Syntax 2 Squib:

Assuming the Raising-to-Object analysis of ECM (Bošković, 1997; Lasnik, 1999a, 1999b; Lasnik & Saito, 1991; Postal, 1974), this raises a problem for recent minimalist accounts of Subjacency (e.g., Davies & Dubinsky, 2003; Uriagereka, 1999) that tries to derive the Subject Condition effect in (1), since the DP that receives Accusative Case in (2b) is essentially raised from the embedded clause subject position, hence (in principle) having properties that should be susceptible to Subject Condition. For example, Nunes & Uriagereka (2000) and Uriagereka’s (1999) Multiple Spell-Out account of Subjacency derives Subject Condition by a linearization requirement (cf. Kayne, 1994) that constituents that merge in derived positions (i.e., specifiers and adjuncts) must be pre-linearized. This analysis predicts that once a DP enters a derivation as a subject in the embedded clause, that DP is already linearized and hence should not allow sub-extraction from it at any later stage in the derivation.