A Way to Refute The EPP It is assumed that the EPP requires that a clause(≒TP) has a subject. I want to try to get rid of EPP from grammar, for example, a subject must move through Spec of a infinitival T in the raising construction such as (1), where t is the trace of a lion. (1) A lion seems [TP t to be in the park] However, when we consider the following examples, we find the assumption may not be right. (2) a. *Him to be dressed properly is important at the party. b. For him to be dressed properly is important at the party. To my knowledge, no one has been tried to refute the assumption of the EPP on the basis of the contrast in pair of sentences of (2). I do not know if a native speaker would accept this expression even though (2b) seems to be grammatical. However, I assert that a subject cannot occur in a configuration such as (2a). The contrast distribution of subjects in (2) may be attributed to the status of the clauses, which is TP in (2a) and CP in (2b). Chomsky (2008) argues that every operation is triggered by a phase head(i.e. C and v*). It means that T, either finite or non-finite, is not a phase head and cannot trigger any movement of syntactic objects. I strongly believe that why a subject cannot occur in (2a) is because of TP status of that clause. So (2a) implies that TP without C cannot have a subject in it. One may say that the principle of the shortest movement is not held, and that the presence of a subject before a verb in a finite clause is not predicted properly if EPP disappears completely in the theory of grammar. However, there is a way to solve these problems. Firstly, I will, by stipulation, assume that an Agree relation should be as small as possible, which means that the agreement between a subject and T needs to take place in the TP as the agreement between V and a object. Although V and a object are always introduced to a derivation as sisters in a tree, a subject is introduced into Spec of v* or complement of V, among others, so if Agree relation would be local, then it must raise to somewhere in TP―possible candidate is always Spec-TP because the complement position of T is filled by vP or v*P― in order to establish Agree relation with T. As to the shortest movement, the bottom line that we can only see the surface of a expression and cannot see the whole of a derivation, so we cannot tell whether the shortest movement is really happening. I would like you to give some comment on the argument I proposed here. Thank you.