Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages (Oxford ... - Cryptm.org

HEAD-TO-HEAD MERGE IN BALKAN SUBJUNCTIVES 53a theory-internal consequence of (ii). This is so because the GB operation of NPmovement qualifies as anaphoric binding (NP traces are anaphors and as suchmust obey principle A of binding theory). In sum, the unification stated in (iii)goes in opposite directions in GB and minimalism.Hornstein (1999) attempts to reduce anaphoric binding to overt DP movement.To do so, he is led to assume that movement from one 6 position toanother 8 position is allowed, and correlatively that one chain may contain morethan one 6 position. Although I agree with Hornstein that these revisions areminimalist in spirit insofar as they attempt to eliminate undesirable survivals ofD structure into minimalism, I believe that the notion of 6 position itself isanother such relic. Thus, if we want to really eliminate D structure from thetheory, we must also eliminate 6 positions, DP movement and A chains. 6roles need not be assigned to certain syntactic positions (see the 6 positions ofGB theory); the minimalist framework should allow them to be directly transferredfrom the V that bears them to the DP expression itself.It is precisely this line of inquiry that is pursued by Manzini and Roussou(1998), who argue that the antecedent DP of an obligatory control configuration(and of subject raising) is directly merged in its overt position, its 8 role beingacquired via Move F: 8 roles are assumed to be features on V, 1 ' 1 which areattracted by the first hierarchically superior DP that satisfies a strong D feature.Locality constraints are captured by a revised Minimal Link Condition (MLC),the "Scopal MLC," which essentially says that an attractor of 8 features (i.e., aDP that satisfies a strong D feature of I or V) can attract a 8 feature F only downto the next attractor for F. One DP may be assigned more than one 8 role, as isprecisely the case in control configurations: in John started to work, Johnattracts both the external 8 role of started and that of to work. Move F isfinally restated as "form dependency," which is intended to eliminate actualoperations such as copying and adjunction in favor of the mere structural relationbetween the head and tail of a connected subtree. It seems to me that both MoveF and form dependency look more like GB (anaphoric) binding than like GBmovement. In contrast to overt GB movement, Move F and form dependency donot derive a new syntactic object from a preexisting one. Both Move F and GBanaphoric binding establish a relation between coexisting elements of a givenconfiguration. Thus, the true innovation that is due to the minimalist frameworkis the idea that the foot of a syntactic relation need not occupy a DP position.5. ObviationConsider next the examples in (18) and their Spanish counterparts in (19):(18) a. Ioni vrea so. piece P ro i/j devrenie incline. RomJohn wants sa leave-3SG.SUBJ early tomorrow"John wants to leave early tomorrow.'j