Pro drop theories in the Minimalist program

8/10/2019 Pro drop theories in the Minimalist program

1/18

Pro-drop and Theories of pro in the Minimalist ProgramPart 2: Pronoun Deletion Analyses of Null Subjects and

Partial, Discourse and Semi pro-dropPilar Barbosa*Universidade do Minho

Abstract

This article reviews the recent theories ofpro-drop that explore the hypothesis that pro is a pronounthat is deleted in Phonetic Form (Holmberg 2005; Roberts 2010b). Since most of the empiricalarguments given in favor of this hypothesis come from the partial null-subject languages, we

discuss the distinctive properties of this set of languages as opposed to the (rich agreement)consistent null-subject languages. The pattern of pro-drop found in the partial null-subjectlanguages has features in common with discourse pro-drop, which is found in languages that lackagreement (Huang 1984). Among the analyses that have been proposed in the literature ondiscourse pro-drop is the hypothesis that it reduces to null-NP anaphora (Tomioka 2003). Thishypothesis relates discourse pro-drop with the availability ofbare NPs in argument position. Here,the possibility of extending the null-NP anaphora analysis to the partial null-subject languages isconsidered. The article ends with a discussion of yet a fourth type ofpro-drop language, the semipro-drop languages, in the light of recent developments concerning the Extended ProjectionPrinciple (Biberauer 2010; Wurmbrand 2006).

1. Introduction

In Part 1 of this article, we reviewed the classic Government and Binding theory of pro,according to which pro is an inherently unspecified nominal whose features are inheritedfrom Infl. We mentioned Holmbergs (2005) observation that such a theory is incompati-ble with the Minimalist Program as outlined in Chomsky (1995) and subsequent works,where the u-features in T (=Infl) are assumed to be uninterpretable and thus not speci-fied for a particular value. Hence, in this framework, it is not possible for an inherentlyunspecified nominal to inherit its features from Agr.

Holmberg observes that there are two possible alternative hypotheses regarding atheory ofpro within the MP.

(1) Hypothesis A: In null-subject languages, the u-features of T are interpretable:Agr is a referential, definite pronoun phonologically expressed as an affix.Hypothesis B: The null subject (henceforth NS) is specified for interpretableu-features, values the uninterpretable features in Agr, and moves to Spec, TP,

just like any other subject. That prois silent is thus a PF matter.

In Part 1, we discussed the proposals that pursue Hypothesis A as applied to the consis-

tent (rich agreement) null-subject languages (NSLs). In this article, we will review theanalyses that explore Hypothesis B. Since most of the empirical arguments given in favorof this hypothesis come from the partial NSLs we discuss the distinctive properties of

Language and Linguistics Compass5/8 (2011): 571587, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00292.x


2/18

pro-drop in this set of languages (Section 2). This kind of pro-drop has features in com-mon with yet a third kind, labeled discourse pro-drop, which is found in languages that lackagreement inflection. These are discussed in Section 3. Among the analyses that havebeen proposed in the literature on discourse pro-drop is the hypothesis that it reduces tonull-NP anaphora (Tomioka 2003). This hypothesis relates discourse pro-drop with theavailability of bare NPs in argument position. In Section 4 the possibility of extendingthe null-NP anaphora analysis to the partial NSLs is considered. Section 5 discusses thelanguages commonly referred to in the literature as semi pro-drop languages in the contextof recent developments concerning the nature of the Extended Projection Principle(EPP), i.e., the requirement that Spec-IP be filled by a subject (Chomsky 1981).

2. The Partial Null-Subject Languages and the Deletion Analysis of Null Subjects

2.1. INTRODUCTION

In his assessment of the different predictions made by the two types of approach to NSs

sketched in the introduction, Holmberg (2005) observes that the two hypotheses makedifferent predictions in the case of a language that has overt expletives and referentialNSs. Under Hypothesis B, pro occupies Spec-TP; therefore, this hypothesis predicts thatno expletive pronoun, overt or null should occur with a NS. Hypothesis A, on the otherhand, makes no such prediction given that it claims that pro doesnt raise to Spec TP dueto the pronominal properties of the head bearing the agreement features. Thus, if we finda language that has overt expletives and referential NSs, and if the expletive cannotco-occur with a referential NS, Hypothesis B is favored.

Holmberg argues that Finnish is such a language and concludes that Hypothesis B isright for Finnish. Given that the null pronominal element behaves like an overt pronoun

for the purposes of the EPP, Holmberg (2005:538) suggests that the Finnish first andsecond person NS is a pronoun that is not pronounced, i.e., a deleted pronoun.1

Even though first and second person subjects can be dropped in any environment inFinnish, this language has a restricted pattern of third person subject drop. Other lan-guages that have been described as having a similar behavior are Brazilian Portuguese(BP), Marathi, Russian, and Hebrew. In the next section, we give an overview of themost salient set of properties of these languages.

2.2. KEY PROPERTIES OF THE PARTIAL NULL-SUBJECT LANGUAGES

Some languages, such as Finnish, BP, Marathi as well as Hebrew, have systematic NSs,but their pattern of distribution differs from that of the consistent NSLs in two ways: (i)the NS is optional in some contexts in which it is mandatory in a consistent NSL; (ii)the NS is excluded in many contexts in which it is possible in a consistent NSL. Thesetwo facts can be illustrated by comparing the European and Brazilian varieties of Portu-guese. Consider the following Portuguese examples:

(2) a. O Joao disse que ele comprou um computador.the Joao said that he bought a computer John said that he bought a computer

b. [O Joao] disse que [_] comprou um computador.

the Joao said that bought a computer

572 Pilar Barbosa


3/18

In the European variety of Portuguese (EP), the NS option (2b) must be used when theembedded subject takes the matrix subject as an antecedent. Unless it is strongly focalized,an embedded overt pronoun in examples such as (2a) in EP is preferably interpreted asnon-coreferential with the matrix subject and signals topic switch. This phenomenon,which is a characteristic feature of the consistent NSLs, came to be known in the litera-ture as the Avoid Pronoun Principle.

In BP, by contrast, the overt pronoun in (2a) may be co-referent with the matrix sub-ject; in fact, both options (2a,b) are available in this language whenever the embeddedsubject is co-referent with the matrix subject. Thus, BP lacks the Avoid Pronoun Princi-ple. The same observation holds for Finnish, Marathi (Holmberg et al. 2009), Hebrew(Borer 1989), and Russian (Franks 1995).

