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

2.2. CHAINS
A solution for the above problems can be based on Chomsky's (1986-b) theory of
CHAINS, together with a version of the Extended Projection Principle. CHAIN can be defined
as the unification of two traditionally different syntactic concepts: A-Chains (ordered sets of A-
positions linked by an antecedent/trace dependency) and expletive/Argument dependencies.
CHAINS are the entities that receive θ-roles, subject to the condition they have only one Case.
So both (a man, t) in 0.a) and (there, a man) in 0.b) would be instances of CHAINS:
(12) a. A man came t
b. There came a man
In both CHAINS in 0 there is a single θ-role (namely the one assigned by to come to its
internal Argument) and a single Case (namely Nominative). Since in both cases the internal
Argument ends up being part of a CHAIN, we could try to exploit the idea that it is the
obligatoriness of CHAIN formation that prevents this Argument from receiving Accusative,
even if Accusative is available in principle. Suppose, then, we assume the following principles,
one of which is a special version of the Extended Projection Principle (EPP):
(13) Accusative assignment is always available but optional.
(14) Extended Projection Principle:
Spec of INFL has to be a member of a CHAIN. 17
17 We could alternatively define 0 as:
(i) Spec of AGR has to head a CHAIN
were it not for the case of infinitives in raising
constructions, where Spec of AGR in the infinitive does not head
the (maximal) CHAIN. (i) can work if we are able to define the
sub-CHAIN headed by Spec of AGR as a CHAIN in an interesting
way. If we simply state that any sub-CHAIN is a CHAIN, the
1