86 Anna Bondaruk
expletive itself, equipped with just a 3rd person feature, that moves to satisfy the
EPP-feature of T). However, even in the earlier version of the Minimalist Pro-
gram that Pereltsvaig adheres to, T is unable to attract just any DP to its specifier,
but only the one whose nominative case feature it has checked. Consequently, her
separating movement to [Spec, TP] from checking the features of the moved DP
in Russian equatives is far from being orthodox, whichever approach to the EPP
one adopts. In our analysis, the DP which is internally merged with the ‘BSC’ (cf.
(38) and (41) above) is the one which undergoes Agree with T, whereby it has its
nominative case valued and it itself values the φ-features of T, and subsequently
moves to [Spec, TP] to satisfy the EPP (EF) feature of T. As for the second DP in
the ‘BSC’, we have suggested above that it does not enter Agree with T. Since v lacks
a case feature altogether (cf. Section 3.1 above), it cannot value the case feature
of the DP, either. Consequently, following Mikkelsen’s (2005) proposal for Eng-
lish copular clauses, we suggest that the second DP gets default case at Spell-out.
The default case is not treated here as just a morphological case, along the lines
of Schütze (2001), but rather we follow Mikkelsen (2005: 170), for whom default
case is associated with an unvalued case feature in the syntax. When the DP with
an unvalued case feature reaches Spell-Out without having its case feature valued,
then it is associated with the default case value, which in Polish corresponds to the
nominative.
The final questionable issue in Pereltsvaig’s analysis concerns the motivation
for movement of the DP in symmetrical structures. The crucial point is that in her
account, although she openly denies it, the movement of the DP is not triggered by
purely syntactic means, but depends to some extent on the LCA as well, just like in
Moro (1997, 2000). In our analysis, either DP can move, yielding the so-called ‘non-
reversed’ and ‘reversed’ sentences, as has just been argued. As was mentioned above,
the motivation for the movement of either DP is the same; first, the DP moves to
supply the ‘BSC’ with a label and, subsequently, to satisfy the EPP (EF)-feature of T.
It seems that the fact that the movement of either DP in symmetrical structures takes
place in the syntax, but not at PF, is supported by the interpretive effects that the move-
ment of a DP from within a symmetrical structure has. This fact comes to light when
we analyse the following sentence:(42) My wszyscy to nie (jesteśmy) wy.
we.nom all cop not be.pres 1 pl you.pl.nom
‘All of us are not you.’In (42) the quantifier wszyscy ‘all’, modifying the moved DP can scope under or above
negation, yielding the following two interpretations: ‘all of us are not you’ (all > not),
or ‘not all of us are you’ (not > all), which clearly indicates that the movement of the