Perspectives on Phases © 2004 Andrew Nevins Derivations without the Activity Condition*

2002) and remains for the moment axiomatic in phrase-marker construction. Feature-splitting, Agree, and the EPP allow for a range of derivational options that have been constrained by the Activity Condition (Chomsky 2001 et preq). The phenomenon of non-nominative subjects (including A-movement of structurally-Case marked elements) runs afoul of the activity condition. This paper explores the hypothesis that all derivational options ruled out by the activity condition can be ruled out by independent principles of locality and a constraint against multiple Case valuation. 1. Movement in a Post-Agree Landscape The major conclusion of this paper will be the proposal that the Activity Condition is not necessary nor desirable constraint on derivations. Prior to the discussion of the Activity Condition however, a few fundamental questions about the nature of displacement in syntax will be addressed and discussed at length. Why do DPs move from their theta position to a functional head F0? Two relatively uncontroversial answers used to be to check agreement features on F0, or to be assigned Case (which F0 can do)1. However, with the introduction of Agree, a feature-valuation operation “at a distance ” (i.e. under closest c-command), there is no need for actual movement (i.e. re-merger: creation of a new sisterhood relation) to accomplish feature valuation. Schematically, valuation of agreement features on Tense occur purely under Agree with the postverbal DP in (1): (1) There seem to be two fish in that tank (seem> 2, ? 2> seem) The associate, two fish, can’t be “moving at Logical Form ” since its scope with respect to the intensional verb would have to be obligatorily wide in that case