The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

194
.
The strongest empirical support for the Op-movement analysis (i.e. for the A’-
movement which underlies it) is based on the subjacency effect attested in these
constructions (40) (for brevity, I illustrate it only for the English TC). (40a) is
grammatical, as the A’-movement of the Op proceeds successive cyclically. However,
in (40b) two bounding nodes (NP, IP) are crossed resulting in ungrammaticality
(Chomsky 1973): 29
(40) a. This book is easy for us [ CP Op i [ IP PRO to arrange for the committee
[ CP t i [ IP PRO to read t i ]]]]
b. *This book is easy for us [ CP Op i [ IP PRO to insist on [ NP/DP the
principle [ CP t i that [ IP the committee should read t i ]]]]]
Under the null hypothesis, the interpretation of object gap constructions is the
same across languages. As already mentioned, the interpretation of object gap
constructions (to be discussed in details in 5.5.) crucially involves the e variable of the
embedded constituent. Jumping ahead, in the TC, for instance, this e variable will be
shown to be modified by (identified with) the tough adjective, triggering complex AP
predicate formation.
As mentioned earlier, even if the CP is predicative (39), it cannot have an
unsaturated e variable; although the embedded verb has such a variable (Davidson
1967), it is bound by the tense operator associated with T (Higginbotham 1985). In
other words, a predicative CP is not a par with the embedded constituent in Hebrew
object gap constructions ( le NP) (see 5.3.1), but it should be.
It is important to note here that although it is common to take the Op-movement
analysis as obligatory consisting of the Op-movement and of a clausal complement
(CP), this is not the only possibility. One can argue against the clausal projection of
the embedded constituent, while maintaining the movement part of the analysis
(provided that an appropriate A’-position is supplied). This is, in fact, the proposal I
will argue for here.
More specifically, I will argue that to in English object gap constructions is not
an infinitival tense marker, inserted (or moving) into the tense-related head T. 30
29 In the Minimalist framework, a DP is a phase with no escape hatch, thus movement out of it is
impossible (Chomsky 2000, 2001).
30 For the movement of to into T (I) see Jones 1991.