng (14) To maintain (26ii), en, we wou have tmodfy our framework somehow so as to permit Case-assignment directly



264 Lectures on goveent an bining: the isa lectures

to th PRO subject but not to other subjects in a stuctue to wch the rue o (2)has apped But ts in eect underminesthe proposa

The two options o (6) reect the two possibties or nonative

Case-assgnment that w have een considerng l aong ption (i)expesses the idea that goernment is a crucia acto in detemining nomnative Caseassignment (ongside o agreement) as in othe majo instances o Case-assignment Option (ii) expesses the idea that agreementaone suces Option (i) s peeabe it is sustanabe in at it avoidsthe pobe noted in the peceding paagaph and in that it unies nominatie Case-assignment with othe instances unde the theor o govenment t aso eads to a moe natua concet o govening catego,aong the ines discussed n the peceding chapte c chapte 3, note 4

and chapter 5, note 23 et us tentative assume, then, that option (i) iscoect and expoe its conequencesWe now undestand the Case-maing ues o nominative Case

assignment unde ageement as (28):

(28) At Sstuctue, asgn nomnative Case to co-supescriptedwith and govened b AGR

Reca that the cosupesiptng o AGR and the it govens is dete

mined at D-stuctue. The omuation (28) eaves open the possbtthat nominative Case ma appea in othe constructions t can easi beeomuated i Case-maing is to be nterpeted as Case-checing athethan Case-assignment, as we w in act assume beow

We ae now concened with dervations in wch the ruehasappied,moving INF into the VP, conveting the D-structue (29) to the S-structue (30i) o (30ii)

(29) AGR] V ]

(30) (i) V-AGR ]() V-AGR ]

We deive (30) when not on but aso -invesion has appiedSuppose st tat (29) is an egative construction in Buzos sense Then

= e] and is cosupescipted with AGR at D-structue We derve(3i) b appication o and the rue o PRO-insetion that co-spescipts the inseted PRO with the post-eba in o(29), (30i) In theS-stuctue (30i), then, = PRO co-supescipted with AGR and wth thepost-veba NP Since the atte to ae c-supescrpted an AG R govensthe post-veba , nominative Case is assigned to this unde (28)o,we might assume, assgned to its index, o that aso bes nomnativeCase, b inhertance

Suppose now that (29) is not an egative construction Then o (29) isdawn om the exicon Suppose that is a exica . Then is cosupescrpted with AG R at D-stuctue and the rue appies, iedng one



Speccaion o emp caegories 265

of the two foms of (30). t is in fact necessay fo NPinvesion to app,yieding (30ii) athe than (30i) ; fo if it does not, then Case wil not eassigned to = and the Case Fie wil e vioaed. te NPinvesion

and PROinsetion we have (30ii), with = PRO cosupescipted withposveal N t which nominative Case is assigned y (28).Suppose hat in (29) = PRO, inseted fom the leicon in Dstucue

as he sujec ponominal, as in (10i), the case of simpe missing sujectAgain, is cosupesciped wih AGR, and appies yielding one of thewo foms of (30), eithe (31 )of the fom (30i) o (32) of he fm (30ii):

(31) PRO [ mangiAGR] (= (10i), angia)(32) PRO [ [ mangiAGR]] PRO

Eithe 31) o (32) is deived fom the Dsuctue (33) application of theue

33) AGR] mangi (= (29))

n (31 ), PRO ( = ) is the sujec ponominal inseted fom he exicon.As distinc fom the case in which of 29) is exical, NPinvesion is notequied hee since PRO is no suject o the Case Fie. n (31 ) RO s

ungovened, and the sucue is gammatical. n {32), the PRO in theposveal posiion is of (33), and the PRO in sujec posiion is theinseted impesonal PRO cosupesciped with i an wih AGR. B(28),nominaive Case is assigned o the postveal NP (o its index), as efoe.Howeve, as mattes now stand (32) is aed y he fact hat PRO inposveal posiion is govened y AGR Theefoe, when = PRO in theDstucue (33), NPinvesion is not possie I he ue applies o theDsucue (33), then NPinvesion applies and ony is exical.

wil assume in susequent discussion tha the foegoing analysis is

coect, u efoe poceeding et us conside he possiily that NPinvesion is possile in case = PRO in (33). This ould equie thatheinveed PRO in (32) e egaded as a nonanapho, so ha it may have agovening categoy in wich it is fee, as is any ponona Assuming somesuch modication of the inding theoy, NPinvesion may opionallyapply to (33) yieding (32). A possie agumen in favo of this appoachwoud e ha i alows us t tae (28) to e an oligatoy le, Casemaing ules ae in geneal 39 In conast, we poceed wih he ealieanayss, then (28) must e egaded as an optional ule, so as to ad he

Sstuctue (31). If, in fac, we wee to tae (28) o e oligatoy, thenNPinvesion would no only e pemissie with he Dsuctue{33) utwould e oligatoy even wih = PRO in 3), as i is oligatoy when is lexical.

The inepetation of (28) as oigatoy eceives a ahe naual fomuation if we econstuct the pocess of Caseassignmen in tems of Casechecing Suppose we assume hat each noun dawn fom the lexicon,



266 Lecures on govemen an bining: he is lecures

hether a lexca noun or PO, may have one or another Case, and tat byconvention an receives the Case of its head noun. We now restate 2)as (34)

(34) In contaning AGR, there is a noinative cosuperscriptedwith and governed by AGR

rinciple (34) ike (2), appies at structure The requirement that (34)holds at structure is equivalent to principle (2), now interpreted asnobligatory rule ome elaboration is necessay to deal with variables andNP without anN head, e.g, gerunds a ersion of this idea l be developein chapter 6 in a dfferent context.

f we were to adopt (34) (or equivalently, obligatoriness of(2)), then wewoud derive two conclusions First, f the rule applies in the syntax, henthe structure must have a postverba subject either it is an ergativeconstruction, or NPinversion must have apped whatever the choice of

of (33) in a nonergative construction econd, case (i) (namey, siplmissing subject") reduces in effect to case (i) (namey, free inversion).This ine of argument extends Rizzi's proposa that free inversion is thebasic property of the pro-drop anguages. Following Rizzi, we have argedthat in the custer of properties (3) characteristic of pro-drop anguages,

all eements apat fom (i) and (ii) (namely, (li) and (i) educe to feinvesion, wich woud now emain as the sole independent ement of thecuste of propeties (3).

1wl not, howeve, pusue these possibiities o the modications of Gtheoy that they woud entai.

Let us now return to the assumption that the ule (2) of nomnativeCase assignment is otiona, so that only (3 ), not (2), s derivabe fom(33 where PRO Consider now the cass f exampes lusatedin (35)0

(35) (i) sembano intevenine moti() PROsembano [ t[ interveni-ne [ moi t]]]

(seem ua) to intevene of-them many" many ofthemseem to itevene")

itication of ne shows that we ave a stuctue of the fom (2i, with embedded ergative clause, so that the structue is (35). ee, PRhas been ased fom the position of The matx veb sembrano agees

with PR wich in turn agrees with the post-verba moli of heembeded clause Thus we have the cuious phenomenon that the matxveb agees ith the embeddd postvebal .

Note that we nd essentialy the same phenomenon in the Engishcounterpart 36:

(36) there seem [ t to be sevea options




Here the matrix verb also agrees with the embedded postverbal NPseveral opions The reason is that here whih is osupersripted withseveral opions in the embedded lause) mathes several opions in number,

and retains this property under raising, requiring that the matrix verbbe plural. The analysis should be siar in the orresponding Italianase, where we have PRO instead of here

How, then, is Case assigned to the postverbal NP in 5), so as tosatisfy the Case Filter? t annot reeive Case within the embedded lause,sine there is no AR element in this innitiva onstrution. Nor an itreeive Case from the matrix AR, sine the latter does not gove it.Therefore, it must inherit" Case from some element that is Casmarkedby 8). Whih element? The element assigned Case by AR must be o

supersripted with and governed by AR. The only element with this duaproperty is · Sine A R is assoiated withsembranoby appation of rule, it does govern Furthermore, it is osupersripted with ; assumingthe natural onvention that supersripts, ke subsripts, are retained undermovement i .e ., the rule Move maintains oindexing for al indies) andthat there an be no supersript onit. PRO is osupersripted withAR b virtue of the fat that it oupies the position governed by Rat Dstruture. Furthermore, PRO is osuperipted with the postverbal NP moli as a result of the PROinsertion rule for ergatives applying

prior to raising of PRO. t follows that PRO, , [ moli j] andARof the matrix lause are all osupersripted. n partiular, is osupersripted with the matrix AR that governs it, so that nominative Caseis assigned to the index of and inherited" by the postverba osupersripted lexia NP, whih is therefore nominative and passes theCase ilter.

Example 6 is basialy siar, exept that in this ase rule has notapped in the syntax, so that the postverba NP inherits its Case from thematrix subjet whih is governed by and osupersripted with AR

at Ssruture.Nte that i both the talian and English ase, we must assume that thepostverba NP annot be moved to the position of the embedded traeafter raising, a possibiity not ruled out now by the Case Fter. We mightappeal here to the priniple of the strit yle, or to deeper assumptionsfrom whih it may follow f. Freidin, 198).

Essentially the same analysis ould hol under the rejeted option that8) is obgatory equivalently, )), so that PROinversion in the matrixlause is also obligatory.

he aalysis of 5ii) has some unusual properties that are worth noting.One is that nominative Case is assigned to ; whih is the trae of Pmovement, hene an anaphor rather than a variable. This result is inonsistent with a narrow interpretation of priniple ...6), whih identiesvariable and Casemarked traes, though it is not inonsistent with thispriniple we assume, as in § .. and sine that Case is assigned to anindex and then optionally assumed by an element of the funtion hain with



68 Lectures on government an bining: the Pisa ectures

h index Reca, hweve, ha we have ade n use o he subpa o..(6 o whch hs quesion eevan, aey, he subpat whchsaes a a Caseaked ace is a vaiabe Teee i i no cea

hehe hs quesn s any ea sgncance A uhe popety (35)is h he ace t wh noinave Case is an anaph ha s no boundin he inal S ha cnains a siuaon ha aises wih objeive Caseune Excepona Caseaking bu ha des no aise esewhee wihnonaive as in he ange o aeia we have dscussed The ace is,oweve, bound n is govening caegory he aix clause n (35) as equied b he binding heoy

e see hen, ha he assupins we ae now cnseing ea heCaseassignen pincipe (3) o a Casechecking varan o i:

(3) Case is assigned o an index and inhered by exca wh hsndex

In § 32 we saw ha nheance could be upwad o a ccandingeeen in he case oveen Hee, we have seen ha i can bedownwad o a ccoanded eeen We eun in chape 6 o a oecaeu ouain o he prncipe (3), inoducing he equed quacaions ha have s a been aciy assued

Assing, hen, ha he pobes o Caseassignen in sucueswih psveba N in (2) can be handed in hs way, we us nex conside he pobe o oe assignen in hese scues The geeaine o arguen n § 322 can be adoped n he invesion cases, wihoes assgned apprprae uncon chans In he ergave cae, roeis assigned direcy he posverba NP wil deay a ore creuaccoun uni chaper 6, where he quesin epy caegories w beeconsered n a sewha deren gh

Cnsder now such exapes as (38)

(38) *Giovann crede [che se sess ha angiao e eeJ(Givanni beieves [ha hse ae he appes]")

Suppose ha R appes in he PFcoponen Then a Ssucure, theebedded clause is he governng caegory r the anaphrse stesso,whchs goveed by AGR Exape (38) is ten bard by prncipe (A) o thebindng thery Suppose thatRhas apped in the syntax Then the senences barred by the Case Fler snce se stesso canno be assigned nonativeCase; r in the Casechecking varant, because prncpe (3) is vilaed

Let us un t se uther exapes a type slar se discussedabve Burzio onts u the cnras between (35) and (39)

(39) (i) * sebrano [ oti studenti inevenireJ(ii) *Givanni pensava di [ venire ara]

(Givanni thught [ara o ce]")



Specaton of empty categore 269

Exape (i) is barred in a straightforard way by the Case Fter as isgeneray true with exica subjects of innitives apart fro ExceptionaCase-arkng. Recal that fronting of molt tdent after raising is ipos

sibe by the strict cyce Exape () has the Sstructure (40i) contrastingwith (40)

( (i) *Giovanni pensava di [ PRO venire ariaJ() PRO sebrano [ t intervenirne oti = (35))

PRO in (i) contrasts directy with trace in () stil another distincion between trace and PRO. Exape (i) is ungraatica by the Case Fiter sinceMara acks Case. This woud be true eveif PRO in (i) were coindexed with

Govann Case coud not be inherited downwards toMaa since the intervening PRO breaks he function chain; cf. chapter 6for a re preciseforuation of ths tacit assuption toughout. ut furtherore PROin (i) cannot be coindexed with Govann. If it were then (i) woud be acontro structure; but PRO in () is ipersona PRO with a superscript cosuperscripted with Mara and this eeent is not subject o cono Itis not an arguent and has no reference either deterined by contro orarbitrary

Consider the exapes (4 ):

(4) (i) [ e i s known how l to sove this probe() [ e gi fu suggerito di PRO ten tare

(it toh was suggsted [to ry" ; it was suggested to hito try")

*Giovanni gl fu suggerito di tentare(it was suggested to h that Gioanni try")

(iv) gi fu suggerito che tentasse Giovanni(it was suggested to hi that Giovanni try")

(v) facile capire(it is easy to undersand" in the sense of to understand iseasy")

(vi) *Giovanni facile cap re(it is easy for Gioann to understand")

(vii) face che capisca Giovanni(it is easy that Giovanni understand")

Exaple (i) satises the properties ofD-structure butBus be rased o

satisfy the Case Fter Ths is ipossible however since the trace ef byoveet wil then be ungoverned (cf. 24 ( 0iii)). The exapes ()(vilustrate the sae phenoenon in Italian but on the basis of slighlydifferent echaniss Exaple (ii) is graatica with ipersonal PRO(the equivalent of Engish t) inserted in the atrx subject position cosuperscripted with the extraposed innitva clause presuaby. Supposethat (ii) were derived fro a siiar structure by raising Govann



27 Lectre on goement and binding the Pia lectre

posiion of subjec of tentare Again, he senence is arred by ECP usuppose that the inversion opon is taken in the embedded cause, as ispossibe compare he grammatia example (iv) hen Gioanni is aised

fro he inveted position, is race is proper governed by tentare rechat movemen is possible after P-inversion. Bu is stil barred,now by the binding theory The impersonal subject PRO of the embeddedinnitival, insered aer inversion, is an accessibe E in esense of the binding theory, so tha he trace le after movement wouldbe free in its governing category, violating principle (A) uppose thaafer P-inversion in the embedded clause, the inverted N were modo COMP, eaving a trace wich is a variable Then the binding theorydoes not appy, bu is operation is still impossibe since the aiabe

would not have Case and would herefore ack a roe (cf § 3.2.2. eexamles (v)(vi) iustrate the same phenomena in e case of an adjectival consruction tha does no assign a -role to the subject, thus not bocking NP-movemen o the subject directy by the -crteron

Consider again theimprsonalconsructionsdiscussedbrieyin § § 2.4,27 There are three basic cases o be considered:

(42) (i) si mangia le mele(i) e mele si mangiano

(ii) si mangiano le mele(the apples are being eaten")

In each case, le mele is understood as he direct objec of mangiare a LFBy the projection principle and he assumption hat the exicon is maximaly simpe, we conclude hat here is a common base form, namey (43),underying al he exampes of (42):

(43) [ Ne] si mangia le mee]

Case (42ii) is unprobleatic we can reduce to case (i), taking it toderive from (ii) by the inversion process characterisic of prodrop anguages: Move followed by insertin of impersonal PRO cosuperscripedwith he NP adjoined VP ee 6(31)(33) for deais.

Turning to (42i), et us assume (following Ri (1976)) hai is a cticreated to the subject futhermore, tha i is in FL in -structure. Then the rule R of (12) appies in the synt, i along wih AGR be inVP at -srucure and LF, whereas R appies n the Pcmpnent,

i w remain n FL governing the subjec at -strucure and F.n hese assumptons, (42) has the srucure havingppied in thesyntax:

(44) RO [si-mangia e mee]

Here PRO is coindexed withian ungoverned, as required



Specatn of empt categore 27

Assume furthe that like passive mophology, can absorb" theobective Case-marking of a transitive verb (cf. §27) f ths happens,ten NPmovement from obect position is obligatory by virtue of the Case

Filter, converting (43) to (42ii), which is intepreted as an impersonapassive The impersonal passives have the two basic properties of passivediscussed in § 27: Case is absobed by some element othe than the obect,and the subect position [NP,S] lacks a -role though retains the -roleof subect, thus incidentally, ecluding agent phrases in ese constuctions

The Sstructures of (42), then, ae (45):

(45) (i) PRO [ VP si-mangia le mele] (= (i) e mele [ense, AGR, si]

mangi- t]

PRO [VP simangiano le mele]

Fthermore, the VPs of (i) and differ in internal structue, with leele in the obect position in (i) and adoined to an interna in .

t follows, then, that in a nonpro-drop languge such as Fench, weshould nd only the analogue to (ii) This is indee the case.

Assumng the anayss n (4), how ae Case and -oe assgne n(i, the bec le mele receives obective Case in the noma way; assumethen that s maked nomnatie The oles of obect and subect areassigned to le mele and resetively. The poerties of (ii) and tenfollo fom the poperties of ove and POinserton, as aeady discussed, though thee ae some renements necessary, sme ofwhcwe wdiscuss in chapte 6, when the rlevant notions ae made moe pecise.

Beletti notes further that has the inherent feature [+plura], asndcated by such sentences as (4):

(46) (n quest paese) si vive sempe nevosi((in this county) one () aways lives nervous (p.)")

We thus have the cuius stuaton that the eb s singula n (45i) witha plual subec () Beletti argues that s not only n FL, but is nfact he realization of AGR in these cases, so that n (4) and n(46) ae unmaked stems. om here the equied eecution.

n short, we ae assuming tha in the D-stucture (43), may be assgnednominatve Case, yeldng the actve sentence (42i); o t absobs obectveCase, tiggering NP-movement and yieldng the mpersona passve (42i),whch may then be converted t (42ii) by the norma nverson pocess.

uestions o eecution have bee eft open, and only one of severa pssbleatenatives has been consideed But t seems that the constucton tsrathr natualy in the pesent framewok

n note 4, we entioned Longobard's obsevaton that ageement tothe ight in copula constucton appeas o be another propety assocatedith the comple of poperties 3) of pro-drop languages. hs concluson



7 Lecre on govemen and bndng he Pa lecre

flows quite natul om ou pesent assumptions. Compe the copulaconstuctions 7 in tian and Fench o English:

4 i sono io c'est moi"it's me

The coesponding S-stuctues ae 48:

{48 {i [ P* [ copula-AGR ]]{ [ P* AGR [ copua P

In i, the ule o 1 has appied. Theeoe, the subject P* is impesona PRO co-supescpted ith the P pedicate o. AGR goves andassigns nominative Case to o Since NP and AGR ae co-supescpted andae ponominas, they must agee n all eates Theeoe, the copulaagees wth the post-veba nomnative P; ono s st peson sngulain 47.

In i, n contast, has not apied so that P* is govened and cannotbe PRO. NP* must theeoe be a thd peson impesona element (ce inFench, n Engsh, whch s Case-maked y and ageeswthAGR The

copula s theeoe thd peson, and t assgns objectve Case to P.Thee ae uthe popetes o these constuctons that eque discussion ; cf. the eeences of note 14. Longbad ponts out that a tacin the postcopula position appeas to volate ECP; e.g., ths position snot in genea subject to elativzaton, as in *"the man who John s leftyesteday. hs might e accounted o by extendng the obsevations onpope govement in the na emaks of §4 Suppose that only lexcacategoes can be pope govenos Then it might be that the copula is nota exca categoy in the equed sense n such constuctons as 47; it can

goven, but not popely goven.It s possible that othe conditions shoud be mposed on pope govement, fo example, some kind of adjacency condton Such a contonwould, o example oe an independent means o ung out such stuctues as 49:

{49 { . . [ V P [t to ]] *John as pesuade B[t to win]i *who dd John pesuade B[t to wn]

I thee is no deleton in the embedded clausa complement then thestuctues o 49 ae excluded by ECP deletion has taken place, thenECP would not bevolated i pope govenment does not eque adjacency.These consideations do not, howeve, povde a motvation o anadjacency equiement o pope govenment Recall the discussion o.6.19 whch showed that suc examples as 49 ae uled ut on



Speccation of empty categorie 73

independen gonds In fact we have see some diect evidence conicting with sch an adacency eqiement specically (50

(50 ohn impessed me t as itelgent] = 6(8iAn adacency codition o govenmen is poposed in O I wodeqie a smal veb phase analysis fo sch stcte as John gaveBil] a book ohn pesaded B] PRO to leave] etc But it is notequied by anything we have consideed and wod cal fo djstmentstha do nt appea to be motivated

This discssion baely scatches the sface oa colection of inticateand impotant poblems seveal of which ae discssed moe exten

sivey in the efeences cited It mst also be egaded as quite tentativeThe seectin o options expoed epesents only one possibe path amongsevea that seem easonable ; see the efeences of note 0 But this sfcesfo pesent pposes Retuning to (10 epeated hee as (5 we take to be PRO inseted by a e of PROinsetion in (ii and basegeneatedin pace in the D-stcte (i in accodance wih the Avoid Pononpincipe which is opeative in po-dop langages given the paamete (5

(51(i VP( V NP

(5 R may appy in the syntax (= (1

PRO in (i is a te efeentia ponominal; in ( it is an impesona ponomina analogs to pleonastic i here PRO in (i can have an antecedent as a efeentia ponoun can bt it cannot be abitay in efeencePRO in (ii is not an agment and cannot be contoled o abitay inefeence The postvebal NP in (5ii is assigned Case by GR in constctions that do not invove aising and inheits is Case fom the taceof the cospescipted PRO n the case o asng

This analysis which folows diectly fom independent assmptionsfo the most pat esticting paametic vaiation and stiplation ofoptions to a minimm yieds the eqied conclusions concening thepo-dop paamete and the custe of poeties associated with it Thepinciple ECP is maintained as (53 (= 44(11 but the dention opope govement is now efomulated as eithe (4 o (55 thelatte the na emaks of § 44 and the suggestion concening (48 aecoect no onge incopoating the podop paamete

(53 ECP e] mst be popely govened(54 properly goern { i and nly goens and - AGR(55 properly goern { if and ony govens and is exal

As between (54 and (55 the atte is pefeabe tenabe The denition



274 Lecture on govement and binding the Pia lecture

o "goernen reans as n 4.4.(9 ncludng he aseo governenby a caegoy x and he ase o condexing; he laer case aples onlor an eleen n COMP governng an ebedded subjec anaogous o

governen n nnvas an a a sep reov xeiona Casearng srucures and rasng predicaes. Caseassgnen s coningenon goenen and govenng caegoes ae hose ha cnangoenos.

ay be ha sll oe escive condiions should be placed on henoon "pope goveen. n § 3. we saw ha he congaion(56 he head o govens bu oes no popely goen�whee andfae caegoies o he sae ype (hough pehaps wih dieen nube bas c. 3...(7{9 8

(56

aNP* ]

To deeine oe pecsely e opery o "pope govenen ha iinvolved recal ha V popely govens NP* in (57 ndha A poelygovens NP* n (58

(57) V . . . ] NP](58 [[queA][NP . . . ]]

Thus oveen s possible o he posiion oNP in (57 and NP

oveen s possible o he posiion oNP n (58 The crucial dieencebeween (56 on he one hand nd (57(58on he ohe appeas o be hain (56 NP is n he spece o n he sense o Xba heoy wheeas n ·(57(58 s n he coplenohehead VoA(inasoewha exendedhough naual sense o "copleen n (57. O is aken o be hehead o wh S as is copleen hen he · condexng cases o popegovenen all oghe wh (5758 ahe han (56 as equred . Anaual enave concluson hen is ha popely govens ony iis n he copleen o . The pecse oulaion o hs noon s

saighorwad.The exaples evewed deene a hghly specc noon o "popegovenen bu enough quesons aise abou he sope and epesenave chaace o hese exapes o sugges ha a good dea o uhe wokis necessa beoe an exac denon can be poposed wh any secuy.

Fo uhe dscsson o condons on "pope govenen alongoewha deen lnes see Kayne ( 980b .

n § .4. we gave a enave oaion o he geneal pncple ogovenen o epy caegoies naely ha ace s govene and PR

ungovened (c. .4. .13 esaed as .9.(4. Thespar ohispncples now sighy odied as CP; he second par olows o he bndingheoy. We have also ound easons devg o consdeaions oheoy o assung ha variabes ae Caseaked. Ping heseobsevaions ogehe we have he pincpe (59

(59 Generalized ECP s an epy caegoy hen



Speccation of empty categories

i) is PRO if and ony if it is ngoerned is trace if and ony if it is propery goernedii) s a ariabe ony if it is ase-marked

75

We hae fond no reason to strengthen ii) to if and ony if, andthe considerations st reiewed concerning impersona PRO argeaganst doing so. The stats of 59) wi be frther caried in chapter 6

46 Recoerabilty and cliti

We hae now discssed the rst three concepta probems that arise inconnection with RESNIC), namey, 44.ii): the probem of determinng the natre of oca contro, of expaining the asymmetry between

sbect and obect, and of expaining the distinction between nominatieand sbect o innitie We hae aso dscssed in some deta thecentra part of 44i), namey, the qestion of the character of theempty sbect in the prodrop angages t remains to consder the residaqestion of 44 i) and 4.4), namey, the reation of ECPto recoerabity of eetion and the reation between the pair NP, A GR) and the pactic, posterba empty position)

Actay, we hae aready deat with one aspect of the reation ofEP to recoerabity, namey, wth regard to sbects. Foowing

Taradsen's basc idea as modied by Jaegg, the option of permittingPRO as sbect is reated to oert manfestation of AGR in erba morphoogy, a reation that s not precise n deta bt reects a strong tendencyhe resida probems, then, concern the matter of citiczaion Agan,there are a nmber of wys to prse these qestions. w deeop onepossibit, extending the ideas st otned

We distingish two types of citiczation: i) cticzation of PP, as in thecase o taian ne or Fench y en () citczation of direct or ndirectobects wi pt aside case i), assming that it inoes a moement

re operating in the manner briey discssed aboe and in more detain the references cited. We ae now concerned with case (). Note thatthe ciiczation option is ndependent of the prodrop parameter. Ths,Fench is ke Itaa and Sansh and different from Engsh n that ithas itics, bt it is ke Engish and nke Itaian and Spansh with regardto the prodrop parameter. We want to show, if possibe, that French,taian and Spanish are basicay ake wth regard to cticzation, andthat they differ minimy from Engishtype angages in this regardLet s assme that the basic distinction ies at the ee of D-strctre

angages may hae ether the base form (1) or ):1 NP NL [ c-V NP]) NP NFL [ V NP

This property of Dstrctre might derie from the excon or from tecategoria compnent NFL incdes AR whe it is [+Tense] The



76 Lectues on govement and binding� the Pisa lectues

reatin f AGR t he subject NP seemsquite simiar t hat f the clitic t the bject The Avd rnun rncple perates unfrmly permitting empty subjects here the element AGR s sufciently "strng

t allw recverability (nly a tendency, as nt Crrespndingly,ths princple will aw the N asscated wt the clitic be empty,but nt an NP asscated wth n litic as n n ths maner, we migthpe t ncrprate a airly genra pncple f recverablty wthn hepresent thery deang with prblem 44(iv

Let us nw cnsider mre carefully the prblem f develpng suchan apprach wthin ur present framewrk Cnsder the French examle(3, whch we nw assume t have the D-structure 4 and, presumably,the Frepresentatin (5

(3 Perre le vt("Perre sees hm

(4 Perre e vt NP](5 Pierre [ vt ]]

Assuming D- and S-structure t be as in (4, the prjectin rciple issatsed as regards subcategrizatin and was be satsed as regardsmarng we ensure at n (4 receives a -rle at i thecharacter f the NP bject n (4 and the character f n (5, and wht arethe relatins amng theverb, the cltc, and the bject?

he bvius cnclusin, pursung the line f thnkng in the precengsectin s that the n (4 and n (5 ae PRO f s, then he bjectpstin must be ungverned e u assume tat the ctic "absrbsgvernment n a manner t be caried Thus the bject ich we wlnaturaly assume t be cindexe wth the ctic, ungvernd, hencePRO he cindexing must be ditinc frm tharelevnt t the bindingthey Suppse then, we agan te it t be c-superscriptng, a nealier cases f the same srt

e have related subcategriatn and -marking thrughut tgvernment Bt w are nw assumin that t bject psitin in , (5s nt gverned by the verb, thugh it must be sucategzd by theverb and the NP ccupying t mus be marked by the verb t satisfy theprjectn principle and the -crtern he siplest mve seems t be tcntinue t hld that marks the pstn that i gves the cliticpsitn n (4 ad t extend sightly the ntins f subcategzatinand -marking dend n § Reall that � is marked by if� r is traces in a psitn marked by Supse we nw add that s marked by

if a c-superscrpted eleen (in ths cse, a cliic s in the psti-marked by extendng the ntn f subcategrzatn in the same wayThen the bject psitin in (4 and (5 is subcategred b the ver; theNP that ccupes ths psitin s marked y the verb, athugh the verbdes nt gvern r -mark ts psitn the prperties f subcategzatin and -markng are "inherid fm the c-suerscrpted clitce ae nw suppsng the cltic psitin t be gverned by the verb



Speccatio of empty tegore 77

and accodngly o be Case-maked by he veb The clc howeves no an agumen; ahe he co-supesciped objec is he agumen50

Thee is vaiaon wih egad o clic doublng as in sanad Spanish(6 and Rive Plae Spanish (7

(6 lo vimos a l("we saw hm

(7 lo vmos a Jan("we saw Juan

Case (7 is exclded n sandad Spanish and he analogues o boh (6 and(7 ae ungammaical in Fench and (sandad aan. n a Spanishdialecs (8 s ungammaical:

(8 *lo vimos Juan

These acs llusae an impoan obsevaion o Kayne's whee heeis clic-doubling hee mus be some devce o assign Case o he haappeas n he posiion associaed wih (co-supescped wih he clic.n pansh he devce employed s inseion o a peposion as in Englshonseion. We connue o assume hen ha he "doubed isungovened by he eb in (6 (7. The -nseion le o Spanish isequie o assign i Case so ha he Case Fle i no violaed.

Thee ae no examples o ciic doublng n he case o PP-clics.Ths olows om he assmpion ha we have acual moemen ahehan base-geneaion ese ciics which ae no subcaegoed byhe veb

he discussion o cliis elaes o he ECPn neesingays Considehe case o Spanish (c Jaeggli (1980b n he case o clc-doublnheposvebal s ungovened (hough i has Cae Theeoe i should

e mpossibe by ECP o a vaabe o appea n he posiion o heposveba NP whehe he vaiable is poduced by movemen o by aqanie-movemen ule o he LF-componen he pecedng discussion o ECP s coec Conside he base sucues (9 in Spansh

(9 ( o vse a qn("whom did you see?

( vise a qn("whom did you see?