Now consider a situation in which the embedded subject refers to an entity other thanJohn, who has been introduced in discourse. In EP (2b) is fine in such a context. In col-loquial BP it is arguably not (cf. Ferreira 2000; Figueiredo-Silva 2000; Rodrigues 2004)and (2a) is preferably used.2 Similar facts hold in Finnish, Marathi, and Hebrew (Holm-berg 2005). According to the sources cited, a third person NS with definite reference

must have an antecedent in a higher clause.Ferreira (2000) and Rodrigues (2004) claim that the relation between the antecedent

and the embedded NS in BP is one of obligatory control. Modesto (2008), however,argues against this view. Holmberg et al. (2009) show that there is variation among Finn-ish, Marathi and BP regarding the structural conditions governing the relation betweenthe antecedent and the third person NS, but conclude that in all three languages therelation is neither Obligatory Control nor Non-obligatory Control, but a third type ofcontrol relation, whose precise nature is not well understood.3

Many of these languages show some kind of asymmetry between the third person andthe other persons.4 In Finnish, Hebrew, and Marathi a third person NS is generally not

allowed in a matrix clause in contrast to first or second persons.5

In all of the partial NSLs mentioned third person NSs can also be found in non-argu-mental subject constructions and when the subject is interpreted as a generic pronoun,corresponding to English one, as in (3) below:

(3) BP:E assim que faz o doceis-3SG so that make.3SGThis is how one makes the cake

In (3) the generic 3SG NS in the embedded clause denotes people in general, includ-ing the speaker and the addressee. This reading of a third person NS is unavailable in aconsistent NSL. As already noted by Perlmutter (1971), a consistent NSL cannot use aplain NS to convey the meaning of a generic (inclusive) subject and must resort tosome overt strategy. This contrast can be seen clearly when we compare BP with EP.(3) is a well formed sentence in EP, but it has a different meaning, glossed as This isthe way heshe makes the cake. The generic subject reading requires the presence ofthe clitic se:

(4) Eassim que se faz o doce6

Analyses of Null Subjects and Partial, Discourse and Semi pro-drop 573


4/18

2.3. PHONETIC FORM (PF) DELETION ANALYSES OF NSS

2.3.1. Holmberg (2005)In order to capture the differences between the consistent NSLs and the partial NSLs,Holmberg (2005) proposes that one of the parameters involved in regulating the pronun-ciation of subject pronouns is whether finite T hosts a D-feature encoding definiteness.

In consistent NSLs T hosts a D-feature, in partial NSLs it does not. In addition, heproposes a typology of null pronouns: pronouns that are DPs and weak or deficientpronouns, labeled uPs after Dechane and Wiltschko (2002). These are specified foru-features but lack D; therefore, they are incapable of co(referring) to an individual or agroup. All NSs in the consistent NSLs are uPs and so are third person NSs in the partialNSLs. In a language with a D feature in I, a null uP that enters into an Agree relationwith T is interpreted as definite. This is why the consistent NSLs must resort to overtstrategies to express the meaning of a generic subject pronoun. Absence of D in I, on theother hand, means that a null uP subject is either bound by a QP or logophoricallylinked to a DP in a higher clause; as a last resort, it may be interpreted as generic.

Holmberg (2005) discusses data from Finnish and BP that indicate that the definite nullthird person subject raises to a high position in the clause (Spec-TP, in his terms) whereasthe generic NS must stay inside the vP. He concludes that the null uP in Finnish and BPis accessible for binding by a higher DP if and only if it moves out ofvP. If it stays in situit is inaccessible and the generic reading is the only option. Concerning first and secondperson NSs, they are fully specified DP pronouns that are deleted in the phonology, bythe same process that applies to other kinds of ellipsis. Thus, there are two kinds of NSs:one is an inherently deficient pronoun that needs to enter an Agreerelation with T con-taining D to be interpreted as definite. In a language that lacks D in T, it can be inter-preted as a bound or logophoric pronoun; in the absence of a binder it is interpreted as a

generic pronoun. The other is a fully specified DP that is deleted in PF. Regarding thequestion why the non-NSLs do not allow almost any subjects to be null, Holmberg sug-gests that these languages have a stricter, phonological EPP-condition which not onlyrequires a filled Spec-IP, but a pronounced Spec-IP. In sum, Holmberg concludes that,as far as core syntax is concerned, NSs in languages with overt agreement are like regularpronouns; the fact that they are null is a PF matter: they are either deleted pronouns orfeature matrices that fail to have a PF realization.

Roberts (2010b) proposes to reduce the latter option to the former, by resorting toChain-Reduction, i.e., the deletion of all identical copies in a dependency except thehighest one (see Nunes 2004). We will review Robertss analysis in the next section.

2.3.2. Copy Deletion Analyses (Holmberg et al. 2009; Roberts 2010b)Roberts (2010b) argues that NSs in the consistent NSLs are DP pronouns deleted in PFand attempts to derive the conditions for pronoun deletion from an extension of Roberts(2010a) theory of incorporation designed to account for Romance clitics and cliticization.

Roberts (2010a) proposes that Romance object clitics are uPs rather than DPs. He fol-lows Chomskys (2000, 2001) Agree based system according to which the label of (active,transitive) v contains a set of unvalued u-features. These constitute the trigger for Agreewith the matching object. Roberts observes that, since vs u-features are unvalued ver-sions of the very u-features that make up the clitic, the clitics label is not distinct from

vs. More precisely, the clitics features form a proper subset of vs features. Roberts pro-poses that, given that copying the features of the goal exhausts the content of the goal,the operation is not distinguishable from the copying involved in movement Therefore

574 Pilar Barbosa


5/18

the probe and the goal form a chain, which is subject to Chain Reduction, i.e., the dele-tion of all identical copies in a dependency except the highest one (Nunes 2004). As aresult of Chain Reduction, we see the PF effect of movement, with the u-features real-ized on the probe and the copy deleted.

Roberts (2010b) extends this idea to NSs in the consistent NSLs. He adopts Holm-bergs suggestion that T has a D feature in these languages. Contrary to Holmberg, how-ever, he proposes that the NS is a DP pronoun, more precisely a weak pronoun in thesense of Cardinaletti and Starke (1999). Following these authors, he assumes that weakpronouns must occupy a designated Specifier position, namely Spec-TP. Since T containsa D-feature in addition to u-features that match those of the subject, the latter counts asa defective goal in the sense that its features are exhausted by those of the probe. Being adefective goal, it deletes in PF by Chain Reduction.

Roberts claims that the null DP subject has a D-feature valued as definite and valuesTs D-feature in this way. He adopts the following postulate relating definite D andu-feature specification:

(5) If a category a has D[def], then all as u-features are specified.

