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

In the a. examples we have verbs assigning an external θ-role: as predicted by BG,
Accusative Case is available. In the c. examples there is no external θ-role, while in the b.
examples the external θ-role is not projected (at least as a visible DP). In both b. and c.,
Accusative is not assigned, and consequently the Argument the ice has no option but DP-
movement to the subject position. These facts strongly suggest that DP-movement is not due to
lack of Case, but rather to the possibility for DP-movement to take place. So, 0.b) could be
replaced by:
(6) Accusative is assigned only if DP-movement is not an alternative available option for the
DP to obtain Case (or be realized as PRO).
Put another way, it can be easily shown that BG stands in a relation of theoretical
circularity with Case Theory and Theta theory. In fact, for any well-formed structure involving
an unaccusative verb or a raising verb, the following implications hold:
- Case theory: [-Accusative] -> DP-movement
- θ-criterion: DP-movement -> [-Ext. θ-role] 15
- Burzio's Gen.: [-Ext. θ-role] -> [-Accusative]
So, BG is problematic in two respects:
- it establishes a correlation between two facts that do not look akin in nature: the
existence of the EA and the availability of Accusative Case.
- it undermines the classical Case account for DP-movement as a last resort device to
obtain Case, since it leads to circularity in this connection.
15 Within the Internal subject hypothesis, NP-movement
requires absence of external θ-role not because of the Theta
criterion, but because of Case theory: there would be two
Arguments competing for a Subject Case-position. In any event,
the result is the same.
1