Abstract Locative Inversion (LI) disallows subject–auxiliary inversion, sentential negation, sentential emphasis, and VP-ellipsis. This study argues that these distinctive properties stem from the weakness of T with respect to labelability. Chomsky (2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49, 2015. Problems of projection. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies, and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti , 1–16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing Company) suggests that DP-raising can resolve this weakness. I propose that T-movement provides an alternative resolution, and that the peculiar properties of LI constructions follow from the fact that only T-movement is available. Raising a DP to Spec-T allows T to be properly labeled, whereas T-movement removes the need for T to be labeled. If T fails to project a label, its uninterpretable feature cannot be deleted. Consequently, LI is incompatible with operations that depend on the deletion of this uninterpretable feature. Sentential negation, sentential emphasis, VP-ellipsis, and T-to-C movement all involve such deletion and are therefore incompatible with LI. This study extends the T-movement analysis to specificational copular constructions, the here-construction, and the so-aux-subject construction – all of which, like LI, disallow operations that require deletion of the uninterpretable feature on T. These constructions are topic–comment in nature, derived through T-to-Topic movement, and are more restricted than subject–predicate constructions, since the uninterpretable feature on T cannot be deleted in this configuration.
Kwang-sup Kim (Sat,) studied this question.