Downsizing the EPP
Jun Abe
Tohoku Gakuin University
1. Introduction
- Extended Projection Principle (Chomsky 1982):
i) Projection Principle: The -marking properties of each lexical item must be
represented categorially at each syntactic level: at LF, S-structure, and D-structure.
ii) Clauses have subjects.
- the need for (ii):
i) an expletive or pleonastic element:
(1) a. It is clear that S
b. I expect[it to be clear that S]
(2) There is a man …
ii) clauses vs. nominals
(3) the belief that S
- Why does the EPP exist?
Predication approach a la Aristotle:
“A proposition consists of a subject and a predicate.” (cf. Rothstein 1983)
Rizzi’s (2006) Subject Criterion
(4) a. Einstein has visited Princeton.
b. Princeton has been visited by Einstein.
(5) a. Beavers build dams.
b. Dams are built by beavers.
2. Successive-Cyclic Movement
(6) John seems [t’ to be t honest].
Subject: John, Predicate: seems [t to be t honest]
t’, which does not have an independent semantic role, will not act as an independent
subject.
(7) a. *It is believed [a man to seem to t that ...]
1
b. It is believed [to seem to a man that ...]
No instance of an overt element appearing in the subject position of the infinitival
clause of the raising-type
(8) There is no EPP in the infinitival clause. (cf. Abe (1997), Bokovi (2002))
- What forces successive-cyclic movement? (see Bokovi 2002, Sec. 3 for evidence)
successive-cyclic movement as a result of Form-Chain + an economy condition a la
Chomsky (1993)
Movement as two steps of operation: Abe (2002) -> SELECT + Move
SELECT is subject to the MLC and Move to the MCL.
- Extension to successive-cyclic A’-movement:
-> Denial of the Multiple-Spell-out approach
(9) a. *I think [CP which car John asked [CP t' Bill fixed t ]]
b. I think [CP John asked [CP which car Bill fixed t ]]
(10) a. *Who thinks [CP what John likes t]?
b. Who thinks [CP John likes what]?
3. What is the Trigger of A-Movement?
i) EPP; or ii) some PF condition
#Agbayani (2006): Move F + Piped-Pipe
(11) PF Adjacency Condition
Features isolated by movement and the remnant wh-category must be
phonologically adjacent.
(12) What has John bought?
(13) a. Q [John has bought what]
b. wh+Q [John has bought what]
c. whati wh+Q [John has bought ti]
(14) Who has fixed the car?
(15) a. Q [who has fixed the car]
b. wh+Q [who has fixed the car]
(16) a. John will buy the book.
b. T [vP John [v’ v [VP buy the book]]]
->John needs to move to Spec-TP, but it is not obvious whether the book undergoes
2
movement to Spec-VP.
<Hypothesis I> The EPP holds only for the Spec of T that is dominated by a phase
head C.
<Hypothesis II> The PF Adjacency Condition given in (11) also holds for
A-movement.
-> This may be taken as a PF follow-up process of validation after Agree applies.
“Feature checking must be displayed overtly.” (Frampton and Gutmann 1999)
(17) PF Adjacency Condition
A probe P must be phonologically adjacent to P(G) after Agree takes place, where
P(G) is some pied-piped category that includes the goal.
-> With Hypothesis II, we can derive the so-called Case adjacency requirement on a
verb and its object.
(18) a. John bought the book yesterday.
b. *John bought yesterday the book.
4. How to Analyze the ECM?
(19) John believes [TP Mary to be t honest].
-> Mary needs to move at least as far as the embedded Spec-TP.
#Lasnik and Saito (1991):
(20) a. ?The DA proved [the defendants to be guilty] during each other’s trials.
b.?* The DA proved [that the defendants were guilty] during each other’s trials.
(21) a. ?The DA proved [none of the defendants to be guilty] during any of the trials.
b.?* The DA proved [that none of the defendants were guilty] during any of the
trials.
(22) a. Joan believes hei is a genius even more fervently than Bobi does.
b. *Joan believes himi to be a genius even more fervently than Bobi does.
#Lasnik (1999): optionality of overt object shift
(23) I proved every Mersenne number not to be prime. (every >< not)
(24) a. The mathematician made every even number out not to be the sum of two
primes.
(every >not)
b. The mathematician made out every even number not to be the sum of two
primes.
(every >< not)
3
(25) a. The DA made the defendants out to be guilty during each other’s trials.
b. * The DA made out the defendants to be guilty during each other’s trials.
-> The ECM subject can move to the matrix Spec-VP as well as to the embedded
Spec-TP.
<Hypothesis III> The inheritance of the -features of v* is optional.