( las vi a odas las mujees(" saw al he omen(iv vi a odas es mujees

(" saw a he women

n cases ( and ( he Dsucue is geneaed h a clc; in case (and (iv wih no clic. The -phase may be moved yieding (



78 Lecture o oemet ad bd: he a lecture

corresponding to (9i; or it may e eft in pace so hat the -structuresare (9i

(10 (i uin o viste t( a uin viste t

In (10 th trac becomes a variabe at LFreprsentation In te exampsof (9 a rue of the LFcomponent moves the pras of (i (i and theuantied phrase of ( ), (iv aving a variabe in th vacated positionAccording to the ECP exampes (9i and (10i shoud be ungrammaticabcause government is absorbed by the ctic so thatwehavean ungovernedvariab a LFrprsenaion but (9iv a ( shoube gmatica

case the variab is goerned by the verb thus satisfyig ECP Exactyts is the case aeggi points outaggi aso points out that the famiar denitness reuirement for

cticdoubng (namey that the postvrba P must be dnite foowsfrom the same assumptions we regard indnite NPs as uantiedexprssions enc subect to he ru of uantiermovement cf My977 aso notes that indirect obects differ from th exampes citedabve in hat -mvement th citiczatin is possbe from whiche cncudes that ECP shoud be restrcted to Ps th assumption ing

tha te rue o isertion creates a of the form [aNP i corastto te true preposton a of the ase wich appears in the constructon[PPa NP] Cf aegg (180b fr eaoration of tis idea based inpa onobservations by Vgnaud 974

ie thre s obvious muc mor to say about the topc of citcztion this brief dscusso ustrates one approach that seems uitepausbe and that ts natury nto th framework we have been consdering A cos reatio s estished ew ciic-P pairs and subctverbageeent an th condition o recoveraity of etion fr pronouns s

to consderabe extent accommodated ithin te GBtheory Futore a atono ECP s stabised with regard to citiczatioT coneptua probes ceing R(IC appear to be resove

in a rasoaby satisactory way in term of t principe EP fthe bindgthory and two basic arameters which ae independent the pr-dropparameter and the opton of having citics the atter admitting of varioussubcases ECP forms part of the Generazed ECP 45(59 he residuefaing under the binding theory an -theory Throughout the concept of govrnmen pays a cenra roe as it does Case theory and

theory

Nots

Recal tha here ae aso dffeences beween varables and names, specicaly,wth regad t weak crssover. ntes 46- f chaer 3. Recal aso tha if the bndinghey aes t S-rucue a we sme naly, hen n he sng croove cses we



Spccaion of mpy goris 9

have quantier phrases rather than variabl in the positon comparable to that of thevariable in -movement at the pont where he bnding theory appl.2. The superiority conditon in the sense of Chomsky (977a chapter 3) as illustratedn (2v) (3) (4) has not generally been considered n ths context but this phenomenon

does seem to fall together naturall wth the other examples of SIC). For otherinterpretatons of this condton see Fiengo ( 1979) George (980).ote that while the LF-rresentaton (3) s blocked by (1) and the LF-representaton

(4) is permtted by (1) thus accounng for the dstnction between the ngrammatcal(2v) and the grammatcal (4) nevertheless a problem remans concernng (4): namely wewant to say that n (4) governs t• for reasons that wll become clear later on whereas does not govern t n (3) (or at let does not "properly govern t in the sense towch we return). But does not c-command t; in ether case The problem is similar toone noted n chapter 3 note 56. We mght dea wth it n severa ways One possbi is toassme that COMP takes the index of its head thus in (3)and n (4ii) and that it is that is (dervatvely) the governor (cf. Aoun Hornstein and Sportche (1980)). Another

sggested by Aon is to sppose that the movement rle of the LF-component s nfact a re of adjunction to with a -phrase in CO which wive the desired results.St another possiblty wold be to take to be a projecton of CO slghtly modfyngthe notion of "ccommand presented in 3.2.1.(12) restrcting c-command in a "chanof categores wth the same features to its head ths in (4) but not in (3). Pendingfurher clarcaton I wil leave the qestion open assumng n the sbseqent dscussonthat the probem receves a souton perhaps in one of these ways.3. The srface strcture (5i) is rrelevantly possbe with the dfferent S-structre (i)

ohn was aed t how PRO to sove the problem]]

4. Assme - n (1) to be the moved phrase wch do not appear in srfacestructre.5. Later we wl see that there is good reason to sppose that SNIC) do excudets congration in Italan with ts interpretaton of (1) derving from a dfferent sorce.But for the moment et s put ts possblty aside and contne to take (1) to be the correctanalysis.6. Hang (1980) arges that in Cnese where there is no overt movement in normal-phrases cefts and smar constrctions there is nevertheless a movement re n theLF-component analogos to the qantier-movement rle or the -movement rule we arenow considering yieldng eects that he describes. Bt he concludes that the -movementrue of the LF-component violates sch constrants as the complex N constraint thoughnot the specici constraint.7. Chomsky (977b) OB Fengo and Higginbotham (979). The basic observationsconcerning specicty ded n Chomsky (977b) are due to George Horn (cited inHornstein (1977)) and Robert May (1977).8 Violations of the coordinate strctre constraint seem mpossible however:

(i) *I wonder who wrote which textboo and that novel

Perhaps a parallelsm constrant of the sort stdied in George (980) is involved.9 The examples (v) are de to Leand George who had noted ts phenomenon nde-pendent. Similar exampes were noted ndependently by ane Grshaw.10. The generalizaton s not unproblematic and there has been mch discussionwch I wl not revew here of apparent conterexampes. I tentatvey assme thatthe generaization is a valid one and that either a sharper formation of it or reanalysis ofthe angages that appear to provide conterexamples wil overcome apparent probems asn the case of Hungarian discss n § 3.2.2; cf. 3.2.2.(13). It shold be emphaszed thatts is a strong assumption wch may prove false. 1 . Irrelevantly (ii) may have the reading: "not (I want that for no x, x come)



80 Lectures on goement nd binding: the Pis lectures

2 See Kaye (1979c) for a suggestion as to wat ts actor mgt be3 Te Englis equivaents aow (20), ence te interna anaysis Sportice iscoect, i a cases Te same is true of Cinese, Huag 1980) observes May oterquestions aise concerning constructions wit focal stress Cf Rocemot (1978)

14 Giuseppe Longobardi suggests tat anoter property reated to ts compex isagreemet to te ight in copuar constuctios, as in (i) cotrasting with :

(i) sono io c'est moi

("it's me)

In (i), sn is rst perso singuar; i , tird person sigular n work in progs, eexplores may iterting consequences of RESC) for prediate positios, ad aso offersan interpretaion of the prodrop parameter tat differs from te oe I wl deveop here,ain expoig a variet of cosequncs On copular constuctins, see lso Ewards(1979), Higgibotham (980)

Tere are oter properti tat appear to be associated wit ts compex; eg, restuctuing i the sense of Rizzi (1978a) wi omit ts and oter reated problems discussed inteiterature Cf Burzio (1981)15 Cf ayne ad Polock (978), aye (1979a) aeggli (980b) suggests that tsule is "stylistic, ie, in the PFcompoent16 For a much more extensive treatment of tese and reated qutions, based onsomewat different assumptions ta those developed here, see Burzio (1981), from wceements wl be borrowed beow, as idicated7 ternativey, if do not deete and is prent, assuming (as above) tat wehave o rule of deletion, but rather the optio of basegeneratio of 1 8 Suppose we assume te doubly ed CO ter to be operative, as i Petsky'stheory Then we must ensure tat trace in CO not be deleted i te Pcomponent piorto te applicatio of the ter, or (14i) wl incorrectly be marked grammatica But tracemust be deletabe in COMP, to permit (14iii) to pass te ter Terefore trace must beoptionaly deletable at Sstructure but ot i he Pcomponent pior to the ter

f we rely rather on the assumption tat oca contro requires ccommad (with Rizziand ayne), te we may assume as in chapters 2, 3 tat nonCasemarked trace is "ivisible in the Pcomponent, ence ivisibe specicay to te ter19 or ( 5iii), I assume the analysis of ces i Chomsky (1977b), wc is quite welmotivated in terms of its expanatory force ad also i view of the fact that overt prasesca appear in the CO position of cles, as in "it is ohn to wom spoke20 If we assume tat tere is no deetion but rather movemet of an empty category as discussed earlier, then we must assume tat te empty category (say, PRO) ad are "absorbed into a single quasireative pronou witthe features of ad te index(ad perhaps other features) of PRO at Sstructure noter possibility, suggested by ou,is tat the element , ackig a semantic functio, is "ivisible in the LFcomponentjust as Casefree trace is invisible in te PFcomponent, a possibility tat shoud be exploredi te more general context developed i ou (979b) Cf the a remarks of § 26 ora variat of Pesetsky's proposa along somewat differet lines, see ou, Hornstei adSportiche (980)21 Cf Pesetsky (978b) so Chomsky ad Lasik (1977) See Kayne (980a) forextesive further discussion of tis ad related matters

22 Tere are oter reevant examples in the category of innitivas, for exampe, thosediscussed i Rizi (979b) wi not pursue tese topics, however C (980c), Coms (198 )23 Shoud te ECP in fact be extended beyond Ps, as assumed ere itout reevat evidence? Tat te answer may be negative is suggted by interting evidence adducedby aeggli (980b), to wic I return biey i §46

The ECP migt be related to the pincipe discussed i § 26 ad § 323 that catgoies of te form e] must have some sort of antecedet I wl ot pursue tis question,however



Speccation of empt categorie 81

24. Recal that 3.2 .( ) was one of a seres of poposals fo dening government.An anaogous modcation s eur f one of the alternatves s seected.25. For exampe, we might add the stiplation, whch we have been considerng romvaos points o view thoghot ths discssion, that Case-maked tace s a varabe sothat (15ii,ii) ae bocked by prncpe (C) o the bindng theory, since the tace s an A-bondvaiabe. Bt we woud hope to deive ths stiplaton fom the theoy, insofa as it s corect,athe than relying on it as an independent pincple. A second possibiity is to appea to the[-] te assming now that -deetion in post-veba position oows the lteThis mak the pedicton that in sch daects as Oza Engish that ac the te schsentences as ( 5,ii) shold be gammatica. I have not been able to detemine satisfactorywhethe ths s the case, bt I doubt t

ote that nethe of the poposals o any othes, to my knowledge give a satsfactory answe to one problem dscuss nconclsvely n Chomsky and Lasnk (1977), namey,the magnay acceptable chaacte of (i)

(i) who do ou want most o all (very mch) t to win

26 Recal hat we have left ope the ton o how the stct wth postverbalsbjects ae geneated27. Which s, in sence, the veson pented at the GLOW workshop in Pisa inApi 1979, where the empcal pobem we have now been discssng was noted on thebasis o Rs obsevatons bt et nesoved.28. Pehaps a methodoogca asde s waranted at ts pont It is, thnk, genealyvald to say that poposals concening geneative gma in the 1950s and 1960s wereaey facedwith diect conte-evdence, the usua pobem being that the poposals ackedexplanatory depth o cod only be appied to some ange of pheomena in a cmsy andunenlghtenng way. In moe ecent yeas, the situation has changed. Much moe estictvetheores wth a consideaby moe atcuat intena stcte have been poposed and,corespondingy, a geat dea of appaent conteevidence has been put oth Often t suncea what to make of sch evidence. As has oten been noted, pinciples o UG cannotbe diecty conmed o efted by ingstic data, bt ony by graas; and unanalyzeddata geneally ae nnoatve wth egad to the gramma o which they derve. Adatum does not wea ts explanation on its seeve. In soe cases, the conter-evidence seemeal, in that the gammatical res that appea to be impcated did conict with thepoposals conceng UG. In many cases, the conte-evidence has indeed poven eal, eading to modication of theoy o simpy standing nesoved.

lngstcs, as in the othe "hman scences, a bady-msnderstood "Popperan

methodoogy has often been poposed which ues that a theory be abandoned n theace o (apparent) conte-evidence, as in the case of ECP jst dscssed Very commony,it has proven to be a wise moe to persst n mantainng pincipes o UG tha had signicant explanatory power n some domain, even when they wee faced with what appeaedto be conte-evdence. Quite oten, t has tu ot that the henomena wee misanalyzedo misndestood o that the basc ideas of the paially successl theory wee sond, thoghsome change in pesptive or in the pecise form o pincipes was reed To cite onecase, t was noted in Chomsky (977a, chapter 3 ; datng rom 1970) that ponons dectyreted the bnding conditions poposed thee in essence, he SSC and C. becameobvos shorty after that this was the esut of a mstaken way o ookng at the behavoo pronons. A nmbe o othe exampes have been mentoned above, and the lteature

contains a host of othes The exampe o ECP, just discussed, is a case in pointAs theoretcal work advances and poposals become moe sgnict, we expect inact hope that seros empiica and conceptal pobems wi aise. That is what makespogess possble The methodoogca pincpe jst mentoned, whch s iia n ngistcs and smila eds, has one cean conseence t wl bloc any pogess n undestandng, snce thee is much too mch that s simpy not ndestood. The ationalconclson is not o dismss coute-evdece, contadictions and conceptal poemsaised in connecton with ideas that have expanatoy foce in some doman, no s t, sey,



82 cturs on govmnt an bining th Pisa curs

to abndo hese ides whe'n tere .is no more successful lterntive Rther, the rtionlpproch is to pursue these is s intensively s possible, lwys onsidering the possibiliy f shping them to oveome utstnding problems or to reconsider the chrcterof the llg problems or to abndon them i n the fe o some ltntive of still greter

expltory power The greter the· explnto frce o the ides in question the orertin it is to persist in eveloping them in the fe of pprent ounter-evideneNedless to sy, these remrks re obvious to t point of truism in ny developed siene

29 hese re Jegglis exmples (4 1 05) As he notes, the ungrmmtil sttus ofi) is irrelevnt here; (i) ike (ii) cking �phrse subjet, is ungrmmticl becueoligtory in>ersion hs not tken plce:

(i) • qu qui n ompr6(ii) •qu Jun ompr6

30 The bsi line of rgument in this prgrph derives from Jeggi ( 1980b), who

develops the ide somewht differently, however For different nd quite plusible pproches to the questions we re now onsidering see Rizzi ( 1980, 1 980) Buio ( l 98 1 )nd forthoming work by Longobrdi3 1 The string I7) my be mrginlly eptble fter rising nd inversion butnot ith the struture (I 7) Sine the rgument presented here relies on property ofstruture it provides empiric support for theory bsed on Move s syntt rulewith postulted D"struture s ompred with vrint th ssumes bsegenertion ofSstruture with new interpretive rules with extly the properties of Move- As not in§ 24, i is extremely difult if indeed it is utimtely possibe to nd empiril differenes between these theori Hene it is not surprisin tht this rgument like othersto the sme et tht hve pr ir is highly thorinternl t seems likely tht

ny empiril rgument distinguishing these virtuly identil lterntives ould ve tobe of tis hrter, s we hve observ severl times32 Notice tht recourse to th Avoid Pronou priniple for subjets is prmitt inprdop lnguges, by virtue of the option 12) We my ssume tht the priniple holdsgenely but it is pplible only in he pro-drop lnguges The onditions uer whihlexicl pronouns my or must pper in Itlin nd Spnish seem rther compex will notpurse te issue, whih I do not fully understnd3 Whether this ssumption is fuly enbe is not cler Rizzi ( 1 979) rgues thteven short movement within cluse from subject position is excluded in Itlin fthis is the se we might ssume tht ppition of the rule R in the synt is obligtorwhen the subjet is empty inluding vribles wel PRO inversion eing obi

gtor in l othr s Apperne of subjects in pre-verbl position which is ofourse possible might be th result of topiliztion or of rule of the PFomponentmoving he invert NP into subject position Or Aoun suggests there might be nbstrct complementizer in COMP tht prevents ccommnd of the tre in subject position by the -lemen in OMP, bloking short -movement from subjet positionhe lter option might be prefrble s Aoun observes in the light of the ft thtquntie movement is possible from preverbl subjet position though it is not possiblefrom topilized position I will put these questions side noting tht problem my eist34 We dopt the ssumption of Kyne ( 1 975) tht there is litimovement in theseses On -litiiztion, se Belletti nd Rizzi (1980) See the disussion of 321(12),onerning the relevnt notion of c-commnd5 Burios disussio bs in prt on ides of Dvid Perlmutter etends freyond the questions we re considering here Ergtive verbs, in Burzios sense hvthe property tht they do not ssign se to their dirt objet but do ssin it role(presumbly, heme) In cordne with 2(40), these verbs do not ssign -role in subjetposition Buri presents independent evidene tht w hve PRO-insrtion rthr thnbse-enertion of PRO in these ss e notes the obsevtion in Kyne ( 1975) tht th



Speccaton of epty categores 83

reexve ctc cn ony be ssocted wt bsegenerted NP n preverbl) subjectposton; for exmpe te surfce subject of psve cnnot be reevized. But reevzton s mpossbe n te cse of postverb subject wel mplyg tt PRO s nsertedrter tn be-generted n ts cse. cr note 3

3. ollowng Stowell (8) Burzo rgues tt ll cses o -serton re bse-geertd n te orm ()

() NP e] be NP .

See so Couquux (8 ortcomg) On te bevor o rec prooml subjectssee Jegg (8b) developng des o Kyne (2)38. See Beett d Rzz (8) for rgument n support o opton () § 53.3 Te nlyss o (3) s (32) wt a = PRO n (33) wt NP-nverson mertsskeptcsm but oe fmr type of rgument tt mgt be eveled gnst t seems to meto ck orce mely tt te lyss nvolves too complex dervto or suc smpe

setece I we cosder sy te knd of yss crred out b te vsul system n dentfyg rottng ple gure or cube movng troug spce te utomtsm proposedere for te nlyss o (32) seems trvl ndeed Tere s tedecy n te study ofnguge nd pscology of lnguge to ssume tt lytc steps (sy steps n dervtos) re costy n tme eort etc n comprson wt look-up of tems n memorywc s essently "ree. Concevbly ts s te but on te bs of te extremelylmted mount known bout um metl opertons te ssumpton ppers to be quteuwrrnted� One mgt just s redly drw te opposte concluson wt just s ttlecovcto. or exmple successu cesspyng progrms generly eplot vst memorynd mted lytc resources n cotrst to umn cess msters wo pper to rely onextense yss d lmted memory not tt muc cn be concluded from ts ct

urtermore ny contrst between "ook-up d "computton s msledng rom testrt tt "ookup o course nvolves computton of wt ture d completyo one rely knows.

On s mtter see Wenberg nd Berck (ortcomng). Tey dscuss te ct tt te nvestgton o motor cotrol s wel s vsul nd udtory processng we erlypproces tended to ssume rge mouts o tble ookup pce o rpd deepprocessng subseuent dscoveres concerng bot europsycoogy nd te teory ofcomputto ve reversed te empss Tey lso sow tt currenty vlble psycogustc results leve te uesto o te roe o ookup versus computto qute opencotrry to wt s ofte bee sumed One common fcy s to ssume tt someexpermentl resut provdes couterevdence to teory of processg tt ncudes grm

mt teory d prsng proedure (sy procedure tt ssumes tt opertionsre ser d ddtve tt ec · operton dds xed "cost) ten t s tts cleged nd must be cgd. Te concluson s prtcury unreobe n telgt o te fct tt n geer tere s ndependent (socled "gstc) evdence nspport o we tere s no reson t l to beleve tt s tre On tese mtters seelso ortcomng ork by E Brton Clerly one sold be very wry o pror jdgmentso tese mtters. ee cpter 2 te 3.

tudes o lnguge processng certnly mgt prove vube n prncple n provdngsgt nto te ntre o grmmr t est e dopt te norm "relst ssmptonso nqry bt te rgments wll ve to be rter sklllly crted ee eg orster) odor et l (8)

rom Buro ( 8 ) woe nlyss I ollow n prt Te mportce o structuresllstrtng te greement penomnon o (3) ponted ot by Gseppe ogobrdo sggests rter derent ntretto o tem n ortcomng or4 We mgt so rge tt (4) votes te bndg teory der en ssmptons ot tnstvty o ondexg Ten s codexed t RO y contolnd RO s cospescrpted (ence condexed) t M t wold olo tt M condeed wt voltng prncple (c) o te bndng teory nce s not



284 Lectueon govement and indng the Pa ectue

co-sperscp w Gvann, s o exemp fom s codo s s e O,Maria). e po woud e o be mde moe pecso b e dco s c. Te oowg emks re mode o e yss eet b, weefrte cseqeces re oted see te efeeces of cpe oe 23

3 te ext secto t w be sggested om ctcs e bsegeeed pce d recee Cse d -oe Wy do we ot e -serto rec oges to)? eps becseil tsef s sbect cc s ged egg b), foowg Kye5 Cf ote 3 cpte Note tt te yss peseted ee ccods w tepopos s fooote tt e PO sbect of te mpeso costcto s o sbecto coto C o ) for lyss og somew dffee es. Tee e oweer, sbsdry dffeeces few of wc we w dscss eeegg (b) for mc moe extese dscsso, bsed o ssmptos ter smto tse oed ee, wc e s oted prt boowed fom Jeggs modctosof te proposs preseted e Ps lectes temsees d o wok by Kye Q co, Stoe s d oes wom Jegg ctes Te prcpe sggested s fly gee b does o ppy o sc lggess Jpese wc poos c be mssg mc moe feey Te lyss of ebl clcs seems to exted wtot pobem to dectctcs s ec l l es cer elted to est ce l -mme) (t s deto) Cf () s cocso s eced or dee esos by Jegg (b), modygsome des of o () e yss proposed e og Ps ecte ws somew dffeet, d dd o ccod wt te poecto pcpe ocomg wok by Hgoe suggts t my e bee o te gt ck owee, pefeece o eppo bey oued ee, d tt t c be dped o te pe fmewor5 We cold ot ssme t e -oe of te obect s detemed by ssgg-oe to te dex te mer we e dscssed cf § 3. Tee e two esoss ts wod pem Cse to be eted by e NP obec s pemtg ctcdobg freely cotry o fct ecod, te cl mecsm fo ssgg Cs o-oe o dex cf 322 d e dcsso s oc coecy, we see sce e NP obec s e sole membe of e -fco c wc Cse o-oe od be ssged e cc o beg membe of ts c sce s ot -poso5 Noe m pg sde ee mport qesos eed o ctc cmbgs te cse of escg e sese of ( ) d cses (cf o (

, oueret dV

egd , fo ece dscusso), o e e eb uxyrcs te cc rtemore, Jeggls obseros st eewed do o ppe ogeee o oter gges w ctcs e e opc s esge focomgwo by ore o d oes Tere e eedess o sy meos oe qesosreg o ccs I e o metoed l



ape

Some Related Toic

Before turning to some concluding remarks in chapter 6 I would like tomention a few related topics and to make some comments about them

These remarks will be rather unsystematic, some simply nting problemsfor further study, others extending earier discussio, and sti othsreferring to some of the work that has been done since the Apr 1979

workshop in Pisa where may of the basic ideas outined here were prsented and discussed

1 e eo oindexing

I have been assuming a very simple indexing theory: there are no anaphoricindices in the sense of OB, but on y referential indices, and these areassigned either by movement or freely But ts approach is too simple asit stands I have so far restricted myelf to examples of coreference anddistinct reference, avoiding problems of disjoint reference more generallyand of "scattered anteedents" But such examples rse problems forthe very simpe theory of indexing I ave been using so farConsider theexamples of (1 )

(1) (i) John told Bill that theyk should eave() *we ost my way

() we expected me to like John

In (i), Jon and Bi are indexed ferenly, and e cannot be coindexed with either Jon or in accordance with the indexing conventions prsented above Thus i j are tree disinct inices ompare, in contras,sentence ()

Here can be identical to either i orj or neither)Therefore, the behaviorof e as proximate or obviative is captured within the theory of ree indexing in () but the anaogous property namely, that e can refer to Johnand Bill or to neither or to one or the other with some other peopeis notcaptured in case (li) This seems a qestionable resut, though it eads tono nterna contradiction Note that the same question arises in the morecompex OBframework



286 Lcur on omn and ndn h Pa lcur

Examples (i) and (2) can be brought togethe in one of two ays byabandoning the interpetation of poxmate and obviative ponouns interms of indexing in case (2) o by extending the eor of indexing o

use of more compex indices in obvious ways in case (1) Th fomerappoach seems wog, since the behavio of ponomnas captued by theindexing convention is so cosey anaogous to that of anaph< withespect to the theory of binding The latte appoach theefoe seemscalled fo, if indeed these cases ae to be bought togethe as it seemseasonabe to assume.

Examples (ii) and (ii) aise questons of a different sot.In case (i),the iiom equies condexing of w and my as in (3)

(3) (i) I lost my way(i) *I ost his way

The qestion is how d we interpet coindeg of w and my in )?Theexampe indicates that we must take coindexed eements to be strictlycoeferential, not eey overlapping in refeence, so as to assign to (i)its pope status as ungammatica

Making ths assumption, let us tun to cases of disjoint eference, as iniii), which ceary contasts in status ith () as noted oiginay by Pausta

() we expected John to ike e

e have oy two ptions in the pesen theoy of indexing fo schexampes as (i) and ( the tw onuns ay be condexed or diffeetlyindexed If they ae coindexed, then (i) is bared and ()admtt d b the binding theoy, as equied.But this decision entls that in (), the ponounm is undestood as ovelapping in reference with w under coindexing,

which is inconsistent with the anaysis of i) If on the other hand, we

take the index of the singula pnoun to dife from that of the plual ponoun in both (i) and (), consistent with the analysis of (), then the

binding theoy fais to explain the diffeence of status of (ii) an (), which is suely an incoect esult ote that this pblem does not aise inthe oe co plex indexing theo f the OBframewok I that theoy,the eferential indices of the ponouns wil differ, and the anaphricndces wil indicate the requed popeties of ovelapping and disjointrefeence in the case of (,i and 4

Clealy, then, the theoy of ndexng we have been using hee is defect

ive, and somethig oe compex is equired The heoy of anaphocindices in the OBfamewok ovecoes thes probems, wth the exception of (i) and (2)� In §3 I cited the cmplexity of this theoy as one ofthe poblems to be addessed n impovn the OBfamewok and in theexposition above I hae avoided a of these probems, but onlyby rstictng myself to too narow a cass of examples. This poblem, along with



Some relaed opics 287

severa others eating to the theory of indexing therefore st stands incntrast to the other roblems raised wch eceive a natura sution inthe GB-framework

Let us ut aside these questions (wich e not slight) and st assume

the theory of free indexing with no anahoric indices Consider examlesin wich we have a quantier and a ronoun in (5), where order is irrelan and e stands for e or m

(5) everyone he

Afte the alcation of the LF-rule of quantier-movement we have (6)

(6) for every erson he

The conditions under wch and e mabe coindexe are given by thebinding theory aart from the conditions o weak crossover that arestated at the LFeve Coindexing is ossible at S-structure only in casea name in lace of can be coindexed withe Where the variable and eare coindexed we interre (6) as (7):

(7 for every erson

Tis is the basic rincile discussed by igginbotham (979a): a ronouncan be interreted as a variable bound by a quantier oy relacementof the quantier by a name gives a ossible case of nondisoint referenceThus the ronoun can be so interreted in (8) but not (9) ust as it can be roximate to Jon in (0) but not ():

(8) everyone exected that he would win(9) everyone exected im to win( 0) John exected that he would win

() John exected m to winThe only of tis rincie cannot be extended to and ony because the ronoun must be witin the scoe of the quantier for tisinterretation to be ossible (furthermore because of weak crossover)Thus the ronoun is not in the scoe of the quantier in (2) and corres ondingly cannot be nterreted as a variable bound by the quantierthough the ronoun can be roximate to Jn in (3):

(2) the man who everyone likes saw m(3) the man who John likes saw im

Whie signicant roblems remain he rincile seems close to corectHigginbotham obtains tis result by means of a reindexing rule that

assigns to a ronoun the referential index of a variable to its left excet in



288 Lecures on goemen and binding e Pisa lecures

erain onguaion deigned o hande he weak rooer ae alli he onguion K e how fuher ha eindexing may appy eiherbefore or afer he quaniermovemen ue of he LF-omponen n e

approah aued ere, here i no eindexing ue We migh a, hen,ha a derivaion of 6) ih he index i aigned o boh x and e i permibe ony a ome age x i o he ef of e and K doe no hold.hu Higginboham heory i enerpreed a a heory of properderivaon in he LFomponen. Aernaivey he ondiion may beformuaed direly o LF, wih inereng reul a hown in Higginboham (99).

Suppoe now ha a dervaion meeing he endexing onvenion(however ad) yied e LF-epreenaion () (5) for (8) (9)

repeivey(1) for eve peron X x expeed ha he woud win(5) fo evey peron x expeed he o win

en i nerpeed a X· Cae 15) i ule ou by prnipe (B) of hebnding heoy a Sruure, b e (1) i grammaia.

n Higginboham (199a) whee he OB yem of anapho indiei adoped he ponoun e wil have he index (i null) n ()and he indx

(,

) in (15) where he eond erm of he ndex i he anapho index,he e of efeenia indie of eemen o whihe i dijoin in referene.he index ( i onadiy in ha appear ndae ha ei djoin in eerene fom ief. Bu here ome ae neeay. Whypeiey i (6) onadioy?

(6) he

Preumaby, beaue of ome piniple ha ay ha by viue of i anaphori index e anno be orefeena wih an elewhere eang heindex ; b by vire of i efeenia index, e mube oeferenia wihuh an Hene, a onradiion. B ppoe he n qeion i avaiabe. hen he prinipe oud be inerpeed aying ha e annoefe o any vae f he varable B hi nerpreaion i oo rong, a weee frm he exampe of noe 3. Conide he exampe ()

() (i) Cae voed fo evey Demora( omeone in Pain, eorgia, voed for Caer who voed for Carer?(iv) who dd Caer voe fo?

Fom (i) i doe no follow ha Caer did no voe for hmef and ( ionien wih he ampion ha Care i e ony peron in Plain,eorgia, who oed for Cae Siay "Ce i a pefey goodanwer o o (iv) heefoe, we anno ainain wihou fuhe



Some relaed opi 28

argmen ha he ndex (i i})one in IS)yiel an abrdiy. An appaenadvanage of he OBframework herefore appear o be llory.

2 Prepoiional prae

have amed ha he governing aegorie are hoe wh aebeSUBJEC S when i SUBJE i aeible and oher maximprojeon when hey have SUBJE ha are aeible. B here iome evidene a PP migh alo ere a a governing aegory. orexample a problem for he binding heory kehed in hper 3 (noed byJeanYve Pollok) i ha in he Romane langage pronon in PPan reglarly be oindexd wih NP aneeden in he ame lae a

in(1)

(1) ean ma parl de li("John poke me abo hmelf)

Aordng o he binding eory of haper 3 lui i bond in i goerningaegory he fl lae if i i oindexed wih Jean in (1) vioaingpriniple (B). he problem wold be overome if he PP in wh luiappear erve a a governng aegory.

eem nlikely however ha i e orre approh n he rplae heory-inernal onieraion arge again i. n general governing aegorie have SUBEC indeed aeible SBJEC and hereeem lile reaon o ame ha PP in Romane ha a SUBJE whereai anague in langage lke nlih oe no eem more reaonableo ry o relae hee differene o oher dfferene beween he angageype in qeon.

i poible ha maer i relaed o iain o he diribionof reexive. here i (near) omplemenary diribion beween eexieand proximae pronon a fa ha moivaed earlie ranformaional

heorie of pronminazaion b ha i no apred direly in herren framework B i i nlikely ha he orre approaheiher. eem more pabe o reae maer o he opion ofzaon.

A ha been ommonly oberved lii in he Rmane languagedobehave in e manner of Englih pronon wih regard o dioin referene obervaion gge ha i i li raher han fl pronon whfa ner priniple (B) of he binding heory in language ha aowliiizaion. Quie generally fl pronon in hee langage do no

oberve priniple (B) (e.g. h exampe"Giovannif arreao i; fhaper 2 noe 12). Perhap fll ponon in language wh he liopon hold be regarded a omehow emphai h immne o prinple(B) of he binding heory migh be ha he qeon of when prononare ed in he be poion in prodrop language i ao relevan in onneon



20 Lecure on goemen and inding e Pia ecure

In English too thee are wellnn exames similar to () e.g. (2)(3)

(2) (i) John aways kees his wits about himhi$e Bil)(ii) the melody has a haunting character to it (itse il)(ii) John ks to take his wor home with him (himse ill)

(3 (i) John shed the book away fom him(ii Jhn dre the book towards him(ii) John turned his friends against him(iv John saw a snake nea him

I the examles (2) a oximate ronoun is obligatory in (3) it is otiona.

Judgments tend to waver to whether a roximate ronoun or a recirocashould be used in some of the examles of tye (3) and obscure factorsenter into reference one way or another (eg. there is a strong eference

erhas necessity for a ronoun in (3iv)). hus comare (3iii) with()

() John urned the argument against himsef (*im where the refer ence is to John)

One might argue that in the cases where reexies ae excluded P s agoverning category I this is correct then recirocas also should beexcluded. Judments again are often unclear though in some cases thecorrelation is reasonaby staightforward comare (3ii) () with (iii)where e cnside onl thenterretation with eac oer bound b thesubect:

(5) (i) they turned their friends against each other(ii) they turned the arguments against each oter

A roer theory deng with these mattes should exlain the choice felements and also the haziness of th udgments concerning them in mancases.

