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

predicted by Rizzi's (1991-b) theory. If we adopt Relativized Minimality (RM), then the
existence of an Object Agreement poses an immediate problem for the Internal Subject
Hypothesis. Since the Spec of O-AGR counts as an A-position, raising of the external Argument
to Spec of Subject-AGR will skip such an A-specifier, which is forbidden in RM. A French
sentence like 0 should violate RM:
(145) Jeani lesj a [ O-AGRP tj repeintesv [ VP ti [ VP tv tj ]]]
Since 0 is well-formed, the prediction is incorrect. To solve this problem without giving
up RM, let us assume the following UG options.
Suppose that, whenever Spec of (Subject) AGR has to be filled because it is the AGR-
identifier, the unmarked way of supplying the required DP is for the I-subject itself to raise to
this position. However, when a language (such as French), has A-specifiers intervening between
the I-subject and Spec of (Subject) AGR, then this option will not be available in sentences
where Object Agreement is present, namely, sentence with compound tenses. In this case, a
marked option can be adopted by which a DP is directly inserted in Spec of AGR and it is
coindexed to the I-subject in a resumptive-like way. Since French is forced to take this option,
then overt I-subjects in French need not involve an empty anaphor, as is the case in 0. In
Germanic languages, on the other hand, no Object Agreement being present, the unmarked
option is taken and Spec of AGR is always filled by movement, which accounts for the floating
character of overt I-subjects.
In Germanic languages, both overt I-subjects and FQs would be elements left floating
by A-movement. We argued in section 2.4. that in NSLs FQs need not form a possible
constituent with the preverbal subject. We argued this is because in NSLs no A-Chain is formed
between the preverbal subject and the I-subject, so there is no reason why FQs should be
analyzable as elements left behind by movement. Now, for French we assume there is a Chain,
but this Chain is not (always) a movement Chain, but rather a resumptive-strategy Chain. The
1