Putting the X on TH/EX

In this discussion, I am concerned with the argument presented in Chomsky (1999, 15-21) that a specific movement rule, which he labels TH/EX for ‘thematisation/extraposition,’ is properly located in the phonological component of a grammar of English. This is a provocative proposal, not least because it raises interesting questions of implementation. Additionally, it has the consequence that, in a restricted sense, phonological properties play a role in narrow syntax, a consequence that ‘modifies slightly the standard assumption’ (19) that such a role is non-existent. I hope to do two things. First, I am concerned to set out the argument as clearly as possible. This is a non-trivial task, as Chomsky writes with a familiar paucity of concessions to the reader. Second, I shall try to show that, in a surprisingly direct way, acceptance of Chomsky’s conclusions yields consequences that are straightforwardly unacceptable. For the most part, I shall not raise questions about the correctness of Chomsky’s claims about the data on which he bases his argument, seeking to reconstruct what he intends on the basis of the examples he cites. The argument centres on expletive constructions containing passive or unaccusative predicates, and the relevant paradigm is illustrated in (1):