In:Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14: Selected papers from the 46th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Stony Brook, NY
Edited by Lori Repetti and Francisco Ordóñez
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14] 2018
► pp. 185–199
Chapter 10Licensing conditions on null generic subjects in Spanish
Published online: 13 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.14.10mad
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.14.10mad
Abstract
Holmberg’s (2005, 2010) Null Generic Subject Generalization (NGSG) states that only partial null subject languages allow null generic third-singular subjects while consistent null subject languages (cNSLs) like Spanish only have referential pro due to a D-feature in T. Novel data from Spanish contradicts this. Following Frascarelli (2007), I analyze the licensing of null generic subjects as topic-identification with generic uno. The Special Morphology Condition on the NGSG, which stipulates that generic pro is allowed in cNSLs when licensed by special morphology, cannot account for uno. Thus, we may dispense with the postulation of a D-feature in T in cNSLs. I propose a revised set of licensing conditions on pro in null-subject languages.
Keywords: generic pro
, generic uno
, null subjects, impersonal se
, topic-identification
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Topic identification of referential subject pro
- 2.1 Frascarelli (2007)
- 2.2Extension of Frascarelli (2007) to Spanish referential pro
- 3.Topic identification of generic pro
- 3.1Topics can be indefinite
- 3.2An ordering constraint
- 4.The special morphology condition: Impersonal se and generic uno
- 4.1Coreferentiality diagnostics
- 4.2Uno can be an A-topic; Impse cannot be an A-topic
- 5.Implications for the null generic subject generalization
- 5.1Referential pro in pNSLs
- 5.2Generic pro in pNSLs
- 5.3Revising the NGSG
- 6.Conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (14)
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
. 2004. “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy.” In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.
Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. “Subjects, Topics and the Interpretation of Referential Pro: An Interface Approach to the Linking of (Null) Pronouns.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 691–734.
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. “Is There a Little Pro? Evidence from Finnish.” Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533–564.
. 2010. “The Null Generic Subject in Finnish: A Case of Incorporation in T.” In Parametric Variation. Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, ed. by Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan, 200–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmberg, Anders, Aarti Nayudu, and Michelle Sheehan. 2009. “Three Partial Null-Subject Languages: A Comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Marathi.” Studia Linguistica 63: 59–97.
Holmberg, Anders, and Michelle Sheehan. 2010. “Control into Finite Clauses in Partial Null-Subject Languages.” In Parametric Variation. Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, ed. by Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan, 125–152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2017. “An Implicit Projected Argument in Spanish Impersonal and Passive Se Constructions.” Syntax 20 (4): 353–383.
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 2008. “Clitic Impersonal Constructions in Romance: Syntactic Features and Semantic Interpretation.” Transactions of the Philological Society 106: 290–336.
Moltmann, Friederike. 2006. “Generic One, Arbitrary PRO, and the First Person.” Natural Language Semantics 14: 257–281.
Otero, Carlos P. 1986. “Arbitrary Subjects in Finite Clauses.” In Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax, ed. by Ivonne Bordelois, Heles Contreras, and Karen Zagona, 81–109. Dordrecht: Foris.