Specified subject condition
The Specified Subject Condition is a condition proposed in Chomsky which restricts the application of certain syntactic transformational grammar rules. In many ways it is a counterpart to the Tensed-S Condition, applying to non-finite clauses and complex determiner phrases which are not covered by the TSC. The rule was formalized as follows, where a "specified subject" is a lexical subject i.e. a subject with semantic content, like a proper noun, a complex DP, or a pronominal:
Specified Subject Condition
“No rule can involve X, Y in the structure
... X... ...
where Z is the specified subject of WYV in α.”
The SSC therefore had implications for the field which later became known as binding theory. In conjunction with a simple rule of disjoint reference, co-reference is acceptable in the following sentences, because the SSC blocks application of this disjoint reference rule:
The TSC would not block disjoint reference in and, hence the need for the SSC. Replacing the pronouns in and with reciprocals shows how the SSC blocks the application of each movement, hence the impossibility of the reciprocals referring back to "The footballers" in and :
Notice that when the DP-internal subject is removed, each movement is not blocked from applying:
An empirical problem for the SSC is the failure of disjoint reference to apply in a sentence like, where there is no specified subject blocking its application:
The SSC also made correct predictions for certain binding data with respect to control verbs. The notion of "specified subject" needs to be nuanced to include PRO with respect to an antecedent which does not control it; however, PRO is not a specified subject with respect to an antecedent which does control it. In the case of an object control verb like "persuade" therefore, we predict the following pattern:
In PRO is a specified subject with respect to "we" ; the SSC therefore applies to this sentence and each movement from "we" to "other" is blocked. Similarly, in, PRO is a specified subject for "we", thus blocking disjoint reference, so that "we" can corefer with "us" in the non-finite clause. In, PRO is not a specified subject for "us", allowing each movement from "us" to "other"; similarly in, disjoint reference between "us" in the matrix clause and "us" in the non-finite clause is not blocked by a specified subject, because "us" in the matrix clause controls PRO.
Similar examples hold for subject control verbs like "persuade": *Theyi promised Billj vs Billj promised themi , and subject raising verbs like "seem": *Theyi seem to Billj vs Wei seem to Billj .
The way the SSC accounted for binding as well as movement phenomena, was influential for much subsequent research which tried to reduce binding and movement to the same set of principles. The subsequent binding conditions A and B of Chomsky essentially replaced the SSC, and it is no longer a part of the toolkit of current researchers.