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

convey any meaning, we can assume that from a formal point of view, the Small Clause counts
as an Argument, and therefore as an element subject to BT. Then, the anaphoric/pronominal
contrast observed above will not be a manifestation of the BT-status of the predicate itself (which
is simply not definable) but rather of the status of the Small Clause, although it will be the
nucleus of the Small Clause, namely the predicate, that will show the morphological contrast. On
the other hand, treating a nominal Small Clause as a formal Argument of 'to be' explains why
nominal predicates (specifically [+N] predicates) often manifest Case: it would be a
manifestation of the Case that the Small Clause they head requires as an Argument.
Coming back to our line of argumentation, the I-subject being internal to the Small
Clause, it cannot bind it. The subject in Spec of AGR, instead, does bind the Small clause if we
assume that:
Small Clause:
- it is coindexed with the predicate with co-denotation coindexing, as we have proposed;
- the index of the predicate percolates to the whole Small Clause it is the nucleus of.
If so, let us try to apply our definition of Binding Domain, repeated here as 0, to the
(68) A is Binding Domain for B iff A is the minimal FC containing B, a governor of B and the
Case-marked position from which B obtains Case.
Assuming that the copular verb is a governor of the Small Clause, the crucial step is to
determine which is the Case position for it, if there is one at all. Let us assume that the Case of
the Small Clause will be the same as the Case manifested by its head, the predicate. The question
is: do Small Clauses (or their predicates) have Case? As far as languages with overt Case can
tell, Small Clauses (or their predicates) do seem to have Case. The general pattern is that the
Case manifested by the predicate of a Small Clause is usually the same as the Case of its subject
(examples from Greek and German):
1