8/10/2019 SyntaxII.8.MPLT-1

1/6

8/10/2019 SyntaxII.8.MPLT-1

2/6

8/10/2019 SyntaxII.8.MPLT-1

3/6

8/10/2019 SyntaxII.8.MPLT-1

4/6

8/10/2019 SyntaxII.8.MPLT-1

5/6

8/10/2019 SyntaxII.8.MPLT-1

6/6

Binding theory looks like a SS condition:

(10) a. You said he liked [the pictures that John took]

b. [how many pictures that John took] did you say he liked t?

c. who [tsaid he liked [how many pictures that John took]] ?

Idea: Principle C applies to (10); hec-commandsJohnand so hecant beJohn.

In (10a) everything is in its original position (more or less), Principle C applies.

In (10b),Johnhas moved out as part of the wh-phrase; Pr. C no longer applies.

In (10c),Johnis inside an in-situ wh-phrase, assumed to move at LF.

The LF representation of (10c) should be a lot like (10b), if all wh-

phrases

have to move to SpecCP by LF. So since Principle C applies to

(10c)

but not (10b), it must be that Principle C does notapply at LF, and

cares only about SS.

But waitwhy do we believe that the whole wh-phrase has to moveto SpecCP at LF? Why not just the how manypart (the wh-part).

If thats true, then we would expect (10c) to be ruled out by

Principle

C, even at LF.

So we at least dont needSS for allBinding Theory cases.