Holmberg et al. (2009) incorporate some elements of Robertss copy-deletion analysis ofNSs. The authors maintain that NSs in the consistent NSLs are uPs. For them, the value ofD is a referential index. Since a u-pronoun on its own doesnt carry a D-feature, it cannotbear a referential index; therefore, it cannot be interpreted as definite. In a language withD in T, however, a third person u-pronoun may be interpreted as definite if it merges as asubject in the domain of a T whose D-feature is valued by a null topic and then incorpo-rates with it in the same way as suggested by Roberts for object clitic incorporation. In thiscase, the EPP is checked as a result of D valuation by the null topic. Holmberg et al.

assume Frascarellis (2007) proposal that third person NSs in Italian refer to an entity intro-duced as a topic of discourse, the Aboutness-shift Topic (A-topic), which is always syntac-tically represented in a designated A-topic position either overtly or covertly.7

Regarding the partial NSLs, when the subject is a u-pronoun, the derivation is essen-tially the same as that of consistent NSLs with the u-pronoun incorporated in T. Since Tdoesnt have a D-feature valued by a null A-topic, the subject lacks a definite interpreta-tion. Definite NSs, by contrast, raise to Spec-TP and check the EPP. Holmberg et al.suggest that the reason why the definite NS doesnt incorporate is that it is a D-pronoun.However, it is a deficient D pronoun in the sense that it has an unvalued D-feature.Therefore, it must enter a control relation with a valued DP antecedent. In other words,

there are two kinds of D-pronouns in the partial NSLs: those that come with an inher-ently valued D feature and those that come with an unvalued D-feature. The former endup spelled out in Spec-TP; the latter enter a control relation with a valued DP and aredeleted in PF as a result of an extended version of chain reduction.

2.4. DISCUSSION

Holmbergs work on the partial NSLs languages constitutes a major step in the under-standing of the key properties of this type of language. Two strong empirical generaliza-tions emerge: (i) there is a correlation between partial pro-drop and the existence of a

plain third person NS to convey the meaning of a generic (inclusive) subject; (ii) definiteNSs in the partial NSLs raise to a high position whereas the generic NS occupies a lowposition.



6/18

We start by noting that the fact that (ii) holds in the partial NSLs doesnt necessarilymean that the same is true in the consistent NSLs. In fact, in the framework of Holmberget al. (2009), the NS in the consistent NSLs doesnt raise to Spec-TP and is rather anincorporated pronoun, thus contrasting with the definite NS in the partial NSLs, whichraises and checks the EPP.

In Robertss analysis, on the other hand, the NS raises in the consistent NSLs. Thearguments given in favor of this assumption rely on Cardinaletti (1997) and particularlyon Cardinaletti and Starkes (1999) proposal that weak subject pronouns, like the Italianegli series, are required to occupy a designated specifier position, namely Spec-TP. Asmentioned in Part 1, however, Cardinaletti (2004) provides evidence that, in fact, thepronouns of the egliseries are not in Spec-TP, but rather in a higher position, associatedwith the notion subject of predication. The only overt pronoun that is required to fillSpec-TP is tu you in subjunctive contexts. Cardinaletti shows that this requirementdoesnt hold of tu in indicative contexts and that the reason why it holds in subjunctivecontexts is that the second person subjunctive is the only instance in which Italian is not

pro-drop. Thus, the requirement to fill Spec-TP is not an inherent property of the pro-

noun itself; instead, it is due to the non-pro-drop nature of the syntactic environment.This considerably weakens Robertss argument in favor of deducing the properties of theNS from inherent properties of weak pronouns. Concerning the empirical evidence givenin Cardinaletti (1997) in support ofpro raising to Spec-TP, it is argued in Barbosa (2009)that similar facts hold of cliticization in general, so the Italian data are compatible eitherwith Holmbergs incorporation analysis or with the different versions of Hypothesis Adiscussed in Part 1.

Setting aside the differences between Holmberg et al. (2009) and Roberts (2010b)regarding the location of the NS in the consistent NSLs, their approach shares the ideathat the core property of this kind of language is that T has a D-feature encoding defi-

niteness. Positing this feature has consequences for the licensing of pronouns that aredeleted in PF, but has no further implications for the syntax of overt subjects: these raiseto Spec-TP in order to check the EPP as happens in a non-NSL. However, as describedin Part 1, the consistent NSLs have a well-defined cluster of properties which includes:(i) the availability of SVVS alternations (free-inversion); (ii) the fact that subject extrac-tion proceeds from the post-verbal position (see Part 1 for details). Even though theSVVS alternations can in principle be deduced from the presence of a null expletive inSpec-TP, the question arises of how (ii) is obtained under this approach. This problemdoesnt arise under Hypothesis A, where both (i) and (ii) follow for free (see Part 1 fordiscussion). Besides this, Barbosa (1995, 2009), Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998),

Ordonez and Trevino (1999), among others, discuss a number of differences between theNSLs and the non-NSLs regarding scope interactions between overt pre-verbal subjectsand quantifiers elsewhere in the clause, asymmetries between referential and non-referen-tial quantified subjects, and restrictions on the interpretation of pronouns as bound vari-ables. Since the presence of the D-feature in T has no impact on the distribution of overtsubjects, these facts are left unaccounted for in this approach.

Focusing on the differences between the consistent NSLs and the partial NSLs regard-ing overt subjects, recall that one of the aspects that distinguish these two types of lan-guage is that there are environments where an overt pronoun is not allowed in aconsistent NSL, in accordance with the Avoid Pronoun Principle; in a partial NSL its

presence is optional (cf. (2)). Barbosa et al. (2005) argue that this difference follows underthe assumption that the pre-verbal overt subject in EP is a (clitic) left-dislocated topicwhereas in BP it raises (or may raise) to Spec TP Viewed in this light the Avoid

576 Pilar Barbosa


7/18

Pronoun Principle simply reduces to preference for not merging a pronoun as a topicunless it is required to signal topic switch or for emphasisempathy. Barbosa et al. (2005)examine BP against the same set of phenomena where asymmetries in the behavior ofovert subjects can be detected between the consistent NSLs and the non-NSLs andobserve that BP patterns with the non-NSLs rather than with EP, thus concluding thatsubjects in BP raise to Spec-TP.8 The data discussed there indicates that the status ofpre-verbal subjects in a consistent NSL differs from that of a partial NSL.

Under the deletion analyses described above it is not clear how these facts follow. InRobertss analysis, the Avoid Pronoun Principle reduces to Chain Reduction. What dis-tinguishes overt pronouns from their null counterparts is the presence of a Case feature:overt pronouns have a Case feature that is not present in the probe; therefore, they can-not be deleted. However, the Case feature on the pronoun doesnt really explain itsinability to take a matrix subject as an antecedent. For Holmberg et al. (2009), overt pro-nouns are DPs with a valued D feature in the consistent NSLs as well as in the partialNSLs, so they should behave similarly in both sets of languages, contrary to fact. In sum,the endeavor to reduce NSs in both languages to regular pronouns that delete in PF falls

short of explaining the divergent behavior of overt pronouns in these two types of NSL.9An assumption behind the deletion analyses under discussion is that the D feature in T

encodes definiteness and is interpretable. This assumption is designed to capture theobservation that the consistent NSLs cannot assign a generic interpretation to the thirdperson singular pronoun. However, in many consistent NSLs, the third person plural NScan have an indefinite reading as shown below for EP.

