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

Both examples in 0 involve CHAINS containing two Cases: Accusative (assigned to the
foot) and Nominative (assigned to the head).
There are still some cases to be excluded if we want the present theory to be minimally
accurate. All of the following examples fulfil the preceding principles and still they are
ungrammatical:
(18) a. *It is strange there to develop the problemAcc
b. *It is strange the problem to develop tAcc
c. *It seems there to have developed the problemAcc
d. *It seems the problem to have developed tAcc
In 0 the CHAINS ((there, the problem) and (the problem, t)) contain one and only one
Argument and one and only one Case, and still they are strongly ungrammatical. In a standard
theory CHAIN formation is triggered as a last resort for Case marking. So the above examples
could be excluded because of a last resort principle that would prohibit forming a CHAIN longer
than Case requirements demand. But we cannot adopt a last resort principle based on Case
marking here because it is essential to the present theory that CHAIN formation is triggered by
our version of the EPP in 0. So we have to stipulate that Case can only be assigned to the head of
a CHAIN.
Summarizing, the following set of principles can derive the BG facts in a rough way:
0 Accusative assignment is always available but optional.
0 Extended Projection Principle:
Spec of INFL has to be a member of a CHAIN.
0 A CHAIN must contain one and only one θ-role.
0 A CHAIN must contain one and only one Case.
(19) Only the head of a maximal CHAIN can be Case marked.
1