Cover not available
Part of
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 10
Licensing conditions on null generic subjects in Spanish

| University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | Southeast Community College-Nebraska

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
Published online: 13 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.14.10mad
References
Chomsky, Noam
2001 “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders
2005 “Is There a Little Pro? Evidence from Finnish.” Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533–564.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Jonathan E.
2017 “An Implicit Projected Argument in Spanish Impersonal and Passive Se Constructions.” Syntax 20 (4): 353–383.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mendikoetxea, Amaya
2008 “Clitic Impersonal Constructions in Romance: Syntactic Features and Semantic Interpretation.” Transactions of the Philological Society 106: 290–336.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike
2006 “Generic One, Arbitrary PRO, and the First Person.” Natural Language Semantics 14: 257–281.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1981 “Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics.” Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri
1996 Constraints on Subjects: An Optimality Theoretic Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar