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

expletive/Argument links as having essentially the same nature as Chain links, and the
generalization in 0, which rather suggests no linking between expletives and Arguments.
The theory we will introduce in the next chapter avoids these problems by:
- reducing the range of expletives to expletive-indefinite cases.
- assuming indefinites are defective in phi-features. 24
3.2. A Binding Theoretical Approach to the Nature of Inverted Subjects
Now consider subject free-inversion. The standard analysis since Chomsky (1982) is that
subject free-inversion involves an expletive pro. We will be considering an array of BT facts
that appears to undermine the idea that expletives are involved in subject free inversion.
Let us assume that all Arguments in a sentence (including the EA) are generated inside
(or close to) VP, as in Koopman & Sportiche's papers (1988)/(1990). Let us call I-subject
(suggesting internal subject) the Argument in this basic position which is coindexed with AGR.
We also assume that inverted subjects in Italian are Arguments in this basic position, as we
proposed in Chapter 1, hence they are I-subjects.
Then we can pose the following question: What is the nature of I-subjects with respect to
the features [±pronominal] and [±anaphoric]?
Within standard assumptions, at S-structure, I-subjects in English are always DP-traces
(abstracting away from indefinite and CP Arguments), in other words they are null anaphors. In
Italian, I-subjects can be DP-traces too, but, since null expletives licence inverted subjects, they
can also be R-expressions (full DP's or variables) and pronominals (specifically overt
pronominals). So, concerning the status of I-subjects, English would be a subset of Italian.
Within standard assumptions, the status of I-subjects would be, abstracting away from indefinite
24 It is probably not the case the approach I will take is
essentially better fit than the hypothesis sketched above for
dealing with this issue: this above hypothesis on CHAINS, which
I reject for other reasons, is mainly conceived to set out the
problems to be solved.
1