(6) Estao a bater aporta.be.3PL at knock at-the doorThey are knocking at the doorThere is someone knocking at the door

(6) is ambiguous. It may mean that some contextually given set of people is knocking atthe door or it may mean that someone is knocking at the door. The latter is the arbitraryreading of the 3PL NS (cf. Cinque 1988 and Jaeggli 1986, among others). This fact isproblematic for Roberts given that he claims that the NS is inherently definite and valuesD as definite, but it is even more of a problem for Holmberg et al. (2009) (as well as Fra-scarelli 2007). In (6) the NS lacks an antecedent in discourse, so it is not possible to claimthat D in T is valued by a topic. Since, for Holmberg et al., the EPP is checked undervaluation by a null topic whenever the subject is null, the prediction is that the EPPshould fail to be checked in (6) and that the sentence should be bad for failure of EPP

checking, contrary to fact.Thus, the idea that D in T is always interpreted as definite whenever the subject is nullis too strong. In sum, the deletion analyses discussed have shortcomings: on the one hand,they lack the predictive power required to account for the cluster of properties thatdifferentiate the two sets of NSLs; on the other hand, they are too restrictive.

In spite of this, it seems clear that there is a correlation between lack of full u-featurespecifications and the availability of a generic NS. In effect the languages that lack agree-ment morphology and yet license NSs, such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, all haveplain generic NSs (see Holmberg et al. 2009). Thus, the availability of a generic (inclu-sive) reading of a plain third person NS could be taken as an indication that the mecha-

nism of licensing the NS is not directly related to agreement. In this case, the partialNSLs would be grouped with the discourse pro-drop languages, a hypothesis developedby Modesto (2008) for BP and Finnish on the basis of the idea these languages are topic



8/18

prominent. In the next section we will discuss the discourse pro-drop languages and showhow they relate to the partial NSLs.

3. Discourse pro-drop Languages

Many East Asian languages including Chinese, Japanese and Korean, have no agreementat all even though they allow pro-drop. In fact, in these languages argument drop is evenmore widespread than in languages like Italian since any argument, a subject or an object,can be dropped. These languages do not have overt expletives. A plain null argument canbe interpreted as generic (cf. Holmberg et al. 2009).

Typologically, these languages exhibit the cluster of properties characteristic of dis-course-orientation (cf. Huang 1984). In particular, they are topic prominent in the senseof Li and Thompson (1976). Huang (1984) proposes a theory of empty arguments basedon two parameters: one allowing zero topics; the other allowing a silent pronominalargument. Zero topics bind a variable in argument position and are subject to the usualconstraints on movement. The silent pronominal argument is a minimally specified nomi-

nal (pro) and is subject to conditions on recoverability: it must be locally bound by eithera c-commanding DP argument or by rich agreement. Since these discourse-oriented lan-guages have no agreement, pro can only appear as the subject of an embedded clausewhere it is bound by the closest c-commanding argument. All other types of null argu-ment in Chinese are bound by a zero topic.

Huangs proposal faces the problem that object drop in Chinese is not exactly subjectto the same constraints as movement (Huang 2000; Li 2007). In particular, a null objectmay appear inside a relative clause whereas extraction out of relative clauses in Chinese isruled out.10

Speas (1994, 2006) offers an account ofpro-drop that relies on the idea that it is the AgrP

projection rather thanprothat must be licensed (see Part 1). In her system, AgrP can only beprojected if its head or specifier contains overt material. In languages with rich agreementmorphology the agreement affix is an independent lexical item, which can be inserteddirectly in the head of AgrP, thereby licensing this projection. Consequently, pro can beinserted in Spec-VP. In languages with poor agreement, AgrP is licensed only if it containsan overt subject in its Spec. Thus, pro-drop is ruled out. In languages without any agree-ment, no AgrP needs to be projected, so pro can be inserted. This analysis, however, failsto capture the differences between partial and consistent pro-drop and is problematic forlanguages that have poor subject agreement and yet allow NSs, such as BP.

In a recent paper, Neeleman and Szendr}oi (2007) propose to approach the issue ofpro-

drop in agreementless languages by focusing on the pronominal paradigm. These authorsfollow the line of inquiry that takes null arguments to be pronouns which are deleted inPF. Richly inflected languages allow null arguments because the content of the deletedpronoun may be locally recovered. In non-richly inflected languages the process of pro-noun deletion is constrained by morphology: the only pronouns that can fail to have aPF realization are those that have agglutinating morphology. Hence, the morphologicalcharacteristics of the pronominal paradigm determine whether a language allows wide-spread pro drop or not. The authors argue that all of the discourse pro-drop languageshave agglutinating morphology on pronouns.

As mentioned above, a serious shortcoming of the pronoun deletion approach to

pro-drop is that it falls short of explaining the key properties that are associated with eachdifferent kind of NSL. Thus, the fact that widespread pro-drop is observed in topic prom-inent languages is treated here as a mere coincidence Likewise the systematic differences

578 Pilar Barbosa


9/18

between partial and consistent pro-drop that are described above are left unexplained.Besides, on Neeleman and Szendr}ois account, pronouns in BP have non-agglutinatingmorphology; since subject agreement morphology in BP is no longer distinctive for theperson feature, BP is predicted to be non-pro-drop, contrary to fact.

Tomioka (2003) offers a different perspective on discourse pro-drop. He observes thatall of the languages that allow discourse pro-drop allow (robust) bare NP arguments. Heexamines the different interpretations of zero pronouns in Japanese and argues that theyare related to the inherent semantic flexibility of full-fledged NPs. Tomioka proposes thatthe different uses of full-fledged NPs are derived from one basic meaning, propertyanaphora (type ) and their differences are the result of two independently neededsemantic operations, namely Existential Closure (yielding indefinite interpretation) andType Shifting to an individual (yielding definite interpretation). Then he shows that thesame semantic tools that are used to interprete full NPs can be used to interprete pro.

Tomioka proposes that what underlies discourse pro-drop is the fact that languages(almost) universally allow phonologically null NP anaphora (also known as N or NPellipsis).11 In a language that lacks determiners, this operation will give rise to phonologi-

cally unrealized arguments. In languages in which DPs are necessarily projected, a rem-nant D will always show up and so this process will never give rise to a silent argument.This proposal captures the fact that the discourse pro-drop languages allow virtually anyargument to be dropped and is rather appealing, not only for its elegance and simplicity,but also because it can be easily integrated in an independently motivated parameter: theNominal Mapping Parameter of Chierchia (1998), which determines the availability of abare NP in argument position in a language. Furthermore, it has the potential to relatediscourse pro-drop and topic prominence. As mentioned by Tomioka, all discourse

pro-drop languages seem to allow bare NP arguments, but not all bare NP argumentlanguages allow pro-drop. This observation could be captured if topic prominence is

somehow a condition for recoverability of reference of the null NP, particularly when itis interpreted as a definite.

