Movement of the ECMed Dps

Movement of the ECMed Dps

This paper aims at providing Minimalist answers to the following questions with respect to ECM constructions: (I) Does an ECMed DP undergo overt RTO? (2) Is RTO optional or obligatory? (3) How can the apparent optional RTO across CP boundary in languages like Korean be accounted for? As for the first question, I have argued for overt RTO on the basis of the higher clause status of the ECMed subject wit binding and licensing of negative polarity items, superiority effects and pseudogapping phenomena. As for the second question, [ have critically reviewed Lasnik's (1999) argument for optional RTO and argued that RTO is obligatory. As for the third question, [ have argued that an ECMed DP in the higher clause merges in the embedded [Spec,CP] as a topic and undergoes RTO via detopcalzation/focalization. As for the intra-CP Case alternation, 1 have assumed that the accusative Case-marked subject merges in the embedded [Spec,TP] undergoing movement to the embedded [Spec,CP] via focalization, whereas the nominative Case-marked subject merges in the embedded [Spec,vP] undergoing movement to [Spec,TP] for EPP satisfaction. The proposed account has the merit of analyzing the ECMed DP as a derived focus, be it in the higher clause or in the embedded one, providing ECM and RTO with a motivation, i.e., focalization.