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

(28) In the unmarked case, controlled infinitives have the same AGR-identifier option
(AGR o /Spec-AGR) as finite sentences, in a given language.
Let us see what 0 predicts for Italian and English (we assume they are 'the unmarked
case'). Consider the D-structures in 0:
(29) a. John wants [ AGRP AGR o to come DP ]
b. Gianni vuole [ AGRP AGR o venire DP ]
G. wants to-come
In both cases, AGR is coindexed with the DP. Consider first the English case
construction. In this case it is Spec of the infinitival AGR which is to be filled to be the AGR-
identifier. Let us assume that this specifier is occupied by PRO (whose precise status we will
discuss below). Let us assume that, contrary to what is standardly claimed, PRO can (and has to)
receive Case, in order to abide by the Visibility Condition or some equivalent requirement. Let
us assume that it is AGR o which assigns Nominative to PRO by agreement. 118 Suppose that
infinitival AGR o can assign a Nominative only to PRO (a kind of weak Nominative that is
specific to PRO).
Given the above assumptions, PRO is the Case-position for the I-subject, and the whole
IP (= AGRP) is the Binding Domain for the I-subject. The I-subject will then be anaphoric, as
desired.
In the Italian construction, on the other hand, it would be AGR o itself which would be
118 We will crucially assume that heads do not governs their
specifiers, so that, as we assumed for finite sentences,
Nominative is assigned to Spec of AGR by agreement, not by
government.
I think that the assumption that heads do not govern
specifiers it is a tenable position in general. In addition, it
subsumes much of the canonical-government proposals in earlier
literature: non-canonical government is impossible in the
general case because it would be government of a Specifier.
1