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

I think the above evidence is rather compelling. So, we will adhere to Stowell's claim
that CPs cannot be assigned Case. Before proceeding, let us consider another aspect of
argumental CPs that we have not addressed thus far.
expletive:
The fact is that argumental CPs can (and sometimes have to) be 'doubled' by an
(120) a. It is evident that...
b. I consider it evident that...
c. I can accept (it) that...
Suppose that the expletive in the above examples is linked to the CP in some way, and
that it is the expletive that occupies the θ-position at D-structure and is Case-marked at S-
structure. In other words, suppose that it is the expletive that fulfils all the requirements of being
an Argument, except that it transmits its θ-role to the extraposed CP.
Suppose that the linking device between the expletive and the CP is coindexation. In
the preceding section we have provided a means of preventing BT effects in structures like:
(121) There came a man
by assuming that coindexation does not imply binding if there are no phi-features shared.
Similarly, we can assume that CPs are not sensitive to being coindexed and c-commanded by
their it-expletive, because they have no phi-features. That CP I-subjects cannot have phi-features
is suggested by the fact that coordinating them does not give plural agreement:
(122) It is/*are well-known that ... and that ...
1