ORIGINS OF PHRASE STRUCTURE

By Timothy Stowell 1981 Commented [RME1]: VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis was

Chapter 3 (pages 141-147)
No verb ever assigns case to its PP complements. In fact, there is a lot of evidence which suggest
that PPs must not be assigned Case. Specifically, PP may never appear at S-structure in a case-marked
position, even if it a plausible argument.
postulated in the 1990s (the concise Oxford Dictionary of
Linguistics); thus this paper presupposes that Subject
originate in Inflection (Subject position); that is why the
Subject postposing is needed.

15) theta roles may only be assigned to A-positions which are associated with PRO or Case.
The Case Resistance Principle (CRP): case may not be assigned to a category bearing a Case-
assigning feature.
We might view the Case features and the Case-assigning features as being “resistant” to each other.
Chapter 4.2. (pages 267-)

If the subject position is assigned Case, then the appearance of 𝑆̅ or a PP in this position at S-Structure
violates the CRP; if the position is not assigned Case then an argument appearing there cannot satisfy
the “visibility” condition on theta-role assignment, and the theta criterion is violated.

This type of account implies that 𝑆̅ and PP ought to be able to occur in the subject position at D-
Structure, provided that they move out of this position in the mapping from D-Structure to S-
Structure, either by virtue of Topicalization or it-extraposition.
Chapter 3 fn. 43.
i. Under the stars is a nice place to sleep.
ii. Is under the stars a nice place to sleep.
These PP subjects appear to be strictly limited to copular constructions, suggesting that some special
property of the copula permits nominative case to be absorbed or assigned to the postverbal position.
Reconstruction: In generative syntax, reconstruction is an operation proposed in Chomsky (1977)
in the derivation of LF from S-structure, which returns material pied-piped by wh-movement to the
extraction site so as to derive an operator-variable chain headed by the wh-operator itself.
Suppose that Reconstruction can take a PP from a non-A-position to any A-position with which it is
coindexed, subject to independent principles such as those relating to Case and theta-role assignment.
Then, if a Topicalised PP were coindexed with some other A-position in addition to the Case-marked
subject position, Reconstruction need not result in a CRP violation and the structure ought to be
possible.
Locative Inversion: a subcategorized PP moves into an empty subject position that has been vacated
by subject postposing. Topicalisation of the derived PP subject is obligatory, so a trace appears in
subject position at S-structure. Examples:
a. Into the room walked my brother Jack
b. On the table was put a valuable book
c. Down the stairs fell the baby.

PPj [S [𝑒𝑗𝑖 ][VP[V’V[ei]NPi]]]

After subject postposing applies, the subject position is an empty category; the PP complement is
not assigned case; it is therefore permitted to move to the subject position provided that the VP-
adjoined position is interpreted as a theta-role position for the external subject argument.
Chapter 3. fn. 39. It is not crucial to assume that the true subject position is the theta-role position,
since the position for the external subject theta-role may be left indeterminate. Then either the true
subject position or the VP adjoined might be count as the theta-position.
Since the topic is a PP reconstruction must apply, but the PP is co-indexed with two A-positions,
only one which is assigned case. Therefore, the PP returns to the original theta-position in VP, and
the CRP is not violated.
All the verbs in (a-c) subcategorize for PP complements, which must appear at V’ at D-Structure. My
brother Jack walked into the room, was put a valuable book on the table…
The extraposition of the subject is non-controversial. The PP locative construction shares the same
external distribution of Topic constructions.
The trace of subject postposing has no Governor at S-Structure and the derivation is ruled out. But
the sentences of (a-c) are grammatical so that no violation of the ECP is involved. If the PP has
moved through the empty position vacated by the postposed subject, it will be co-indexed with its
trace in subject position, and proper government will obtain. Long extraction produces the that-trace
effect.