It is temting to suose that such examles as (3) at east shoud betreated as analogous to (6)

(6) (i) John consiers ary angry at him (himse hererse)(ii) John strikes ay as angry at himsef him her hers

gain we considr only the roximate interretatin of the ronoun Inthese cases it is reasonable to assue that here is an embedded cause atLF-reresentation (and assuming the roection rincile at ever levelof reesentation). he reresentations are then of the form (), as wehave assumed earlier:



Some eaed oi

(7) () Joh osders [ary agy a hm() ohsrkes ary [as agry a hmself]

291

Correspodgly, oe mgh argue ha ase (3v), he represeao aLF s somehg lke where k orols PO whh s he subeo he preao

() Joh saw a sake [ PRO ear hm

The dea mgh be worked ou varous waysWhile no implausible n he case of (8), hs dea seems que nappro-

piae in he o her cases llusaed n (2) (3), which suggess ha i s on he wrong rack, a leas a an aemp at a geneal account of the phenomenon

under review. Manzini (1980) shows on the basis of compaatie · edenceha he plausbility n case (8) s also perhaps illusoy. Consie he Ialanaalogues o (6), (3v)(9) ad (10), respevely

(9) Ga osdea ara arrabbaa o lu (se se sesso)(0) Ga vde u serpee vo a lu (se se sesso)

ala has wo reexve elemes se ad se sesso orrespodg roughlyohe gsh eleme Xse az observes ha he dsrbuo ofse

sesso s a subass of ha of se ad ha he resros o he former doo eae o he heoy of bdg Se suggess furher ha he glshform seorespods more losely o se sesso ha o se ad ha hesame reeva reasos ha bar ouree of se sesso (barimse (3v), eve hough reexve s sruurally permed hs ase as (10)usraes oas, reexve s barred (9) hee also (6) (orrespodgy, (6)), by he bdg heoy xamples (9) ad (10) argueagas a ued reame of (3v) ad 6 he appare smlares maybe a arfa based o peulares of glsh reexvzao. s hghly

doubfu, he, ha suh fas as (3v) should be used as he bass for aysruura agumeaz suggess ha PP ke ohe aegores, has a kd of PRO sub

e fuog as a agreeme eleme ad ha PP s a goverg aegory, aowg proous ad aaphors aordgly, a suggeso whmpaos ha she expores folows, he, ha (1 1) shou1d be possble gsh, wh he eproa boud by he subje

( 1 1 ) hey saw sakes ear eah oher

Aga, judgmes ed o be uera, as hroughou hs aegoy ofexampes, que ommoy ay eve, s doubful ha (3v) s o bereaed as a ase of oro, wh he bdg heoy voked he maerof(7)



22 Lecure on goemen and inding e Pia lecure

Another probem onerning prepositiona phrases wh has givenrise to muh produtive wor in reent years is the probem o prepositionstranding as in (2) (3):

(2) (i) who did ohn spea to(ii) who did ohn give the boo to

(iii) *whih mea did ohn spea to B ater(3) (i) Tom was spoen to

(ii) *Tom was given the boo to(iii) the mea was spoen to Bi ater

n areview o omparativ eviene van Riemsij (8b) observes that preposition stranding is a reativey rare and presumab mard phenomenon and hat stranding ater Nmovement as in 13) is a subase ostranding ater movement as in (12) a at iustrated in (12)1e deveops an anaysis o the phenomenon on the assumption that ertains have a CO position that serves as an esape hath" or movementan assumption that has overt orreates in Duth and more marginay inEnglish Weinberg and onstein (8) basing themseves in part on wor by BE Dresher note that stranding is restrid to s that are within the as in (iii) as ontrasted with (12iii) They propose at a reanaysisrue withi he reates a ompe verb inuding he preposition the

N objet o the preposition beoming the obet o the ompe derivedver hene aessible to movement in the norma way movement oheobet o a preposition that is no reanayed in this way i partiuarin a hat is utsidehe hene not aessibe to reanaysis is euded by a ter that bos empty obique eements assuming that asignsobique Case whie rbs assign obetive ase ( OB) They argue inorthoming wor that no phrasa reanaysis is required rather thereation o te verb to the obet o a preposition in a within the may be eated as an instane o hemai rasing" aong the ines o

Rouvret and ergnaud (180) Nmovement rom a prepositiona phraseis urther onstrained by a requirement that the remaining phrase be a possie rediate as in (3i but not (13iiii) Davison (180) oretensive disussion o the range o eampes in ngish

The pssibiity o anaying reposition strandn ithin the rameworo the theories o Case government and bindig has been epored insevra papers by Kayne In Kayne (1b) an approah to prepositionstranding is outined in terms o Case theory Suppose we assume (inaordane with OB) that inherent Case" inuding now the Case

assigned by prepositions is assigned at Dstruture and that struturaCase" inuding the Case assigned by verbs in he unmared ase isassigned at Sstruture Suppose urther that Engishhas osthe inherentCase system thus prepositions do not assign inherent obique Case butather strutura obetive Case as do verbs In Frenh Itaian andother anguages that do not aow preposition stranding 12 prepositions



Some relaed opi 93

assign oblique Case The marked character of preposition stranding wouldthen follow from the presumaby marked loss of oblique Caseassignment

n these assumptions, consider preposition stranding in, say, French

and Italian, n the case of movemenL Assuming hat Case is carriedaong (as are all features) under -movement, then the remaining trace wil lack Case It wil also not be assigned structural Case, and hence wilack Case at Sstructure and F If variabes must have Case (cf§ 3),then the structures are barred In English, in contrast, structural Case wi

be assigned to the NP governed by a preposition, so that stranding is possibe

To accommodate Weinberg and Hornstein's observation, we maymodify Kayne's suggestion slightly, assuming that the ase system is

ost in Engis ony within VP, whereas PPs that are immediate constituents of S have inherent Casemarking, accounting for the distinction

between (i,ii) and (1iii)Kayne extends this anaysis to preposition stranding in passives on

the basis of the folowing assumptions

(4) (i) Case-marked trace must be bound by an operator such as aphrase

(ii) NP-movement is N-movement in te sense of Siege (1974)

(hence leaving Case bend on te trace) as distinct from-movement, which is N -movement, taking Case with it

(iii) Reanalysis folows inherent Caseassignment

Assumption (i), along with the assumption that the trace of - (aong with other variables) must have Case, amounts to identifyingCase-markedtrace as a variableCf§ 3 Assumption (ii) is defended in Siege (194);on consequence is Emonds' structure-preserving hypotesis for movement, by virtue of the Case Filter, since NPmovement that is nt

structure-preserving wi yid NP without Case in Sstructure Assumption (iii) acs independent motivation, but is not nreasonabeGiven· tese assumptions, suppose hat a preposition assigns oblique

ase in the base, as in French and Italian and, in general, the unmarkedcase Then NP-movement, by virtue of (14ii) wil eave trace with ase,

which is impossibe by (14i) Furthermore, by virtue of (14iii), even reanaysis of (i) as (15ii) (as in Engish peak o N" ake adanage oalso i rench, for reasons that Kaye discusses) wi not permit movement, since it foows inherent Caseassignment

(15) (i) V P NP(ii) V P] NP

But in Engish, lacking inherent Case-assignment in reanaysis will permit passive, since no sructura Case is assigned y the passive participe



294 Lecure on goernmen and inding e Pa lecure

(16 for the sal reasons:

(16) +V] enV ...P

Kayne extends the analysis to othe angages and notes that this approachasses nial paraetric ariation aong langages deals appropriatey i ared constctions�

Assption (14ii) can be given i a soewhat ore atral for.Sppos foowing Siegel that Ps analyzed as N CASE (i = 3 inSiegels theory and NP N where CASE is an ned categor of the base provided with its content by the Caseassignent rles. The reMove can insert only e sito o whre te lter is ethe base. If N is oved into ths position hen we derve (17) whch weay tae to be an ipossibl strctre

(17) w N CASE CASE

Therefore only N can be oved to ts position leaving (18)

(18) N • t Case

As for oveent if Moe were to ove the phrase NleavingCASE behnd then the prase wil necessarly lac Case and wil be bloced by the Case Filter (assing that the probles concerning deetionof the phrase can be overcoe). Therefore ths is ipossible andoveent st ove N . The is no need then to stiplate thatPoveent and oveent differ in ths respect; their differencesfoow froCase theory.

Kayne (1980c) develops an interesting exte sion and odication ofthese ideas. Here he accepts in essence he WeinbergHostein idea of

reanalysi e retaning the spton that P and V govern andassign Case in different ways in Fench bt in he sae way in Engsh.Secicay V in general and P in Engh goern in the strctral sense ofthe preceding discssion assigning strctral Case we French (andin general in langages ha lac preposition stranding) governs andCasears an NP inherent say atDstrctre bt only when theNissbcategorzed by the preposion.

hy then does rench lac the V ..P eanalysis re (hoever stated)that perts preposition stranding in Eng sh? As Kayne observes French

does have other reanaysis rles e.g. VV reanysis as in casatives.Hesggests the general prncipe that reanalyss invovng two exicalcategories is possible only if they govern in the sae way. Ths VVreanalysis is possibe in French and V ...P reanaysis is possible Engsh bt V ... P reanalysis is no possible in French.

Kayne then extends the sae ideas to what appears to be qite a



Some elaed op 95

derent class o dstnctons between French and Englsh, namely, thosenolvng Exceptona Casmarkng, e, (9):

(19) ( I beeve Joh to be theosntelgent o al]

( j e cros Jean tre le plus ntelgen e to us

In contrast to Englsh, Fench requres that the embedded subject bePRO. There s however oe excepton namely, (20)

(20) quel gar�on cros-u t tre le plus ntegent de tus (whch boy do you beeve to be the most telgent o a]

Thus coie and smlar erbs n French have he property that V NP

VP" s ungrammatca NP s lexcal and remans n plae, but s grammtcal NP s a -phrase nd s moved Crucaly, Kayne nots theseacts dstngush the posterbal NP here rom the NP n other-NP-Xconstructons, whch neve reque that the NP be moved; eg., nrmaltrnsves o such structures as (2)

(2) je cros Jean ntelgent(I beleve John ntellgent")

By the projecton pncpe, (2) should have the orm (22):

(22) je cros ean ntellgent]'

-deeton permts the embedded subject to reman, Casemarked by thematrx verb, and excludes PRO B�t t then llows that there s o-deleton n the correspondng expessons (9) (20)As Kayne pontsout, the odd property o V NP lustated by (9) vs (20) s doomedto reman nexplcable that NP s analyzed as the tue object o V, "

that s, he· structure s (23:

(23) vp V NP VP]

hus we have addtonl evdence o the rojecton prncple and orthe anayss o (9)th the causa backetng as ndcated

Ths eaves two questons

(24) () What s the explanaton or (20):

() What s the nature o the backets n (9)?As or the backeng o (9) and (20) t must be , as noted I ave beenassumng that n the Engsh exampe (19), -deeton has taken place, maked propety o Englsh beliee and smar ebs Kayne assumes, nontrast, hat there s no deleon n these cases, but rather a zero



96 Lecures on goemen and inding e Pisa lecures

compementizer , which is pepositioa and both governs and assignsCase, a compemenizer anaogus t fo essentialy, the anaysis oChomsky and Lasnik (977), as Kayne notes Let us assume this to be soThen Frnch and English dono differ in he structures assigned to (9)in each case, there is a -compemetize ur pobems (24 are nowrephrased as (25)

(25) (i) What is the expanation for (20)(ii) Why does the -compementizer in (9) govern and assign

ase in English (9i) but not in French (9ii?

Kayne proposes that the basic difference between French and Engish is,once gain, ha n Englsh the prepositon (n is case, ) governs andassins Case in he same structural manner as verb, whereas in Frencha preposition governs and assigns Case ony nherently to an n tssubcategorizaton rame, so that neither governs nor assgns Case to thsbect of the nntiva cnstruction n (9ii) Hence queston 25i)reduces to the same princpe that accounts for prepositon straning asinge distinction between French and Engsh accounts for their differing behavior with regard to prepositon stranding and Exceptona Casemarking There is no derence between Engish elieeand French croire

but rather a dierence in the way prepostions govern in English andFrench

This eaves question (25) what is the explanation for (20)? Note thatunder the theory of successiveccic -movement, he S-structure (20) s actuay (26)

(26) e garo rois[s t 0 t tre l plus ntelligent de tus

The posion of is the D-structure positon of que/ garon whch ismoved to he psition ofand then o its Sstructure poston in the CMof the matrx sentence Suppose that we no revise te notion o government (hence, Case-assignment) slighty, alowng V (and other categories)o govern across one S-type boundary but not two suh boundaries hencroire n (26) governs and assigns Case to the trace in COM n (26)Ths que/ garon in (26) receives Case by nheritance from ts trac an eCase Fiter is satised Therefore (2) s grammatica ut not (9i),answerng question (25)

Recall that we had been ed earier to assume hat a trace can assume(rather than transmt) a -rle only if it has Case Cf § 322 In (2),however, lacks ase but must assume a roe Once again, we are ed tothe conclusion that Case is assigned to an index, then optonay assumedy an eement with that index cf § 322, 45 hen can inherit Casefrom and we can retain the ide that a trace is vsbe n the component only if it ha Case, one way of dealing with the idea hatvariabes are in eect Case-marked traces



Some relaed pics

Compare (6) with (7) derived by cycic -movemet

(7) (i) *who did you try s t t to wi(ii) *the ma

(who) you tried

t

t to wi

97

Assumig that (ke seem but uike elie oire) is itrasitive thetrace i the COP positio o (7) whe govered w ot receiveCase Thereore wi ot iherit Case so that the criterio is vioatedThe same woud be true or exampe i (8) sice the adjective cerainis ot a Caseassiger

(8) (i) *who is it certai [s t [ t to wi() *the ma (who) it is certai t t to wi

Ths aaysis o (9) (0) aturay raises the questio whether Frechhas a iitiva compemetizer aaogous to Eglshfor. Kaye arguesthat the eemets de di i Frech ad taia respectivey are compemetizers aaogous to Egish for takig iitiva compemets But oceagai Eglshfor diers om Frech de (or tala di) i that it goves adassigs Case to the subject o its iitiva copemet Thus we have thesituatio iustrated i (9) (30)

(9) (i) it woud be a pity [s or [ somethg to happe to hm() *ce serait domage s de queque chose ui arver(30) (i) *it woud be a pity [s o PRO t eave ow

(ii) ce serait dommage s de [ PRO partir mai teat

(9i) for govers ad assigs Case to someing satisyig the CaseFiter But the Case Fiter is vioated i (9ii) sice de does o assigCase to que/que cose. cotrast (30i) is excuded sice PRO is govered

by for whereas (30) is grammatica sice PRO is ugovered

Agai the dierece betwee Egish ad Frech (or tala) ilustrted by (9) (30) reduces to the same distictio i the beavior o prepoitiosthat accouts or pepositio stradig ad Excepioa Casmarkigayes aayis thus shows how a sige parameter o UG ccots ora variety o properties o the two aguage types whle providig urtherevidece or the projectio pricipe successive cycic movemet adsevera other pricipes

The proposed aaysis o Exceptioa Casemarkig rises certai probems however Oe probem arises i coectio with such exampes

as (3)

3) (i) *hm to be here is hard to beieve(i) *what is hard to beieve s hm to be hee

the ramework o Chomsky ad asik (977) examples (3) are



298 Lecures on goernmen and binding he Pisa leces

bloced by he [NP- er, bu he laer hasnow been emnaedn faor of he Case er If he complemenzer assgns Case, here sno obous explanaon for (3) A second prblem s ased by he

exampls 2):(3) who dd you beee Bll o hae seen

() who would ou refer for Bl o hae seen() who dd you wan Bl o hae seen

A S-srucure, he analyses are, n each case, of he form (33)

(33) who dd you V [ a s Bll o hae seen

n (32), a = n (32), a= for n (32), a= for sbjec o laer deleonn he P-componen, or a= , n pona aernae oor such rbsn each case, agoerns and assgns Case o

Bu consder agan he passes correspondn o (2), namely, (34)

(34) ) Bl was beleed o hae seen Tom() Bl was preferred for o hae seen Tom

() Bll was waned o hae seen Tom

n §4 we suggesed dealng wh hs cass of cases by assumng has no a proper goernor, pehaps as a specal case of he prncple ha heonly proper goernors are he lexca caegores (cf 455)5 Then heexamples (34, are barred by CP wle (34) s admed ecause of-deleon To accommodae hs proposal n Kayne's framewor, we would hae o assume ha whlefor s no a proper goernor (and perhaps,no preposon s a proper goernor), sll s a proper goernor T accounfor (3 ), we would hae o spulae furher ha s a Caseassgner onl

n mmedae pos-erb

poson Ths rually mouns o accng he<eeon hypohess for xceponal Case-marng and rases somedoubs as o wheh an analyss assumng complemenzer s reallhe corrc one Kanes approach o unfyng preposon srandng anExceponal Case-marng s, howeer, sufcenly arace so ha anaemp o resole e remanng dfcules surely seems n orde

f e were o adop h proposa n § § 445 ha preposos re no proper goernors, hen preposon srandng would be excuded n generaI would be permed only n case a mared rule were o ow roper

goernmen by V. Ths lne o hough leads us baco heenbergHornsen hypohess ha a rule R assocang he erba head of a and he preposona head of a PP whn hs s responsbe for he phenomenon of preposon srandng R n effec perms he preposono ransm" proper goernmen from he erba ead Suppose e wereo accep as well Kaynes suggeson ha here s ndeed acomplemenzer n he are nna cases, and ha s a goeno n Engsh so ha



Some relaed opic 299

the reanalysis is possible in accordance with his princple tha reanalys(the rule R is assocated wth ame style o overnment. But supose weassume tat, whle a ovenor, is not a Case-assin. Caseassnment

with a -compementer s possble, then, only when the rule R appes.This assumpton permit (32) whie barrin (31 ) ovecomin part o th pobem.

It emans to account or (34) Suppose we ee to assume that thereanalysis rule R in act is appicable in both o the conditions o (35)

(35) (i) beeve [ [ NP ...(ii) want [or [ NP . .

Then te postion o NP s proerly overned by the matrix erb n both

cases. n the case o movement, we derive (36)

(36) () who did John bee [ [ t to hae won(ii) who did John want [ or t to have won

Example (36i) is rammatical; the status o (36ii) depends on presence orabsence o the -J lter in the dialect in question In dialects in which t is operative, (36i) is eplaced by the crespondin orm wit deleted in te PFcomponent in immediate postverbal position.

Turnin t (34 ), recal tat applicabity o the rule R does not suceto pemit NPmovement under the assuptions we are now considerin;some additioal condtion is aso required. Thus we have such contasts as( 3 7):

(37) () who dd you ivehe book to(i) John was iven a book to

Weinber and Hornstein assume that some notion opossibepreicateis noved oer and above proper overnment to permit passivation.hther this is corec o not it is clea that some uther condition isrequred, sne the P-movement cases consttute a proper sub case o the-movement cases with peposition strandin We miht suppose that itis this extra condtion that permits (34i) whe assinin to (34i,ii) thestatus o (37ii).tmiht be, or exampe,thadeletion,which is in anyeventestricted to ostverbal context, does not apply in ostparticiple context,and hat the presence o the oert complementier suces to invoke theconditon that blocks passiviation in (37erhaps som such approach seasibe.

There are a ew additiona problems to consider in this connection, orexample, the status o (38):

(3) (i) I dont know who woud be happy or whom to win the prie 4..5iva))

(i) dont know who oud preer or whom to win the race



3 Lectures on goment and binding: the Pisa lecture

I accodac ih th dscussio chap 4 h mbdd whom mus b oply god bh () ad (). Phaps this sults aga omaplcaio of h ul R of alyss so ha th ampls of (38 a

i ffct sacs o posito sadg o whch *[or-to ldos ot apply sic h l sh PF-compo. A al qusto has o do wh th staus of (39) dialcts such as

Ozak Eglish that lack th [or�toJ l

(39) I'd pf [ fo [1 PRO o do t myslf

H PRO mus b ugovd hough i (36) th cospodg postioof ac is govd I may b ha hs dialcs psv a optio i

wch a = PP a { = NP (39) as poposd fo li stags of t laguag Lighfoo (1979) Lighfoot (1980) suggss ah tha a =ad { = S i ths cass as i (36) If so w a ld o assum tha h-comp1miz is optoaly a govo

3 Modcations ofthe ECP

Sic h Psa wokshop of Apil 1979 th has b much pouctsudy of h pcip EP of th thoy of govm som of it co

poa io pcdg discussio. I h cous of ths wo aumb of moicaos hv b poposd ad th pcipl i o oaoth fom has b bough to ba o a cosidabl agofphoma S paticulaly Kay (1980b) ad Jaggl (1980b)

I hav by dscussd Kay's poposal tha vbs ca gov a OMacoss a bouday. Suppos ha w w o gad OM as h hadof as is phaps o uaual INL s gadd as h had of S.

wl-kow OMINFL laios a th had-had laos as ssadad th poposal s ha a vb govs h had of t claus

i govs. Supps tha w galz his poposal o all cagois.i pac of ou al assumpto tha maimal pocios paiculNP ad - a absolu bais to govm hav h picpl

h had of a maial poctio s accssbl to a algovo bu pphal psitos a o

s fomulaio is poposd Bllti ad Rizzi (1980) wh cosqu

cs a vstigad wth gd o h thoy of gov ad laoo pops of boudg (subaccy) I paticula folows tha thmati vb govs th OP of th mbddd as i h ampls

pviously discussd ad also ha a vb govs th omial had ofa NP ha i govs Blti ad Rizzi plo th ida o dal wit avaiy of cass of subc vs. obc asymmty cudg cass tha had b discuss by Bltti ms of th bidg thy of h OB-



Som rad op 30

framework. They ake he basic asymmery o be one of governmen:eemens in he VP are governed by V, whe e preverba subjec posiionis ungoverned

From hese wo assumpons name, ha verb compemens bu no preverba subjecs are governed, and () a number of neresngconsequences folow Beei and Rii consder he paradigms (2) and(3):

(2) (i) re seimane passano rapidamenehree weeks ass rapidl")

(i) re passano rapidamene(hree pass rapdly")

() re ne passano rapidamene(hree ofhem pass rapidly")(3) (i) Gann passe re seimane a iano

(Giann w spend hree weeks in ian")(i) Gianni passe re a ilano

·

Giann w spend hree n an"(i) Ganni ne passe re a ilano

(Gianni ofhem will spend hree n ilan")

Thus, clciaon is permed from he objec poson (3i) bu nohe subjec posion (2iii; n conras, e-pronomnaliaon s possiblen he subjec posion2i) bu no h bjec poson (3i).

These observaions folow a once from he wo assumpons, gvenhe framework so far esablished. In (2ii), he subje s (4 where henomnal head is PRO (fowing Kayne (980b), n n (2iii) he subjec s(5 here he nomna ead s he race o-cliciaon, a movemenrule:

(4) re PRO](5) [re ]

Gven ha he subjec is ungovned, PRO and race are ungoverned in(4) and (5) even hough by assumpion ) he are accessbe exernalgovernmen herefore, (4) is ossbl n i) bu 5) s impossibe n(2i), by he bndng heory and ECP, respecvely In (3i), he objec s(4), and n (3i) is (5)Snce he nomnal head is governed by heerb naccordanc wih assumpon ) {4) s namssible n {3ii) by he bndng

heory sice PR would be governed, bu(5}

s accepable n 3 sincei is i a propey governed psion so ha E s saised.hese xamples agan lusre he conras beween race and PRO

dscussed in § 2 and subsequenlyBllei and Ri show ha hese resuls exend o ohe consrucons:

where Ps ungoverned, (4) s pssible, and were iis governed, ismpossble Thus we have (6, where (4) s n opc osiion, and (7



Some related toics 303

the rae in COM s not deeted. hese obsvatons suggest that thetaen O is not assigned Case in 2, . If so, then the uestonrased in 5.2.(25i remains unanswered. Perhas the oint ha Casassignment nto COM is a seondary henomenon as suggested at theend of 3, and that sh stutures as 5.2.(20 hae a status similar tothose of 4.3.(823.

Exame ( l 3ii raises a uestion (not by oward Lasnik onerningthe subjaeny ondition. the trae s deleted at Sstuture, then sub

jaeny annot be an outut ondition as suggested by Fredin (978 andoster (978b, bu rather must be a ondition n the movement uthemseves. It remans a ossbity to regard subjaen as a ondition onS-struture reresentation aying before traedeeton, if stystirues n the PFomonent and movement ues in th LFomonent arenot subjet to this ondton. teativey, the resene of trae mustnot blok government by or in (3i

Consider the status of trae in COM ith regard to ECP, s in(4

(4 who do you think t t saw Bil]]

Is subjt to ECP? One mghanswer n the negative, on the assumtiontht ECP hods ony fo trae in -ositions But let us suose that theanswe is ositive. Then t is neessary to eminate the bondary in (4if, as we have now assumed tentatively, we do not have government intoCOP in he unmaked ase. Suose, then, tat there is an oton ulerelaing an -boundary by an S-boundary so that if ts otion s taken,(4 beomes (5

(5 who do you tnk [t[t saw B]]

Note that the -to-S rule ubsumes deletion That i, if is relaed byS and CM is mssing we have (6) whh redues to (7 in the esttvetheory oLsnik and un (977

(6 [ ...J . . .( 1 7) .. . . . . .

If the -toS rue alies o (4, giing (5, then s roerly governed,stisfying EC. If the rule does not aly, then (4 s -formed, assumingthat trae in nonargument osition s subjet to ECP.

An obvous queston is whethe the henomenon of bdge verbs in esense of Ertesk (973 s aommodated n these terms on the assumtion that ertain matrix vrbs ermt the toS ule hie others do not.Those that do emit -toS low suessveyi movement satisfyngECP. Verbs with innitv omements are invariaby bidge verbs; thusthe -toS ue s always a oton in these ases Whateve the fators and



304 Lecures on govement and binding: he Pisa ecturs

anguage feences may be in onnecton wt e possibility of successeccc movement, eems ta te penomenon migt e escrbe intese terms

onse te mpicatons of ese assumptons f contro vebs scas To pemit t sentnce (10) we mst apply te toS rule, givingte Sstructure (18):

(8) wat you try [ t [ RO to o t]]

If t eletes at Sstructue, ten (18) pesumably euces to (19), whc slegitimate snce PRO s now governe by t

(19) wat you ty [ PRO to o t]Terefoe t must remain n (18). n (18) no maal pojecton nterenes between t an PR, asing te uestion wy t oes no goven PROtus barng te sentence. We mgt nvoke Kayne's prncpe tat government cannot coss two Stype bounares, or, we mgt once again bute notion mnma ccomman" nto te enton of govenmentcf. § 3 .21. Ten t oes not goven PRO because PRO is ccommane

by t Te atte mve s aso suggeste by cases of appaent multpe

goenment une ths anaysis of ter brige verb penomenon Conse(0), afte te application of te toS ue

(20) N V [ NP NF VP]

Hee s mutpy governe if NFL contans AGR, ut cearly i isony te government by FL tat s elevant to Case assgnment Agan,te pobem wou be ovecoe by ntroucng a mnmality reuementinto te concept of govenment.

Suppose tat contray to te assumptions above we take taceeetn CM to be oblgatoy n sc structues as (18) Ten te toSrulecannot appy to ye ( 8) or we wi eive (19 in whc PRO s governeContinung to mantain te assumption tat trace in COM must begoverne (an accountng fo te brge penomenon in tese tems),

we must terefore assume tat te Sstructue coesponing to (19) isforme by a single ong movement" of what frm te postion of ,cossng te interna bounay [[ erefoe te sentence (19 soulave te acceptability tatus of a san violaton, whic t certanl oesnot.

Te probem wou be esolve f we wee to ook at e matte ofsubacency in a sigy ieent way.Sppose tat we replacee base rule(2 l i), whc we ave so fa een assuming, by (21)

(21) () � COP S() � (CP) S



Some relaed opi 305

e retain the ame rue a beore or anayi o CO COM may be, where H = ha in Englih, or it may beor (or rench de,Itian di, i ayne ani diued in § 5 i correct), preumably amarked option In addition we have rule relating COM and INFL, in

part preuppoed though not explicitly given in our earlier dicuion

(22) (i) INi +Tene only i containCOM(ii) INFL i + Tene i COM i H INFLi Tene iCOMi

Let u now characterize bounding node a ollow:

(23) (i) i a bounding node i and only i it i in thecontext±H

(ii) S i a bounding node i and only i it i in the context ±H]

hu in (24 ), both and S are ounding ode but n (25), either i a bounding node

(24) ±H ]](25) (i) ]

(ii or

e might aume (23i) o be general, while (23ii) i an option or certainvarietie o EngihReturning to the problematic example (19) we can now accommodate

the bridge character o the matrix verb without reort to the -toS ruleAt D-tructure, (19) ha the orm (26), yielding the Structure27) ater-movement

(26) you tried PRO to do what](27) what did you try PRO to do t]

Since neither nor S a bounding category in accordance with (23),one-tep movement i conitent with the ubjacency condition andthere i no trace in the embedded CM at any tage ince i ti

preent in (27), doe ot govern PRO On he ame aumption ederive uch Stucture a (28)

(28) (i) who did ohn expect i to ee t](ii) who did ohn want RO to ee t ]]

n (28i), expec govern B, but in (28ii), wa doe nt govern PROand contraction i poible

Conider ( 9):

(29) who did you try t to leave]]



306 Letures on goement and bndng the Psa lectures

Tis s o suacec voao bu voas EC whch heefoguaraees a varabes have ase such sucures e heS-sucure 30 s w excuded by P appyg o

(3) wh dd you y [s [ ' ]]

A appoach of hs so migh be workabe yg ogeer a umber ofpheomea

I §24 1 we oed ha he sas of such seeces as (3 1 is appaeydeermied by he subacecy codo:

(3 1) * oh seems [s ha [ s cera [ o lke ice cream]]]

(=24v))As oed here he cocuso raises probems I Eglsh diaecs wih Sas a boudg oe (31) s a suacecy vioio hough eve hscase he cocusio s pobemaic sce s saus s pay ess accepabea may isad voaos ha vove S as a boudig ode Ad Iala o Egish daecs ackg S as a boudig ode (31) does ocou as a subacecy vioao o our prese assumpios Sppose wewere o ry o dea wih he pobem by modifyg (23 ow requrg

ha S be a boudg ode variaby i he coex (32i) bu alowgpaaeric varai he coex (32ii) (hs beg e paameerdeermig he -sad codio):

(32) (i) -H] (i [+ WH] -

The (31) s a subacecy vioaio depedely of he saus of heembedded S bouday

These assumpos however are uaccepabe or coider 33):

(33) *ohs cea[s o whom [ sees[ o lke ice cream]

ere S s o a boudg ode (eg i ala accodg o isaaysis hch e have bee assmg oughou) srucues suh as(33) shoud he be grammaica whch i fase The pobemis o dsiguish bewee (33) ad (34) wich is permissbe i a aguage a doeso oserve -isad iaos wih t he ace what ad t' e aceof to whom

(34) wha des oh kow [s o whm [ Bgave ']

e woud have o assume ha he sucue (35) is a absoue barier oNP-moveme io a A-posio (as i (33)) bu o a absoue baeo -movemeo COM(as i (34)):



Some related topics 307

(35) to who

Tis sees hardy pausbeThe obvous ateratv sees to be ha t realy s he ebedded S

boudary that couts as a boudg ode (31 ) irrespectve of hesad pheoeo This cocuso suggests tha we repace (23)by (36):

36) () s a boudg ode the cotex: ±H]() S s a boudg ode he cotex: ±H] () S s a boudg ode whe govered

Case () dstgushes bewee raisg ad coro assumg -deeo

for raisig predicaes The -sad paraeter ow voves (36) here(36) hods we have -isad volaosI accordace wth (36) (33) ad (34) dffer crucialy because of the

presece of he os deely ebeded cause (goveed by seem) (33;ad (31 ) ad (33) are barred rrespectve of he status of -sad voaos

Tis uggeso has uerous ramcatos Cosider for exape theDsrucure (37) i Itala:

(37) i lbr che sai L c [+H] [[P e] pareva [a quaa gee][ COM[ Pero aver prestao wh]]]]("h books hat ou kow [c [H]] [ P e] seeed[to ow ay peope] [ COM[ Pero o have e ]]]]")

h -oeet of a quanta entetothe[H]COMNP-oveetof Peo o [P ] ad -ovee of - o he COM post of e,we derve (38:

(38) lbri che sai [ a quaa gete[Piero peva t[COM[t' averpresao t]]]]("he books at you kow o how ay peop Piero seeed tohave e)

I (38) s the trace of a qanta gente t ' is h tace of Piero ad t" s hetrace of the reatve If he -isad pheoeo is reate t the status ofS as a boudig ode he (38) should presuaby be gramatcasice after -deeo he ost deepy ebedded cause the oly

boudig ode s the folowig sa. If (36) s correc however the(37) shoud be ugraatca rrespectve of he -slad pheoeosice the ost dely ebedded S is a boudg ode after -deleo byvirtue of (36 ) I fact (38) shoud have the sae status as (3):

(3) i lbr che sa a quta gete ero diceva d aver presato



308 Lecue on govenmen and bndng: he sa lecues

(the books that you know to how many peopliero sa to hve lent")

In the latter case, the subject of aer presao s PR; (9) s a controlstructure as compared wth he rasing structure (38). Both (38) and 39)shoud be ungrammatca, on the assumpton that relative movement isin a snge step.

Suppose, however, that reatve movement is successve cyclic n thesecases. Accordng to the theory of Rizzi (978b), (39) is stil ungraatcalsince movement from the cause to e matrix poston (whc must be na snge step because of the nerna movement to COM n te medialcause with a [WH] COP) is blocked by the two ntervenng -ns.

Bu t ght be argued hat (38) should be gammatc wth the oowngdervation rst, the element - n (37) moves to the most deepyembedded COP; second, the to-S rue appes after pare; thrd, he-element moves n a sigle step to the matrx COM of the relatveclause, now crossing only a sngle -nodeThen even i[[coapses to[ n the most deeply embedded clause, making t a bounding node n thesense o (3i), ths w not afect the derivaton

am not sure what e facts are n such cases n taian or n French, where the same situation should obtain so wil leave the matter n thsnconclusive state.

Consder naly suh exampes as

(40) whch room d you say that ohn saw Bi

What s the status of the trace of in which room with regard to ECP? One possbility is that the underlyng structure is (4), so that V properlygoverns the trace in accordance wth one of the denitons o government" consdered in § 321

(41) P IF [vP[PV ...] n whch room]

Anoher possbity is hat ECP hods ony of as suggested byaeggi (1980b); cf §4..

As should be obvous, these remarks are intended to be at mostsuggestive. Vaious proposas have been cnsdeed that are not mutuayconsisen, and none has been worked ou n requiste detal or wtsufcient attention to consequences urthermore, the range of revant

phenomena has barely been sampled y intenton has been only trevew a number of optons that might be urther expored

54 Complex adjecia conscions

Since the origins o work in generatve grammar, consderable attentionhas been gven to such construcons as (1 ):



Some elated top

() (i) Jon is easy to pease() Jon is an easy person to pease

309

Neverteess, tey still pose unresoved problems. Let's ask at ormsome o tese probems take in te context o te GB-teory

I i assume ere te approac o tese constructions outned inComsky (97b), ere tey are incuded among tose tat exhbit te basic properties o -movement It is particularly natura to assumein this case tat te embedded prase to please in is a residue oa clause tat as undergone someing ike -movement, sinc e-prase may n act be overt in constructions o te orm (), eg,(2):

(2) (i) ths is n easy violin on c to play sonatas() ths is a pleasan room in hic to ork

Assuming tat te constructions ( l i and () are rated peraps, byextraposition o te residua cause to please o (1) rom te adectiva

prase easy to · lease (simiary in (2)) it olos tat te underlyingstructure o te compement o te adjective easy pleasant etc is aclause it a moved element in te COM position leaving a trace asvariable n accordance it earer discussin, let us assume tat i (li)te embedded clause as bee subect to movement o PRO rom te basestructure (3i), giving te S-structure (3)

(3) (i) Jon is AP easy COM PRO to please PRO]]](ii) Jon is AP easy [PRO[ PRO to please t ]]]

e embedded subecPRO is arbitray i reerence, it an index distinctrom by e binding eory. Te embedded race is a variable ince it isbound. PRO in COP is coindexed it John

Pursuing te ansis o (), e reac a paradox o -teory Tere isgood evidence tat te matrix subect John is exicaly-inserted into itsSstructure position. Te matix subect position must, tereore, be aposition, as is te position o te variable t in (3ii) We tereore expectit to be resistant to idiom cunks and oter non-arguments, as ustratedin (4) as compared it (5) (t te trace o te subject tougout)

(4) (i) good care is ard to take t o te orpans() too muc is ard to make t o tat uggestion() tere is ard to beieve t to ave been a crime commtted

(5) i) good care seems t to ave been taken t o te opans() too muc seems t to ave been made t o tat suggestion( tere is believed t to ave been a crime committed t

In sort, examples suc as (i) are not ormed by movement ro te



3 10 Lecures on goemen and binding he Pisa lecures

embedded cause o he max subjec posiion and he aer is a

posiion.Bu adjecives of he -caegory aso ake causa compemens ha

prevenhe mari subjec posion fm being

posiin as in (6)(6) (i) i is had ke John]

(i) i is peasan or he ch fo he poo o do he had o]

Theefoe we have o assume · a dua exca caegozaion fo heseajecives wih causa cmpemens he subjec s a -posiion andony he cmpemen does no undergo inerna moemen. Weaeassuming ha eica properies are "checke a he LF-ee ugeical iems ae insered a he base Therefore hee is no conradicionin he assumpion o dua exica enies hough i seems quesionabeand is a deparue from he opimaiy assumpions ha we have so farfound o be enable in discussing he pojecion pincipe and he cierion. This is he rs of sever probems ha ·ase in connecionwih cnsrucions of he fom (1)

Sine movemen-o-CO akes place in he causa mpemeno headjecive in (i) he consrucion is an islan fo furher movemen underhe subjacency condiion assuming S o be a bnding caegory forEngish o under he aernaive appo!ch suggesed in §53 Thus i isin effec a -isand. We have such famia examps as (7i formeby -movemen from (8iii) respecivey where is he race o he-prase in he marx COP

(7) (i) *wch sonaas a he ioins easy o pay onJ(ii) *which peope are he books easy o convince o ead]]

(8) (i) he vioins ae easy o play he sonaas on]

() he books are easy o convnce peope o ead

The exampes of (7) hen ae anaogous o (9) (10)

(9) () *whodd ou ask whaJohn had given o ]() you asked wha John ad gien o him]

(10) (i) *whadiou ask whoJohn had gve o () you asked who John hd gve he bok o

Agan some polems ase. Exampes such as 7ae semes judgedo be moe unaccable an correspondng -sland voaons houghhe queson s farly muky Anoher probem exacly he onary ones ha movemen o"pephera phrases s smmes mo ccepalehan coresponding sand voaons as n ()

( 1 1 ) which vons ae he sonaas easy to pay on ]



Some relaed oi · 1 1

Thus extraction o an "interna prase ro a complex adective construction seems to be too severe a violation, whe extraction o a "periphera prase is not a severe enough violation

Compcating the situation urer is the act that "peripheral-movements sometimes ar less acceptable than (11 as in (12 orcompletely ungrammatical, as in (1

(12 (i which table is the book eas to pu on t() whch garage is the car easy to eep in t

(1 (i *how ntegent is John possibe to consider (t be t() *how intelgent is John possible [to thnk o (regard as t

The pobem with (1 s not hat the phrase inegen canno be-mved rom the embedded clause; compare {1 with 14 hich,whe hardly elegant, seem considerably more acceptable

(1 ( how ntelligent is ipossbe to consider John (to be() how ntegent is it possibe to thnk o (regard on as

It seems, then, that the compex adectivecompement constructon asesurther barrers to extraction, over and above those that may assgna degree o unacceptabiity to (14 xampes 12 as contrasted wth

the more acceptabe () iustrate tha -moveent o a "pepheraclause s more unacceptable to the extet that the prase s, in some sense,cosely reated to the verb

We might unite these acts (which again , are hardly crysta clear, thoughthe phenomena appear to be real by assuming that in eampes suc as (12and (1 there is n the underlying structure a cmplex verb 15:

15 ( [ V [ P N

() [ V ( adective

"put on the tabe,"keep in the garage

("consider (to be inteigent, "thnk o (regardas inteigent

The structures underyng (12 and ( then, are as n16 where hereis the trace utmately assoiated wth the matrx subect

(16 (i the book is easy [to [ put on the tabe t(ii John is easy [to [ consider integent t

These are analogous to (17

(7 ( it is easy [to put on the table a book wrtten by Tom() it is easy [to consider integent a person ike Tom



31 Lectues o goemet a biig the isa ectues

The aupon hen ha put the table cosie iteiget aereanazed n he bae a compex verb agnng Cae o he objeca book itte by Tom a perso ike Tom repecvey. T reany

obgaory n uch cae a (13) an adoped wh vayng degee ofobgone n uch cae a (12) a he connecon beween he veb andt PPcomplemen vare. Then -exracon n and (12 (whvaryng force) a cae of "nerna exracon ke (7) raher han"perphera exracton ke (1 1 ).

Summazng "nerna exracon end o be e accepabe hancorrepondng -land voaon he "perhera exracon endo be ore accepabe. A pobe ouon o he queon of "perphera-exracon uggeed n Chomky (1 977b).

Sl anoher probem ha adjecvecompemen conucon whmar argumen ubjec are mpobe for he cae aaogou o (6 .e .(18) a conraed wh (1 8)

(18) () he hard work eaan for he rch for he poor o do]() he hard work peaan for he rch o do]

An approach o compex of probem ha mgh be expored onebaed on he aumpon ha he adecvecompemen phrae n {1 ubjec reanaly wheasy-toease (ec.) aken a a compex adjecveThu (3) become (19)

(19) ohn A A eay o pleae] J

Compare "how eay o peae ohn. The race t ;no onger -bound no a varabe bu rahe an anaphor er reanay alo ackCaef condexed wh Joh a an opon under he free ndexng convenon he enence grammacal. We now aume ha here no rue oconro relang Joh and PRO n CO n (3) raher there ananeceden-anaphor relaon eang Joh and t·

urnng now o he pobem noed conder r he maer of dualexcal repreenaon for he adjecve-compemen conucon.Snce he race n (19) n a poon we may aume ha anm -e o aneceden n he uual way. Therefore we need no ongeraume tha he marx ubjec poon a poon. Coepondnglyhere no need for a dual excal repreenaon. Adjecve of he easycaegory never agn a re o her max ubjec hen hey have clauacompemen he max ubjec aume he -re of condexed ace

exacy a n he cae of movemen.Conrucon of he form (1) are anaogou o conrucon formedby he rue ove- n he way ha -roe are agned bu dfferen nhe way hey are generaed accountng for he fac ha dom chunk andoher no-agumen canno appea n he max ubec poon a heycan under applcaon of ove. In earer work hee conructon




were analyzed a involving movement to matri ubjec poition or ainvolving baegeneration of the matrx ubject (a n Lani and iengo(19}, an anayi adopte in Chmy (1977b)). nder e approach we

are now conidering, each of thee idea i regarded a correct in a particular ene, and e pradox of -theory i reoved.Now however we have a newprobemoftheory. fthemat ubject

i exicay inerted in the D-tucture, then the projection pnciperequire at it poition be a -poition, contrary to what we have jutaumed. It therefore foow that the mati ubject i not inerted atD-tructure, but i o not moved to the mati ubject poition Theonly reoution to t paradox, in ou term, i to aume that lexicalinertion of the matrix ubject i at Stucture in t cae. In other cae,however, the poection pinciple require that lexical inertion be atD-tructure, o that poition will be lled by argument at D-tucture.We are therefore ed to the concluion that lexial inertion can taepace freely either at Dtructure or at S-tucture. The projectionprncipe determine which option i adopted n fact, the ony poibilityfor exic inertion at Structure be in the contruction we aredicuing here (or other ith the ame eential propertie}, naey,in a non-�poition igned an apropriate function chn by reanyio that a roe can be inherited from a race, where t trace reult frommovement of an argument that i bae-generated in the poition it occupie

to atify the projection principle. In hort, if we impify the theory ofexica inertion, permitting it to appy feey either at D or Stucture, weee that the compex adjectiva contruction we are now conidering lla gap in the pattern of pibilitie.

Turning ow to the robem of extraction, the reativey ghegree of unacceptabiity of uch example a (7 reut frm the factthat extraction i from witn a categoy formed by reanyi in effect,a lexical category. The acceptabiity of extraction of peripheraeement, a in (1 1 }, reut from the fact that there i no ubjacency

volation, ince the tructure underying (1 1) after reanayi i (0)(0 the onata are [A eay to pay] t on [- violin]]

Reanayi a a complex adjective may be aumed to be more difcut toth extent that i eprate cloey related item, pacing one witn thedeived exical category and the other outide it, accounting for he tatuof uch example a (1}, (13). Thu (1i), for exampe, oud have toderive from (1 }, in wch pu i eparated from it complement on he

ale

(1} [N i the bo] i [A[A eay o put] ton the tabe]

The entence the book i eay to pu on the tabe would then derivefrom the form ( 6i).



Lecture on goernent and binding the Pa leure

As for he nal proem he ungrammacy of ( 8) we may assumeha reanayss is barred b he presenc o he emedded subec hereanaysis ue equirng adacenc f he arx adecive ea orN)

ih he embedded inniive. On he same gounds ne mght hop oaccount for he famia fac tha constuions such as l tend o beme acetable wih embedded inniias aher han nsed clauseshough the lae ae somemes ore o ess acctabe as in (22

(22 () hs book is difcu o convince eope o ead t]( hs book is difcult to convince peope (anyone) hat theyough o ead ]]

Tensed embedded causes may b more esistan to eanalysis haninnivas.Consde he eampe (2

(2 *John is easy o like ary

On he earier anaysis hs example s blcked fo he same eason as(2 ith a nonCasemaked vaiable unabe to assume a oe

( *who is easy t like BOn the aternaive anaysis we ae now considerng (2 is blocked by hempossbity of eanaysis as in (18i).

t seems hen ha an appoach to ese consucons base o somenoion of eanayss is worth epoing moe caefuly and hatt mighbe wothwhie to inquie further into is impiaions fo the elatedconsuctions dscussed in Chomsky (97b)

Noes

1 . For the folowing observations, I a idebt o Howar Lasnik. Te proissorynoe Chomsky (1979a is not fulle, in this espect.2. Recall that we are not consiering the pobles of the heory of reference in�connecion bt are concene athe with popeties of LF-representation that entto interpretations of sentenes in terms of inten coeferece an inten istinct(isjoin) referne, were he "reference in qestin oes not cay ontologiccommit�en. e uestion of !ow to interpret prpelythe exing of nm an ronouns is takenp by James

Higgnbotam in work in preparation. also Evans (1980, an other recent

work3 he existence of the phenoenon of isjoint reference h occasionaly been eon the bis of constucte siuaons in which sch expressions (li are relativelyaccepable Bt these xamples are besie te point, wch is hat {l an (4) are clearlyifferen in saus no analogos siuaons have to be contrive wih regar to (4) ancrucialy hat this ifference in sats mrors he behaior of anaphors wit regar to thebining theory .

he sae crucial fac rules ot as compleely mplausible e propsl ofK (1980




tha the phenomenon belongs to pragmatics rather than grammar; f ts were so, whyshould the phenomenon reect so closey the properi of binding theo in cases thatceary belong to grammar in anyone's sense, e.g., the range of interpretation for suchsentences as () and ?:

() eveyone expected him o ike John eveyone expeced John o ike m

In a sense, hs cicism of Kaz's proposal is besde he on, since is ctique ofother work (speccally, mne) is vtiated hroughout by he faacy o equvocaon: he she erm "grammar in a radicaly deren sense from he one adoped n the work hecticiz. For Kaz, the scope of wha he cas grammar s demied by ceran apririconsderaons, for exampe, the probem of formzing ceran paterns ofnference. In ework he ciciz, no such citeon s adoped he doman of wha s caed "grammaris an empc qeson, to be determin in ways tha have freqently been descbed

A smar equivocation ndermines az's crqe of conclsions conceng he level ofLF-represenaion . He is simply sing the erm "logical form in a sense qite dffeenfrom ta of he work he citicizes atz's fallay is clear, for example, hen he cicizgmmatcal sdes fo ssgnng o F phenomena at e regards as belongng topragmaics. he i correc in he laer conention, ha simply shows tha some elemntstha elae to pragmacs beong o he evel of Frepresenaon, as ertany mght be hecse atz's cticsms coud be ecast as an argumen ha he term "F'! shold berephased by some oher pase, b is qesion is surely oo insigncan o mediscssion, partclarly, snce he work he ciiz has aways been qie clear abo theisse C Choms (1980b, chaper 4; 1980c) for frhe discussion of he and elaedfaaci lso caper 6 beow.

Wih regard o disjoint reference, some o the exampes ha have been pt forh incism of the notion in fac spport , e.g., such examp as "I dreamed tha I was JsChis and hat I forgave me fo my sins. In a proper heoy of he inerpreation ofindexing, a differen "referent will prmaby be assgnd o I and mein he "consrcedworld of he eam. The developmen of sch a heoy is a matte ofinter, bt do noaffec he poin a isse. Simiary, such exampl as (i) have been addced (e.g., byatz) o ejec he phenomenon of disjoin reference, on te gonds tha (iii) do notena that Carter did not voe for msef

(iii) eveyone in Plans, Georgia, voed for Carer

B agan s simpy miss he poin. Assmng e proper Frepresenaon o besomeng ke (iv), where x and Caer are dffereny indexed as eqied by bindingtheoy, he proper interpeaion of variables in F does not exclde the possibity haCare is a vae of x:

(iv) for evey person x in Plans, Georgia, x voed for Carer

B ts observation, to wich we ren, do no impgn e obvos disnction beween,say, (i) verss (v)

(v) everyone expeced (tha) he would ke John

In (i) o (v), he ponon may be idenied with he varable bond b eveone a F,giving (v) and (vii) as possble epresenaions of and (v), rpecivey bu isno a possibe resentaion of (i):

(vi) fo evey person x, x expeced John o like x for every person x expeced (a) wold ke John(vii) fo evey person x x expeced o ike ohn



31 Lecures o goerme ad bidig he isa lecures

I ohe wods he ca be coideed wih x ude he bidig heory i ) ad v buo i () by he disjoi efeece picip such coidexig beg iepeed as sameso variabe (say by he device o eidexig o Hggiboham (l99a)). he ac ha Caremay e a vaue of x i (v) has o beaig o he legimacy o he oio of disjoi eeece

hough i is elevat o he uo of tepetao o F-epetaios.4. Amog he moe dicut oems is Pete Geach's eape (i) whee he proous udestood as somehow wihi the scope o the uatie though its ot oallywihi is scope:

(i) the woma every Eglshma admies most s his mohe

5 See he dscussio o §§ .6 32.1 o he possbily ha ohe caegoi oo mayhave subjecs i act accsble SUBJECs i the sese o chape 3.6. No is his he oy such case. is worh oig tha as theoi o grammar havebecome moe ticive ove the years hus ehacig explaaory depth some domais

cerai topcs tha had received a suggesve ad soeim illumiag aaysis i emso ls cosraied theori have i eect bee abadoed. Fo eampe i a heory wihgeeaed rasoaios such as tha o Chomsky (1955) there ae possiiies oraccouig o he ambigity o he baceted eprsos i such strucur as (i)ii)i erms of rasformaoal mappig rom D-suctures ha eprs F- i a atural way

() [the shootig of he hues] disurbed me was dsturbe by oh's div(i) [visig relav] ca be a usace

More recet worh i eect abadoed the atempt give a prciped accout of such

cases (which were a sape o ealer work) resorg lexical rues hat ae hady moreha desciptive satees o he probem o be solved It may e hat these seps aewarrated tha hs s he way agage wors so ha here is og o itert o sayabout such eampl as the Bu oe should thk ear i i he more iegpossibilt epo ealier work I some cases a move owads lecal aalysis iswell-movaed empircally; eg the case o deived omials discussed i Chomsky (1972chapters 1 3) (1974) ad much oher work. sme cas the move is dicated by hesuccess o more cosraied heories othe domais ad he valid mehodoogicalpicipe ha ges the seach or suh theor hese reasos shoud be kep dsitwith a eye owards the possibility of recaptuig earer explaatoy optios hat mayepress geuie sighs hat have bee os

7 a chaper 2, ote 1098. Recal hat hee s a obscure plrality coditio ivoked i the case o Eglshrciprocals. hus ecom ugammaica i he iteded tepreaio whe armentis eplaced y arment.a. chaper 3 oe 57.

I geera reciprcals oe seem maga i preposiioa phases ecep uerreaalysis hough ot aways. Compae he margia examp (i) wih the more accepable (uder reaayss) ad (ii)

(a) hey left wih each other() they are easy for each ohe to tak o

(a) hey spoke o each oher

() they are soy for each oher(ii) (a) hey tod Mary aou each oher

() hey told ary soies aout each oher

It may e hat the somewhat margial sats of (iv) is o be epaied o sia gouds

(iv) they were happyor each other to eave



Sme relae pics

C. chapr 3, no 389. S h dscuon o 2.6.28).

37

10. On th bhavor o Engh rxiv compar wih comparab lmnts inDuch, s Kostr 98b) and Huybrg 199)

1 1 a. Lghfoot 1980) on urhr mpcaions of thi assumption.12. Whhr thr ar cs of prposition sranding n ths anguags n crtaincass is an opn quton ; in any vnt, f h phnomnon xists, t s ar mo rscd.a Vnt 199).3. Th atus o th scond part of aumpion ii) i rahr usionab. I srvshr ony to bock movmnt with nhnt C-makng ; assignmnt of structualCas to th varabl in any vn oows movmnt, o that in th grammaical cas,N- and movmn ar ndstngushab. Thus uns indpndntly motvat, thassumption mounts to th stipulaton that -phrs cannot bind an obiu varab,although othr opraton .g., thos formd by quant movmn n thLFcomponnt may do o. I mgh b agu tha 14ii) s nvrhlss mo natual han

t ad stipulation; s bow for an argumn to t ffc.14 But ntad o th Empty Obiqu Filt, Kayn proposs an xplanation in tmo govnmn, in accodanc with Kayn 980a)15 . hr s an atmpt to xpn ts n OB n th framo propos th,basd on th assumption tha clticmovmnt analogou to -movmnt n his rpct.B Kayn obv tha th phnomnon i stict to -ovmn contary to thacual assumpons of OB, ring to th dtald analyi of his topic in 198c).16 I hav rplacd numbrng 64) v. 65) by numbing consitnt wih thqunc of xampls hr.1. Rc th discuson of aignmnt of Cs to an lmnt in CO n § 3.2.2cf. th dscusion o 3.2.2.13)) and of f ativs

18 But a odcaton of h mchanm propod n § 3.2.2 i rqur, snc htrac t tha s asgnd Cas n 26) not part o th A-functon chn includng t' asdnd n § 3.2.2. This modcaton, which may no b tghfowad, accos wh thconcpon o Casasignmnt nto COMP.19. Examp rom Kayn 1980c).20. hr ar furthr probms On, notd by Josf Aoun and Hagt Bor, concrnsmultp -contrucions, in }, }

) unclar who rad which booki} t s unclar who l h ook na wha

Accodng to th thoy otnd in chapt , mbddd phras shoud b pmibony n a positon that s proprly govrnd Assuming th hory jst tchd, suchpostion n PP ar rsrctd o thos n which th PP is wtnV, hnc not n cas ii},a cas that dos not prmit prpoiion sranding. Cas ) xhibt h sam problm nsimp om is not n a proprly govrn posion. rhaps n oh cass thanw i tha t LFru of movmnt nvov p-ppng Th a numouamcatons tha I wl no atmp to xpor h21 . Spcirs and complmnt, n th trmnology o X-bar thoy Kayn 1980b)gnraliz th propoal tha COM is accssibl to xtrnal govnmnt in a qu dfntway.22 With rgad to th thoy of bounding, Bltt and i popos a vison of

subjacncy to dal wth h fac that omthing analogous o govrnmnt by a vb smsto b a uimnor movmn, not only n th cas o poiton tranding as ntd byWnbrg and Honstn ; cf. § 5.2) but mo gny. Thus, advbal construction hatar ousd o V ar always iland. Similar quston hav bn xplord by Maanz199b}, Kayn 1980b) and Stowll 1980b), who dvlop omwhat dfn appoachs.23. Not that ths ampton dfr fom that of th pcdng chaptr, wh it wasasumd that INFL may optonay govn th pr-vbal subjct n Ialian Bltti and



oe relaed op

() *wich ove did he cke ke yo dy o hep o bke (iv) wich ove did i ke you dy o hep Joh bke he cke

319

These costrctos she sei popeties o he compeme css. , he

tecedet-gp pis e ted ye the setece is f ess ccepbe th (iv). Bt ()d (v) do dffer tems of the -isd codtio ie. sbjcecy wih S s bodigode.

evehes thee my e effect eg to tig Bt eve sch codiio sopetve it seems tht it s oy peph pt of the stoy d tht the -sdcodito (tced timtey to sbjcecy) opet idedey. See so mp (1 1)(3) beow i wich he g coditio is fomy obsv bt the steces e ofvyig dege of cceptbiity

Cf. Reihr (979b) o psibe versio o ig cosit O resos fo sch costit see e d Chomsky (963) d ec cited hee picyChomsky (99). Aso Comsky (96 chpe )

33. The ysis i tis rpec wod be simir to the ysis of sch cosrctios iChomsky (19). See chpe 2 ote 12034 O the stts of the phrsefor he rch see Chomsky (1977b).3. The ysis is simi some pecs to he rmpive poo stegy oreiv o to the emp discssed by Tdse (1979) i wich bs�geetedtce cts s vbe.



Catr 6

mpy cegore nd he rule ove

A major preoccupation throughout this dscussn has been the status ofcategories that have no ntrnsc phontic content. Two types of such emptyctegories ave een consdered: trace and PRO. Each of these has a certan cluster of propertes: trace s properly govened and bounded bysubjcency, and transts ather than retans ts 8-roe (.e., ts antecedentas no ndependent 8role); PRO s ungoverned and not necessariy bounded and does not tranmt 8roe (.e., ts anteceden it has one has anindependent 8roe) Wthin the category of trace, a dstncton hasemege betwee varabes ad other traces Let us now strict atentionto NP the fous of our concern throughout apat from § 2 Then wehave two tpes f trace· vrabes and NPtrace. Each of these too isociatd wth a certa custer of propetes: peccally varabes are

Rexpressions and NPtraces are anaphors wth consequences that folowfrom binding theory.

In § 2.9, it was observed hat the three types of empty categoryPROaibe, Ptrace partiton the class of possibe positins ofNP. We havesince seen that this concusin is not exacty correct, thoug it is cose toue. NP is either governed or ungoverned. If ungoverned an empty category s PRO if governed t can only be trace, ut the futher requirementof proer government must e met for trace t e adssibe Thus n positons that are governed but not propery goveed we can have neither

trace nor PRO leading t consequences discussed n § § 2.6 32 In posions that are propery overned, trace m y or may not receive Case.Suppose we assume prncipe 32.2.(16 characterzng ariabes as casemarked races to be vaid, though n fact we have ony grounded andutzed t from eft to right. Then a trace is a variabe it is Casemarkedand t is an NPtrace it s not Casemarked. Excuding psitions that aregovene but no propery governed the remaning distribution s in factdvded int three exhaustive and excusive categories PRO, varable,NPtrace

f the three empty categories partton a certain distrbution n thiscase vrtuay the distributon of NP then it is reasonabe to presumethat n fact there s ony one asc empty category each occurrence of has one of three custers of properties. hs assumpton w expin the partitionng, which otherwse remains mysterous. Our discussion so farhas been concerned primary wih the clusterng of propetes. Let us now



322 cturs on govmnt and binding th a cturs

assume that ths custering s estabished and ook more care at thequestion of the interna consttution o the eements that manfest ths clustering

We have bee assming that PO variable an Ptrace are distguished by ther interna constitution PRO has the features personnumber and gender whe trace lacks these features though it may haveothers specicy Case and perhaps the feature [wh] that sgnasmovementtoCOM Furthermore Ptrace and varable are dstgused by the feature Case f 322(16) is vald erefore rules thatdstingush among the three types of empty category can do so merely byinspectng ther nterna constituton an occurrence of an emt categos PRO or a varable or Ptrace depening on ts nterna propetes.is has been a usefu epository devce but is no necessary equrement of the theory we have been developng For the rules of this theoy tooperate properly t s ony necessary that each ocrrence of an emcategory can somehow be dented as PO variable or Ptrace erence of nterna constitution is sucent for this purpose but is notnecessary. For eample we can determne whether an occurrence of[ ] s a variable or an Ptrace by askng whether t s locy Abound(hence a varabe) or not ence Ptrace ) Whe t may be rue that

variable and Ptrace are n fact dstnguished by nterna consttuton presence or absence of Case the rues say of the bindng thery woudappy ust as we and n eacty the same way f they were not so distngushed

Consider now trace and PRO Wehavebeenassuming hatPRhathefeatures person numer and gender as s qute reasonabe PR �ntsinto typica agreement phenomena as in :

(1) (i) Joh tried PRO to hep hmsef]() they tred [PRO to become doctors

they tried [PRO to be happy

In () PRO has the feature [mascune and n () the feature [pura]triggerng agreement ust as overt pronoun woud in a comparabe

postion In a anguage with inected adectves the anaoge of hain woud e pura Furthermore arbitrary PRO may be herent eithersngular or pura a parameter dstinguishing reated anguages as weaveseen So it makes good sens to think of PRO as havng these eatureseacty as pronouns do It was such considerations that ed us to dene thecategory of pronominas PRO or overt pronoun n terms of possessn

of ust these features wh perhaps an optiona phonologc matri thetion dstngushing PRO from pronounHowever we have so far been gssng over simar arguments hat

show that trace shod have these features as we us consder (2)

2) (i) who dd John think [t woud hep hersef



Emty catgos and h rul mov

() they seem t to be doctors (iii) they seem t to be happy

323

The sae consderatons that suggest that PRO as te features n queston appl n (2) (and ther analogues n more nected languages) tondcate that trace aso has these eatues, so at there w be no nterndeence n the consttuton o trace and PRO. Furhe evdence to tseect s povded by the possbty that trace may be speed out" as a ponoun as n the case o emphatc pronouns n Itaan (c. chapter 2,note 22). Assumng the tace to have e eevant eatures, tis possbty

woud smpy amount to aowng a certan ue o morphoogy to assocate wth ts coecton o eatures ts correspondng phonoogcmatrx

We thereoe have both conceptua and empca easons to suppsethat thee s rey ony one basc empty categoy, whch may have the grammatca eatures person numbe gende Case, wh, and pehapsothers, as determned by ts dervaton and context. I these grammatcaeatures speccaly peson number and gende ae base-generated withou a correspondng phonoogc matr we have PRO they areet end" by a movement rue then we have tace.Ithe trace s oc

y bound, then t s a varabe; otherwse not I 32.2.(16) s vald then the trace has Case s a vaabe otherwse not.1

he conceptua reason o assung hat thee s ony a snge emptycategor s that a dstbuton wch s vruy that o NP s parttond

by he empty categores a act expaned they ae varants o a snge basc eement bu oherwse unexpaned.The emprc easons ae thosejus ndated nvovng ageement.

e see that we can dsngush occurences o the empy categoy assumng now ha there s ony one as PRO, NPtrace or vaabe nems o the dervaon Can we aso denty occuences as PRO, NP-traceor aabe n tems o properes o the strucue n wch they appea,

wether LF S-sucture o D-sructue? As noted arabes are dented by he act ha hey and hey one, are ocay -bound.The ony prob em, hen, s to dsngush NPtrace om PRO.

