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

Chapter 3
AGR and Subjects
1. On the Nature of the AGR-Subject Dependency
In the preceding Chapter we tried to derive Burzio's Generalization (BG) from a version
of the EPP plus a theory of CHAINS. There were some problems the theory faced. Let's recall
the three basic problems we pointed out:
a) It appears not to be always the case that the expletive forms a CHAIN with an
Argument, so that our version of the EPP would be too restrictive.
b) The requirement that Case be assigned to the top of the CHAIN had to be stipulated
and could not be derived from a last resort principle. In the account below, we will propose that
the I-subject, once coindexed with AGR, has to obtain Case from AGR, either from AGR o (as in
NSLs) or from Spec of AGR (as in non-NSLs). The generalization is, roughly speaking, that the
I-subject has to obtain Case from an AGR element which is richly specified in phi-features,
namely AGR o in NSLs or Spec of AGR in non-NSLs.
c) The link between expletive and Argument was problematic for Binding Theory, but
nevertheless necessary for the CHAIN theory to make sense.
1.1 A Reformulation of the EPP
The proposal that I will advance has very much in common with Borer's (1986) theory of
I-subjects, but, at least in its initial formulation below, it is more restrictive in the way AGR
(INFL in Borer's terms) is coindexed with a I-subject.
In all this section we will be abstracting away from expletive/indefinite constructions,
1