Jaume Solà i Pujols - Departament de Filologia Catalana ...

(40) a. AGR ... [ VP John [ VP open the door ]]
modules:
b. AGR ... [ VP open the door ]
c. AGR ... [ VP seem that... ]
d. AGR ... [ VP seem [ IP to [ VP come John ]]]
Therefore 0 predicts which A-Chains will be formed and what length they will have.
The standard theory of A-movement can be conceived as consisting of three essential
- Move-alpha as a general rule allowing A-movement;
- Case theory as a trigger for A-movement;
- constraints on the output A-movement: ECP, proper movement, the Projection
Principle, Chain formation, etc.
In the above examples no unique principle in the standard theory compels the underlined
DPs or CPs to become the subject of the main sentence: Move-alpha is applied freely; Case
theory constrains the DPs to move (or form expletive CHAINS) and the other constraints filter
the undesired cases (super-raising, movement to a θ-position, etc.).
Our theory explicitly denies that A-movement is triggered by Case-requirements: an
object may be forced to become I-subject even if it can be potentially assigned Accusative. So
Case theory cannot be used as a last-resort trigger for A-movement. On the other hand, 0 clearly
overlaps with the other constraints on A-movement: the way it is formulated 0 makes sure that
whatever DP is chosen as I-subject will abide by the standard constraints. Consider, for instance,
a standard example of super-raising:
(41) *John seems [ that Peter hoped t to come ]
The standard account for the ill-formedness of 0 would be that this representation
1