-> When the inheritance does not take place, V to v* movement is necessary.
(26) a. v [VP believe [TP Mary to be t honest]]
b. v+believe [VP Mary tbelieve [TP t to be t honest]]
-> In (26a), v and believe undergo merging in the morphological component.
-> In (26b), Mary needs to move up to the Spec-VP, since tbelieve is visible in the
phonological component.
(27) a. John picked up the book.
b. John picked the book up.
(28) a. v [VP pick+up the book]
b. v+pick [VP the book tpick+up]
(29) a. v [VP make+out [TP Mary to be t honest]]
b. v+make [VP Mary tmake+out [TP t to be t honest]]
(30) a. Who did you throw out a picture of?
b.?*Who did you throw a picture of out?
-> A freezing effect on a phrase that has undergone movement
(31) a. Joan believes hei is a genius even more fervently than Bobi does.
b. *Joan believes himi to be a genius even more fervently than Bobi does.
(32) a. John picked it up.
b. *John picked up it.
(33) a. John made him out to be a fool.
b. *John made out him to be a fool.
- Hazout (2004): an argument against the probe-goal system
(34) a. They suggest that initially he be put on probation.
b. *They intend for initially him to be put on probation.
<Hypothesis V> The infinitival to is defective in being unable to act as a probe.
In the for-to construction, the Comp for directly probes with respect to its -features.
4
According to Hypothesis II, the goal needs to move to a position adjacent to for.
5. EPP and PF Adjacency Condition
#Quotative Inversion (Collins 1997):
(35) a. "I am so happy," Mary thought.
b. "I am so happy," thought Mary.
-> Probably, quotative inversion instantiates a case which teases apart the effects of
the EPP and the PF adjacency condition.
-> In this case, the EPP is satisfied by the fronted quotative clause whereas the PF
adjacency condition is satisfied by the subject in situ.
(36) a. "Where to?" asked the driver of the passenger.
b.*"Where to?" asked of the passenger the driver.
(37) a. "Where to?" asked of us the driver with the blond hair.
b. "John left," whispered to Joan the woman sitting at the end of the counter.
(38) a. "Mary has already eaten," said ?he/?I/*me/*him.
b. "Mary has already left," says/*say John.
c. "Mary has already left," say/*says the two men.
(39) a. "I finally quit this job," John murmured happily.
b.
murmured John happily.
c.
?happily murmured John.
d.
*murmured happily John.
6. Remaining Issues
<Hypothesis I> The EPP holds only for the Spec of T that is dominated by a phase
head C.
- The EPP feature in ECM and control cases?:
(40) a. John believes there to have been an earthquake.
b. *John believes to have been an earthquake.
(41) a. John believes it to be likely that Mary will win.
b. *John believes to be likely that Mary will win.
-> the Inverse Case filter: believe needs to get its uninterpretable –features checked.
(cf. Abe (1997), Bokovi (2002))
or the ECM constitutes CP, so that the EPP is at work.
5
(42) a. *John tried to seem that …
b. *John tried to be likely to be somebody coming to his talk.
-> OC cases may be reduced to raising cases a la Hornstein (1999, 2001)
-> NOC cases may be analyzed as involving operator movement a la Lebeaux
(1984)
(cf. Abe 2009)
#See Sigurdsson (2008) for the anti-EPP effect of PRO infinitives; for instance, no SF
takes place in such infinitives in Icelandic (see also Holmberg (2000, fn. 12)).
7. Where Does the EPP Feature Reside?
(43) a. Who will John visit?
b. I wonder who John will visit.
-> Goto (2008) claims that the C-to-T inheritance does not take place in the matrix
wh-question.
- Sprouting theory:
<Hypothesis I> T-feature and EPP-feature constitute a sprouting feature complex. The
EPP feature creates a “subject” and the T-feature delimits the boundary between the
subject and its predicate.
<Hypothesis II> T-feature resides originally in the phase head C and activates
EPP-feature.
(44) I wonder [CP whoi C [TP John will visit ti]
-> T-feature as well as –features are inherited from C to T.
(45) [CP whoi will [TP e twill [vP John visit ti]]]
-> T-feature as well as –features are not inherited.
-> T-to-C movement takes place to materialize T-feature.
-> The EPP does not operate on the Spec-TP, but in order to satisfy the PF
adjacency requirement, John needs to raise to the Spec-TP.
(46) a.?*Who will initially/probably John visit?
b.checkWho initially/probably will John visit?
<Hypothesis III> In German and Dutch, the EPP-feature comes with X-feature, unlike
English, in which only wh-feature hosts EPP.
#It seems to be the case that in such a language, an expletive is inserted into the
Spec-CP.
6