Snce 2., e have been assumng that he undament dstncton between NPtrace and PRO es n -theoy. Moement s possbe to anon-poston ony so that the antecedent o race s ways n such a

poson the antecedent o PRO s an agument, then t s n a -poston.Thus we can detemine hethe is NP-trace o PRO by nspecton o santecedent .e., ts oc Abnde has one. s ee or s n a

poston, then s PRO s bond and s n a non--poston, then s NP-trace.2Ts method works ony bound PRO aays has an argument as ts

bnder Que generay ts s rue thus, peonastc it or thr (as nt seems hat ... " there are thee men ...") nve bnds PRO. Buconsde (3):



32 4 cturs on govmnt and binding th a cturs

t sometmes rans ater· [ snowng Here, must be PRO, snce t s ungoverned; but ts controller s weather

t." Controed PRO normaly assumes the reerenta propertes o ts ante�ceden, bu the antecedent n ths case s nonreerenta Or to put derenty, weather behaves as thugh t were reerenta, but can aveno reerent

The atter property s not as strange as t sounds n act, t s not ncharacterstc o what are oten consdered reerenta expressons" II say the aw n the rgument s obvous, but t escaped John's attenton"I am not commtted to the absurd that among the thngs n the ordre aws one o them n the argument questo Neverteles, the

th aw in th argumnt behaves n al reevant respects n the manne ote truy reerenta expresson th coat in th cost or exampe, t can be the antecedent o it and serves as an argument, takng a 8-roe Sup pose now that we make a rather conventona move, and assume that onestep n the nterpretaton o LF s to post a doman o ndvduas tatserve as vaues o varabes and as denotata Among these ndvduas aresecc aws that ca appear n arguments c the same aw appears n both arguments"), Johns lack o taent, and so on Then we mght asoassume tat weath denotes a desgnated member o and s usreerenta" n the sense requred or our dscusson

Note that ths step n the process o nterpretaton s not to be conused wth what mght be caed rea semantcs," that s, te study o teraton beween anguage or anguage use and theword3 Rather, t shoud be consdered to be n eect an extenson o syntax, the constucton oanother evel o ment representaton beyond LF, a eve at whch arguments at LF are pare wth enttes o menta representaton, ths urtherlevel then enterng nt rea semantc nterpretaton" But et us puthedets and appoprate qucatons e and adopt the assumpton thatthere s a doman o ndvduas assocated wth arguments at F as

vaes o varabes denotata o names, etc It s not excluded, then, tatamong these ndvduals s an lement o denoted byeather-

But whe ths step s not ruled out n prncpe there s reason to bevethat t s not correct To see why, et us consder a tte more closely the behavor o varabe-ke eements o LF

here ar wo suc ements: what we have caled varables," that slocay bound empty categores and PRO wt arbtrary reerence Consder sentences n whch these appear, eg, ()

() ) wo ht B or whch person x x ht Bl)) t s possbe to roll down the hll t s possble or PRO

to roll down the h *what rans or whch x x rans)

In case ), an ndvdua o can serve as a vaue o x ts propertes



Emty catgoris and th ru mov 325

pace hn he man o he resrce quancaon ; hus he answero (i) can be "ohn h Bll bu no "he rock i Bll An anaysis o ()whch is crue bu sucien for our purposes akes PRO o be a variabeoun by sme operaor Bu he omain of his variable is resrce: ()

m be aken as referring o peope roling own e hi bu hary orocks hogh he properies of "rol own he h perm eiher subjecan here s no genera resricion of PRO o humans in The naura expanaon o he ungrammaica saus of {ii) is hen ha as a maer ofgrammaica principe no eemen of mees he requiremens mpose byhe precae rains on is subjec Then eaher enoes no elemen of

Note that thee may be oher consierations facual or conctual thatconstrain; for exampe perhaps it oes not or cannot nclue thnkngrocks so that the sentence "whch rock thinks is also ungraticaBut the rincipe in the caseof weatherverbs is oquite a ferent type

It seems then that weather- is simar to arguments in th it canconro PRO but unike them in that it entes no member of as a matterof grammatica principe Let us then istinguish two casses of arguments:tru rgumntswith potentialy eferentia unction apart from conceptuaconstraints (eg those that may bar hinking rocks) there may be elementsof that the take as vaues or enotata an quasiargumnts that ackany such function as a matter of grammatical principe Let us assumecoresponingy that one of the possibe 0roes is that of quasi-argument.

The pronoun can be a true argument ("it is on the tabe) a quasiargument ("it is raining) or a non-argument ("it seems that ohn ishere) The same is true of PRO it can be a true argument ((4) or "hetri [PRO to rol own the hil) a qasi-argument (3)or the basegenerate subject of a weather-verb in a prorop language) or a non-argument(the mpersona pronomna of a prorop language; cf 45)

In part te argment status of PRO is etermine by is form It foows from the 0-criterion that PRO is a non-argument it is cosuperscpte with a post-verba argument; s is implicit in the iformaiscussion f "inheritance of 0roles above an wi be mae explicitirecty Reca tht ere re o types of superscripte argumnts in potverba position NPs an causes the latter as in "it seems thaS"Recaaso that there was stong reason to supose at in the atter case tepronomn non-argumen subject is coinexe with te post-verb cause(cf. · 32(82�)). et us coninue to assum at this coinexng is cosuperscripting as s natural given the cose analogy to constructionsThen PRO s a nonargument i it is co-superscripte with a post-vebaargument this case arising only in a prorop language In the theory evelope in chapter 4 , superscripte PRO is not cosuperscripte with a postverba argument then t s an argument e anaogue of a pronoun in anon-prorop anguage I either case PRO is co-superscripte with someAGR as are lexcal arguments n subject position Therefore PRO is anon-argument an ony it is co-superscrpe with a post-verbal argument an NP or a cause.



326 Lcturs on govmnt and binding th isa lcturs

Suppose ha PRO s an argumen. hen uncns wh respecoD n eacly he manner of an oer pronoun n a nnprodrop language.Speccaly s no nerpreable as arbra n rference any more a

h s so nerpreable in he s eaing." Raer we may assume ha eac

uerance s a rue argumen ssocaed wh some elemen of D of heapproprae sor or i s a quasargumen funconng n he aner of

weaher. Suppose ha PRO s a nonargumen. gn canno e n erpreed as arbra n reference snce ere s no elemen of D ha cansasfy . Nor can be boun by n aneceden n s case snce PO sbound by an aneceden only f s an rgumen eiher a rue or quasargumen. In shor PROcanno appear wha we nuvely·hnk ofas a conrol srucure" In a nnprodrop language PR canno appear

wh a superscrp; herefore al srucures wh PR are conrol sruc ures" wh PRO eher arbrary n reference r cnroled by an aneceden as deermned by he eory of conol. The same s rue n prodrop languages. I follows hen ha here s no need o spulae whchsrucues are conrol srucures." In fac we can spense wih enoon apar from eposory purposes. PRO has a superscrp f and only

f s Ssrucure poson s governed a Dsrucre.We can reach he same concluson from a slghly differen pon of vew.

Consder possble occurrences of RO n wha would be aken as conrolsrucures n a nonprodrop language say as subec onve as n (5)

(5) () NP V [PRO venre Govann() NP V [PRO manare Govann

NP V [PRO semrare [ che S

(ergave)(Pnerso)

(eg I wan [PRO o seem a S "; I wan o seem ha S")

The srucues () an () ae bared b he Case Fler since he pos

verba NP receves no Case. Therefore rasing of PRO s necessary. We wll see recly ha s aso barred b a slgh generlizao heargumen ha apples o () and () I follows hen ha PRO cosupescrped wh a posverba argumen can never appear a cnucon

ha would be a conrol srucure n a nonprodrop language To pu differenly he conrol sucures are essenally he same whaever e vaueof he prodrop parameer.

Gven hese conclusons onsder he senences (6)

(6) () (a) I wan [ o snow(b) *I wan [PRO o snow

() (a) for o snow all day woul be a nusance (b) *[PRO snow all day ould be a nusance

(a) [ s snowng al day would be nusance(b) *[PRO snowng al day would e a nuisanc



Empty categores and te rue move 327

(v) () [t vng snowed ll dy], I deded to sty oe *[PRO vng snowed ll d, deded to sty oe

(v) () I beleve [t to ve snowed ll dy] *J beleve [PR to ve snowed ll dy]

Fo esons dsussed n § 21 we ssue tt ll lusl stutues enell te beted stutues n (6) ust ve subjets But tese ex ples llustte, te subjet of wete-veb nnot be PRO unless, s n(3), tee s qus-guent ontlle e explnton fo (6) s ttsnow equs qus-guent s subjet, but PRO n ontol stutue(e, ny PRO n nonpo-dop lnguge) n be qus-guent only

t s qus-guen s n nteedent, s we ve just seen Redundntly, exple (vb) s bed by t ft tt PRO s govened

Consde now te nlogues to te sentenes of (6) n po-dop lnguge, sy, Itln ee e no nlogues to te () exples, nd te(b exples e bed n ontol stutues, o exple, (6b) But PROy ppe n te ntol stutues (eg, (v)) See Rizz (980), Cosky(98)

Sl obsevtons od n te se of non-guent subjts (eg,fo t o be e t S would be nusne, *PO to be le tS woud e nusne, e PRO s o-supespted n s se w eextposd luse Te guent (to w we eun) t ules out (),

genelzton of e guent tt ules ut (,i), exludes PRO subeo�supespted wt n exosed luse n ts se s well Te n logues n te po-dop lnguges e gin possle n te ontol sutues See Rzz (980), Cosky (18), fo dsusson of oe ses

Note t se fts povde n ndependen eson fo ssung tt wete-vebs nd vebs lking n guen subjet ully do vesubjets nely, PRO evey level of synt suue n e podop lnguges, s e ve been ssung tougout Fo f eydd nottee would be no eson not o xpe te nlogues of (6) o of e

sentenes w non-guent subjets to be gtl tougoutLke PRO, exl ponouns ve guentss needens, f ey venteedns e gt sy (7) s n exeption, f te tw ouenesof t e ondexed; o (7), wee te do unk s e needent of t

(7) () t soetes ns befoe snows() e ws tken of te opns, but ws nsufent dd you e o e opns(v) w d you ke of t suggesion

Exple {) llusttes gn te qus-guen sus of wee- ndtus poses no poble As fo () suppose we sy t do unks elso qusguents ppeng n bse-geneted £postons equequs-guents Te qus-guent stus of e do unk s lustted n () (f (4) ), ellng t vbles e ue guents Bu



328 Lectures on govement and binding te isa lectures

iv) on this assumpton ndates that some idiom hunks ae ue aguments unless what undergoes -movement in this ase is not an NP butrather a QP as in how muh are did theytakeo theorphansHowever

ths uestion is resoved we a maintain the onluson that pronomnals pronouns or PRO reuire aguments anteedents they haveanteeents

While there is plainy more to say about these uestions let us put thetopi aside and assume the oregoing et us now return to the problem odistinguishng NP-trae rom PRO We an do so in a straightoward waya non-variable ourrene o the empty ategoy is PRO its lo-binder is in -position or it is ree and is NPtrae it s loaly-oud by a ategy in a no--position Ts is sly i

whh we distinguished trae rom PRO i studying eir properties in§ 2.4.1and subseuentyWhe we an determne whether an empty ategoy is NP-trae or PRO

merey y inspeting Sstruture along the lines just indiated leary thisapproah msses something important: namely it merely stipuates thatthe anteedent o NPtrae is in a nonposition whereas beoe we wereable to show that the anteedent o NPtrae is in a non--position andmore generaly that movement s always to a non--position This was animpotan property o the ule ove- whether it was employed to relate

F- to GF- or o interpret idioms and non-arguments as in e se oNPmoveent or to assoiate -operators with the vaiabes they bndor to provde the nterpretation o exraposed phres a propety thatollowed rom the projetion priniple Surely then the priniped way to

proeed is by inspeting the pair D-stutue S-stuture) I in S-sutre has been derived by moveent o rom the position oupied by then we wi say that is te trace o and is te tantecedent o By th projetion prnple the t-anteedent o s in a non--positon; 2.1.(17) 2.6.(35)(37 3..3.(44). We extend the denitions in the obvious

way or suessive movement I is loay -bound by t-nteeentthen it is a varabe I is loaly -ound y a t-anteedent then t s NPtrae' a non-pronomnal anaphor n any other ase an empty ategoy sPRO a prononal anaphor It oows that i is ree or bound by a oal-bindern a position then it is PRO

Though s approah is I take it the orret ne repaing a stipulationby an argument based on more undmental prinples I wi or ee oexposition assume the omer anlysis n e subseuent disussion thusin eet assung a onseuene o the projetion prinipe rather than

traing the disussion ak to ths prinipe at eah pointNotie one ual property o the priniped approah to dentyingthe empty ategory just outlined Suppose at the NP s moved to a position in whih it does not -ommand its trae as in P-iverson § 4. 5). Then is by denition the trae o and is the t-aneeden o but is PRO by denition sine it is ree This is exatly e resut w want sne the trae o NP et by NP-inversion is in at PRO not -



Empty categores and te e move 329

c w fo popi of gov d bidig. Tu piipld cciio of py cgo u oulid i fc icopo w ou o ul of PRO-iio ipuld i §4.5; i follow bydiio, fo o picipld diio c lf byNP-ivo PRO. Noc o l odico doo follow fo dtio ut gv tt if t tc of { t tc i ptcul NPtc i.., tc-of" dd ltol oto but tc odc pdt o t o pobl t cocluo tt lt y b t tc of d ytot b tc but t itptd PRO. Notc fut tt tougt ul of RO-tio d o log b tpultd ow iply followg by dto, w ut tll tpult t ul oco-upcptgof tivtd NP d t tc, wc (pol PRO.

I cpt 2 d 3, w dcud t opto of coog RO o tc l ovd to COMP pupov d ot cotuct ttvolv ovt-to-COMP wt o potc x; g. (8, w t pty ctgoy

8 o gv Bll book [ [PRO to d t ]]

o ou pt tdpot, t (t cocluv dcuo wvcuo; t w o opto. T lt (8 ply occuc

of t pty ctgoy. It ot NP-tc, c t ot locly A-boudby t-tcdt. I fct it locl A-bd -poto, d ot c o i O bg oy oopoSlly D-tutu t PRO occupyg -poto.

v o f b ug tt g t ftl poptfo t bd, t p a book (8 But t pdg dcuok cl, upo lly k o , bcu opto f o ot d c o ft pop; t t t kdof lt c dot dvdul of. T po tptto

of (8 tt t vbl t boud by ut ct t vlu t ltof D dotd by t gut codxd w y a book (tougou t dicuio, xt cy to d wt pultcdt, bu w cou to put t d. If t o tcdt (8 py cv o tpttio it ugtcl c topto ck itc cott. It foow t, tt (8 wll cv tpto d td gc tc oy f dt (wc codxd by t u Mov odx wit o gut of ttx tc t toy of coo qu t t gut b a

book (8 Ti y, folowg c uggtio by g t Bolt t o bc outdg pobl tt w fcd cocto wt uc cotuto (8 y, w , tk RO, cot bbty fc. S t t o fc t l t cotb bty fc. A w w § 323 (cf. 323 (45)), ubctRO of t bddd pupov lu c b bty f



330 Lectures on govement and bndng: te sa lectures

hough no (8)) bu he bound varabe musake s value some enyo D denoed by a condeed epesson o he mar clause. Fuhquesions ase: eg., us wha elaions mus hee be beeen he pu posive clause and he mar clause o inepeaion o e ossibe? hesehoeve, go beond he ounds o he pesen dscssio, and do no seem o bear drecy on he specic opcs we have been concened ih

e us now proceed make some o he noions discussed so ar oe precise We coninue o resic aenion o ecep where ndicaed;eension o ohe cases is sraghorward

Le us begin by consideing he noion empy caegoy." Assume ha hee is some se o gammaical eaues ¢ ha chaaceie ponouns;ie, pronons are disinguishe rom oe anaphos and epessonsin ha he gammaical eaures o pronouns ae drawn soely ro ¢,

whereas ove anaphors and Repressions have som ohe gmaicaleaures a wel hus Jon and eac oter each have some gmaicaleaure ha idenes hem as nonponominal, e, some eaue ousieo he se ¢ his assumpion is unavoidabe. There mus, e.g., be sme

propey o Jon eac oter ec., ha indicaes ha hey are no pronouns.he se ¢ incudes peson, number, gende, Case, and pehaps oheeaues eg, perhaps [wh-]). We eer o he membes o ¢ ¢eaures.

e cal an empty catego = [NP F

whee F c ¢ F nonnul I

is no an empy caegy, cal i a lexcal tego. We now ave he eniion 9) and he principe (0):

9) is varable and only i is localy bound and in an Aposiion

(0) I is an empy caegoy and no a variabe, hen i is a anapho

Quie pobably, (0) wil olow rom a moe pincipled characeaon o he noon anapho/ pehaps along he nes skeched inormally in

3.23. We sipulae urhe ha vables ae eihe empy caegoes o pronouns, aming he case o resumpive ponouns. The class o A posi ions wl be sghly modied diecly.

he convenion associaed wih he ule ove is ha when isovedby his ule i leaves behnd he trace [ F]coindeed wih , ee is e se o ¢eaures o

A pronominal has no gammaical eaures ohe an ¢eaures andmay o may no have a phnological mari Specicaly, we have hedeniion (11) recapiulaing our eare discussion:

(1) is a pronomnal and only = [ F, P], whee P is a phonoogical mari and F c ¢ and eiher i) or ii):

i) is eeii) is localy Abound by { wih an independen role

I [NP F, i is PRO; oherwise, is a pronoun. Since PRO mees (0)



Empty categories and te rule move 331

as wel as (11), it is a pronomnal anaphor, as required by the bindingtheory. If [ F] is localy A-bound by { lackng an independent 0-role, itis no a pronominal but rather NPtrace a non-pronomnal anaphor.

Note that we are referring thoughou to occurrences of a symbo in astring. hus one occurrence of [ F] in a string mght be a pronomn, wile nother s a non-pronomnal anaphor and still anther a variabeetc Occurrences are identied as PRO, NP-trace or varable exactly as hey were in our earle discussion. rguments are idetied exactly as in earlierdiscussion, except that we now include quasiarguments alonside of tuearguments as arguments, along the lines discussed above.

t D-structure, we may have lexcal or empty categoies or the nulcategory, lackng any features: the empty categories, by denitin, have¢-eatures Since there is no ndexng at D-stucture, hence no bnding, an

empty category is a pronomna by virtue o (). Dending on its poson t w be an argument, a quas-argument o a non-argument. The last case s excluded we take D-stucture to be a pure" representatonof GF-0 At S-structure, NPs not as yet ndexed by applicaton o Move-are ndexed, say, random

Let us now turn to the notons o Case and 0-theory, recaptulatng andsomewhat sharpenng our earlier proosals I w put asde the problem ofcltcs, discussed brey n § 4.. In § § 26 323 4.5, we saw that toaccount or the nhertance" o Case and 0-role, these roperties should

be assgned to ndces or more properly, to certain uncton chains. Let us now turn to tis notion The ntuitive dea we want to capture s that ofthe projection nto S-stucture o a derivaton rom D- to S-stucture byMove. Intutvely, a cain s a sequence o categores at S-stucturecondexed by Move-, each member except the rst bng a trace o therst member, wich we w ca the ead e chain. The uncton chan s smpy the associated sequence o GFs, propertes o wich we havediscussed. To deal with inhertance" o Case and 0-role, we contnueo assign Case and 0role to certn unction chns or just as wel, to

certan chansWe sa in § 322 that the appropriate objects or 0-role assignment are

chans with the ead n an A-postion (cal them A-chns), but weassumed that Case could be assigned to (uncton) chs headed by a category n C, the only relevant case being that o a chn headed by a-prase n CO. The theoy woud be more unform is cas wereexluded, so that we could limit attention to A-chns toughout. n act,e need not assume that Case-nhertance is possble for a -phrase nO. Rather, e may assume Case to be an nherent eature o an tem

drawn from the excon nterpreting Case-assignment as Cascheckng, n the manner dscussed earler. To impement ts dea we assume (2):

(2) (i) The Case o an NP s derived from that o ts head, or isassigned by a Caseassgnment ue f the NP has no head (e.g.,a gerund)

() Case s one o the ¢features let beind" under movement



332 Lectures on goement and binding: the a lectures

Then a hase in COMP has ase s dawn fom the excon ndinseed n s Dsucue posiion wh Case; he vaabe eaes undemovemenoCOMP ens hs Case I he phse is dawfomhe

excon wihou Case he aabe eaves behnd wl be assgned Case by (12) is in a posion o wch Case is assigned The phase movedto COMP wl no have Case i i is PRO as in puposves and si acnsucons; we eave i as an open quesion whehehese eemens havehe feaue [ h], ie ae acualy phases a queson ased bu noseled n ealie dscussion A phase may be assgned ase n Ssuctue positon (as eg in cetn fee elatves; cf note 2) Oudiscussion of hese topics has been so skehy consideng so few exapestha t pus s in n position to make specic poposals at s pont wil

theefoe smpy leave these questons open and concenae on N wthn Sssumng these questions to be setted by enng n one o anohe way

the appoah ust sketched we can estict attenton o Achns excudngthose with heads n COMP We have consdeed two postons n the pecedng discussion: (i) COMP o n any even peiphea to S (ii) theadjunction positon ceated by NPnveson Type (ii)was a majo opc ofdiscussn in chapte 4 It s faiy clea fom that discusson and fom heeae consdeaton of Case and oe inheiance hat he elevan ds

tincton we eque is between Apositons and () on the one hand and posiions peipheal to S on the ohe The st type ente into chanseevant to Case and oe nhetance; the second ype beak suchchains et us theefoe sghtly modify ou ealie emnoogy and incudethe aduncton postion (i) among the Aosiions evsng the noonsAbind" etc accodngy We now estict he em chan" to Achans n this sense shapening he notion as we poceed et us also estictattenton to chains that ae maximal in he obvous sense· to be made

pecise

et us now conside moe cosely the popetes of he chains equedfo Caseassignment and oe assignment Suppose tha C = s one of these chns We wl ca each p • + a /ofhe chanC In he chans discussed n chapes 2 and 3 each link was a ase of ocal bndng; e locay binds + We also saw ha an element n C beaks a chan nto two sepaate chns fo the pupose of assignment ofCase and ole We may theefoe assume hat n eah nk + ) ocaly Abinds + The head of the chan C s a exical categoy PROo vaiabe and each nonhead is a tace condexed with the head We

have been assumng a along ta he head of a cha is an NP a aesothe elemens We wll now assume explicty hat the head is an NP leaving open the categoial satus of othe elements of the chain assumptons with cetain consequences as we shal see

In chapte 4 we extended these notons to chains C n n whch is a postvebal NP cosupescpted wh _ wch was mpesona PRO inseted by a ule of PROinseton (o its tace) Recal



mpty catgoris and t rul mov 333

that we have ether (13) or (1), the ormer basegenerated and teatter dervng rom (14) by Move

(13)

(14)

(

PV NP]

() [PtP V . . .] NP]NP[v V . .]

(ergatve constructons)P-nversn)

We gnore INFL, whch s wthn n (13) and s a sster o NP and n(14)

In (13), and post-verba NP are co-superscrpted .e., condexed by anndexng dstnct rom that nvoved n bndng Let us now dene BIND"(sary, X-BIND," ocally BIND," etc) aaogousy to bnd (etc.),

but now ncludng superscrptng as well as subscrptng Thus,

BNDs and are condexed and ccommands , where condeng ncludes ether co-superscrptng or c-subscrptng; smlary, or -BIND,etc.

We may now dene the noton chan," meetng the condtons ust outned

(15) C (, s a cain and only :( s an NP

() locy ABINDS +

() or > 1, (a) s a nonpronomnal empty category, or (

s A-ree(v C s maxmal, .e., s not a proper subsequence o a chan

meetng (-

In case (b), sne s A-ree butABOUND, t must be co-surscrpted wth _ ; thats, s the post-verbal P o (13and s o13), s an NP Note at i need not be n ths case, snce we have extendedABIDng to nclude nks (, where s the post-verba subecto (3), ths now beng consdered an Aposton And element n s poson c-cmands elements o he to whch t s djoned We eturnto such cases.

Every NP s n a chan; at least, a chan th n 1. Though chans aremaxma, t stll does not ollow that each P s n exactly one chan hus, can c-command and y though nether nor y c-commands the other.Ths s the case, or examle, when a -phrase bnds two varables thatare not related by c-command Such a case cannot arse by oveen; sethe dscusson o 3.2.3.(44). But t mght arse n other as, or exaple,

by the devces studed by Taradsen (1979). appears to b the case, however, that a such cases are excluded by other properts o th system when we restrct attenton to Apostons (nludng our crrent extendedsense o hs noton). Assumng so, every P s n one and ony one chan.Let us assume ths to be the case.

As n our earler dscusson Case and role are assgne to certan



33 Letures n gvement and binding' the isa letures

chans. Consdeng rs Case, we have he prncpe (16 for ase-assgnmen and he Case Fler (17):

(16) The chan C

( n) has he Case Kfand ony if for some ; occupes a oston assgned K by (17) Evey lexca NP s an eemen of a chain wth ase

Recal tha f { GR, t assigns Case o on f i s co-superscped wh Since we are assuming ha Case may be a feaure of a exica caegor ntruced no -srucure fom the excon (hence a featue of heP of which s the head, b 1 )) we reque the obvous conventons oar nstances of ase coic unde (16.

Other popeies of he sysem requie that n chain can be assgnedCase by more than one caegory Apa from congurations such as(13, i wl alwas be the case hat 1 n (16); see he dscusson of3. . .(33), and of .5.(3 5). 8-roe assignmen s deermned by the pnciple (1)

(1) Suppose ha he positon s maked wth the 8-role andC ( . . . n) s a chain. Then C s assgnedby if and ony ffor some ; s n poson and C has Case o is headed by

PRO.Ths condion estaes 3. . .(3 ), dffeng on n ha t ncudes the ds juncton 'has Case o is headed by PRO" nstead of refeing ony to presence of vsibe" feaues u he precedng anlysis shows hat heapparent generalzaton obaned in the elier formulation was spurioussnce the posuad diffeence n form between ace an PRO has povengroundless and was us hs dference tha made he geneazaon possble.

he ntuve sense of () s ha 8-ole is assgned o

emen

n a 8maked posion and s hen nhered (upwads o downwads by an gumen n h chan coninng but ony f he chain hsCase (whch geney means ha s head s n a Case-maked posiion)o the head s PRO. I follows ha a aable mus have Case, andha movemen fom a non-Case-maked posion s impossbe;cf. § 3...

Noehahees a redundancy n (1 n he case of chan headed byO: f hs P is co-suersped th a os-verbal noun pase henhe chan as Case and fas unde he rs p of the dsjunctve condon elmnae hs ednancy, we mgh esate (1) so haa8-oesassgned o if C has Case\r s eaded by argument PR ha s, Rna conro srucue o he mssng subjec" n a pro-dop anguage. hefrmulaon w hen difen coverage om (1) only n he case of PROco-superscpted wh a posverbal argument. We eun o the sgncancef hs ssue drecly.



mpty categoies and the ue move 335

We can now formulae e -crierion as in (1)

(1) -c ite rion: G iven the s c ue S, here is a se K of chains, K } were = ( L , � ) suc a:

() if is an argumen of en ere s a EK suc a = )and a -roe s assgned o by exacly oe poson

( f is a poson of marked wi e -roe R en ere s aCiE o wc assigns R and exacy one J n s an arumen

I cse () as e -roe assgned by We coninue o assume e projecon prncpe in e form 2.2.(6). Te

projecion principle deermnes on e basis of lexca properes wa

are e onguraons a appear a eac synac level (LF -srucureS-srucure) e creron deermnes e elemens a appear n eseconguraos Mre speccaly e pojecto prnciple guanees aa eac synacic level eac exica ead appears n a conguraon deermned by ts properes of -roe assgnmen; e -creron requres aargumens be dsrbue prope n e conguraons a are onydeermined by e proecon prnpe and by princples of e caegoracomponen of e base ncludng ose diosyncrac properes a arespulaed by e (eg order of maor consuens) and ose determned

by gener prncple (eg presence of a subjec n causa prases consequences of e adjacency condon on ase-assgnmen were olds)Te -criterion mus be me a F and by e projecton prncpe a -and S-srcure as well Te -creron s satsed n ess€iaye ame way a S-srucure and LF e cans are essenialy e same apar frome nerna srucure of jf some rue of e LF-componen as appledBu at -strucure eac can as only one member wc mus be in a•poson f s an argumen f we ake -srucure o be a pure represenaon of GF- ten no only wll argumens appear n eery -poson and

nowre else bu also ony e nu categoy (no o be confused w anemp categry F F c 0 F nonnull) wl appear n a non--posonexcludng oer nonargumens

Te bnding eory and EP apply exacly as before to occurrencesof empy or lexical caegories EP s now saed so as o old of racerae an of [ e Eac occurrence of an empy caegory s nquely dened as PRO (a pronomn anapor) or race an f as race en NP-race a non-pronomina anapor) or variabe (an R-expresson)Resuls oulned earler folow as before

Evdenyis is only e skec of a rue foralzaion Furer eaboraon necessary for full precson and i s necessary o ensue a oer properes of e sysem are so narrowy ad speicl consrained aey o ndeed ena e consequences ouined Bu e basc propereso e sysem we ave been developing are ncorporaed no s accounan i s fairly cear ow o proceed o l in e gaps s a open quesion



336 Lectures on overnment and bindin te isa lectures

whether fulscale formazation is a orthwle endeavor at the momentas compared with the task of considering a broader cass of phenomena orattempting to resove probems within ths framework the usu uestio

that arises with respect to frmazation My personal feeling is that the point has been reached where these further steps should be undertakenthat there is a sufcient depth and complexity of argument so that forma�

zation wil not merey be a pointess technical exercise but may bring to light errors or gaps and hidden assumptions and may yied new theore�tical insights and suggest new empirical problems for investigation In the195s formazation proved useful in exposing probems in then currenttheories and it may be that it wil now be similarly useful in the investiga�tion of the richr theois f generative grammar that have een evelpsince

n earlier discussion we have seen that Case theory and �theory have aconsiderable overlap of consequences n fact the connections are stillcloser than what has been indicated The basic principe of Case theory isthe Case Fiter (17) We are now able to derive (17) from the �criterionan important step in unifying the system of principles we have been considering for two reasons apart from the desirability of elimnating an ind pendent principe rst ts wil eiminate the redundancy between Caseand �theory second wle the �criterion is virtual a condition ofadequac at he level of LF the Case Fiter whie natural seems higlyspecic to the internal strucure of grmar Let us see how such a deriva�tion of the Case Fiter would proeed

We restrict attention to lexical categories since the ase Fter is stipu� lated only for these The Case Fter states that each exic P must be amember of a chan with Case it must either be in a Casemarkng positionor must inherit Case Though we need not appeal t the fact in the folowing discussion other properties of the system require that Caseinheritanceas distinct from 0role inheritance is only downwards" it applies onl inthe case of post-verba P of the conguration (3) as discussed in 4 5

Let us divide al lexical categories into three classes (i) arguments that aenot post-verb superscripted P as in (3) () post-verbal superscriptedP i nonarguments We want to show that or an lement of each ofthese casses the Case Filter folows from the 0-criterion

Consider rst class (i) ie an argument that is not a post-verbal superscripted P Suppose that Case is not assigned to the chain C o Since = PRO no 0role is assigned to C by ( ) and the 0-criterion is violatedherefore for an argument that s not a postverbal superscrpted P weneed not stipulate that the Case Fter holds

Consider now a chin C ( ) where some is a posterbalsuperscripted NP Recal that 1 is in fact the non-argument co-superscripted with it English tere French , taian impersonal PRO of(3) ) et The 0-criterion requires that a 0roe be assigned to C since is always an argument y () a 0-role is assigned to C onl if C has Caseor is PRO n discussing ( ) we suggested that PRO in () be taken as



Emty ategoes and the ule move- 337

argumen PRO o eiminae a reundan in he ormuaion In a, is was he on reean ase in he origina ormuaion o his odiion in§ 322 e us hereore assume ha ( is o e undersood in his wa,eimnaing he reundan Then a roe is assigned o C on C hasCase, sine is o headed b argumen PRO Thereore or lass (, heCase Filer olows ro he -rierion

I remains o onsider ass (i ie nonargumen it as in i is earha John wil win," e, and is anaogues in oher languages We haeeen resriing aenion in is haer o rgumens, bu, as we haeseen, he ause in he VP is an argumen oindeed wih imersona it inhse onsrions and is n a o-suersed wih The deniiono ain" eris a lausa arumen as a member o he hain Now hislass eues o lass ( I C (, n) is a hain wh i (in an) a lausal argumen, he rieion requires ha C be assigned Case or

be headed b agumen PRO Sine he lae ase s imossbe, C us beassigned Case Thereore he Case Fler aso olows or lass (i This ishe ssing argumen reerred o in he disussion onernng S and(6 aboe For disussion o he analogous argumen in he ase o odo languages, see Chomsk (91.

The ase Fler hereore ollows, in toto, rom he -rierion,and i an hereore be eimnaed as an indeenden rinile o GBheo

A ew ommens are neessar, howeer, emering is onlusion inar Firs, real ha one oie or ing o redue he Case Feroh -rierion as ha he Case Fer aeared o be a seia, no unnaural, roer o grammar, as disin rom he -rierio wih isirual a rierion o adequa o F Bu noe ha in he reedingargumen we ae sill aeaing o a seia oer o grar, hough auh narrower one han he Case Fer; namel, he orulaion o on whih we relied, is oiaed b he requiemen ha oemen-oC mus be barred rom a nonCase-marked osiion In disussing his

oi in § 322, we noed ha Case idenies an em aego as isible"or erai rules role assignmen in he F omonen ad honoogia rules We ae si aeaing o his a, embodied n (1. I is hisassumion aong wih he -ierion ha ields e Case Filer as aonsequene An obous oi or inqui hen, is o shaen his noiono isibi," rhas along he ines disussed in § 322

The seond obseraion s oe ehnia Consde ausa argumens,as in (21 , (22)

(21) (i i is la [ha Bl is ineigenJ( i is belieed a B is inegen ](22) (i I beiee [ha Bil is ineligen

( m beie [ha Bil is inelligen(i John is beieed [ o be ineligen(i John sees [ o be inelligen



33 Lcturs on ovmnt and bindin th isa lcturs

In the exampes o 22), the braceted clause is an argument ut oes ot belong to a chain. Therefore, the preceding discussion oes not applo itat al Raher, in suchcasesashesewesimpassumethatthecausalargument is 8-mared in the position hat it occupies. We might as whtherthere is some mor general appoach that wil not disguish the to indsof 8-roe assignment as I hae done.

