This paper deals with the relation between filling the Spec position and the Extended Projection Principle(EPP). In Chomsky (1995), the EPP is a strong feature of a functional head causing the relevant feature and the residual constituent to raise. On the other hand, in the sense of Chomsky (2000), the EPP is the requirement that some functional heads must have a specifier. However, Bo kovi (2002) argues that the EPP should be eliminated. According to him, the "final EPP" follows from Case theory, and the "intermediate EPP" is filled as a result of the requirement of successive cyclicity (i.e., locality). In addition, Bo kovi (2002) claims that successive cyclicity should be required by a property of the movement itself, not by a property of intermediate heads. In this paper, we discuss whether those arguments against the EPP can be maintained or not in expletive constructions.

Dong-Whee Yang. 2003. Optionality, Output effects and the EPP. Studies in Modern Grammar 32, 43-68. This paper claims that optionality is part of the `optimal design` for natural language in the sense that it is bound to induce some `effect on outcome` which should also be some necessary part of natural language. Specifically, it is argued that the optionality in the Korean Case system, an `imperfection` in the minimalist sense, is justified as an `apparent imperfection` in terms of output effects, or Int effects (Chomsky 2000), which are shown to be two types: A-type and B-type. The A-type Int effects are `week` like specificity, definiteness, thematicity, etc., being interpreted at the canonical Specs, whereas the B-type Int effects are `strong` like focus, specialized semantic function. etc., being interpreted at the non-canonical Specs. The A-type Int effects are claimed to be due to lexically-posited EPP-features whereas the B-type Int effects are claimed to be due to derivationally-introduced EPP-features. Lexically-posited EPP-features are either obligatory or optional whereas derivationally-introduced EPP-features are only optional. It is shown that the interface strategy in terms of output Int effects is superior to Hiraiwa`s (2002) ф-over-ф generalization in the accounts for obligatoriness of the EPP-feature.

The `Extended Projection Principle` (EPP) has been a pervasive topic of research and a pervasive mystery since it was first formulated by Chomsky (1981). That initial formulation is not precise, but its intention is clear enough: The EPP (here called by Chomsky `principle P`) "is the structural requirement that certain configurations … must have subjects …" ［p.27］ Over the years since, its existence as an independent constraint has often been called into question, on the grounds that it is redundant with other principles, especially those concerning Case (by Fukui and Speas (1986) for example), or that it is literally unformulable given other theoretical desiderata (Epstein and Seely (1999)). I will review those arguments. I will also survey a range of phenomena involving infinitival constructions that provide strong empriical evidence for the EPP. In particular, I will show that in ECM constructions, while the ECM subject sometimes raises overtly to a canonical Case positon (Spec of AgrO), it also sometimes remains in embedded subject position, a position that it is in solely to satisfy the EPP (Lasnik (2001b)). The next question is just how the EPP is to be formulated. Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) argue that there are actually two different kinds of languages with respect to the EPP, those (like Greek) where X˚movement suffices versus those where only an XP can satisfy the EPP. I will examine English, a matter of strong feature checking, as in Chomsky (1995), or the requirement that certain functional heads require a specifier, as in Chomsky`s original version and the more recent one in Chomsky (2000). This question turns out to be surprisingly intricate, with arguments for the strong feature version (Merchant 92001), and against it (Lasnik (2001a)).

Sung - Hy uk Park . 2002 . T he Ex tended Projection Principle in the Minimali s t Prog ram . S t ud ie s in M od e rn Gram ma r 27, 1- 35 . The Extended Projection Principle (EPP ), which requires that clauses have subject s, has been playing a central role in Chomsky ' s generative grammar ever since it was proposed in Chomsky (1981, 1982). The EPP, however, shifts from a requirement on clausal structure to a requirement on feature checking in the Minimalist Program, i.e., a feature on the head T of TP. From its inception on to the present , the EPP has had a flavor of oddity in that it is not a principle of its own standing, despite it s name. In Chomsky ' s (1981, 1982) original formulation, the principle is incorporated into the clause- expanding phrase structure rule, whereas in the Minimalist Program, the EPP feature is assumed to be a feature of a feature. All in all, the EPP is largely stipulative and redundant, hence it may be suggested that the principle should be eliminated from the grammar . Proposals have been presented by quite a few syntacticians to derive the EPP effect from some independent principle(s ) and/or module(s) of the grammar . Among these proposals, Bo kovi (2001) seems to be the most promising one. His explanation of the so- called intermediate EPP effect, however, needs some qualification if it is to be true to the basic tenet of the Minimalist Program that every movement is feature- driven.

Sun-Woong Kim. 2001. A Study on the EPP in the Minimalist Program: the EPP as a PF Requirement. Studies in Modern Grammar 24, 47-66. The general aim of this paper is to explore the nature and role of the EPP within the Minimalist Program of generative grammar. This paper draws the conclusion that the EPP effect is captured by V to I head movement. Specifically, the EPP effect will be shown to be a side effect or epiphenomena of the head movement at PF (Chomsky 1999) plus an effect of configurationally defined θ-theory. This conclusion will be shown to remedy drawbacks of recent proposals of Kim (2000) and Jang (2000). This paper also attempts to reject the morphological feature checking approach to the EPP, whether it is a categorial feature checking or a Case feature checking. Furthermore, if head movement is a PF process, it can be concluded that the EPP effect is eventually a PF requirement that the Spec-T must be filled with some category that contains argumenthood in it. If the conclusions of this paper are on the right track, Lasnik`s (2000) doubt that only the EPP is configurational can be solved in a natural way.