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

Since Binding Theory plays a crucial role in our account of subject inversion, so that
only NSLs allow [-anaphoric] I-subjects, we will exploit the idea that something allows
indefinite DPs to escape from BT effects. We will address the question in section 3.2.
In section 3.1., we will address another important question: how are indefinite DPs
Case-marked? If we adopt Belletti's (1988) hypothesis that indefinite DPs receive Partitive Case,
then an obvious problem arises in connection with our rule of AGR coindexation, since we
crucially assumed that the DP AGR is coindexed with could not be inherently Case-marked. We
will refine the notion of inherent Case in a way to allow Partitive Case to be simultaneously
structurally Case marked.
3.1. Partitive Case
We assumed that, for languages such as English or Catalan, at D-structure AGR has to
be coindexed with a non-(inherently)-Case-marked DP (or CP). Reference to inherent Case-
marking was crucial in order to prevent a DP other than an EA or an object to become the I-
subject.
In Chapter 1, we noticed that Belletti's hypothesis of Partitive Case provides an
interesting means of excluding sentences like:
(103) a. *I consider girls interesting (existential reading)
b. *There seem girls to have come
which would be excluded because Partitive Case can only be assigned to positions which are θ-
marked by the head assigning Partitive.
If we assume that indefinite DPs in object position are assigned Partitive Case, then
they should not be candidates for AGR to coindex with, according to our rule of AGR
coindexation, repeated here:
1