Othe consideations suggest that thee is moe to be eaed n thisconnection. Note that the causa arguments of (22) are excuded fromchains by specic stipuation namey, (li) It was for this eason thatattention was drawn to the assumption that chains ae headed by Notefuthe that this moe was not innocuous Suppose in fact, that we hadlowd cains n headd by NP, so that the braceted causl argmns

of (22) constitute singe member chains Then such chains o nt beassigned a 8-oe by (1) and the 8-criterion woud be iolatd The easonis that Case is not assigned to the baceted cause, at least n exames(ii)-(i)

Consideation of (21) suggests simia quams In case (i), the bacetedcuse is perhaps not in a 8-maed position, so that we might want to assume that it inherits its 8-roe from the position of the co-superscipted antecedent it through the chain (it i, [that B is inteligent]) We haeassuedthoughout howee, that at east in (2lii), the braceted cause is in a

8-mard position, namey, the same position that it occupies in (22i); f.§ 2.7 whee it is nted that the conclusion seems een me eident weepace bliv in ( lii) by erbs such as hold rason that do not (for manyspeaers) permit the causal subject to appea in preerba position. utthen we hae anothe redundancy, since the post-ebal clause is the nalmemer of a chain n these cases; indeed, this assumption is cuciaeae to be able to derie the Case Filter for non-argments, n such casesas these or the atter agument to go through, we must, in fact, assumethat it is by itue o thei appeaance in these chains that the post-erbal

argments assume thei 8-roes. e seem to be le, then, to the conclusionthat an agument is in a chain, thn it receies its 8-ole ony by irtueof its memersip in the cain not b itue of the position that it occupies,as is the case in (22) This equies stipulation, again raising the susicionthat sometng has been missed.

Though thee is eason to beiee at the eduction of the Case ilter tothe 8-criteion has not ealy exhausted the issue, neertheess isemso be a step towards unication of theoy nd eimination of edundanc andspecial conditions; and there ae also specic empirical consequences, as

we saw in discussing (iii) and (6) The patia success and the outstandingquestions recal the discussion in chapter 1 as to whether it ely is a alidmethodologica principle to adopt, in the study of gramma, the inds ofintuitie considerations of simpicity and the seach for unication of

principle that hae poen so fruitfu in the natul sciences fo the pastseeral hundred yeas and that ae pursued with itte questio today. Inthe course of this discussion, we hae see that these rather ague but



Empty categories and the rule move 339

yet inteligible gidelines can yield interesting results For example, theconsiderable improvement of the binding theory discussed in chapter 3was largely motivated by problems o ths sort; specicaly, the redundanc o Case and binding theory, hch led to he clarcation o the

cenral role o government in each ; and the rather specia naure o theo unrelated opacity conditins o he OR-rameork. The attempts toovercome the very specia characer o the *[thatt] lter revieed inchapter 4 (specicaly he ork o Taradsen Kayne and Pesets) constitute another example lustraing the productive character o thesemethodological gidelines Oher examples have appeared throughoutWe no hae anoher case: sharpening (1 ) to overcome a slight redundancy leads to reduction o the Case Filter to the 8-criterion and an independently required principle concerning the role of Case n akng empty

categories "visible to rues, us overcomng a subsantia redundancybeeen Case and theory While the reservations o chapter 1 concerninghese topics mert carefu consideration sl it seems to me thatheorko the past e years suggests that it makes a good deal o sense to pursuehe orking hypothesis that he theory o core grammar, for reasons thatare not at a obious, does have some o the properties o he sstemsstudied n the mre undamenta natura sciences and that or somereason neual sructures t east in this doman instantiate a perhapsSrprisingy simple and unied sysem o principles

Correspondingly, it seems reasonabe to coninue to adop hese guidlines and to search or a principled ay to eiminate the stipulations notedin discussin? the criterion and the Case Flter aong ith he manysimilar cases that have been noted in the course o this discussion, not tospeak o those undiscussed or yet to be discovered

Let us leave this opic noting that e have achieved a degree o successhle eaving ome nolvd problems, and look a te moe coly athe examples (13), (14), repeaed as (23), (24)

(23) (i) [ V NP]() [ V ] N] NP [V V ]Exampe (23i) is a base-generated ergative consruction, and (23) isderived rom the D-sructre (24) by NP-inversion What is in (23)? Consider rst (23ii), recaling ur earier discussion of the principled approachto identiying occurrence o empty caegories (see the discussion above)) As e have seen, in (23ii) is he race o the posverba N hch

is is -aneceden ; bu s PO, by deniion. ecal ha he principleddeniions given in efec incorporae he rule o POinserion o 45in his case, hough e mus sill sipulae ha is cosuperscriped ihhe posverbal NP, necesariy, o course, or the srucure il be ruledou by he binding heory Therefore his sipulaion in efec saes hatthe srucure can exis e coninue o reer o in () as impersona



3 Lectures on government and binding the isa lectures

PRO. ts popets ae exacty as dscussed n chapte 4 he mpesonaPRO / s a nonagument, so tha he 8-ceon s satised. Bein heace of the pos-eba NP, / [ F], whee is the se of �-feaues f

this P. If / s move subsequen o fmation of 23) b P-nveson,then he eemen "eft bhind is again [ F], now by denton he aceof ts antecedent PRO [ F ], he wo occuences co-subscped.In ths case, the race f PRO appeang n he posion of/ (23) aftesubsequent movemen s in fac a ace, since its taneceden s ts ocaAbnde n a nn-8-poson. The 8-ceon agan s satsed. The esung fom woud be, fo exampe, (25), whee he matx PRO agees h theembedded post-veba subject:

(25) PR} semb-GR s } [V [ mangae] P'("seem-AGR [ s _at P] e.g., "he men seem o ea)

Wha about (23i)? Foowing Buzo (9), n thedscussion n §4.5,we assume ha the post-veba poston in s a 8-posto, as s sandadin gave constuctions in Buzios sense. As befoe, we may assume /o be [ e ] n Dsucue, so ha Dsucue s a "pure epesentationof G-8. The �-feaues of he posveba P ae then ntoduced ino theposton of / as a consequence of the syntactc ue of co-supescpng,

gven the genea equiemen that poxmae eements have he �featuesof he anecedens. Atenatvey, we gh assume / o be [ nDsucue, a non-agumen anaogous to mesona there o it , wheeF is he set of �-feaues oNP, as in genea must be he case fo poaponomnas. In ee se, he 8-cteo s saised. Again, / s PRO bydenton, since t is unound ; bu i is mpesona PRO, a non-agumen.Te same nayss appies f impesona PO s aisd, as in (26):

(26) sembano nrvenne moi ( 4.5.(3)

The aayss ven infomay in chape 4 hus fas no pace n a saigtfowad way.

Suppose that -movemen appies o a stucue such (23. Consiefor exampe, he sentence (27) (fom Rzz (979a):

(2 quani ced ce ne sao usciti (anno scors("hw many o you thn that ofthem appeaed ast yea)"how many f them (e.g. of te boos) do you thn appeadast yea))

Citczaton ofne shows ha the suctue to whc -movemen appiess (2) whee ai is / f 23i):

2) ced [che [s ai [ ne sano usciti [-iquan ]]]

te -movement, we have (29):



my aegorie and he rle move-

29) [! quanti t credi che [ [v ne siano usciti t

he chai C or 29) is )

) t

4

Case and 8role are assigned to C as required INFL is in VP at S-structure and �retains the nominative ase basegenerated in the Pqanine

What is the variale in 29)? By denition a variable is an empty category that is localy bound Thoug k is BOND by , it is not bounby it and thereore it is ocaly bound by the NPqani in COMP, whichdoes ot bind hereore, is the variable, correspondin to the intuiivesense Note that the vriable is A-ree, as required by the binding theoryot being bound, is ipersonal PRO, s required

Consider another example involving the conguration 2), namel, thei constructions 45 425):

) i · si mangia le mele

ii le mele si mangianoiii) si mangiano le mele

In paticular consider the derivation proposed in § 45 or iii):

2) i) [ e si mangia [ le mee D-structure)ii) [ le ee J si mangia t r by Move-)iii) [v[ v si mangia t [ e meeJ by Move-)v) Hvv s manga t [f le mele by co-superscripting)

have omted reerence to INF rom the D-structure ) we derve ii)by moveent o the object le mele to the non--position o subjec Thedervaton mght have stopped at this point, yelding i) with agreemento the verb and the derived subject, INF remaining ·outside o VP atS-structure, as dscussed in § 45 But we can proceed to appy NP-inversion, yieldng ii), with INFL moving nto the VP as we have dscussed Iniii), is the empty category o 2ii) with the -eatures o le mele , asoshared by We derive 2v) by co-superscriptng AGR oNFL, ow inthe VP, governs and is co-superscrpted wth the post-verba NP le meleto which t assigns nominative ase and wh which it agrees, so that theverb is third perso pura The resultng chain is )

) , P le mee , t )

Nominative Case is assgned to the chan and a 8-roe is assgn to thechain as wel since it has Case and is in a 8-postion, namey, object omangia We thus deive the grammatica sentence ii) Recal that whie is in a 8position it is not assgne Case, the Case-assgning property omangia havng bee absorbed by i as discussed § 45



42 Lcturs on gomnt and bndng th sa lcturs

Note that the chain (33), hile conforming to the denitions, is unusain that its mial element is not an empty category Furthermore, while thesecond element locall A-bids the third, under he extension of-bindiscussd earier, and the third is the trace o the second, it is so onyderivatively, as we se by inspecting the derivaion 32). Thus in s case,he chain is not the projection of a derivation to S-structure. But thefacs seem to fall into place, as required, with no stipuaion.

Tee ae many futhe questios to be consideed, bu he appoachouined in eaier chapters seems o be accommodated ih no essentiadifculty. Summarizing, we distinguish occuences of PRO fo occurences of NP-ace, ad disinguish both from ace wch is vaiabe,but wihou requiing ha hese occuences dife in int cosiuiin fc, hey do no. he question of wheher variables ae Casemakedtaces has essenialy dissoved, hough the essenia popery thavariables ae Case-marked remains in (1) The question hether the emptycategoy in CO MP is ace or PRO has dissoved enie. he ue o PRinsetion is unnecessary, its essential conent olowing from pincipeddenitions, though a esidue remains as the pocess of co-superscriptingin (32) The fact hat empty categories are in compemenay disribuionfollows without stipulation Their combined distribution (iruay) exhaussthe distribution of NP, again without stipulation; the heoies of governmen and binding detemine that every ossiblity is eaized ex<epo thecase of positions that ae governed but not propery governed greementwith ace or PRO flows as required The clusteing of properies hawe have observed f empty categories folows as beore from he theoryof bounding and the theory of govenment, specicaly, from he pariasubheories of the ater: ECP, 0-theory, and h theories of binding, Caseand subcategorization, suppemened with the projection pincipe Thesetheories aso detemine he poperties of lexica caegoies, incudingponouns and ovet anaphos. Like the over ponoun t PR ay appas a quasi-argumen o a non-argument. The eneaized E 4;5.(59)

sands as a fundament principe of govenment, in pa educibe o teheory o binding, whch itsef s bas on he concet f govement

The crucia diffeence between rae and PRO lies in e act tha taceis formed by the ue Move whereas PRO is basegeneraed,ust k anovert ponoun, or derived by a rue of PR-insetion ch reduces o theue of coursciping The noion of gammaica ansfomaio, nosimped to Moe (perhas with cerain parametes), ies at the ear ofthe rule system, intoducing the fundameta disnction beeen the wobasic types of empty categories, ach with its cluse of properties and

oes. n accordance with the fundamental assumption of he ExtenedStandad Theory (EST), the pojection of syntactic derivations inS-srucue is what determines the functioning of the PF- and F-components and of the theories of government and binding (ut cf (33)) -sucture constiutes a representation of GF-0, one f he wo components intowhich Sstructue is factoed, e other being the ue Move. The



Empty categories and the rule moe 343

crucial role of the notion of grammatical transformatin now aears stmore ceary than in the earlier eosition, since we have reduced trace andRO to the single notion of emty category, returning, from a considerabyiffeent and much more rened oint of view, to the concusion ofOB and

earier work Recal that the concusions eend to etraosition, and areto a large etent though not comete indendent of whetherweregard ove- as a transformational rule of the synta or as a secial tyeof interretive rule in the LFcomonent with eacy the roerties of thetransformationa rule, these being crucial distinct from roerties of ruesof construal in the LFcomonent

As has been noted several times the basic notion hat we haveemloyed derive in each case from a core intuition ichs then given astructural formulation that incororates the core cases but gener is

somewha distinct in etenion For eamle, the core intuition yingend the notion of government relates it to subcategorization, bu teformal denition incororating s intuiion i structural terms etendsto other cases eg, govement of secier and sbject, raising andEcetional Casmarking) and may in fact b narrower in certain casescf the discussion of citiciation in § 46). Similary, the fundamentalnotin of chain t S-structure is based on the intuitiv idea o rojectionof a derivation into S-structure, but when made ecise, the notion diffsin etension cf (33)) The same has been tru thoughout, a ersents

an imortant concusion about the natur of language if orrectTe -crierion and the roection rincile imose narrow contraintson the form of grammar and ead to a wide vriety of consequences At teLF-level, the criterion is virtualy a denition ofwelformedness, uncontroversial in its essentials, though the nature of the synta ofLF, hence therecise way in wch the -criterion alies at ts leve, is an imotant dicult emirical issue The rojection rincile, in contrast, is not at alobviously correct It is violat by most eisting descritive work, and ithas somemortant consequences in sevral domains : internal to grammar,it serves o reduce the base ues to a very smal numbe of arameters andto limt severely the variety of Sstructures, and i enters into many secic arguments, as we have seen ; beyond, i oses robems of rocessingd acquisition in a decidedly different light, deting faiy narrowly teays in which these roblems shoud be pursued t is, therefore, a rinciethat should be considered with caution ; correct, it i imortat

he most fundamental lev of reresentation is Sstructure Surfacstructure is relevant to honology, but not to syta ecet insofar s ithas imlicaons concerning S-structure The arguments in favor of articular conclusons about S-structre are generaly fr stronger than arguments bearing on Dstructure and LF, we have seen thoughout n fact,Dstructure can be regarded as basicaly one factor in etermining Sstcture, aog with the rue ove; in ts snse, it is abstacted fromstructure An the LFreresentton difers only miimaly fromS-structure, given the roection rincie, wch, furthermore, assigns



3 Lectures o govermet ad bdg th sa leures

to the lexcon a centra role in determining he nate of ytctic ereentation at every level.

The ytem that ha been eveod i gy modlar tog thereare ome baic roetie that aa in evera of the comonent inarticlar the baic notion of the ery of government whch erve tonfy the bteorie of grmmar. While tere i ome ignicance to theanyi of the re ytem a 1 .(1 ) y far the mot intereting qetionconcern e bytem of rincile 1 .(2) Thogh the aic roerie feac bytem are qite imle in themelve the interacton may berather comex and a change in a inge arameter may have roferatingeffect. Thee are the roerie that we exec the theory of UG to havefor reaon diced in chater 1 ; thogh of cor the fact tha thetheory oined ha thee roertie to a certain extent doe not how thatt i the right theory. t doe eem o me far to ay hwever that for thert time in the long and rich tory of the tdy of langage we are wn a oition to t forth theorie tat have ome of the right roertand that have ignicant exlanatory ower over a coniderable ange awell a at leat the beginnng of a dedctive trctre. There ha I tnkbeen a qitative change in t regard in the work of the at everyear ome of whch ha been mmarized and extended n e recedngdicion Whatever the defect of crrent theorie may be and they arere to be evere recent develoment eem to me to oen nw andexcting roect and may ont the way to new and deer ndertanngof the natre of angage wih non-trvia imcaton over a condrbybroader range.

Note

1 . Bu he ubpr of 3.2.2.(6) h ipul t if [ e] i ered ten ii ible would no longer be rue if PRO cn be ered f PRO and rce re noiinguihd by inernl feur. Since we he de no ue of pa of he pinciple

nd he uggesed no reon why i hould hold (nd he ugged oe reon why ihoud o; cf e.g. he discuson of 2.3.(35)) no reent coneuenc folow. en Sr ober h i ccoun i no uie cce becue of uch conrucion "fer PRO eding John w hot where ohnagubly -bind PRO under heeended noion of c-co=nd though it is in non-posiion receiing it role fot Strictly peking hen we hould eplce "i (not) in -position by "ha (lck) nindependent -rle I wl ignoe ti reneent in epoitoy psg.3. The ae i true of dcriptie wor in odel heoreic enic for he ot pa fct often obscured by tction of epes to oid wh Gibe Ryle cled "yteiclly ileding eprsion n iporn topic of dicuion ince th 8th centuy(cf. hoy (65) chpte note 2) and indeed uch elier. Note tht tis i uite

dffeent tter fo the isue of ctiol or btct etities such Pegaus uce othe set of prie nube the w i the aguent o John' lck of tlent ae neitherctionl no btct entiti. Siilr coent pply I belee wih egad to ecentieti of eentili cf. hoy (975) pp. 6f I tnk it i poper to egd t wor inong leel of ent epettion (entle) often enly identied aa doin of indiidul in the world Epiricl rguent is euired to ufy the hypothiectly in the ce of LF heic reltion etc.



Empt categoies and the le move 35. These notions are inaequate or Caseassignment to an element in COMP aseg in connection with the Hungarian example 3.2.2.3) or the French example 5.2.26)o ree reativs with the head in COMP assigned Case by external government. Recallagain that modications and �xtensions are required or constructions that I have not beenconsidering in this discussion as noted throughout.

5 e are crucialy assuming that the derivation o (i) rom(ii)is bocked by thecriteion:

(i) V t(ii) [ NP e ] V NP

the discussion o 3.2.2.). A comment is necessary in connection with case (iii) discssed there

(iii) *advantage took t o John

We assumed this to be rued out by the criterion on the assumption that take assignsa role to its subject hence to the nonargument avantage We are ow howeverregarding antage as an arguent though a quasiagumnt. Thus this case reducesto such cases as (iv):

(v *ohn ht t

Recll that this analysis permits derivation o ergatives such as the ship sank romNP san the ship (with basegenerated null subject ony if appopriate conditions are estabshed t ensure that such vebs do not assign role to the subjt position when they do notassign ase to the object position. Similar modications are ruired i such expressionsas the bk rea easily etc are to be derived by Move as suggted in the reerencescited earer6. In § 3.22. we noted a problematic class o cass in which variabl aeared not tohave Case amey cases whch a uate was n eect "lowered to a onCasemarkposition so that uantier movement leaves a ariabe in this position (cf the discussonof 3.2.2.236)). Norbet Hornstein points out that this case might all unde he sameprincipl of downward Caseinheritance that holds or postverbal subjects as discssed in§ .5 This idea seems feasible. It relates perhaps to the question of "reconstruction rul''that in effect intepet an element in the position o a trace discussed several times above.Pending uther inquiry into this general problem I will eave the uestion with no uthercomment.7. Recall that as throughout our discussion is limited to cetain construction tyesand must be extended to a variety of othes: topicalization the question of heads o relativecauses etc.8. I am indebted to Donca Steriade or raising some of the utions. See Marantz(98) for a raher dieent approach to them.9 . We ae glossing over some questions about indexing that should be addressed in amore careul teatment.0. Arguments or the structure o LF as distinct rom Sstruture turn on the distinction between principles that hold o Sstructure and principles that hold o LF. Thus

we have argued that the binding principles hold at Ssructure but that ECP and the priniple involved in weak crossover hold at LF. The rues reating Sstructue and LF are otwo types only one of which we have exemlied: (I) rules extracting Sstructure elementsrom S such as the rule of quantiermovement the rue o ocus and he movementrule for multiple utions (or for normal questions in languages that do not ruireovert movement); (II) rconstruction rues whih intepret a phrase in the osition ofa trace not ecessarily is trace. We have disuss several examples that may invove



36 Lecue on govemen and inding he ia lecue

les the type II eg such cas as i ii

i pictu o each othe ae wha they like o se(i} his ote is the peson hom eeyone admes ot

hile such exampl e pehaps maginal they do nt sem ungtical and inot somesot o econstction seems ecsay though the tace position in whch the maix sujetphase is somehow intepeted is not the position om whch it moed a Buio (98ad othcomng wok by J Higgibotham o discussion o these topics

The exstence o a ee o Dstuctue, as distinct om S-stctue suppoted bypncipl and agumets that ae based on o ee to specic popeies o this leelwhch is elated to S-stuctue by the ule oe This ule as we hae seen plays otheoles in the gamma as we It is in act not p obious hence impotan tuethat this ule elates the epesentation o GF to S-stuctue We hae come acoss anumbe o cases whee specic eeece to popeies o Dstuctue gu cuciall in

agumets:

(a) asymmetic popei o idioms c chapte 2 note 94() moement only to on--position c 2. (7 2.6.(36-7 and discussion aboe

6.(8 o the distinction betwee NP-tace and PRO

(c) estction o an opeato to a single aiable c 3.2.2.(44d the euiement that AGRsubject coindexing be at D-stuctue as distinct om

goement by AGR at Sstuctue with its aious conseuences c 4.5.(7(e) the possibility o insetig lexical items eithe at D- o Sstuctue c discussion

following 5.4(19))

As noted epeatedl agumets beaing on the distinctio beteen Sstuctue dithe F o stuctue ae highly theoyinteal thy that postulat a Dstutueo F lel distinct om S-stucte is nly subtly ieent om one tht dont and itis ot at all clea that the theoies when popely undestood at the appopiae leel oabstactn will poe to be empiically distiguishabl Popeti o te subsystems opinciples ae much moe salient; the sae is te o the distinction betee te u"Moe howee undestod and ul o ontal ad o the uestions elating o tpojection pinciple though inths case as well it is uit possible that lteatie apachsthat appea supecially to be ite deent may all togethe when the pope leel oabstactin is identied and claied



Bblorph

Asse ad D Pelutte 1976) "Clause educto Spash Poceds o theSecod Aual Meeg o the Bekeley gstcs Socty.

Akajia 1975) "Moe evdece o a cycle Linguic Inqui6.1 .

Akaja A . S . Steele ad T Wasow 1979) "The categoy Aux esal gaLiisic Inqui 10 . 1 Adeso M 1977) "Tasoatios ou phas ieogaphed Uvesy o

CoectcutAdeso S. 1977) "Coet o Wasow 1977) Culcove Wasow ad kajia eds.Aeso S ad P ipasky 1973) Fessr for Morris Hale Holt Reha ad

toAou 1979a) "A sho ote o cltczato eogaphed T.Ao 1979b) "O oveet Casekg ad c!tc placeet eoaphed

MIT.Aou 979c) "Idexg ad costtuecy eogaphed T

Ao 1980a) "ECP ove , ad subjacecy eogaphed T to appe inguisic nqi.

Ao 1980b) "eate aspotato ad the ove covetio eogaphed.

Aou 1980c) "Expletve PROs eogaphed T.o . N Hostei ad D. Spotche 980) "Soe aspets o wde scope uatca

to eogaphed T ad ColubaAou . D. Spotih JR Veaud ad M> Zubizaeta 1980) "Recostucto ad

logcal o.Babb 1980) Exisenial Senences and Negaion in ssian aoa.Bach E. 1977) "The posto ebeddg asoato a ga evsted i

A Zapo ed. Linguisic Scures Pocessing NothHollad.Bah E. 1980 "I deese o passve Lingui and Philosoh 3.3.Bake C. 1970) "Not o te descpto o Eglsh ustis the oe o a abstact

sto ophee Foundios of Language 6Bake C. 1979) "Sytactic thoy ad the pojecto poble Linguisicnqui 104Balt M 1978) oward a eo ofMovemen Rules T PhD DsseatoBt . 979) "A ladg st theoy o oveet ul eogaphd

Bt M 1980) "The stuce o itva copleets eogaped

Bawise . 1979) "O bachig uates i Eglsh Journal of Philosohil Logic 8Bellett A. 1980a) "O the aaphoc stats o the ecpocal costucto Ia

eogaphed T ad Scoa Noae Speoe.Belet A 980b "ophoogcal' passve ad podop a ote the peso

ostucto Italia eogaphed ad Scol Noale Supeoe.Belet Bad ad . Rzz s. othcog) eo Mareess in eneraive

rammar oceedgs o the 1979 GOW oeece Pisa Scuoa Noal Supeoe.Belett A. ad · . Rizzi 1980) "The syt o e' soe theoetical pcatos pape

peted at the 1980 GOW coeece Nege eogaphed T ad ScuolaNoale Speoe



348 Lectures on govement and binding: the Pisa lectures

Bennis, H (980), "CoindeXing and complemenizer-trace phenomena,'' paper presenehe 1980 GLOW conference, Nmegen, mimeographed, Amsterdam.

Besten, H. den (1976), "Srface lexicalizaton and trace theoy, in H. van Riemsdk, ed.,Green Ideas Blown Up, University of Amsterdam, Pubkati van het Instituut voor

Algemene Taalwetenscap, no. 13 Besten, H. den (979), "A ase lter for passives, mimeographed, University ofAmsterdam;to appea in Belletti, Brandi and Rizzi, eds.

Bochner, H (976), On Cmplement Objet Deletion, B.S. Thesis, T.Bordelois, I 1974), Te Gammar of Spanih usative Complements T Phd dissertationBorer, H 978), "Restrictive relative causes in mode Hebrew, meographed, TBorer, H. (1979), "Empy subjects and constrains on hematic relaions, paper presented at

NELS X, Oawa, mimographed, TBorer, H 1980), "On the enition of vaiables, mmeogaphed, T.Brame, M 1980), "Hope, Linguistic Analyss 63 Bresnan, J. (1970), "On coplementzers: oward a synactic heoy of complemen typ'

Foundations of Languag 63Bresnan, J 1972), Teor of Complemenation in Englsh Sntax, T Phd dissertationBresnan, J. 976), "Nonargumens for raisng,'' Linguisti Inqui 7.3Bresnan, J (1980) "The passive in excal theory, mimeographed, TBresnan, J and J. Grimshaw (1978), "The synax of free reaives in Engsh,'' Liguistic

Inqui 9.3.

Brody, M. (1979), "Innitivals, reaive cases and deletion,'' meogaphed, Universi ofLondon.

Burzio, L. 1978), talian causative constructions,' Journal ofItaian Linguti 3.2.Burzio, L. (198), Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries, T Phd disseraion.Carlson, L 1978), "Cena problems in Finnish synax,'' mimeographed, Academy of

Finland.Chomsky, N. (1 95), "Morphophonemics o modern Hebrew,' ' mimeographed, niversity of

Pennsyvania Galand, 1979Chomsky, N. (1955), Te Logil Strutur of Linguistic Teo, mimeographed, Haar;

Plenum, 1975 in part).Chomsky, N. (1959), "On certain forma properties of grammas,'' Information and

Control 2.Chomsky, N 1965), Aspects of the Teo of Snax, T.Chomsky, N. 1972), Sudies on Semani in Generaive Grammar, Mouon.Chomsky, N. 1974), "The Amhers lecres,'' lecures given at he 97 Linguistic Insiue,

University of Massachuses, Amherst; Univesi de Pais V 1974.

Chomsky, N 975), Reections on Language, Pantheon.Chomsy, N 1977a), Essas on Form and nerpreaion, NorthHollandChomsky, N. (1977b), "n wh-movemen,' in uicov�r, Wasow and Akmajian, eds.Chomsky, N. 1978), "A naturalistic approach o language and ognition/' mimeographed,

T; to apea in gniion and Brain Teo 41, l8.Chomsky, N. (979a), "On makedness and core grammar; to appear in Belletti, Brandi

and Rizzi, eds·

Chomsky N. 979b), "Pincipl and parameers in synactic theoy,'' meogap_hed,T; o appear in Hornsein and Lighoo, eds.

Chomsky, N. 80a), "On binding,'' Linguistic Inqui 1 1 Chomsky, N. 1980b), Rules and Represenaions, ColumbiaChomsky, N 1980c), "On he eprenaion of form and function,'' mieographed,

to appea in Mehe, ed., and in Linguisi Review. .

Chomsk, N 198), "A noe on non-conrol PRO,'' o appea in the ournal ofLinguisicResearch_

Chomsky, N. and H. Lasn (1977), "Filers and conol,'' Linguisicnqui8.3.Cinque, G. 1978), "La sinassi dei pono relativ cui' e quale' nl'ialiano modeo,

Rivisa di Grammai Generaia 3.



Bibliograph 39

Cinue, G. 1979), "On extaction om in Itaan, mimeogaph, Padua and T;to appe in ornal otalan ingisti.

Cinue, G. 1980), "On the theoy o eative clauses and makness, mimeogaph,Padua, 1980.

Couuaux, D. 1980),a traormation MONEE en ra�is

thse de doctoat d'Etat,Univesit de Pais VII.

Couuaux, D. othcoming) "Fench pication and linguistic theoy, in oste andR May, eds.

Cicve, P., T sow ad A. Akmajan, eds. 1977), Foal Sntx Acadec psCshig, S 1979), "Semantic consideations in natual language, Stdies in angage

3.

Davison, A. 1980), "Pulia passives, angage 6. 1 Edwads, J 1979), "Euatives some elimnay consideations, mimgaph, QueensEmonds, J. 176), raormational proa to Englsh Sntax Academic PessEonds, J 1980), "Wod ode in geneative gamma, ornal oingisti Resear 1 . 1

Ega, E. 980), e Sntx and Semanti o estio in Swedh Univesity oMassachusetts Phd dissetation.Eteschik, N 1973), On the Natre o sland traints Phd dissetationEvans, G. 1980), "Ponouns, ingistinqi 11 ..Fame, A. 1980), On the nteration oMorpholo and Sntax Mt hd dissetation.Fehi, A 1980), "Some complement phenomena n Aabi, lcal ga, the cmpl

mentize phase hypothis and the nonaccsibility condition, mimeogaphed,Univesity o Rabat.

Fiengo, R 974), Semanti Conditio on Sae Sttre T Phd dissetation.Fiengo, R. 1977), "On tace theoy, ingisti nqi 8. 1 Fiengo, R 1979), Sae Sttre: the nteae o tonomo mponents mimeo

gaphed, Queens College CUNY; to be publish by Havad Univesity ps.Fiengo, R. and J. Higgnbtham 1979), "Opacity in NP, mimeogaphed, QueensCUNYand Columbia, 1979; to appea in ingisti nalysis.

Fiengo, R. and H Lasnik 1976), "Some issu in the theoy o tnsomations, ingistinqi . 1 .

Fillmoe, C . 1 97), "The utue o semantics, in R . Austelitz, ed, e Sope omen

ingisti Pete de Ridde pess.Fodo, J. 197), e angage o oght CowelFodo, J ., M Gaett, E. Walke and C H. Pakes 1980), "Against denitions, gnition8.Foste, . 1979), "Levels o pocessing and the stuctue o the language pocso, in

W. Coope and E. Walke, eds., Sentene rossing Elbaum, 1979

Feidin, R 1978), "Cyclicity and the theoy o gamma, ingisti nqi 94.Feidin, R. and H. Lasnik l979a), "Disjoint eeence and tace, mimeogaphed, Tand U o Connecticut; to appea in ingisti nqi.

Feidin, R and H. Lasnik 1 979b), "Coe gamma, Cse theoy and makness, toappea in Belletti, Badi and Rizzi, eds.

Geoge, L. 1980), nalogil Generalzatio o Natral angage Syntax T Phddissetation.

Geoge, L and . ot 1978), "Fiteess and bondess n Tksh, mmeogaph,T and Havad.

Goodman, 191), e Sttre oppearane Havad.Gimshaw, J 1979), "Complement selection ad the lexicon, ingisti nqi 10.

Gimshaw, 1980), "On the lexical epesentation o Romance eexive clitics, Centeo Cognitive Science, MIT, Occasional Pape # .Goos A. and H. van Riemsdijk 1979), "Matching eects in ee eativ, mimeogaphed,

Univesity o Amstedam; to appa in Belletti Bandi and Rizi eds.Guon, . 1978), "The gamma o PP extaposition, mimeogaph, Univesit de Pais

VIII; to apea in ingisti nqi 114.



