Movement to Spec IP3 Movement to Spec IP
Up to this point we have been assuming that the subject of the clause originates fairly
low in the clause, inside the VP or a vP just above it. We have said this DP will move
from its original position to the specifier of IP to get Case and thus avoid a Case Filter
violation which would render the sentence ungrammatical. Two aspects of this
analysis are in need of elaboration. First it must be accounted for that the subject’s
original position is a Caseless one and second it must be established exactly where in
the complex clause structure we have been arguing for the subject moves to and why
this is a Case position.
Let us start with the case of a simple transitive verb so that we can compare the
situation of the subject and object:
(58) IP
- I'
I vP
will v'
v vP
∆ DP v'
Boris v VP
e DP V'
Ivan V
beat
We have said that the light verb which is responsible for assigning the -role to the
subject is responsible for assigning Case to the object. This seems to be the locus of
Burzio’s generalisation that verbs which assign a subject -role assign an accusative
Case. Hence the object is in a Case marked position and need not move away in order
to get Case. Consider the subject: why is it not in a Case position? Note that the verbal
element above the subject, the tense in this case, does not assign any -roles and hence
its specifier position is empty at D-structure. Clearly this is unlike the light verb. We
may propose therefore that tense is not an accusative Case assigning head. But why
doesn’t the light verb assign Case to its subject? One might attempt to answer this by
claiming that the light verb has to assign Case to the object and assuming that
accusative Case can only be assigned to one place. While this seems reasonable, it
doesn’t explain why the light verb taking an intransitive verb does not assign Case to
its subject: