84 Anna Bondaruk
the structure is the same as in (34). We would like to argue that in (38) only the DP that
is internally merged with the ‘bare’ small clause can be targeted by the probe T, as it is
closer to T. Distance is calculated in terms of c-command, not in terms of equidistance
(contrary to the suggestion made by one of the reviewers), in accordance with Chom-
sky’s (1995: 311) Minimal Link Condition, reproduced in (39) below:(39) Minimal Link Condition
a. The Probe P undergoes Agree with the Goal G when there is no closer
potential Goal G’.
b. G’ is a closer Goal than G if G is c-commanded by G’.In (38), the DP ja ‘I’ has moved to supply the ‘BSC’ with the label and from this posi-
tion it c-commands the other DP ty ‘you’. Therefore, in accordance with the Minimal
Link Condition in (39), it becomes a closer goal for T than the other DP. Conse-
quently, the DP ty ‘you’ is a more distant goal than the pronoun ja ‘I’ and hence, it
cannot enter into Agree with T. Since no Multiple Agree applies in equatives like (38),
no PCC-effect can be attested in them. In this way we have accounted for the lack of
the PCC-effect in Polish equatives.
The question that arises in relation to the derivation sketched in (38) concerns the
motivation for the movement of the DP from within the ‘BSC’. Let us recall that follow-
ing Moro, we assume that ‘BSCs’ are structures without a label and, as such, cannot be
computed, e.g. undergo further Merge (Chomsky 2013 actually rejects this contention,
and claims that syntactic objects need a label to be interpreted at the interfaces). There-
fore, ‘BCSs’ must obtain their label and the only option for this to take place seems to
be the movement or Internal Merge of the category that has a label, i.e. one of the DPs.
For Moro, both Merge and Move can have an effect upon solving the labelling prob-
lem of unlabelled structures. Moro (2006: 3) further notes that External Merge always
affects two labelled elements, whereas Internal Merge can apply to unlabelled syntactic
objects. He justifies this difference by saying that External Merge takes place to sat-
isfy some form of categorial selection between two distinct objects, whereas Internal
Merge does not apply to any other categories than those that are already involved in the
derivation. This explains why a ‘BSC’, which is an unlabelled object, cannot externally
merge with the copula.
Both Pereltsvaig’s and Moro’s accounts predict that the first DP in (38) can also
move from within the symmetrical structure (cf. fn. 19), which is indeed the case, as
can be seen in (40), which is the ‘reversed’ variant of (3) above.
(40) Ty to (jesteś) ja.
you.nom cop are I.nom
‘You are me.’