80 Anna Bondaruk
Pereltsvaig notes that the symmetrical structure in (32) does not result from adjunc-
tion, as adjunction typically yields an asymmetrical structure. She argues that Merge
can produce symmetrical structures such as the DP in (32) above. In contradistinc-
tion to Moro (2000), for whom the symmetrical structure generated by Merge has
no syntactic label to start with (cf. Section 5.2), Pereltsvaig argues that the label of a
symmetrical structure is the same as the label of the two symmetrically merged lexi-
cal items. Consequently, in (32) the merger of the two DPs results in a symmetrical
structure whose label is a DP. The symmetrical structure must then be converted onto
an asymmetrical one in order to be linearised at PF in accordance with Kayne’s (1994)
LCA. For Pereltsvaig, the symmetry in structures such as (32) is broken up as a result
of the movement of either of the two DPs, in contradistinction to Moro (1997, 2000),
for whom the necessity to break up the symmetry is the motivation behind the move-
ment itself. In Pereltsvaig’s model, movement of the DP is triggered by the EPP feature
of T, understood as the D-feature of T, and as a result of this movement the initial sym-
metry is broken up.^19 In other words, in Pereltsvaig’s model the linearisation problem
does not trigger the DP movement, but is solved thanks to this movement, which has
a purely syntactic trigger.
Pereltsvaig notes that copular sentences with the structure in (32) cannot involve
a predicational relation between the two DPs, but instead they have an equative (or
identity) interpretation. In other words, “a ‘bare’ copular sentence is true if and only if
the referent of the pre-copular DP and that of post-copular DP are identical” (Perelts-
vaig 2001: 183). She further notes that a structure such as (32) is only possible when
the two DPs have identical feature bundles, which forces their co-indexation in the
syntax, underlying their co-reference. For her, indexation of the two DPs in sentences
such as (31) follows from the following two facts: (1) indices are features (after Fiengo
& May 1994), and (2) the two elements in the symmetrical structure must have the
same feature bundles. The co-indexation of the two DPs is, in itself, not unproblematic,
as it leads to a violation of Principle C in cases such as (31). To prevent this, Pereltsvaig
resorts to a modified definition of binding, according to which no binding violation
takes place if the two DPs are in a mutual c-command relation. The exact formulation
of the modified definition of binding is provided in (33) (Pereltsvaig 2001: 191):
(33) Binding (revised definition)
α binds β iff
(i) α and β are coindexed; AND
(ii) at least one copy of α c-commands at last one copy of β;AND
(iii) the lowest copy of α and the lowest copy of β do not mutually
c-command each other.- Although in the structure reproduced after Pereltsvaig (2001) in (32) it is the second DP
that moves, she openly states that either DP can move from within a symmetrical structure.