35 Lecre on goernmen and binding he ia ectre

Hle, (197), "A noe on subject-oject inversion in Navajo, in B. Kachru et d.ssues in Linguisti: apes n ono ofen and Rene Kahane llinois.

Hale, (178), "On the position of Walbii in a typology of the bse, igraped,MIT.

Hae, K., L. anne and P. Platro (1977, "Thee cases of ovegeneration, in Clicove,Wasow and Akmajian, ed.

Hall, B. 165), Subct and bject in Mode Engish T Ph dissetationHall, R. (979), "Subjectes vebs and the primacy of the pedicate in Romance and Lin,

Ama tudie in t Theory and Hitry o Linguitic cience I ent Issues inLingUistic eovol .

Hae, . and .R. ergnaud (980), "Thee dimensional phonology, Joual ofLingUisticReseach !

Helke, . ( 1971 ), e Gamma of Englsh Reeives T Phd dissetationHendick, R (980), "n esay on passve an ce gamma, mimeogaped, Univesity o

Noh Caolina.Higginbotham, . (979a) Ponouns and bound vaiabl, mimeographed, Columbi to

appea in LingUistic Inui 11.4Higginbotham, . (1 979b), "ecipocal intepetation, mimgaphed, Columbia to appea

in Joual of LingUitic Reseach

Higginboha, ( 979c), "Anaphoa and GB: some peiminary emaks, mimgaph,olumbia; pape given at NELS Oawa.

Higginbham, . (1980), Cossover and cono in equatives, mimeograh, T.Higginbotham, . and R. ay (199a), "Questions, quanties and cossing, mimeographed,

Coumbia an ockeelle to appea in Linuistic ReviewHigginbotham, . and R. ay (1979b ), "Cossing, makns, pagmatics, mimape

Columbia and Rockeelle to appea in Beletti, Bandi and Rizzi, es.

Higgins, R. (unded), "O the use of iioms s vidence for movement: a cautionry note,mimeographd

Hinikka, ( 974), "Quanties vs. quanticaion eory, LingUistic nui 5.2.Hoeksta, T., H. van d Huls and . og, eds. (1980), Lxil Gamma ois.Hornsein, N. ( 1977), " and X convenion, LingUitic nalsis 3.2.Honstein, N. and D. Lightfoot, eds (fothcoming), Explanation in LingUisti Longman.Huang, C.-T . (980), "Move WH in a language wiout movement, mimeogaphed,

IT.Huybregs, C. (1979), "On bound anphora and the heory of govenmentbinding

paper pent at NLS ttawa

ackendoff, . (97), Semanti ntepetation in Geneative Gamma T.ackendoff, (77), X-ta Stud fhase Sttue Linguistic nquiy Monogap2, T.

aeggi, 0 (1978), "On absract Case, mimeogaphed, T.aeggi, 0 (!80a), "Remaks on contacion, Linguistic nui . .aeggli, 0 (1980b), On Some hono/ogil-nu/ lements in Sntax T Phd dissettionaeggli, 0 (98c), "O he absence o pssive mopology in ageive causaiv,

mimeograped, T.

Ka, . 980), "Chomsky on meaning, Language 56.1 .Kayne, R. (1972), "Subject inversion in Fench inteogatives, in . Casagande and

B Saciuk, eds., Geneative Studies in Romance Languages Newbury House.

Kayne, R (1975), ench Sntax te ansfomational cle T.Kayne, R. (978), "Binding, clitic placement, an etwad quantie movemen, ivistadi Gammati Geneativa 32 (taian tanslaion).

Kayne, R. (979a), "Righwad P movement in Fench \nd English, LingUistic nui0.4.

Kayne, R. (1979b, "Case marking and L, mimeogaphed, Universit de Pais .Kayne R. (!979c), "Two notes on he NC, mimeograped, Universit de Paris o

appear in Belleti, Bandi and Rizzi, eds.



Bbogapy 351

ayne, R (979d), Binding, quantiers, citics and contr," migraph, UniversitdePars VIII; to appr in F Heny, ed, Binding and eing, Croom Hem

Kayne, R (1980a), Exteno' of binding and Csmarking," Lingutic Inqir 1 1 . 1 Kae, R (980b ), ECP extensions," meograph Univrst de Pa ; to appr in

ini Ini 2Kayne, R (980c), On certain differences beween French and Engish," imgraph,' Universit d Pari VIII; to appr in Lingis Ini 2

Kayne, R (980d), Comments on Chomsky {980c)," mimgraph, Universit de PaisVI; to apar n Mehe,

·

Kayne, R (980e), nambgous paths," mimgraph, Univeit e Pis I toappr in Koster and May, s

Kayne, R and J-Y Poock (978), Stystc nverson, successve cyicty, and Move Frenh," Lingisi nqi 94

Kn, ML (975), Te Teo of Maeess in Geneaive Gaa, TPhd dissertatonKn, ML (979), On a theoy f markns: ome geer1 consdatons and a ce

ont," So Sies Rea Reo, 4, niversity oCafoa, IrvneKeenan, E (1979), Passive A ce study n markness," mmraph, UCLA ande Avv · Universty; to ape in Beletti Brandi and R s

Keenan, E (980), Psive is phral not (sentential or exical)," n Hoekstra, van ust a oortgat, s

Kser, S J, (978), Ren afoaiona Sdies in Eoean Langages, ngustc Inqu Moograph no

W�C (196), Te Teo f Anahoa in Koean Synax, Phd dssetatonKoster,J (978a), Why subject sentences dont exist, n Keyser, Koster, J (978b), Loiy ines in Synax, Foris

Koster, J (978c), Conditions, emty nodes, and marness," Lingi Inqi 94Koster, J (1980), Coguratonal grammr," mgraph, MaxPancInsttute, negeKoster, Jand R May, s (to appear), eves oSynaieesenaion, ForisLaponte, S 979), A Teo of Gammai Ageemen, Universty of Masschusetts d

dssrtationLapointe, S (980), A exical analysis of the Engsh uxiiay eb system" in oeksta, van

der Hust and Moorgat, edsLnk H (976), Remarks on corefeence," Lgisi Anys 2Lnik, H (979), Restrictg the theory of trsfrmations" mimgrph, Uvers

of Connectcut; to appear in Hornstin and Lightfoot, edsLsnik H (980), Labity rtictveness, an he evaluation mric," mmeographed,

Univesty of ConnectcutLasnik, H ad R Fiengo 1974), Compement object de1etion," 54Lnik, H and J Kupin (1977), A restrictive heory of transfoational gar, o

ei Lingisi 4Levet, W J M (974), Foma Gammas in Lingi andPhoini,vol 2, MoutonLightfoot, D 99Pinies of Diahoni Synx, CambridgLightfoot, D (980), Te history of moveent," n Hoekstra, van der Hust and

Moorgat, edsLnebager, M (980), Te Gam of Negaive Poaiy Phd isserationLongobardi G. (1978), Double-Inf," Rivisa di Gaai Geneai 2 (revs and

updated in Jona f Iaian ingi, forthcoming)Longbri, G (forthcoming), Super-raising and subjacency"Manzii, -R (980), O contro," mimeograph, .

Marantz, A (979a), Assessing the X Convention," mmgraph,

Maratz, {979b), Notes toward a rsion of subjacency" mimeograp, Maantz, A (98), n he Nae of Gi Reaio Phd dsseatonMtths, P (980), Revi of Chomky (1980b)," imes Liea em, Nov 21 ,

980



352 Lectures on govement and binding the isa ectures

Mahews (1979 Are he gammatical sentences o a language a recursive se?Synthese 4

May R (1977) he rammar o Quanttion, Ph issertationMa R (1979) Mst COMPo-COMP moveent be stipulate Lingistic nqui <

May R (1980) Quantier an reerential phrases at logical orm mimeographe TMcCathy J (1976) Passie'mimeograph MITMehler J (orthoming) Proceings o the June 1980 CNRS Conerence on the

ognitive Sciences Paris rthcomingMiller G an N Chomsky (96) Finitary Moes o anguage Users in D. uce R

Bush an E Galanter es Handboo ofMathematil Psychol, vo! 2 Wileilner JC 978 Cycicit successive comparatives et ross-over en ranais

ingistic Inqiy 9.iner J-C (979 e sstme e a ngation en ranais eopacit sjet angue

Franaise Misark ( 194, Existential Sentences in English, MIT Phd dissertation

Misak G (1977 Towa an epanation o cetain pecuiarities o the eistential constuction in English Linguisticnalysis Milsark G (1980) On markedness vacous rles an the English auiliary' mieo-

graphe Temple

Mohanan (980) Grammatical relations case an clause structure in Malyalammimeographe MIT

Moravcsik J (1980) Comments in e Behavioral and Brain Sens, 1 (March 1980)Nanni D (978) he Easy Class of Adectis in Englh, niersity o Massachusetts Ph

issertatonNash D. (1980) oi in Warliri rammar, MIT Phd dissertationNewmeyer F (1980) Linguistic eo in Ameri, Academic prs

Obenauer H-G (1976) Etudesde syntxe ierrogative dufranis, NiemeyerOshima S (1979) Conitios on res: anaphora in Japanese in G Beell E obayashiand M Muraki es Exloations in Linguisti: Essays in Honor of auo Inoue,enkyusa

Otero C (1976) The ictionary in a generative grammar mimeographe UCAOsu Y an A Farmer es (1980 eoretil Issues in Jaanese inguisti, MI oring

Pers in Linguisti, vol 2Pesetsky D. (1978a) Some conitions on bounding nod mimeograph TPesetsky D. (198b) Complementier-trace henomena an the nominative islan

condiion'' mimeographe MIT; to appear in Linguistic Review.Petes S (173) n restricting eetion tansormations' in M ross M Halle an

M-P Schenbeger es. he Formal Analysis ofNatural Langage, MoutonPetes S and R Ritchie (1973) On he geneative powe o transormational grammars

nformation Sciens 6Piattelli-Palmaini M e (980) Language and Leaing HarvaPiea C (199 Some subect sentences Linguistic Inqui .Pinke S (1979) Formal mels o language learning Cognition 7Postal P 197 , Crossver Phenomena, Holt Rinehart & WinstonPostal P 974) n Raising MITPostal P (96) Avoiding eeence to ubject'' Linguistic nqui 7.Posta P (1977a) Abut a onagument' o aising Linguistic Inqui 8.Posta P (1977b) Antipassive in Fench Lingvistie nvestigationes

Plleyblank D (1980 Some bining construcions in Yoruba'' mimeographe TPllum G an D. Wilson (197) Autonomous synta and the analysis o auiliaries'

Language 53Puum G and P Posta 1979 "On an inadeuate deens o tace theory Lingistic

Inqui .Quicoi C (1976) Conditions on uantie movement in Fench Linguistic nqui 7.4.Reinha (1976) he Syntactic Domain of Anahora, MIT Ph issertation



Bibliography 353

ReinhT . . (1 99Syntctic doins fo semntc ules in F Guenhne nd S. Schmdteds. oral eant and raat for Natural Languaes.

einhat T. (1979b " second OMP position mimeogaphed Tel Aviv Univesity; oapea in Bellett Bndi and Rzz eds.

Reuld E. (1 980) "Governng -ng' mimeogphed MT nd Rksunverstet Gnige 1980.Remsdik H. v (1978a) "On the dagoss o -ovement Keyse edRiemsdijk H. van (1978b) se· tu n ntat Markedness Foris Publcatios

Dordrech.Riemsdk H. va (1980) "n heoes of s he se of erma adjectives mmeo

gph Amstedam and T.Riemsdk H. va ad E Williams (1980) "Nstrucue to appea : e Lngustc

Reve I 3Ri L. (1976) "La mote du suet le s impersoel et ue ege de esrucuao

dans sye " Recherches Lngustques 4.

Ri L (198a) "A resucuig rule talan synt n Keyser ed.Rii L. (978b) "Violaos of the sad constrint i Itlian ad the subjacencycondtion . Dusson D Lighfoot and y, Mori eds. ontreal Workngapers Lngust vol

Ri L. (978c) "Nomnatve mkig talian innitives ad the omnative islad

costrant mimeogaphed Scuola Nomale Superiore; to appear in F. Heny ed.Poceedings of the 1978 GW cofeece Asedam.

Rzzi (1979a) "Rmks o vaables negato and movement mimeogaphedScuola Normale Supeoe; to appear Bellett Brandi d Rzzi eds.

Ri (979b) "u o OMP' d thesland constrt mimeogrphed ScuolNormle Superiore.

Rzzi L. (1 980) "Wh-moement negao d he po-rop paameter mmeograpdScuola Normale Supeoe.

Rizz L. (1980b) "omments o homsky (1980c) mmeograph Universit dellbria; to apper Mehler ed.

Rizz L. (1980c) "Negio -movemet ad the null subect prmete mmeogaphed Univesi della b.

Rochemo M. ( 1978) A eo otlstc Rules n Engsh Uiversity of Massachusetts Phddssetatio.

Rochette A. (1980) "ech intval complements mmeographed M; to appe iI Workng pers 'n Lngust vol. V.

Ross (1967) Constrants on Varales n ntax MT Phd disseo.Rouveet A. (1978) "Resul clauses nd codtios on ules Keyse ed.Rouveet A. (980a) "Su a oton de popositio e Reheres ngustques 9.Rouveet A. (fohcomng) "Su oon de proposo ne gouverneme e vesio

Langage 60.Rouveret A. d .R. Vegaud (980) "Secfyg efeece to the Subec Lngustc

Inqu 1 . 1 1980.Sag . (1976) Deleton and Logcal or MT Phd dssertaion.Schein B "Non-ie complements n Russian mmeographed MT.Selkirk E. (1972) e hrase honolo of Engsh nd rench T Phd disse-

ton.

Siegel D. (194) op n Englsh Morpholo T Phd dssetatio.Sjoblom T. (1980) Coordnaton MT Phd dssetato.Sportiche D. (1979) "O bouding odes i Fech mimeogahed T.Steriade D. (1980) "O the derivatio of gentval relatives i Romce mimeoghed

MIT.Sowell T. (1978) "Wha Was Thee Befoe Thee Ws There D. arkas et l eds.

Papers from the outeenth Regiol Meeig hicago Lnguistic Society pp. 45747 .Stowell T . (1980a) "Subjects Acoss ategories o pea in e Lngustc Reve.



354 Lectures on govement and binding: the Pa ectures

Sto, T. (1980 Complmtizs th Empt Catgo rcp\ pt atNELS X, to appr i h procgs of th cofrc

Tarals, K T (97a, scop of h movmt o," ngunq9Tarals, ·K T (197, O h NC, vacuous applicato a h haa tr,"

mimogaph, MT aa Ligustics lu, 19Tarals, K T. (1979, Th thortcal itprtatio of a cls of mark xtractos,"to app Bltt, Br, R, s

Thrsch, C (197, o n en Syna, M Ph sstatioVrgau, J-R. (1974, Fenh Relae Clauses MT Ph isstatoVrgau, J-R. (forthcomg, Quelques mens ou une hoefomelle de CVrgau, J-R. a M.-L. Zuizarrta (19, Mix rprtatos a vtual cat-

goris," mimograph, Uvrs o Massachusts a M to appar Mhlr, Vit, MT ( 1979, Co grammar a itrasitiv prpositios i o varity of Frh,"

mimogaph, McGilWaso, T (1972, Anaho Relaos n Englh, MT Ph isstato

Wasow, T. (1977, rsomtios a th lxio iovWasow a majias

aso, T (1979, Anahoa n eneae am, E. StoScita Gt.Wrg, A a R Bck (forthcomig, Th tho o parsg a th tho of

grammar"Wg, A a N. Host (197, positio straig a Casmarkg,"

mimograph, MT a Harva; fothcomg ngus InqWxr, K a P Culcov (19, Fol Pnles of anguage Aquon, MTWilis, W (1977, he aable Ineeaon Conenon ULA h sstatioWilis, W (1979, Aaccy a varil i sytactic tasormatos," mimo

gaph, UCLA; to appa i ngu Inqu 114.Williams, E. (1974, Rule deng n Syna, MT Ph isstatio.Williams, . (1975, Small clas glish," J. mall , Syna and Se,

vol 4, Acamic psWiliams, . (1978, Acrossth-oa l applicat," ngu Inqu 9 1Wiliams, (1980a, Pricatio," ngu Inqu 1 . 1 .Wiiams, (980, Psiv, mimogaph, Uivrsity of sachusts.iiams, . (1980c, Argumt structur a mophology," mimograph, vrsity

o Massahustts aMaxPackstitut,Nimg , to appr i e ngu Re.Wthrspoo, G ( 197, anguage an A n he Naao nee, ·MichigaZuizarta, M.L. (1980, Rmars o Portugu itiv," mimogaph, MT



Inx of Names

Assn J. 50 fn. 14 Akmajan A. 80140 fn 28 Andrson M 5147 fn 10

Andr!S 44 fn 7614 fn16 Aoun J v4 5112814 fn 67

45 fn. 7 145 fn. 86 14 fn 11115 fn 8 164 65 17 15 7617822 fn 1422 16224 fn 24224 fn 25224 fn. 28227 fn42257 27 fn 2 280n 20282 fn 284 fn 4 284 f 51 7 f 20 fn 24

Bbby� L 6 fn 122 n 14Bah E 141 fn 5226 fn 8Bakr C L. 16 fn 86 fn 40 fn 1

25Baln M 11 80 140 fn. 2714 fn

141 fn. 146 fn. 2Baon E. 28 fn. Bllt A 16 fn 66 12221226 fn.

42282 fn 428 fn 8284 f42 00 01 fn. 22 17 fn 218 fn 24

BnnsH 24BrwckR 151 fn 1 28 fn. BstnH dn 145 fn 82BocksalN. van 142 fn 58BocnrH 205BongrD 14 fn 65Borr H 148 fn. 112 50 fn. 126 178

22 fn 422 fn 1684 f 4284fn 51 17 fn 202

Bordlos I. 4 fn 5820 fn 66Brand L 6 fn 6

Brsnan J 1 141 fn 5 42 fn 514 f 58 147 fn 108 22 fn 1522 fn 17

Brody M 145 fn 7227 fn. 50Buo L 466212540 fn

28 41 fn 4 44 f. 77 45 fn 747 fn 04 48 fn. 1248. 4 fn. 22 50 fn 26872224

fn. 2 224 fn 27 26 264 268 280fn 4 280 fn 6 282 fn 0282 fn.5 282 fn 6 28 fn 728 fn 40

284 fn 454045 fn:846 fn 0

Calson L 22 fn 4 28 fn 57CquG 14 f 120718 fn. 28ConrrasH 28Couquaux D 144 fn 77224 fn 2128

fn 7CulcovrP 16 fn. 86 fn 116 fn. 15

16 fn. 17CushngS. 146 fn. 6

DavdsnD 5150 fn 125DavsonA 22DrshrB. E. 22

Edwads J. 218280 n. 14 Emnds J 15 45 fn 86 151 fn 8

2572 Engdahl E 14 fn. 67 ErsclkN 0 EvasG 2 fn 54 fn 2

amr A. 150 fn 22 fn. 62FauconnrG. 42 fn. 58hr A 22 fn 5FngoR. 51 140 fn. 28 14 fn. 2141

fn 7 4 fn 76 45 fn 82 14 fn86 146 n. 4 147 n 00 147 fn.0451 fn 162182 24 fn 27228 fn. 5827fn 2 27 fn 7

lmorC 518 fn 6odor J 7428 fn

ForstrK 28 fn rd R 1 fn 14 4 fn 67 5817 175 176 14 227 fn 51 212670

GachP 6 fn. 4Gorg L 16 fn 6 140 fn. 2 14 fn.

72 145 fn 8 147 fn 08 210 27



3 Ind Nam

n 2 279 n. 8 279 n. 9GoodanN 16 n. 12Gn J. 9Gaw J 141 n. 34 10 n. 123

223 n 1 223 n 17279 n. 9Groo A 223 n. 1 248Gur J. 3Gon . 80 142 n 4 143 n 68

143 71

Ha K. 78 94 121 128 133 139 n17 141 n. 38 143 n. 6414 n. 88149 n 119

HaB 148 n. 113Ha R 28Ha; M. 16 n Hk M. 102Hndick R. 141 n. 3Hnoha J. 117 138 n. 1014n.

79 146 n. 9 203 18 227 n. 46228 n. 8 239 279 n. 7280 n. 14287 288 314 n2316 n334 n

8Hn R. 146 n 94224 n. 20Hon L. 279 n. 7

HornnN 41 220 227 n 49 239279 n 2 279 n. 7 280 n. 20 92293 294 298 299 317 n. 22 3 n 4

Horah . 174Han . . . 42 n. 42 79 n 6280

n. 3Hy M. A. . 224 n. 32317 n10

Jackndo R. 3 139 n. 14 140 n21 143 n. 614 n 83

Ja 141 n. 32142 n 414 n94 171 172222 n. 1222n 6 223 n 8 224 n 26 24 n. 28 224 n.29 226 n 41 230 n 70 238 227 277 78 280 n. 280 n 2282 n. 29282 n. 30 283 n. 37 284

n. 44 284 n. 46 284 n. 9 284 n.10008318 n 24

Jann L. 139 n. 1 14 n. 38 13 n.64219

Kaz J. 3 314 n. 3Kayn R. 14 28 0 1 80900 10141 n. 3 141 n. 3643 n. 67 146 n 94 147 n. 103 0 n.13111 n 13817160172174187 222 n. 4 223 n. 7 223 n 24 n 624 n29 224 n. 30 230 n. 66 23 n 702322343 236

27 28 243 24 246 24 24822 23 2 274 277 280 n. 12280 n1 280 n. 18280 n. 21 282 n 34 282 n. 36 283 n. 37 284 n.

44 284 n. 46 292 293 294 29296297298300301302304317 n. 14 317 n. 1317 n. 9317 n.21317 n. 22 339

Kan M. L 16 n. 6Knan E 141 n. 3 149 n. 120Kyr S. J 139 n. 1KW 229 n. 62KpayP 144 n. 76Kon . 210Ko J

138 n. 8 138 n. 9140 n.

2 14 n 67 144 n. 73 14 n 817 222 n 4 228 n. 230 n 66303317 n. 10

Kupn J. 146 n 94 10 n 124 173303

Lapon S 41 n. 37 Lank H 14 16 n. 8 3 4 74

140 n 28 140 n. 29 141 n3746 n. 94 10 n. 124 11 n. 139 18

160 16 173 174 176 18187 194 219 231 37 248 24260 280 n. 1 281 n. 2296 97303 313 314 n. 1

LW. J. M. 16 n. 16 Lhoo D 6 141 n 3 43 n 8

300 317 n. 11 Lnarr M. 239 Lonoard G 8 144 n 78 182 271

27 280 n. 14 282 n. 30 283 n 40

Manzn M. R. 7 77 11 142 n. 6143 n 8 143 n. 60 18 n 111229 n. 61 29

Maranz A 3 6 n. 14 139 n 7 140 n. 27 141 n. 33 143 n. 67 10 n.127 10 n. 127 0 n. 134 3 n.22· n. 6

MahwP 149 n. 1 Mahw R. 16 n 16 May R. 138 n. 3 1719198223 n.

19 236 278 279 n. 7

Mc arhy'}. 120 149 n. 118 MG. 1 n1939 n. 32 Mnr J . . 80 138 n. 102070& MsarkG. 140 n. 28141 n 37 n.

MoananK. 143 n. 6229 n 63oas J. 1



Ind Na

Nnn,D 318 fn 29N,D 143 fn 64Neeye,F

Obene,H G ,207O,S 229 fn 62Oeo, 145 fn 82O, Y. 150 fn 131

Pele,D 150 fn 134,160,174,237,282 fn 35

Peeky, D 14, 54, 160, 232, 243, 244,245, 246 280 fn 8, 280 fn 20, 280fn 21,339

Pee, S 12

PeliPn, M i, 151 fn 140 Pe, 140 fn 23 Pnke,S 16 fn 5 Pleo, P 139 fn 17, 141 fn 38, 43 fn

64 Pollock, J Y , 80, 223 fn 17, 224 fn

29,280 fn 15,289 Poe, 281 fn 28 Po, P 142 fn 53, 46 fn. 91, 147 fn

108,150 fn 34,158,182,230 fn. 69,286

Peybk,D. 94 P, G 140 fn 28,82

Qco, 219,284 fn 46

Ren, T 53, 80, 145 fn 79,165,319fn 32

Relnd, E 140 fn 28 Redjk, H n 16 fn 1, 16 fn 6,

80, 140 fn 21, 141 fn 39,145 fn 79,145 fn 86,185,223 fn 14,223fn5,224 fn 25,248,292

Rce, R 12 Ri, 284 fn. 46 Rzz, 16 fn. 6,16 fn 9,16 fn. 10,

41,53,62,63,80,88,118,140 fn 28,141 fn 42, 58, 159, 160, 168, 172,16, 29, 225 fn 36, 226 fn 41,233,237, 38, 243, 244, 253, 254, 255,256, 266, 270, 280 fn 18, 280 fn 22,281 fn 26,282 fn 30,282 fn 33,282

fn 34, 283 fn 38, 284 fn 46,284 fn51, 300, 30, 302, 306 308, 317 fn15, 37 fn 22, 38 fn 23,38 fn 24,318 fn 26,318 fn 28,327,340

Roceon, M 280 fn. 13 Rocee,. 143 fn 58 Ro, J 80,143 fn 65,144 fn 73

3

Roee, 16 fn. 1,41,47,128,140 fn28, 143 fn 70, 145 fn. 83, 145 fn. 86,210,225 fn 33,229 fn. 58, 284fn.51,292

Ryle,G. 344 fn. 3S, 344 fn 2Sg,I 138 fn 10Scen, 147 fn 106, 262Selkk, E 144 fn 76, 182Segel,D 188,293,294Sjoblo, T 143 fn 72Soce, D v 80, 45 fn 79, 59,

164, 224 fn 25, 227 fn 49, 227 fn50, 228 fn 57, 230 fn. 67,230 fn. 72,

238,239,279 fn 2,280 fn 13,280 fn20Seele,S 140 fn 28Sede,D 207,318 fn 28,345 fn 6Sowell, T 70, 11, 144 fn 77, 48 fn.

11, 169, 178, 230 fn 67,283 fn 37,317 fn 22, 318 fn 32

Soze, J. 284 fn 46

Tlden, T 143 fn. 72, 160, 203, 228fn 57, 232, 240, 241, 256, 275, 319

fn 35,333, 339 Tec, 145 fn 79, 149 fn 117

Vegnd, R v 16 fn 1, 16 fn. 5,47, 53, 128, 140 fn 28, 145 fn. 79,45 fn 83, 145 fn. 86, 151 fn 138,67, 71, 175, 222 fn 6, 223 fn. 7,224 fn 25,224 fn 28, 225 fn. 33,278,284 fn 51,292

Vne, M T 144 fn 75,317 fn 12

Wow, T 17, 140 fn 28, 144 fn. 76,149 fn 116,158,193,196,227 fn 47

Wenbeg, 41, 151 fn. 139, 283 fn 39,292,293,294,298,299,317 fn 22

Wexle, 16 fn 8, 16 fn 11, 16 fn 15,16 fn 17

Wlkn,W 143 fn 67Wl, E. 106, 10, 111, 138 fn 0,

140 fn. 31, 143 fn 72 145 fn 79, 145fn. 87, 145 fn 93, 146 fn 97, 148 fn.

109, 149 fn 121, 167, 71, 185, 203,224 fn 25, 229 fn 61Won,D. 40 fn. 28Weoon,G 121

Zbze, M 45 fn 79, 151 fn38,223 fn 7, 224 fn 25, 229 fn 59



General Index

A-oe-A Princle 2 22 222 n 2 Absorpton 84 24 27 2 ff 99

27 276 229 fn 6 27 fabot 226 fn 37 Accessbty 2 ff AccutvecumInnts (CI) 40

fn 25 Acquiston see under Laguage Acrosstheboard 4 fn 72 203 Adjacency see der Case assgnment Adjectve

agreement 48 fn 229 fn6

complex - 32 fffeatures of - 48 transtve 4 9

Adjectve Phrase (AP) 20 f 308 ffspecer of 2suject of -

Adjunct GF of - 47 f

Adjuncton 7 f 86 4 n 39 224 fn29 to COMP e uner Complementier

(OMP)ncple o Exteal Adjnctn 4fn 39

dvera 37 03 46 fn 92 37 fn 22 Adverb 00

pston of 94x Moement 55 3 256 see a

Ageement (AGR)Movement Agent(ofActon) 5 0 35 3. 28

39 fn 4 Aggravaton

Law o Aggavato 8 fn 8 Agreeent (AGR) 52 20 252 27fand Case 52 88features of 52as governor 52 2 250 254

index of 2 25 8 249 259fas loal controler 24 ffAeement (AGR) Movement 256 ff

nul - 230 fn 73= PRO 52 70 02 4 fn 44 62

64 2 24a p-do 24 f 248 f 256 ffas SUBJC 209 ff

Agreement 2 322 fadjectve - see under Adjectvein copul constructons 280n 4detrmier 229 fn 6features 93 340percolaton 229 fn 6of pronominals 6 3 22 fsubjectverb - 52 85 88 2 2

263 ff Amerin Indan Lngustcs 6 277 Anaphor 0 28 f 33 see also Rec

procas an Reexesanteedet anaphorelatn 6 77f

2and bndng 73 84 54 ff 88 f

207 ff 2 f 220 228 f 54229 fn 64

features of 330n NP 54f 207 22 222 n 3

nnpronomna 328 33pronominal 9 328 33 Antecedent

AntecedentBinding 83 fscttered -s 8 ff 285 f tantecedent 328 340

any 239 Arabc 4 25 3 fn 67 48 fn

76

Clascal 2 27 f 45 f 86Lebanese 45 fn 86

Arument (A) 27 35 f 39 3 46 f 06 38 f 2 33 see alsoFuncton Chan and GrammatcalFunctonnonargument() 45 ff 84 f 0

30933 337 see also Grmatcalucton ·

and bindng 230 fn 7



Geneal Ind

Category see Lexica category and NulCategy

Causatives 103 f. 122 126 28 130 ff140 fn 28 146 fn. 94 84 n. 51 294

cCommad 6 36 5 77 154 163 165f 229 fn. 64 279 fn. 2 minima 163 4

cetan 58 f. 79 110 148 fn 110Chain see Function Chain ·

nk of - 332 f.Chinese 142 fn. 46279 fn 6 280 fn. 3Ca se aso Senencebar (andSma

lasas argument 102 337 f. head of 51 f. 162 f 274 79 f 2

300inectioness 55 see also absence ofInection (INFL)

as 49 43 fn. 58tructure of - 1921 8 roe of -103

Cefts 63 94 4 fn 79 9 fn. 115245 280 fn. 19

Citic 84 140 fn. 25 248 251 275 ffsee en ne y ad Subjectciticsand bnding 224 fn 32 289Ctc Cbn 284doubng 172277Ctc Moemnt 317 fn 5parameter 275

Cognitive syems 4 138 158Coindexng 5 28283 fn 41

of PRO (conrol) 20 f2 200 fby move I, 23 30 85 fof AGR 21121

Comparates 81 ffCompetence 18Complementier (COMP) 195 f.

adunction to4 7 53 33 236 243deetion n 53 81 243 ff. 302

ff ee al deletion oPhrasedouby ed 228 fn. 56 246 Doby- ed COMP te 53 f236 243 ff.

Case assgnment in - see under Case inmen

empty -54 244expansion of see tructure oP feaures of -23 53 goveor in 250as head of clause 52 54 162 274

279 fn 2 300and NFL 300 305 see also uner In

fecion (NFL)

31

mvement to see uner ovementnul 0 - 295 f. 298opona - 204 f.

PRO in see PRO

selection of 23as speier of S 52sructure of 23 52 ff. 62 244

Compex Ctat 235 79 fn 6Coponen of te Grm rsee GrammarConceptua Consts 325Conditions

on LF 13on uls 13on rule appication 13on surface structue 13

Conuratia Languages 42 147 ff seealso Noncoational L ngages conde 33 106 ff 134 290 f. 31 Consrual rues of - 5 57 78 81 f

see al Control

Contanmn 166223 fn Contextfree r mar 16f 9Contextual Fatures 31

ontacton 21 138 fn 5 18f 318 fn.25

Contro 6

23 f 6 34 6 73 74ff. 2 20 227 f. 5; se

aso Coidexng o PRO Constru l dantecedent of PROCross nguisticay 79 lo - 73 241ff. 24 fobject 5 fpragmatic 76 79 229 fn 62 remte - 74 8 156 f 19 reversal of -76structure 73 326 f

subject 75 f.47 fn 99 verbs 73Conroler

choice of - 76possible - 77 f.

