A–movement and the EPP

TL;DR: It is shown that in a number of constructions the EPP does not hold at all, and the requirement of successive cyclicity should not be tied to a property of intermediate heads, as in the feature–checking/filled–specifier requirement approach to successive Cyclicity, but to aproperty of the movement itself.

Abstract: The article argues that the EPP should be eliminated. It is shown that in a number of constructions the EPP does not hold at all. Where it does appear to hold, its effects follow from independent mechanisms of the grammar. EPP effects concerning the final landing site of A–movement follow from Case theory. Intermediate [Spec,IP]s are filled as a result of the requirement of successive cyclicity (i.e., locality); otherwise they remain empty, which is unexpected if the EPP were to hold. In particular, intermediate [Spec,IP]s remain empty in constructions involving expletive subjects, which I argue do not move at all. It is also argued that the requirement of successive cyclicity should not be tied to a property of intermediate heads, as in the feature–checking/filled–specifier requirement approach to successive cyclicity, but to a property of the movement itself.