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

(45) a. ?*Which book does it seem that e was leafed e through
b. **This book seems that it/e was leafed e through
Summarizing so far, even if principle 0 is redundant with an ECP account for A-
movement restrictions, the fact that the latter is not sufficient without some further assumption
makes 0 a possible candidate to cover the gap. Still, if the ECP and other principles proved
sufficient to constrain A-movement, we could try to reduce the power of 0 to avoid redundancy.
One way of doing so could be not to stipulate the prominence requirement on the DP/CP,
so that 0 would be reduced to 0
(46) At D-structure, AGR must be coindexed with some non-(inherently-)Case-marked DP or
CP in its c-command domain.
0 poses no restrictions on the position of the DP/CP that becomes the I-subject: the ECP
(or other principles) will filter out the undesired cases. Since 0 is a device whose outputs are to
be filtered by independent principles, we could also assume that no Case requirement is
necessary:
(47) At D-structure, AGR must be coindexed with some DP or CP in its c-command domain.
If we assume that inherent Case is not compatible with Nominative Case (or whatever
structural Case is ultimately assigned to the I-subject), then coindexation with an inherently Case
marked DP will be filtered out independently of 0. Even the requirement that the I-subject must
other speakers they are not so bad not because they are any
better than adjunct-island violations, but rather because these
speakers vacillate in a low level parameter setting (which could
consist in treating (or not) that as a possible agreeing form
(see Rizzi (1989-a)) or simply as a proper head governor.
1