3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

But why would any of this mean that the sentence should be ungrammatical? Only with an extra assumption can we account for this properly: the pronoun subject needs a Case. One might think that this is fairly obvious as there is no Case neutral form of the pronoun: what form would it take if it occupied a Caseless position? However, the following observations seriously question the assumption that the ungrammaticalities in (87) have anything to do with Morphological case:

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

Having put this in place, we can see that the subject will not be able to be case marked in its original position as it is on the wrong side of the local light verb and too far from any other light verb that might have a Case to assign.

8.2.1 Raising

In a number of ways this is similar to the kinds of movements we have seen previously which take a DP from one position and move it to a subject position, such as the movement of the subject from the specifier of a VP or the movement of an object of a passive or unaccusative verb. Those kinds of movements, we saw, were motivated by the fact that the DP started off in a Caseless position and hence in order to satisfy the Case filter it had to move into a Case position. The subject of a finite clause is a Case position as this is where nominative Case is assigned to by the finite inflection. In (52a) we see a DP that is moved into the subject of a finite clause, and so it may be that this movement is also Case motivated. If this is so, we expect to find that the position it moves from is a Caseless position. Is this prediction accurate? Consider the relevant structure in a little more detail.