Independent evidence in support in favor of Tomiokas hypothesis comes from Span-ish, Greek, and EP. Spanish and Greek have indefinitearbitrary null objects only in theenvironments in which they allow bare plurals (cf. Campos (l986), Raposo (1998) forSpanish and Giannakidou and Merchant (1997) for a discussion of Greek null indefiniteobjects). EP has definite null objects. Raposo (1998) argued that this option is connectedto the unique distribution of bare plurals in this language as opposed to the otherRomance languages. He claimed that EP has a null definite D and that the null object isa null D with a null NP complement. Thus, this is a case of null NP-anaphora that yields

a silent argument.As mentioned by Tomioka, this approach raises the obvious question why English (or

Germanic in general) is not pro-drop, considering that it has bare plurals. In our view,however, this doesnt mean that the hypothesis should be discarded altogether given thatthere are intriguing crosslinguistic correlations between the availability of bare NP argu-ments and pro-drop. In the next sections we briefly discuss these.

4. The Null NP Anaphora Hypothesis and Partial pro-drop

The discourse pro-drop languages share two properties with the partial pro-drop languages

that set them apart from the consistent NSLs. The first one is the lack of Avoid Pronouneffects of the type discussed in Section 2: an embedded non-emphatic overt pronoun inChinese may take a matrix subject as an antecedent 12 The second is that a plain NS can



10/18

have a generic (inclusive) interpretation. In Section 2, it was observed that in Finnish aswell as BP the generic third person NS stays in situ whereas the definite interpretation isavailable just in case the NS raises to a high position. The relevant data are the following(Holmberg et al. 2009):

(7) a. Jari sanoo etta tassa istuu mukavasti.

Jari says that here sits comfortablyJari says that one can sit comfortably here. Jari says that he sits comfortably here

b. Jari sanoo etta (han) istuu mukavasti tassaJari says that he sits comfortably hereJari says that he sits comfortably here. Jari says that one can sit comfortably here

In Finnish, the EPP can be satisfied by other categories besides subjects. In (7a), the loca-tive adverbial checks the EPP. In this case, the only reading available for the null subject

is the impersonal, generic interpretation. In (7b) the EPP is checked by the NS. Here,the generic reading is not a possibility and the subject must be interpreted as a definitepronoun controlled by the higher subject.

Holmberg (2005) assumes that the Finnish EPP position is Spec-TP. However, Holm-berg and Nikanne (2002) show that this position is associated with topics and argue thatFinnish is a topic prominent language.13 On the basis of these observations and on thefact that BP passes all of Li and Thompsons (1976) diagnostics for being classified a topicprominent language (Pontes 1987), Modesto (2008), in a comparative study of BP andFinnish, argues that the definiteanaphoric NS in Finnish and BP is itself in topic position

i.e., is a null topic in the spirit of Huang (1984) thus collapsing partialpro-drop with

discourse pro-drop. One strong argument in favor of this approach is that both languageshave null objects interpreted with recourse to a discourse antecedent.

In this context, the null NP anaphora hypothesis would predict that both languagesshould allow bare NPs in argument positions, and this prediction is confirmed: Finnishdoesnt have determiners; BP has determiners, but, unlike EP, it has bare singular andplural nouns in subject or object position (cf. Muller 2001, Schmitt and Munn 2003).Under the null NP anaphora hypothesis, the correlation between the two different posi-tions (the Topic position or the VP internal position) and the available readings in (7)would follow from the different configurations that serve as input to semantics: when thenull NP stays inside the VP it is interpreted by Existential Closure under the scope of a gen-

eric operator; when it raises to a topic position, the individual (definiteanaphoric) readingbecomes available (see Kuno (1973) for arguments that topichood signals definiteness).Other languages that have been shown to be partial pro-drop are Marathi, Hebrew and

Russian. Interestingly, all of these languages have null objects and bare nouns in argumentposition. Marathi and Russian lack determiners, like Finnish. Hebrew has definite articles butlacks an indefinite article, and has singular as well as plural bare nouns, with a range of inter-pretations that is similar to that of BP bare nouns (cf. Doron 2003). Thus, there appears to bea correlation between partialpro-drop and the availability of bare NP arguments.

Even though the correlation holds, the picture is more complex than this. In Hebrew,the availability of referential NSs is correlated with the presence of person agreement.

Present tense verbs in Hebrew are participles bearing number and gender agreement only.In this tense, impersonal and non-argumental NSs are allowed; definite NSs are not(Ritter 1995). In this respect, Hebrew differs from Russian. Past tense verbs in Russian

580 Pilar Barbosa


11/18

are also participles that are only marked for number and gender. Yet, definite subjectdrop is possible in the past tense in Russian. This fact indicates that more than oneparameter of variation is involved. In Hebrew though not in Russian the definite (indi-vidual) interpretation of the NS appears to be contingent upon the presence of personfeatures.14

The pattern of NSs found in Hebrew present tense is not unique. It is found in somecreole languages, such as Cape Verdean Creole, as illustrated below:

(8) a. *(El) ta trabadja duro. Baptista (1995)he asp works hard

b. Sta faze friois making cold

c. Na veron, ta korda sedu.in-the summer Asp wake earlyIn the Summer one wakes up early

Cape Verdean only has non-argumental (cf. (8b)) and impersonal NSs (cf. (8c)). Similarfacts hold in Papiamentu (Muysken and Law 2001). Interestingly, both creoles have barenominals in argument position. Since they also lack agreement inflection, their behavioris parallel to that of Hebrew past tense.15

The occurrence of impersonal NSs in correlation with the availability of bare NP argu-ments in these creoles as well as in Hebrew present tense indicates that Tomiokashypothesis is on the right track even though it requires further elaboration. More cross-linguistic studies need to be undertaken in order to determine whether these correlationshold, but the facts described show that there is split among the languages discussed andthat the dividing line lies in the presence vs. absence of the resources required to assign

definite interpretation to the NS (in Tomiokas terms, for type shifting to an individualto apply). Above it was suggested that topic prominence is one such resource, but theHebrew facts suggest that person agreement also plays a role.16

One issue raised by the null NP anaphora hypothesis is that it doesnt offer an immedi-ate account of null expletives (it makes little sense to posit a non-theta bearing null NP).This brings us to the issue of the status of null expletives, which will be briefly discussedin the next section in connection with yet a fourth type of NSL.

