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

2.2. Subject Inversion
Subject inversion is closely related to the ISH in that it is quite tempting to assume that
inverted subjects (in languages such as Romance NSLs) are in fact occupying their basic position
according to the ISH. The classical account of subject inversion (as in Chomsky (1981)/(1982),
Rizzi (1982-b)) claims that inverted subjects are (right) adjoined to the VP, which is not at odds
with the ISH in 0.b), where the EA also occupies an adjoined position. For Catalan, the idea that
inverted subjects occupy their basic position has been proposed by Bonet (1989) and Solà i
Pujols (1989). 5 We will assume the essentials of Bonet's hypothesis, with some qualifications.
The idea that inverted subjects occupy their basic position raises many questions.
Basically it predicts that inverted subjects which are EAs will occupy a position peripheral to
VP, while inverted subjects which are internal Arguments will appear inside the VP. 6 To test
these predictions is not easy, as there are many theoretical variables and obscuring facts:
a) the basic position for the EA could in principle be left-adjoined or right-adjoined to the
VP. Notice that the usual subject-predicate word order for Small Clauses (if the EA forms a SC
with the VP) is a consequence of the requirement of adjacency for Case-marking, but in the
present case this requirement is possibly not relevant, for the EA will receive Case by becoming
a sentence subject, not by being governed by an adjacent head.
5 Rosselló (1986) proposes that the inverted subject
position is the A-position for subjects, preverbal subjects
being left dislocated elements, but she assumes that inverted
subjects are in a rather high position, outside the VP. We will
adhere to some of her arguments concerning the status of
preverbal subjects in NSLs.
6 I think that assuming that internal Arguments may raise to
the same position as the basic position for EAs is not an
appealing hypothesis: it brings back the dubious notion of
optional θ-position which can be overcome by the ISH. So I will
not adhere to Bonet's (1989) proposal that internal Arguments in
unaccusative verb constructions raise to Spec of VP, i.e., to
the position where, according to her, EAs are generated in
transitive and unergative verb constructions.
1