Abstract
Abstract. The paper discusses properties characteristic of partial null‐subject languages, that is languages which allow null subjects but under more restricted conditions than consistent null‐subject languages. Three such languages are compared: Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish, and Marathi. It is demonstrated that they have indefinite null subjects, in particular, a null counterpart of English genericone, but allow definite 3rd person null subjects only when controlled from a higher clause, while consistent null‐subject languages do not allow null ‘one’, but do allow definite 3rd person null subjects without a controlling antecedent. A theory is proposed to explain this difference between the two types, with elements fromHolmberg (2005),Frascarelli (2007), andRoberts (2007). The structural difference is that consistent null‐subject languages have an unvalued D‐feature in T which is absent from partial null‐subject languages. The relation between a null subject embedded in a finite clause and its controller is discussed in some detail. There is some degree of variation between the three languages, yet the relation in all three of them is different from obligatory control and from non‐obligatory control, as familiar from non‐finite clauses, and also different from the antecedence relation found in consistent null‐subject languages.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
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.