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

- a full DP or pronominal (subject inversion).
- a variable, which accounts for the absence of that-t effects. 75
- a pro, which is licenced by the AGR identifier, which recovers its content.
The last point is one where the present theory differs from standard assumptions. In
section 2.4. we will address the question. In the next section we will provide some independent
evidence for the definition of Binding Domain we have postulated.
One obvious alternative to the rather intricate definition of Binding Domain we have
proposed to account for the facts would be the following: preverbal subjects in NSLs are not A-
positions, and therefore do not count for Binding Theory. Then the I-subject cannot be
[+anaphoric] because as such it would have no possible A-binder. In Chapter 5 we are going to
discuss the status of preverbal subjects in NSLs. Although the conclusion will be that they do not
have the same status as in non-NSLs, I prefer not to commit myself to the claim that they are not
A-positions: nowadays, within the internal subject hypothesis, the concept of A-position is a
delicate question, and I have tried to make my theory orthogonal to the issue. If the notion of A-
position is to be kept, however, I adhere to Rizzi's (1991) proposal, which likely would give the
result that preverbal subjects are A-positions in NSLs. For a different matter, Rizzi's definition of
A-position (which makes Spec of AGR-object in French an A-position) will be crucially used in
Chapter 4, section 6, to account for French exceptional behaviour as a non-NSL.
75 We adhere to Rizzi's (1982-b) contention that in NSLs it
is the postverbal subject position that (exclusively) allows Whmovement
without that-t effects. We account for the availability
of the postverbal source for Wh-movement, and we are also in a
position to account for the exclusiveness of this source, i.e.,
why is it that preverbal subjects are not extracted by some
that-deletion or equivalent means in NSLs, if Rizzi is right in
claiming that this never happens: as we will see in Chapter 5,
preverbal subjects are not candidates for Wh-extraction because
they are dislocated-like elements resumed by a pronominal in the
I-subject position.
1