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

(62) a. I ... [ V o believe] [ IP him [ I' to be there ] ]
b. [ C o for] [ IP him [ I' to be there ] ] ...
ECM constructions are exactly like raising constructions except that the main AGR is not
coindexed with an I-subject inside the infinitive, because there is a preferred candidate in the
main clause (e.g., the Experiencer Argument of believe). In both, the infinitival AGR is poor and
cannot become rich by any means. Therefore, only Spec of AGR can possibly be the AGR-
identifier. Since the infinitival AGR o is not able to Case mark (it can in principle only Case-mark
PRO, which is excluded by its being governed by the main verb or 'for'), Spec of AGR has to
receive Case from that upper governor.
The present theory predicts that ECM and 'for' infinitives should not be possible for
NSLs taking the unmarked option by which infinitives have the same AGR identifier as finite
sentences: the infinitival AGR o would have to be the AGR-identifier, which it could not, being
irreparably poor. Case-assignment to the Spec of the infinitival AGR would be useless, this
position not being the AGR-identifier.
The claim that NSLs taking the unmarked option (for infinitival AGR-identifiers) have
no ECM might have a counterexample in classical Latin. 133 In this language, however, infinitives
cum Accusative are not clear cases of ECM, as far as the presence of the Accusative appears to
be quite independent of the main verb's lexical characteristics and Case properties. So we have
(examples from Maraldi (1983)):
133 If it is the case that classical Latin was a language
taking the unmarked option for infinitives, of which I have no
evidence.
1