5. Semi pro-drop Languages

In this section, we briefly discuss the phenomenon of expletive subject omission byfocusing on a set of languages that have been described in the literature as having onlyexpletive NSs. These are often referred to as semi null-subject or semi pro-drop languages(Biberauer 2010; Falk 1993; Gilligan 1987; Grewendorf 1989; Hermon and Yoon 1989;Koster 1987; Platzack 1987). It is standardly assumed that these fall into two subtypes:

(9) a. Those which only permit non-argumental expletive omission, i.e., omissionof true expletives, which do not bear a theta-role e.g., Dutch, German.

b. Those which permit both non-argumental expletive omission and omissionof so-called quasi-arguments e.g., Icelandic, Yiddish.

All of the languages mentioned in (9) are V2 languages, i.e., they have V-to-C move-ment in root clauses with the additional requirement that Spec-CP be filled. In neutral



12/18

declaratives in which no XP has been focused or topicalized, expletives fill the preverbalslot (Spec.CP). This is illustrated in (10a) for the Icelandic impersonal passive and in(10b) for a German presentational construction:

(10) a. a var stundum hlegi a raerranum [Icelandic: Wurmbrand 2006]it was sometimes laughed at the minister

The minister was laughed atb. Es ist heute ja doch ein Brief gekommen [German: Biberauer 2010]it is today MOD.PART.8 a letter comeThere did after all come a letter today

Neither Icelandic nor German permit an overtly realized expletive to the right of Vraised to C in these contexts:

(11) a. Stundum var (*a) hlegi a raerranumsometimes was it laughed at the minister

b. Heute kam (*es) ja doch ein Brief

today came it MOD.PART. a letter

Assuming that the position to the right of V in (11a,b) is Spec-TP and also the validity ofthe EPP as formulated in Chomsky (1981), it was standardly assumed that German and Ice-landic licenseproEXPL. Referential subjects located in this position cannot, however, be null.

German differs from Icelandic in requiring an overtly realized expletive in Spe-TP insome contexts including weather-it (cf. (12)) and certain motion and experiencer con-structions such as (13); in Icelandic, the presence of the expletive is precluded (examplesfrom Wurmbrand 2006):

(12) a. Heute schneit *(es) [German]today snows itToday it is snowing

b. I dag hefur (*a) rignt [Icelandic]today has (*it) rainedToday, it rained.

(13) a. weil *(es) ihm die Haare zerzaust hat [German]since *(it) him the hairs tangled has

since his hair got tangled; something made his hair tangled[lit. It has tangled him the hair.]b. Af husinu bles (*a) strompinn [Icelandic: Haider 2001]

off the. house blew (*it) the chimney.AccThe chimney blew off the house

Expletives of this type have been argued to be quasi-argumental (i.e., non-referential,but yet theta-role bearing; cf. Chomsky (1981), Bennis (1986), Cardinaletti (1990), Vik-ner (1995)). The first argument for assigning (quasi)-argumental status to these expletivesis their ability to control PRO. The second argument comes from the distribution ofaccusative case: accusative case on a DP is only possible in German when there is also an

(underlying) external nominative argument (Haider 1985; Wurmbrand 2006). Hence, ifan expletive is an argument that bears nominative Case, other DPs in the same clauseshould surface as accusative Haider (2001) shows that this predication is borne out in the

582 Pilar Barbosa


13/18

case of (13a), where the expletive is in Spec-TP. When the expletive is a Spec-CP filler,as in (10b) above, the non-expletive DP surfaces as nominative. Thus, overt TP exple-tives in German are syntactically active contrary to Spec-CP expletives.

Turning to Icelandic, we find that the constructions corresponding to the German syn-tactic expletives have the same Case properties (cf. Haider 2001); however, no overtexpletives are present (cf. (12b), (13b)). Hence, Icelandics counterpart to the German TPexpletive is a covert expletive. To conclude, German and Icelandic exhibit a similarbehavior with respect to non-argumental proEXPL-A, whereas quasi-argumental proEXPL+Ais licensed in Icelandic only.

These facts have traditionally been related to the inflectional systems of each language,Icelandic being inflectionally richer than German. According to Rizzi (1986), quasi-argu-mental proEXPL+A requires number specification on Infl whereas non-argumentalproEXPL-A doesnt. This explanation, however, is problematic in view of the fact thatproEXPL+A is attested in creoles that lack number agreement inflection (cf. (8b)).

In recent years, the idea that proEXPL-A exists has been challenged (Biberauer 2010;Wurmbrand 2006). In fact, the sole motivation for positing such an entity is theory inter-

nal: assuming that the EPP is universal, it follows that Spec-TP must be filled by a covertnominal in examples such as (11). However, Wurmbrand (2006) as well as Biberauerargue against the idea that the standard EPP holds in these languages. Among the argu-ments given is the lack of syntactic evidence in favor of the existence of a covert exple-tive in (11), since it does not trigger accusative Case on the VP-internal DP and does notseem to be present in the syntax for binding purposes.

Biberauer (2010) proposes an analysis of the distribution of overt expletives in Dutchand Afrikans that does without proEXPL-A. If she is right, there is no need to posit theexistence of NSLs of Subtype 1, in which case we are left with only one kind of semi

pro-drop language, the Icelandic type. This conclusion answers the question posed at the

end of last section in connection with the null NP anaphora hypothesis: only theta-bear-ing nominals can be null.

Sigursson and Egerland (2009) observes that, in addition to the quasi-argument NSsmentioned, Icelandic has impersonal null subjects that are syntactically active, as in theImpersonal Modal construction illustrated below:

(14) Nu ma [ ] fara a dansa.now may go to danceOne may begin to dance now

Even though the availability of an impersonal NS in Icelandic is confined to specific con-structions, its very existence indicates that Icelandic patterns with the creole languagesdiscussed in the previous section. Curiously, Icelandic has no indefinite article and dis-plays bare singular nouns with indefinite interpretation. This suggests that an accountalong the lines developed in the last section for Cape Verdean Creole and Papiamentumight be suitably extended to Icelandic.17

6. Concluding Remarks and Directions for Future Research

In this article we have discussed the pronoun deletion analyses of pro-drop and we con-

cluded that they have shortcomings. We examined three different types of NSLs: partial,discourse and semi pro-drop languages. We showed that there are intriguing correlations



14/18

between these different types of NSL and the availability of bare NP arguments, as pre-dicted by Tomiokas null NP anaphora hypothesis.

This hypothesis doesnt mean that if a language has robust bare NP arguments it willnecessarily display the range of properties associated with discourse or partial pro-drop.Polish and Czech lack articles and, unlike Russian, they display the properties associatedwith consistent pro-drop (Lindseth 1998). These languages differ from Russian in thatverbal inflection is marked for person agreement in all tenses. Holmberg (2005) and Rob-erts (2010a,b) associate consistent subject drop with the presence of D in T and attemptto relate this property to rich agreement morphology. The versions of Hypothesis A pre-sented in Part 1 of this article go a step further in claiming that the functional head bear-ing subject agreement has valuedinterpretable u-features in the consistent NSLs thusbehaving like a pronominal. If so, then the behavior of Czech and Polish follows fromthe properties of Agr in these languages.

