Polish equatives as symmetrical structures 85
In (40) it is the pronoun ty ‘you’ that moves to [Spec, TP] and hence controls φ-feature
agreement with the verb. Following Moro (2000), we assume that, in symmetrical
structures like ‘bare’ small clauses, either DP can be internally merged with the ‘BSC’,
supply it with the label, undergo Agree with T and ultimately move to [Spec, TP]. This
assumption makes it necessary to posit for the ‘reversed’ sentences, such as (40), the
following structure:
(41)
T′T vPDPDPti jaTPDPv‘BSC’ti DP DPjesteśtoTyiIn (41) it is the first DP that moves to [Spec, TP], not the second one as in (38), but
otherwise the two representations are identical.^23
Another problem with Pereltsvaig’s analysis concerns case-marking. For her,
as has been stated in Section 5.1, both DPs get their nominative case by default.
This, however, has unfavourable consequences for her account, as she is forced to
adopt a different understanding of the EPP from the one currently maintained.
Let us recall that she claims, after Chomsky (1995), that T has an uninterpretable
D-feature which is eliminated once the referential expression is merged in [Spec,
TP]. In the more recent version of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 2000, 2008),
the EPP is taken to represent an EPP-feature (or EF) of T, which, nonetheless, can-
not be satisfied independently, but depends on T having established Agree with the
DP that subsequently moves to [Spec, TP] in order to erase the EPP (EF) feature of
T (there-expletive structures constitute an exception to the claim that movement
into [Spec, TP] is dependent on Agree, as in this type of structure T undergoes
φ-feature and case agreement with the associate of the expletive, whereas it is the
- For Kayne (1994), the LCA operates in syntax, but for Chomsky (1995) it represents a
purely PF-requirement.