Abstract

In recent work on null subject languages it has been claimed that preverbal subjects are always (clitic-)left dislocated. In this paper, we argue against this claim, on the grounds of empirical evidence from European Portuguese concerning agreement facts, asymmetries between preverbal subjects and clitic-left dislocated XPs with respect to minimality effects, the existence of languages with a mixed system (null expletive subjects and full referential ones), language acquisition data, the behavior of negative QPs and interpretation facts, and propose a non-uniform analysis of preverbal subjects and clitic-left dislocated XPs that derives their topic interpretation from a predication rule stated configurationally (section 2). Our account of the SVO and VSO orders displayed in European Portuguese relies on a specific formulation of the EPP parameter, on the locality constraint Attract Closest X and on the independently motivated claim that V-movement targets T in European Portuguese (section 3). Under our analysis, the computational system generates equally economical SVO and VSO derivations and discourse considerations, at the appropriate interface, rule out the unfelicitous ones.

Highlights

  • Introduction and questionsIn recent work, it has been suggested that preverbal subjects in null subject languages are alwaysleft-dislocated (e.g., Barbosa, 1995; Ordoñez & Treviño, 1995; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou, 1996)

  • In this paper we have provided compelling evidence against the analysis of preverbal subjects asleft-dislocated topics in European Portuguese

  • We have shown that agreement facts of European Portuguese and the existence of mixed null subject systems such as those of Brazilian Portuguese and Cape Verdean Creole argue against the claims that the null subject parameter reduces to the choice between pronominal vs. non pronominal Agr and that pronominal Agr is responsible for EPP checking

Read more

Summary

Introduction and questions

It has been suggested that preverbal subjects in null subject languages are always (clitic-)left-dislocated (e.g., Barbosa, 1995; Ordoñez & Treviño, 1995; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou, 1996). Let us start by reviewing some of the arguments independently advanced in Costa (1996b, 1998, 2001a) and Duarte (1997, 2001) for claiming that preverbal subjects in European Portuguese are in Spec, IP. These arguments simultaneously serve as arguments against the claim put forward by the authors cited in the introduction that preverbal subjects in all null subject languages are instances of (clitic-)left-dislocated XPs. Three types of arguments will be presented: agreement facts, syntactic facts, and interpretation facts. As it will be shown, these three types of facts converge into the conclusion that preverbal subjects in European Portuguese are not (clitic-)left-dislocated

Agreement facts
Interpretation facts
Summary and the interpretation of preverbal subjects
Findings
Concluding remarks
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.