A number of questions arise. The Germanic languages have bare plurals but are non-pro-drop; Maori is a pro-drop language, yet it has no verbal agreement and apparently nobare NP arguments either (Neeleman and Szendr}oi 2007). These are some of the issues

that need to be addressed if this line of inquiry is pursued further, an effort that webelieve to be worthwhile.

Short Biography

Pilar Barbosa received a BA in Modern Languages and Literatures from the University ofPorto, Portugal, an MA in Linguistics from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst,and a PhD in Linguistics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She has beenon the faculty of the Instituto de Letras e Ciencias Humanas, of the University of Minho,Portugal, since l997. Her primary research interests are theoretical and comparative

syntax. She has worked on issues such as pro-drop, cliticization, control and other aspectsof the syntax of the Romance languages.

Notes

* Correspondence address: Pilar Barbosa, Instituto de Letras e Ciencias Humanas, Universidade do Minho, Cam-pus de Gualtar, 4715 Braga, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected]

1 As Roberts (2010b) points out, this constitutes a partial return to one of the main ideas in Perlmutters (1971)analysis of NSs in that the NS arises through deletion of a subject pronoun.2 It should be pointed out that examples of this kind are attested in spoken corpora, particularly when the matrix

subject is first or second person and the antecedent is highly accessible.3 Gutman (2004) examines a variety of evidence from Finnish and Hebrew that indicates that a purely syntacticanalysis of the phenomenon cannot explain the whole range of data. He argues that only a theory of discourseanaphora can account for the distribution of NSs in these languages.4 These languages vary with respect to their verbal agreement paradigms. Compared to EP, BP has a reduced par-

adigm (Duarte 1995), but Finnish, Marathi, Russian, and Hebrew (past and future tenses) have relatively rich verbalagreement morphology (see Holmberg et al. for discussion).5 In Finnish, BP and Marathi, a third person NS occurs in yes-no questions (see Holmberg et al.). In BP it is pos-

sible to find a third person NS in a matrix clause as long as the antecedent is highly accessible. McShane (2009)reports similar facts in Russian. According to Holmberg et al., Marathi only allows second person NSs in matrixclauses.6 In Hebrew and Russian, the generic NS is marked as plural. The consistent NSLs also have an arbitrary third

person plural NS (Jaeggli 1986), but the range of interpretations available for this NS crucially differs from that of

the Hebrew and Russian third person plural NS. The latter has an inclusive reading that is never available with theformer (see Holmberg 2005).

584 Pilar Barbosa


15/18

7 Concerning first and second person null subjects, Holmberg et al. (2009) adopt Frascarellis proposal that everyclause has features representing the speaker and the addressee in the C-domain (cf. Sigursson 2004). Thus, thespeaker and the addressee are always available as antecedents.8 This doesnt mean that a pre-verbal subject cannot also be a Topic in BP (see Pires (2007) on the different

structural positions occupied by pre-verbal subjects in BP).9 The copy-deletion analysis faces yet another problem. Regular pronouns in the languages under consideration

have gender, verbal agreement has not. Thus, in order for the NS to count as a deficient goal, it must be inherently

unspecified for gender. Therefore, even within the framework of assumptions adopted by the deletion approach,one is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that a NS has at least some inherently unspecified features, which areotherwise present in overt pronouns.10 Null subjects may also appear inside a relative clause, but they are subject to locality: no potential antecedentcan intervene between the null subject and its antecedent (see Huang (1984) and Li (2007) for discussion).11 For arguments that null arguments in Japanese and Korean arise from elision of full fledged structures, see Kim(1999), Oku (1998), Saito (2007) and Takahashi (2008). For an interesting discussion of the differences between

Japanese and Chinese regarding null subjects, see Takahashi (2007).12 But note that an overt pronoun can not be bound to a quantifier in Chinese (see Huang 2000).13 In fact, Holmberg and Nikanne argue that the EPP related position is higher than TP.14 Since Russian lacks definite determiners, bare NPs can have a deictic or anaphoric interpretation. In Hebrewthis is not the case. It could be that the difference between Hebrew and Russian noted in the text is related tothis parameter.15

On the distribution of null expletives in the creole languages see Nicolis (2008).16 Ritter (1995) claims that verbal agreement in Past and Futures tenses in Hebrew has a D feature; third personagreement is defective when compared to the other persons of the paradigm. Shlonsky (2009) argues that first andsecond person agreement morphemes are incorporated subject clitics; third person agreement has an unspecified per-son slot. Both authors converge on the idea that third person agreement in Hebrew marks definiteness.17 If so, then the term semi pro-drop language should more appropriately be used to apply to the pattern of pro-dropthat is restricted to the occurrence of quasi-argumental and impersonal NSs. It remains to be determined where

Yiddish stands given that its pattern of expletive NSs is not quite identical to that of Icelandic. In the Yiddishcounterpart to (11b) the presence of a null expletive is optional, not obligatory.

Works Cited

Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parameterizing AGR: Word Order, V-Movement andEPP-Checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 491539.

Baptista, Marlyse. 1995. On the pro-drop parameter in Cape Verdean Creole. Harvard working papers in linguistics,Vol. 5, ed. by H. Thrainsson, S. D. Epstein and S. Peter, 317. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Barbosa, Pilar. 1995. Null subjects. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.. 2009. Two kinds of subjectpro. Studia Linguistica 63(1). 258., Eugenia Duarte, and Mary Kato. 2005. Null subjects in European and Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portu-

guese Linguistics 4. 1152.Bennis, Hans. 1986. Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.Biberauer, Theresa. 2010. Semi null-subject languages, expletives and expletive pro reconsidered. Parametric varia-

tion: null subjects in minimalist theory, ed. by T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts and M. Sheehan, 36475.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Borer, Hagit. 1989. Anaphoric AGR. The null subject parameter, ed. by O. Jaeggli and K. J. Safir, 69109. Dordr-

echt: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Campos, Hector. 1986. Indefinite object drop. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 3549.Cardinaletti, Anna. 1990. Impersonal constructions and sentential arguments in German. Padua: Unipress.

. 1997. Subjects and clause structure. The new comparative syntax, ed. by L. Haegeman, 3363. London:Longman.

. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. The structure of IP and CP: the cartography of syntacticstructures, Vol. 2, ed. by L. Rizzi, 11565. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

, and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. Clitics and other functional categories inEuropean languages, ed. by H. van Riemsdijk, 145233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6. 339405.Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard

Lasnik, ed. by R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, 89156. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: a life in language, ed. by M. Kenstowicz, 152. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press



16/18

Cinque, G. 1988. On siconstructions and the theory of arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 52182.Dechane, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 40942.Doron, Edit. 2003. Bare singular reference to kinds. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 13. 7390.Duarte, Maria Eugenia. 1995. A Perda do Princpio Evite pronome no Portugues Brasileiro. Campinas:

UNICAMP PhD dissertation.Falk, Cecilia. 1993. Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish. PhD dissertation, University of Lund.Ferreira, Marcelo. 2000. Argumentos nulos em Portugues Brasileiro. MA dissertation, Campinas: UNICAMP.

Figueiredo-Silva, C. 2000. Main and embedded null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. The null subject parameter inBrazilian Portuguese, ed. by M. Kato and E. Negrao, 12746. Frankfurt: Vervuert-IberoAmericana.Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. Natural Language and Linguistic

Theory 25(4). 691734.Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Jason Merchant. 1997. On the interpretation of null indefinite objects in Greek. Stud-

ies in Greek Linguistics 17. 14155.Gilligan, Gary. 1987. A cross linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. PhD dissertation, University of South-

ern California.Grewendorf, Gunther. 1989. Small pro in German. Scrambling and barriers, ed. by G. Grewendorf and W. Wolf-

gang Sternefeld, 294315. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Gutman, Eynat. 2004. Third person null subjects in Hebrew, Finnish and Rumanian: an accessibility-theoretic

account. Journal of Linguistics 40. 46390.

Haider, Hubert. 1985. The case of German. Studies in German grammar, ed. by J. Toman, 65101. Dordrecht:Foris Publications.

. 2001. How to stay accusative in insular Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68. 114.Hermon, Gabriella, and James Yoon. 1989. The licensing and identification of pro and the typology of AGR.

Chicago Linguistic Society 25(1). 17492.Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 53364.

, Aarti Nayudu, and Michelle Sheehan. 2009. Three partial null-subject languages: a comparison of BrazilianPortuguese, Finnish and Marathi. Studia Linguistica 63(1). 5997.

, and Urpo Nikanne. 2002. Expletives, subjects, and topics in Finnish. Subjects, expletives, and the EPP, ed.by P. Svenonius, 71106. New York: Oxford University Press.

Huang, C.-T. J. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 53174.Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora. A cross-linguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. Arbitrary plural pronominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 4376.

Kim, Soowon. 1999. Sloppystrict identity, empty objects, and NP ellipsis. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8.25584.

Koster, Jan. 1987. Domains and dynasties: the radical autonomy of syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Kuno, S. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. Subject and topic,

ed. by C. Li, 45790. New York: Academic Press.Li, Y.-H. A. 2007. Beyond empty categories. Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan 254. 74106.Lindseth, M. 1998. Null-Subject properties of Slavic languages. With special reference to Russian, Czech and

Sorbian. Munchen: Sagner.McShane, Marjorie. 2009. Subject ellipsis in Russian and Polish. Studia Linguistica 63(1). 98132.Modesto, Marcelo. 2008. Null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese and Finnish: they are not derived by movement.

New horizons in the analysis of control and raising, ed. by W. D. Davies and S. Dubinsky, 23148. Netherlands:Springer.

Muller, Ana. 2001. Genericity and the denotation of common nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. UMOP 25: Proceed-ings of SULA (Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas), ed. by A. Weerle and J.-Y. Kim,7280. UMass: GLSA.

Muysken, Pieter, and Paul Law. 2001. Creole studies. A theoretical linguists field guide. Glot International 5(2).4757.

Neeleman, A., and K. Szendr}oi. 2007. Pro-drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4). 671714.

Nicolis, Marco. 2008. The null subject parameter and correlating properties: the case of creole languages. The limitsof syntactic variation, ed. by T. Biberauer, 27194. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Oku, Satoshi. 1998. A theory of selection and reconstruction in the minimalist perspective. University of Connecticut:

Doctoral dissertation.

Ordonez, Francisco, and Esthela Trevino. 1999. Left dislocated subjects and the pro-drop parameter: a case study ofSpanish. Lingua 107. 3968.Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

586 Pilar Barbosa


17/18

Pires, Acrisio. 2007. The subject, it is here! The varying structural positions of preverbal subjects. DELTA 23. 11346.

Platzack, Christer. 1987. The Scandinavian languages and the null-subject parameter. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 5. 377401.

Pontes, Eunice. 1987. O topico no portugues do Brasil. Campinas, S. P: Pontes Editores.Raposo, Eduardo. 1998. DefiniteZero alternations in Portuguese: towards a unification of topic constructions.

Romance linguistics: theoretical perspectives, ed. by A. Schwegler, B. Tranel and M. Uribe-Etxebarria, 197212.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Ritter, Elizabeth. 1995. On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Language and LinguisticTheory 13(3). 40543.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory ofpro. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 50157.Roberts, Ian. 2010a. Agreement and head Movement: clitics, incorporation and defective goals. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.. 2010b. A deletion analysis of null subjects. Parametric variation: null subjects in minimalist theory, ed. by

T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts and M. Sheehan, 5887. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Rodrigues, Cilene. 2004. Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of case-domains. PhD dissertation,

University of Maryland.Saito, Mamoru. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43. 20327.Schmitt, C., and A. Munn. 2003. The syntax and semantics of bare arguments in Brazilian Portuguese. Linguistic

Variation Yearbook 2. 185216.

Shlonsky, Ur. 2009. Hebrew as a partial null-subject language. Studia Linguistica 63(1). 13357.Sigursson, Halldor. 2004. Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2004, Vol. 4, ed.

by P. Pica, 23559. Amsterdam: John Benjamins., and Verner Egerland. 2009. Impersonal null subjects in Icelandic and elsewhere. Studia Linguistica 63(1).

15885.Speas, Margaret. 1994. Null arguments in a theory of economy of projection. UMass Occasional Papers in Linguis-

tics 17. 179208.. 2006. Economy, agreement and the representation of null arguments. Arguments and agreement, ed. by

P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Schoorlemmer and F. Weerman, 3575. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Takahashi, Daiko. 2007. Argument ellipsis from a cross-linguistic perspective. Paper read at GLOW in Asia VI, the

Chinese University of Hong Kong.. 2008. Noun phrase ellipsis. The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. by S. Miyagawa and M. Saito,

394422. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tomioka, Satoshi. 2003. The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic implications. The inter-faces: deriving and interpreting omitted structures, ed. by K. Schwabe and S. Winkler, 32140. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2006. Licensing case. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18(3). 175236.



18/18

Copyright of Linguistics & Language Compass is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Pro drop theories in the Minimalist program

Documents

Transcript of Pro drop theories in the Minimalist program