Coonate Stcte Contan 2 79 fn. 8Copular

construcion 127271 f. 280 fn. 4 verbs503

Copyng62 86 89 f. 144 f 79 185Core Gramm 7 f. 17 19 27 91 f.

95 137 7326 241339Corfrnce 1 Cosupescripting see Superscriping Cossover 68 102 144 fn. 79 58 60

183 f. 86 190 f 93 f 96 f. 227fn. 47 227 fn. 48 231 f. 238 278 fn.1287 f

Cyciciy stric - 267



3(2 Geneal Ind

Dave 7 1 22 n. 6see also ndire t OjectCasesee under Case

Decion Procedure 1d COMP (Frnch) 29Deeton 62 8689fsee aldeetion in

Compementzer (CMPrecoverailit o 46 53 65 87

203241 28 2 75ff

Dervative Generation 147 n. 08Derptive Poer 8587

Determners 146fn. 9Deepstcture ( D sucture) 58 9

43259346fn 0enriched 45existence of 46{ 9 07 28

fn 3and theory 451 f.335

d CMP (Italian) 297 Dsloton 225fn 36Diachronic Lingustics 1fn. 5�Discourse Principes 227fn. 5Dsjoint Reference 65 144 fn. 9 153

161 184 187 90f 3 211 2222fn 1 222fn 2285ff

omnation 65f 223fn. 1ue O ject Cosuctio see jectDutch 16 f 38 fn 57 29

317fn. 0

achMovmnt 61f chothr see Re procal and Anapors agr 45fn . 83 astplasConstru cton e ogh

MovmntEchoquestion 236

Ellptcal Expression 7Empirical Evdence 4 3547Empy Categores 33f49ff. 2 ;

248ff. 280 2 asic 31ffand inding 198 dstri ution of - 3 72d gvement 60192ident cation of 33ee proper

Goveentinteal struure of 2f.

Emp tgory ncpl(P) ff. 25ff. 272f 27ff ff.Em Catgo ncpl( ECP

: rzd 274f

trace and PRO 55ffstdy of -55

Emp ncpl 250Emp blq Ftr 292 7 n 1

(French) 75Epistemoocal Prorty e Pry

gustic Data rgave ers 05 125 148 n 113

50 fn . 3 2 261 339 f345fn 5EU -N Dlton4 87 2 fn.47

176 191see al wanEspe Hatch 292Event Locs 35 xc 3267fExcponal Ca Markng o 66 6ff

98ff 145fn 8916216412190223fn 8223fn. 247 249 295ff

Exstentias 178266f see also thr

Extended Standd Theory ( ES T) 45 f91342

Expanatoryadequacy 10 13poer 913 ff87282fn 28 34theory of UG 6 85

Exaposition 56 59 f 0 ff 113 214ff. 224fn 29 309327o relaties e Rlatv as Exa

poston

Featureneutralzaton 5155117c- s 330f340

Finnsh 2n. 57Focus 227fn 48238f.

eent in ces 144 n. 9FUS 196ff 238f.

Focus and ES(NIC) 238or

Case mar ker 6674

(COMP) 19 23 232953f 6693223fn. 8300eletion 19 f 69 9342 fn.

47 45 fn 84 26 fn 38 2528 n. 5 299

nitiv 66 68 f 7442fn 47189 206 223 fn 19 248f. 2492529ff

matrix - 178 25 228 fn 53 319fn. 34

*ortoFter 248281 n. 5299f.

Foalization 335f.

Free 153 §185Aee 20ee 20see also Ope atorfreeXee2Q·

French 26ff. 53 61 80 100 9 12310fn. 29 41fn 4 145fn. 8346

fn 94 159 171f. 82 218 222f fn.



Geneal Index

6, 223 n. 17, 234 . 237 . 240 .,246, 253, 261 ., 271 ., 275 ., 283n. 37, 284 n. 44, 292 ., 308, 345n.4

Funcon Chin, 45, 47, 62, 91, 130 .,133, 134, 212, 1 , 342 Aunction chin, 19 . 331 .rek -, 29, 332 hed o -, 332 o, 332 .

Function Considertions, 37 .uniqueness, 139 n. 14 retedness, 39 n. 14

pping 227 n: 4

Genertive Grmr,deveopmt o -, 0,281 n. 28elier theories 7, 13 n. 19

31 ., 42, 47 ., 52 ., 85 ., 91,102, 103, 139 n. 16, 176, 8,281 n. 28, 316 n. 6,335, 343

uture developent o, 335 . Generve Power, 1 . Genitive,

Cse, see under CseGenitive R le 50 ., 64, 169 see s

genete Cse Gen,100, 120, 25 . Gend, 26 ., 29, 49, 65, 74, 40 n. 28,

155, 65 209, 220 ., 224 n. 28,331 Goloction, 35 Goveing Ctegory, , 207, ;

225 n. 35, 289 .,318 n. 23 miniml -, 224 . n. 33, 225 . 35

Goveing Ctegory*, 226 n. 41 Goveent, 5 ., 36, 50 ., 60, 64, 2

,83,187 .,249 ,300 .

briers to -, 59, 66, 163 ., 96, 300,302 GovementBinding GB Theory, 36Cgoveent, 22n. 8conditios on -, 63nd EP, see proer Govemeninde,28 see so coSuperscipipercoion, 223 n. 8proper -, 60, 168 ., 25 27 sgovement, 223 n. 8nd V 28

Goveo, 50, 52, 62 '., 249 ., 25choiceo, 63eternl -, 300proper -, 250 ., 272

Grmm, e lo Cse Contetree,Core, Generve, Prse Stcure,rdionl, rsotionl nd ni

33

vers rmmrcomponents o the -, 5, 7, 13, 16 n.

19,17 .orgniztion o the -, 4 , 17, 89 .,

135 ., 342 .o pticur nguge, 2 ., 6 ., 31.,34, 38 .

poible -s, 3, 7, 10 ., 12 ., 95enty reprsented , 13, 18subtheoris o -,5, 135 ., 192 theory o -, 12

Grmmticl Function GF, 42 ., 47 96, 127 . AGF,47, 78GF,47, 178

Assume a GF 29 .ssignment,44 ndom , 129 ., see l Non

congurtion nguges GF, 43 , 9, 129secondry - G, 44 .sequence o s, see unction Cin

Grmmcl Retions, 10, 96 ., 139 n.17, see lso Grmmti unction

Geek, 14 n. 25

Hed, s GF, 47Heavy Shit 70Hebrew, 125 ., 140 n. 25, 142 n. 52,

150 n. 126, 241Hierchy,

ccessibiity, 8 nouns, 21

Hugin,74 ., 248, 279 n. 0, 345 n.

Idiom, 35, 37,5 ., 60, 84, 9,0,104,

139 n. 19, 148 . 50 n 28,223 . n. 20, 309, 2 ., 345 n. 5,see NongumentsIdiom Rule 36, 37; 0, 139 n.,

4 n ,224 n. 20Idimtic Interettion, 60i 140 n 29, 231 . impersonl Wrench, 26 28, 230 n.

70,263-nsertion 19, 261, 284 n. 44

imp ess 09

de, 6, 4, 179, 240, 284 n. 50,331on AGR, see undr Aement AGRssignent, see Ideingcontrdictory 288percolion, 229 n. 2

ndeing, 85 ., 285 ., see l Co



34 Gnal ndx

ndexngReindexingSubscripng andSupescptngat DS 20free 18 f 192 28 331

in 161 186 f. 222, 232 285 f288at Sstrutue331

Indcatve18142fn. 54Indect Oectsee ndect betIndiect Questonssee Interogatves and

wslandInitivesee al or

inected (Potuguese) 5 142 fn.52 210 228fn 59

Suessive nnitive Fter (aan)

182Inction(INL) 18 f 24 27f.,52 241249 258 see a Ageement (AGR)

abne o55 141fn. 36abortion of 229fn 61as Case assigner52andCOMP5features of, 52 164as a goveor 50 63 162, 164as head of S 52 139fn 13 140 fn.

20, 140 fn. 24 162 164

as vea 52 see a Aeement(AGR) Movement

-ingsee Gendnseted Elementssee Pleonast Elementsnteogaves 22 ff 5, 75 192 t 231

ffsee a hand theoy 115f

nterpretve Components 34 see al Logca o (LF) and Phonec o(PF)

nanstivesee nder Verb

nersionsee'Stysti nvesionandnver on of ubec

rs 241slands 80see a w islandsit(impersona) 26 35,43 60,101 108

f 141 fn 40� 47f fn. 108, 18 fn.113215 223 n. 20,263, 323ff

, 337

and Extraposition 14ffit-nsertion,67.,87,125

alan 26 28 6 f 76 85 88 10018 f. 140 fn 294fn 41, 10 fn122, 158 f 166 168, 174, 182 18628 225 fn 36 226 fn 41 231 ff.23 f 240 f 25 . 275f 82fn2 282 fn. 33 1 ff. 2! 301 ff306 ff, 37 fn 3 318fn. 26 318 fn.32 327 340ff

Japane 128 ff. 140 fn 27 22 fn 62284fn. 47

know 2229

Korean229 fn 62Landng ste 11 60 9Language see aso Gramm of a parula

languageacuisition 3 7 ff, 31 95 100 137

24133

change 6 300facuty 10 14 f 18 55,138 18227

fn 45posbe human1 13 7

processngsee Poessngu 31 324Latin28 140 fn 25 188Leablty11f 16fn. 16Letdisloationsee DisltonLexia

cateor48,252 componentsee Lexiconentry 21f 31 f. 8 95, 310ff.expression 43nsetion 5 20, 93 145 fn. 82 187

193,313item 5 11 29 31f.38 4293dev 37

Lexicon 5, 11 18 9 31 f, 92 f 95137f 145fn 81

Liaison(rench) 182 224fn 25le 108flely 67fLnsee CanLol

bindngsee Bnding

onrolsee Conolues 257

ocaity ondtons5Loica o(L) 4 11, 17 ff, 4,

43, 1 117, 176 180 183 88194 198f 224 n. 24 232 243ff.254f.257288 37

interretaion of; 324and ojetion iniple 29re reseaon5 17ff. 34f. 101ffues 18 21f 65 f 138fn. 3, 142fn

46 196 ff. 23 f.

Maayaam 143 f 62Medness 7 ff. 137 216Mathemaa Linguistcs 1fMenta 13 15 18 324Menaese344 f. 3



Geneal Ind

Mentay see mentay represented Gram m

Mod40 fn 28 Modularity 725 ff 92 344 Moodindicator 27 Morphoogical Processe 26 f 257 see

aso Uniformity Principle Morphology 0Move 5 7 8 44 60 see aso Move

ment and Transformaonsnd bounding see Bunding in distnct components 9eistence of see eistece of Deep

structure properties of 23 55 ff 9 328successive appication of see succes

sive cycic Moemetand 0theory see Theta (theory and

Move Moement see aso Move Moement

Rues PMovement and whMovementMovementtoOP 52 f 56 59 f

65 f 68 80 6 40 fn. 30 49fn. 5175180 185 199201 f.226 fn 44 228 fn. 54309 f 239f 33237

improper- 200 ff 195199 in F see under ogica Form n PF see unde Phonetic Fo P)

rules rightwd- 224 fn. see aso Extra

poitin and nerson of Subjectsuccessive cycic - 44 f 16 173 f.186 195235 f. 297304

Moemen Rues 47 62 86 Z85 f

Natura Sciences 14 339Naajo 120 fNes see a ariabes and nes

and inding 93ne (French) 234 fne (Itian 275282

neQitiization 19 f 166 255 260f 266301 f 318 fn. 24

Nestg 318 fn 32Neur Strctues 339Neutralation see eature neuralation

Nominas see aso N on Phrase (NP)deied 316 fn 6 passie of 104 122

Nominaiaton 113Nominati Case se under Caseominative sand Condtion (NC) 14 f.

53 ff 79 87 ff 95 210 f 225

35

fn 36 23 ff. 242 f. see aso Residueof the NIC ( R ES NIC))

Nongument see under rgumentNoncogurationa angues 284246

48 24 7 ff, 45 fn 88 5 fn38

Noegian 228 fn. 5NounN

features of- 48 proection oN N )293 f.

Noun P rase (NP} se a Complex PConstraint Emp P niple Heavy Shit Nominals NounsNPMovement and Trace NPMovement bnding of eements - 54 ff 207

ff. 222 fn. 3 indemite 278 P RO n- 64specer of- 64suect of 40 f. 6 f see also Case

geniie

NPnversion see inerson oSuectNPMovement 56 see a Trace ofNP

Movementand theory 56 84 f

*[PtoV] Fter 53 72298

Nu Category331 335340

Objectie Case see under CaseObject

contro see object Conoldouble consruction 489497 128

f 130 ff 145 fn. 89 11 f 179222 f fn. 6273

indiect- 225 f fn 37 278see asoDative and dube Obect Construc tionand secondy Object

of 4248 ma- 48 94 97secon y 4894 97

Obique Case see under CaseObae see Pronomnao

Case marker 94 223 fn 6 gorno 162oIn ertion 49 ff, 6 f 22 40

21 142 fn 49 162 277onese 75

Oacity 153 158 210 214 216paity ondition 10Oerat 102 5 146 fn 96 18084

inding 183 f see a Binding free 201see al r e

Opaque 64 71 153 210domains 58



36 Geneal Index

Oponty, 86 O rder of Cons tuents, 8, 27 f . 31 f. 34,

39,, ?3 f, , 28 33 Ozrk, 2! n 25 300

arallelsm Constant 279n 8 Prmeter 4, 6 ff 2 f 3, 339,94 f,

99 33,35,3724297, 322,344see lso prodop Pmeter

Prmetrc Vriton 6, 8, 6, 726 263 294 306

rsng 34 f, 7 5 fn 39283 fn39

Prtcles 94 Psse7 54 69, 7 ff

gentless, 03gent chcter of , 3 fn 60

47 fn 0 n Clssicl rbc 20 f

s descrte ctego,68of embedded subject 23functn roe f -, 2 ff imperson - 63 20 22 f 27

4 fn 42, fn 43 47 fn 03,68 270 f 34

d nsites, see trste Versn Jpese 28 ff

lec - s syntctc, 4 f, 05 7ff 24

morphoogy,55,04 24 ff 32 n Njo 20 f

of nomns see psse ofNomnsof preposton obect23propertes of, 24pudopss,293 f 299 d subet ontrol 4 fn 99unpsses 55 9

Pthongustics9 Ptent 0, 43 04 f,8, 30 PerpherlBndng 84

Periphry 8 ff 70 9erlmutters Gen ralaton; 60,74 37persuade 29 ff 79 96 07 38 fn 7

70 Phonemes 7 Phonetc Fo PF, 4 f 97 76

80 ff, 224 fn 24 24 ff, 257 282fn 33, 38 fn 25 representton, 5 7 ff 34 rues 8 2 f 5 fn 36, 8 256

f 337 Phonolc Ftures, 7,7 Phonoogy 7 Phrse Structure Grmr 6 fn 9 Pleonstc Eements 26 f, 35, ,88 25

224 fn 29, see so imperson, t there nd mpersonl PRO

ed png 8537 fn 20 Ps Lecres, 24 f ·fn 33 224 n

34 28 fn 27 28 fn 46 284 fn4,28 Portuguese 52, 42 n 52 20 229 fn

59

Possesie, 28 ff see geetie Cse Prgmtc Contrl se rgmt Control Prgmtcs, 3 n 3

the Prgue Scool Predce, 27 39 fn 3

clcuus 35ctegory48

mnor - 45 n 83nomns 48 280 fn 4possbe -, 299

retion 48 fn 09preer 8 ff 70 93 08252 Prpoton P 48 40 fn 2,45 fn 83,

252complement of -, 99nd goeent 00 294 ffstrdng, 4, 55 79, 253 292 f

Preposton Phrse P, 289 f 308nd bdin 48 f 09ctcs, 84 275 277, see so en ne

t dCOMP of - 292 d goeent 289 ff inked to hed, 93nd 8 thry 45 83

Prmry Lustc Dt, 3 6 fn 4 PRO 6, 20 f, 56, 64, 9 ff 27

ff 0 e lso Control d Pronomns

GR= -, see under greement GRnphorc behor of 64 9 328ntecedent of, 5732 8rbtrry - PRO 24 56, 6 5 f

6, 39 fn 9 fn 5 9ff, 20 22 fn 44 262 34 f,329

nd bindng 7 ff 56 ff 9 ff,209 f 24 f 22

d Cse, 49 60

65 7, 262 ff344 fn

n COMP, 64 65 f 77 6 f 40fn 30, 4 fn 32 280 fn 20 329,e a lsoMovemeno- CO P

dstribton of - , 25 f 28 f,33 f49, 64 f, 0 ff 56 f 67 ff9 f



Geneal Ind

and ECP,251 fevouon ofhe noon -, 87 features of -, 20 60, 66, 181 193,

322 f.

and goveent, 14,56, 6063 f, 71 f,156 f,19 221,25 f,334idencaion of,275 32 330mpeon, 26, 63 256 ff, 261 ff.,

325 ff, 332, 33 f, 336 f, ealso pro-drop

ndex of -, 20 f, 23 f, 192 325 f,329

Moemet, e MoementoO Coindexing ofO and Contol

OInserton 261 ff., 329 332, 339

f,se a prodrop lac of phonetic propties of -, 2,34,6

OMoement see Movementto COMP

a a pronomilaor see pronominlnaphor

and pronou, 61 reference of, 6, 20 f. 24, 34 191

262,325 and theory,6071 325

tacedinction, see under Trce Processingconstnt, 318 fn. 32

languge-, 9 283 fn 39pro-drop 85, 106 f, 339 ff, see l im

personlOnserton languages,2813,149 fn 1160 f,

174 178 183 215 226 f. 4,232 f 239 ff, 48 ff,253 ff 289325 ff

prodrop ameter 16 fn 9 28 4,123 59 186, 237' 24 f249 254 32

prodrop Rule 24ojecton ncpe 29 34 ff,38

97 ff, 187328325nolablit of ,111d nonconiguaton language, 133

prome 93, 94 prnomin, 20, 6, 102 93, 3 e

RO and ronoun

and biding, 188 ff, 220 feaures, 6 02, 93,330, see a

Featues and features of RO obviae, 6,86 f, 28 f. proxmae, 6 86 93, 205 f.,

260,285 f,40 ronoun, 330, e lso Pronominl d

37

Refeence of pronounAod onou npe 6 142 fn

45, 191, 193 209 217, 221, 222 fn. 1, 22 fn 45 227 fn 46 256

261 276,282 fn. 32and bining, 155, 90 f, 209 f, 2 327

emphatic; 150 fn. 122289, 323 217 ff free ommison of, 145 fn. 88 resumptive , 11, 173, 240, 242,

253 f, 319 fn: 35323330opostonal Isnd Condton ()57

195, 210 Propotion,103 ff., 111 f

Psycinguistics, 9, 283 fn 39 Pupoves, 65 f, 77, 96 f., 116 ff, 140 fn. 30, 149 fn 115, 180 202 f, 206,215228 fn. 54231 329 f. 332

Qualier 100260Quantication, 35,102201239324Quanter, 62 11713 fn 7, 14 fn

79 146 fn 96 1177 ff, 194,197,201, 239, 287 f, 34 fn 6 see any and Croer

existential,239expression,115 f�ated ,219free noation,35uanter Moement (QR), 18, 116,

144 fn 79 176 ff., 194 196 ff.,234, 23 239 78, 345 fn 6 phrase (Q), 328

quas-,22 f, 44 1 f, 194 ablenotaon,35 uniers-239

Quasigument, see under Arguenquequ Alteaon (Frnch),246queton Foaton, 7

ran see Weather erbsRasng 62 f., 6 f., 68, 8 87 f, 98

100 f, 110 127 162, 164 182, 223 fn. 9, 224 fn 2249 29 fin Ialian,266 ff, 340

Rasgto-bject 38, 08, 14 fn 91,48 fn 08

Reanays 123 26 fn 37, 292 ff, 31 ff, 36 f. 8

Reargemen Rues, 18Recontrucon, 62, 89 f, 144 f fn. 79

85345 f fn. 6,345 fn 0Recoeabiliy, see recoeraiy o Del

on



38 Geneal Index

Recursieessll 6 f 16Reciproca f 29 217 228 f. 54

28 f. 57 29 f 3 f. 8 see alsoaphor

eucy Rues 31 f93Referece see o Co rferecearbitrary see arbitrary PR

soint see Dsoint Referece free 65iheret 21 188 19 f 218 lack of inepeet -24 overlappig -26 potetia- 12 of PRO see uer PR of proou 65

Referetial Exressio(Rexpreso)11 f 115 f. 324a biig155 18193

features of - 33Reexive 44 12 217 f219 222 f. 2

229 f. 62 23 f 68283 f. 36289 ff 317 f 1 ee aso ahorephatic99 ff 14 f. 45

Rendng 287 f. 316 f 3gard 9 f.eative 54 12 14 31 1 f.

66 143 f. 69 149 f. 115 16 f.175 229 f. 63 245 319 . 5 345 f. 7see also Reativizatio free 111 173 75 18 248 317 f. 17332345 f. 4Rete use Extraposon 8 ff.

141 f. 39 219Reativiz to 7 28 f. 2Represetatio evels of4 17 ff.Resdue o the NIC (s (NC)) 16 f

186 195 198 f 22J 4

24 255at L 23ff 22 ff. 255at P 243 f

Restruturng 4 39 f 19 14 f 28224 f 2

Rghtwar Moveet see rihtwar Moveet

iver Pate Spash 27Roace Lguag 6 28 4 4 12

122 132 14 f 28 142 f. . 58145 f. 84 4 f 13 11 222 289 see

a rech taa Pr!gesep·drop ges an Spais

Root Setece 2822Russia 14 f. 5 14 f. 16188 262

Ssee Setece see Setecebar

S, see SenteceoubebarScope55 2 234 f. 287

inicator 234 f.row239

wie 44 f 79239 253seem 27 35 4 3 55 5 ff. 67 f.7915 f 11 175 see Rasng

Seet 38seleleton 4 7Seatic

escriptio35 relatio35

Seatics o theretic 344 f 3 real 324

Seitic Laguages 27 223 f. 14Setece (S)se Root Setece hea of - 138 f. f. 13 14 f. 214 f. 24146 f. f 98162structu of 1924 ff32 4196 ff.

Setenceb (Sbar) see al Clause Deleton 66 f . 93 98 f. 16 f

146 f. 92 162 ff 167 169 1722983337

tS ule 33 f.38stcture of 96 ff.34

trasparacy173 Seteceoubebar ( Soublebar)14 f 27

s (iperso) (talia)62 ff. 122 f. 141 f. f 43 8 27 341see al i persoal Pasve features of271

s (Rexive) (I taian) 168Sal Clause 33 15 ff.134167 ff 21

f.29 fSOY Lagues 145 f. 86

Spaish 26 28 61 5 f. 3 171 f174 223 226 f. 1 232237 f.253255 275 277 282 f 32 see alRiver Plate Spas

Speed Subet ndton (SSC) 1 f.58 72 f. 153 ff. 179 1 1 f.28 f. 214 16 231 ff.

Spty Const an 235 f 279 f 6Speech Couities8Structu re4 f 17 ff. 3441 f. 4 18

96 ff245 31331

ba geerati f see existece ofDeeStrcre without epty tories 92 factorg of 39 43

Structalchage86

escriptio86



Geneal Ind

Structu r Buiding uls, 32110Strucu Pstion, 5, 293ti�tic Inversion 6 fn. 9, 80, 223 fn

17 280 fn 5, s lso invrsion of

SubjctSylisic us18, 70 9280 fn 5Subctgoriztion9 11, 26,29,276

fturs5, 31,3516 frms3 f., 37 39nd govmnt,51,16nd ojection inciple 3nd thoy,37 f.

Subjcncy, 56 ff.,68, 80 f, fn. 13 fn 67 57 ff., 68, 86, 235 f 20 303 ff 317 fn. 22, lso

BoundingSubjct,control, s subjct Controlcitics,28 63,28 fn . domin of-72,153, 58invsion of- 5 f, 86 ff, 22 60

66 18 f., 188, 25,218 22 fn.29 20 ff25 3 ff., 258 ff, 282 fn.2, 325 ff, 328 f, 332 f., 336 f,339 ff.

missing-, s pro-rop

of NP,s undr Noun Phrs (NP} of,28,0 obct ssymtris, 78, 158 f, 28

f.,300 fSubjctObjctrb Lngugs,

SOV ngugs obligtory prsnc o- 25 ff.0 f.

7, 96 ff, 3,6,198 postvrbl , s E� gt Vrbs, Exis

tntis nd invrson of Subjct bs gnrtd, 26 s so Ergt

iv Vrbs Cs of, s nomintiv subet ro-drop s pro-dropnd thry 0, 2, 88, s lso

Tht (} o o subjctsntnc,15 fn 8519 fn 121 vb mnt und Agr

mn 2ubjet- erb Inversion nvsion

of SubjctSUBJET209f.,289

SubjcVrbObjct gugs s SVOLngugsSubjunctiv, 18,12 fn. 5, 230 fn 73Substtiv Ctgoris,8Substitution,86Succssiv Cclic Movmnt, undr

Movmn

69

Suprscripting Cosuprscripting, 218,21 f 29 f, 259 ff., 276 f 325 f329,332 f336, 339 f

uperiority Condition 231 f., 2323 f,

255Sufc Stuctu5 9 8, 3, f.urvivor operty 2SVngugs, 151 fn 38Syntctic,

componnt f ff., 7 ff., 3 f.257 f.

congurtion, 10 rus, 8,257

Tns19, 28, 210

sgnmnt,22Tensed- Conditon 5,195,20than fn. 29 that 23,53 f., 223 fn 823 ff.

that-Deletion3 f.ith ndx 25 280 fn 20* [that] lter f 160 f, 17,

222,20, 23 ff.,251,25rc ffcts, 231 23720 ff,

251, 25Thmtic, s Tht (}

Thmtic tions, 35Thm,3, 139 fn. 1,282 n. 35there (isni}, 35, 58 f 101, 78,

25, 218, 22 fn 29, 323, 325, s Existntils fturs of-, 87 f. 215,262 ndx of8, 263thereInsertion 5 ff,, 178, 26 f

Tht ( 5,3 ff 11 ff, 115 f.,1 7 fn.100, s so undr Grmmtic Func

tion (GF} nd Thtro ("ro}

iterion 3 39, 3, 7 ff., 101,2 ff, 130 f, 39 fn1, 139 fn •15, 22 ff., 33 ff

fturs 11 7 posiion, 3 5 ff.mrking,3 ff 2 1 88, 139 fn.

16,276non position (position,59,8 f thory nd ove- 30, 6,12

Thtro (rol}, 5, 10 2, 38 fn 13276, 331 f.

ssignmnt, 3 ff, ff., 93,101, 19 ff, 129 ff., 39 fn.1, 39 fn. 15, 260 f., 33 to chn, 19 f,33 ft LF, 33 to ind, 17, 179, 20, 28 fn. 50,

331



370 General Index

thro tr ce 36,176 f :of cl us ument ,03multple -,139fn poss l ,35

of sub ject 36f, 4, 4 , 13ff,110t nsf rence ,177,31 f

to in v ) ,54f.,38fn. 4Topc ton , 4, 9 f 15, 8 fn

33,301,345fn 7TOP •node ,40fn 7tough-Movement 10,04f,309f f.Tce , 5, 31f., 9 8 89 ff 57,

5 1ff

n d n phors , 61, 64, 84,155f, 184,188,190

ntecedent rel ton , 6, 5, 5, 59,38,see lt Anteced t

b e gener ted - 187,s l e t ence of Deep structure

and bindng ,155f.,84,18, 190and boundng ,see Bound g n Sub

jcencyC semked -, 68 , 80, 79,180ff,

5fn 35 67, 81fn 5C seles -, 49,176f,18,318fn. 5n COMP 54, 181, 5fn 36, 6 fn

4,7fn 5, 43ff.,0ffdistrbut on f - 33 f,49, 79,168 f.nd ECP ,50ff

fe t re of 3f.nd gove ment ,56, 59f ,3, 68,156

f., 160, 68, 190, 9, 3f ,4,50ff.

de ti c t on of -,,3 f, 39 ex of 3, 0see so Co dexng

' Mov

LF 17med , 44o Mvent 30, 4, 60, 117,

155f,18,188,190, 37,1ff,1

r ce PRO dstnction , 3 34 4, 55ff,60ff.,73, f 8, 156, 177'51f., 6, 69, 30, 3H

nd ES NIC ) 37, see · underV bles

spe o o ,150fn , 3

nd theory ,36f 44 C: 101,1fof wh"Mement,ee Vabledi on l Gr mm r ,7, 4, 48Tnstve ,see u d erbT nsfoton e d jncton ,

Moe- and Moveme ·c pou dng eement Y ,7, 86,89condtions on -,7

gener l ed ,316 r� 6ransform ton l

component e S nt tc comp nt Transpenc ,14,74, 84, 153, 158try 9, 176, 3fn 19, 304Tur k,0Typology ,9,18,133

unlear , 4 9f.,33,57Uniormity iniple 16fUn vers Gr mm UG) , f. 6ff., 17f,

7ff., 31, 39, 41, 85, 90ff, 95, 07,137, IS, 160, 4, 51, 81 n ,97,344

Prm ve B se of -,10, 16fn 14,97Unversals ,95

Va bles , f , 44, 69 11f,138fn. 7,1, 18, 18, 19, fn 3, 5

fn 35, 8 fn 6, 31, , ·34 f,8,see also Tr c nd wh-Movmentnd bindng , 184ff, 193ff 01, 31

ff,see l V bles and IC d C se 69, 175ff. . 16, 81

fn 5,93,334nd cl c doub ng ,77f.d ECP ,50f 53f.

denti c ton of ,75, 8f ,33nd me ,158, 175,18 94f 31,

87nd NIC ,58ff., Hffnd ro-drop 49, 55, 60d R ES (NC),60f,34ff.,3ff.nd sse 8ff ,3nd theory , 116,195

Ve V)

c mpe - 311,316 · f. 8,se l Re n y sfe tures of 48s he o S ,138fn. 13, 16fn. 98

tr n ve , ,3fn 9, 46ffnd p ve ,15

reg s 8ns v s 113f, f.

Verb Phr se VP , see so G v entnd VPbr ct - 51fn. 138

VP Complements , 2s ff 96,45 tfn 90, ee oblig or presence ofSubject

d co tin ou 18 151fn 138s maxm poject on 51f,138fn.

13s predte ,

smal ,99, 145fn 87,171 f79,73



General Ind

Vra mplx 40 fn 28 VSO anguags, 28, 45 fn 86, 5 fn

8

Wa, 94 fwan 9, 9 ff, , 69 f, 74, 9, 08, 8252and nnpassailty, 69

War rs, 27 f, 40, 2, 4 fn 40,4 f fn 08, 48 fn , 24 ff

W�nssCndtn *['i • . 6i . • ,),

Wrdst (W* Languags, 28, , 45 fn 88 ·

atur, 20 f, 204

Iand,whIsnd Condiion 5 f, 2, 25, 8 fn 2

wh-Isnd arameter 06 flatin, 4 fn 4, 58 f, 86

95, 0whovement 22 ff 54 66, 68 5

4 fn , 58 ff, 95, 2 , 24,40 f, s als Varian , 65 f, 96 ff, 22,25 ff, 255,

279 fn. 2, 7 fn 20, s a

371

gica n ( l lg (nstp , 58 ff, 26, 242,

254, 04 f, 08ut f NP, 8

targt f, 4 7trac, Varial and Trac n COMP

hras,s as quasiQuantir Cas f-,s undr Cas dltn f,66, 4 fn. 2,245ntrprtatn f-, 22 ff, 44

whQustin s Intgatis multpl , 66, 6, 44 fn 79 25

ff, 7 fn 20, s a SuperioiCondition d Iand

whether 5Wrd Ordr, s al rdr f Csttunts undis, 20

Xar ) Thy, 5, , 2, 6 9 48, 5 f, 94, , 29, 8 fn ,7 fn 2

(rnch, 275a, 94

[Noam_Chomsky]_Lectures_on_government_and_binding(BookZZ.org) (1).pdf

Documents

Transcript of [Noam_Chomsky]_Lectures_on_government_and_binding(BookZZ.org) (1).pdf