Li and Thomson (1976) propose that English is a subject prominent language. In this paper, however, I propose that English makes use of both subject-predicate and topic-comment structures. More precisely, there are three types of clausal structure in English: subject-predicate, topic-comment, and a combination of both. This is on the basis of the syntactic patterns of preposed PPs. In English there are three types of preposed PPs: referential PPs, locational PPs, and directional PPs. This paper shows that Referential PP Inversion is a Subject- Predicate construction, Directional PP Inversion is a Topic-Comment construction, and Locational PP Inversion is a combination of both.

Quantifier floating (Q-floating) displays interesting asymmetries in English. First of all, there is a subject/object asymmetry. The subject permits Q-floating, whereas the object does not. However, if the object is followed by a predicative constituent, Q-floating can be permitted. In this case, there is another subject/object asymmetry. If the object is followed by a constituent that bears a predication relation with it, Q-floating is permitted, If, on the other hand, the object is accompanied by a constituent that bears a predication relation with the subject, Q-floating is not permitted. This paper shows that the various types of asymmetries follow if (i) Q-floating is licensed when A-movement takes place (Sportiche 1988), (ii) object can move to SPEC-V (Chomsky (2008, 2013, 2015), but in simple transitive constructions raising of the object to SPEC-V is prohibited by an anti-locality condition, and (iii) the movement theory of control is correct (Hornstein 1999, 2001).

Chomsky (2007, 2008, 2013) proposes that T has no substantial features and it inherits all the relevant grammatical features from C. More specifically, in the C-to-T feature inheritance approach T does not have its own inherent Case feature and inherits the nominative Case feature from C. This claim can be supported if there is a C-less finite TP and the subject of the TP cannot be assigned Case by T in the construction. In this paper I propose that there is indeed a construction in which C-less TP occurs and the there-construction is a case in point. Furthermore, this paper shows that the subject of the C-less TP cannot be assigned Case within the TP projection, providing empirical evidence for the C-to-T feature inheritance approach.

Binding Conditions A and B are quite useful generalizations, but they raise many fundamental questions such as 'why must an anaphor be bound within a local domain, but not outside of it?', and 'why does a pronominal obey an almost opposite constraint?' and 'how is the local domain defined?'. This article explores the possibility of providing answers to those fundamental questions by assuming that binding conditions have both lexical and syntactic aspects. I claim that self is a reflexive predicate that requires its two arguments to be co-indexed, whereas a non-reflexive predicate like like requires its two arguments not to be co-indexed.