Draw D-structure trees for:

1. Does it seem that Donny is likely to be kissed?
2. Does it seem to be likely that Donny was kissed?
   
3. Does Donny seem to be likely to be kissed?
   
4. Does that Donny was kissed seem to be likely?
   
5. Does it seem that that Donny was kissed is likely?

Is it the case that --- except for tense --- these sentences all have the same D-structure?

Draw the theta grids for:

1. [_CP Donny_i [_T [+PAST] ] [_V be + en_j ] [_VP kiss t_i]] (one predicate: kiss)

   kiss	Agent DP Theme DP j i

2. [_CP it seem [_CP-k that Donny_i is likely [_CP-l t_i [_T to ] [_V be + en_j ] [_VP kiss t_i]]_l]_k] (three predicates: seem, is likely, kiss)

What rules out the following ungrammatical sentences? Be specific. If it's the case filter, say what DP doesn't get case; if it's the theta-criterion, say what role of what predicate is left unfilled, or what argument of what predicate does not receive a role; if it's the EPP, say what clause lacks a subject; if it's the Minimal Link Condition, say what movement violates MLC and what target site has been skipped. If more than one principle is violated, identify them all.

1. * Does it seem to be likely [_CP Donny_i to have been kissed t_i]?
   Case filter violation: Donnie does not have case because despite having undergone Passive movement, it is still the subject of a non finite clause and cannot receive Nominative case.
2. * Donnie was kissed Sue.
   1. Case filter violation: Sue cannot get case because en has robbed kiss of the ability to assign accusative case.
   2. Θ-Criterion violation: Donnie can't receive a Θ-role because en has absorbed the Agent-role of kiss.
3. * Donnie_i seems [_CP t_i to be likely [_CP that t_i was kissed t_i]]?
   Unmotivated movement. Donnie has moved 3 times, leaving 3 traces. The first movement was motivated by the need to get case. But since [_TP Donnie was kissed t] is tensed, the second movement was unmotivated. In fact with the 3rd movement Donnie receives case twice, which is never legitimate.
4. * Donnie_i seems [_CP that it is likely [_CP t_i to be kissed t_i]]?
   Either of two possibilities:
   1. A minimal link violation because Donnie has moved 2 clauses up without stopping, skipping an EPP site, Spec of the TP [ _ is likely [ t_i to be kissed t_i]]
   2. An unmotivated movement, because if Donnie lands in Spec of the TP [ _ is likely [ t_i to be kissed t_i]], further movement is unnecessary, since it can receive case there. Furthermore, after that unmotivated movement expletive-it has been inserted over a trace, which is an unmotivated expletive it insertion, since a trace already satisfies the EPP.
5. * It seems [_CP that Donnie_i is likely [_CP it to be kissed t_i]]? (assume the it is a dummy it.)
   Either of two answers
   1. Donnie moves directly to Spec of the TP [ _ is likely [ t_i to be kissed t_i]]
      1. A minimal link violation: because Donnie has skipped Spec of the TP [ t_i to be kissed t_i] in moving.
      2. Case-filter violation: Expletive it-insertion then incurs a case-filter violation.
   2. Donnie moves first to Spec of TP [ t_i to be kissed t_i] and then to Spec of the TP [ _ is likely [ t_i to be kissed t_i]]
      1. Unnecessary expletive-it insertion. Expletive it has been inserted over a trace.
      2. Case-filter violation: Expletive it insertion then incurs a case-filter violation.

Do clauses need case? The following example provides an argument. Explain:

1. It seems that John left is likely.
2. * It seems that John left to be likely.
3. That John left seems to be likely.

Why is the following example a problem for the theory that clauses need case (Note: Assume that adjectives can't assign case)

It seems to be likely that John left.

Q:

Why can't there be subject-to-object raising with one-argument propositional verbs (the way there is with 2-argument believe)? John believes [CP Mary to be a fool] ⇒ John believes Mary [CP t to be a fool] Here Mary gets Accusative case by jumping out of the downstairs CP. If there were subject-object raising with one-argument verbs, then we would see something like: It seems John [t to be a fool] But we don't. Hint: Think about Burzio's Generalization (Chapter 10).