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

which we deal with in the next section.
Let us tentatively assume the following principle:
(1) At D-structure, AGR must be coindexed with the most prominent non-(inherently-)Case-
marked DP or CP in its c-command domain.
This rule is similar to Borer's (1986) rule of AGR coindexation:
(2) Coindex AGR with an NP in the accessible domain of AGR.
There are, however, three differences between the two rules:
a) Borer's hypothesis was not framed within the Internal subject Hypothesis. So her
definition of accessible domain was devised as to include Spec of INFL. This is not the case
here, because at D-structure all Arguments are in the strict c-command domain of AGR they may
possibly become subjects of.
b) Our rule is obligatory: AGR must find some DP or CP to coindex with. This makes
sure that an object DP will have to be coindexed with AGR if the External Argument is absent.
The obligatory character of this rule is reminiscent of the EPP: only that instead of requiring that
Spec of IP (or AGRP) must be filled, we require that AGR must be coindexed with some
Argument. In fact, this does not imply that Spec of IP will end up being filled, as we will see.
Borer emphasizes that the rule should not be obligatory, precisely because Burzio's
Generalization is not, according to her, always fulfilled. She adduces dialectal Hebrew data that
violate BG (Borer (1986:385):
1