1.3.1 Categorial features
Other features that have been proposed include [±N] and [±V], first suggested by Chomsky (1970). The ‘N’ and ‘V’ used in these features obviously do not stand for noun and verb as these categories are to be defined by these features. However, the fact that nouns are categorised as being [+N] and verbs as [+V] indicates that these features are meant to have something to do with these categories. To some extent, it is irrelevant what the features ‘mean’. The important point is which categories share which features and hence have something in common and which have different features and hence are distinguished. From this perspective we could have used features such as [±1] and [±2].
188.8.131.52 D-structure and Theta Theory
Turning to D-structure first, an important consideration which has been present in all developments of this concept, first proposed by Noam Chomsky in the 1950s, is that D-structure positions are somehow basic. For example, in a passive sentence, what sits in the subject position at S-structure is interpreted as the object of the verb and hence is assumed to occupy the object position at D-structure:
5.3.1 The auxiliary as a dummy
What is the nature of the two parts of each aspectual elements, the auxiliary and its associated morpheme? A classic analysis dating back to Chomsky (1957) is that the auxiliary and its morpheme are inserted into a structure as one element and then the morpheme is ‘hopped’ backwards onto the following verbal element:
7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion
This is a puzzle for which I have no real account. Apparently it is a very general condition that a CP can contain either an overt operator or an overt complementiser. We will see that this extends to other clauses too. Moreover, it appears not to be violated by an auxiliary moving to C. The condition has been known as the Doubly Filled COMP Filter since (1977) when it was introduced by Chomsky and Lasnik. However, this stipulatory account has never been superseded by anything more explanatory. I will therefore adopt the Doubly Filled COMP Filter as a condition on the well-formedness of structures in lieu of a proper explanation:
One possible solution to both these problems would be to claim that PRO doesn’t avoid Case positions per se, but has to sit in special Case positions which up to now have been assumed not to be Case-marked, but in fact might be assigned a special Case, applicable only for PRO. Chomsky and Lasnik (1989) proposed that PRO must sit in special Case marked positions. They argue that the subjects of certain non-finite clauses are not Caseless but that what they term ‘Null Case’ is assigned to them. Only PRO can bear Null Case and Null Case is the only Case that PRO can bear. Thus PRO will not be able to sit where overt DPs go as these will be Case marked with something other than Null Case. Moreover no overt DP can sit in a position in which it would be assigned Null Case as this is not ‘strong’ enough to satisfy the Case Filter. The good thing about this assumption is that it predicts complementary distribution between overt DPs and PRO but does not force us to assume that PRO can occupy any position in which we cannot find an overt DP. From this perspective, then, PRO cannot sit in a position to which no Case is assigned, as in (73).