The EPP and the Subject Condition under Sluicing

1 Introduction

The Extended Projection Principle (EPP), first formulated by Chomsky (1981), is a topic of continuing interest. On its original conception, the EPP requires that a clause have a subject. Chomsky (1995) later suggested instead that the EPP reduces to a strong feature of a functional head high in the clause structure, combined with a PF-based generalized pied-piping requirement. Most recently, Chomsky (2000, 2001a,b) has rejected feature-based movement in favor of a relation of long-distance agreement, Agree. On this conception, the EPP has nothing to do with feature checking in the sense of Chomsky (1995). Rather, in a return to Chomsky's (1981) earlier view, it is the requirement that certain functional heads must have a specifier.

In this squib, we provide evidence in favor of Chomsky's (2000, 2001a,b) and Lasnik's similar (2001a) approach to the EPP, by examining PP-extraction from the subject in the sluicing construction of English. We begin by reviewing Merchant's (2001) discussion of extraction from the subject in the merger type of sluicing construction. We then examine PP extraction out of the subject in the sprouting type of sluicing construction and discuss implications for the formulation of the EPP.

2 Subjects in Situ and Covert Phrasal A-Movement

As is well known, extraction is prohibited out of the subject of a passive or unaccusative verb as well as the subject of a transitive or unergative verb, as in (1a-b).

(1)

1. a. *Which Marx brother₁ did she say [a biography of t₁] {is going to be published/will appear} this year?

2. b. *Which Marx brother1 did she say that a biographer of t₁] {interviewed her/worked for her}?

As noted by Chung, Ladusaw, and McCloskey (1995) and Merchant (2001), however, IP-ellipsis under sluicing ameliorates violations of the Subject Condition, as in (2a-b).

(2)

1. a. A biography of one of the Marx brothers is going to be published this year—guess which (Marx brother).

2. b. A biographer of one of the Marx brothers interviewed her, but I don't remember which (Marx brother).

Merchant (2001) suggests that the redemptive effects of sluicing in (2a-b) obtain because the "surviving" wh-phrases of the sluices in (2a-b) are extracted from within VP-internal positions as in (3a-b) rather than from within Spec,IP positions as in (4a-b).

1. 3.

   1. a. which (Marx brother)₁ [_IP ——— is going to be published [a biography of t₁] this year]

   2. b. which (Marx brother)₁ [_IP ——— [[a biographer of t₁] interviewed her]]

2. 4.

   1. a. which (Marx brother)₁ [_IP [a biography of t₁] is going to be published this year]

   2. b. which (Marx brother)₁ [_IP [a biographer of t₁] interviewed her]

The grammatical sluices (= the embedded question clauses) in (2a-b) are then assimilated to the corresponding grammatical examples in (5a-b), where wh-extraction is launched from within base positions of logical "subjects." The latter examples contrast with the ungrammatical examples in (6a-b), where wh-extraction takes place from within derived Spec,IP positions.

1. 5.

   1. a. Which candidate₁ were there [posters of t₁] all over town?

   2. b. Which candidate₁ did they say it was hard [to get t₁ to agree to a debate]?

2. 6.

   1. a. *Which candidate1 were [posters of t₁] all over town?

   2. b. *Which candidate₁ did they say [to get t₁ to agree to a debate] was hard?

This analysis has consequences for our discussion, as the EPP is apparently violated in (3a-b). This violation can, Merchant suggests, be overcome under a version of Chomsky's (1995:chap. 4) formulation of the EPP. Suppose that the EPP is instantiated by a strong D-feature in I, where strong means that the feature is uninterpretable at the PF interface and hence must be checked before Spell-Out. Normally, the feature is checked by overt movement to Spec,IP. However, when the offending feature is part of an elided constituent, the absence of the associated checking movement should not...