availability of <strong>the</strong> SR read<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> (1) is to be accounted for <strong>in</strong> terms of language-specificproperties, I propose to adopt <strong>the</strong> analysis whereby Japanese zibun can undergo LF movementto a higher clause and be locally bound <strong>the</strong>re (Pica 1991, Hestvik 1992, Ish<strong>in</strong>o & Ura 2012).2 IDENTITY CONDITION. If null arguments result from DPE, we expect this operation to besubject to <strong>the</strong> same conditions on <strong>the</strong> identity with a discourse antecedent as for <strong>in</strong>stance VPEor sluic<strong>in</strong>g. I show that <strong>the</strong> conditions under which DPE is licensed are <strong>the</strong> same as thoseunder which a DP can be part of a larger elided constituent.2.1 A coherent behavior. Fox (2000) proposes <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g pr<strong>in</strong>ciple which summarizes <strong>the</strong>conditions under which a DP can be elided if it is part of a constituent targeted by ellipsis:(4) DP Parallelism condition on ellipsis (adapted from Fox 2000: 117)DPs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> elided constituent and its antecedent must ei<strong>the</strong>ra. have <strong>the</strong> same referential value (Referential Parallelism), orb. be bound <strong>in</strong> identical dependencies (Structural Parallelism).This accounts for <strong>the</strong> availability of both strict and sloppy read<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> examples like (5): <strong>the</strong>pronoun <strong>in</strong> (5b) satisfies (4a) and <strong>the</strong> one <strong>in</strong> (5c) satisfies (4b).(5) a. John th<strong>in</strong>ks he will w<strong>in</strong>, and Bill does, too.b. John i th<strong>in</strong>ks he i will w<strong>in</strong>, and Bill j does , too. Ref. Par.c. John th<strong>in</strong>ks he will w<strong>in</strong>, and Bill does , too. Str. Par.Crucially, <strong>the</strong> same is observed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> realm of pro-drop: under <strong>the</strong> strict read<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> nullsubject <strong>in</strong> (3B) has a coreferential antecedent ('her proposal'), and under <strong>the</strong> SR, it is bound <strong>in</strong>a dependency which is identical to <strong>the</strong> dependency <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>in</strong> (3A) is <strong>in</strong>volved.O<strong>the</strong>r (non-ambiguous) cases are also accounted for: <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>in</strong> (6) satisfies (4a) and <strong>the</strong>anaphoric null object <strong>in</strong> (7) (<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> null object language Japanese) satisfies (4b):(6) Juan i está aquí. [e] i quiere hablar contigo. SpanishJuan is here wants talk with.you'Juan is here. He wants to talk to you.'(7) Taroo i -wa zibun i -o semeta-ga, Ken j -wa [e] j kabatta. JapaneseTaroo-TOP self-ACC blamed-while Ken-TOP defended (Takahashi 2010)'While Taroo blamed himself, Ken defended himself.'2.2 Test<strong>in</strong>g predictions. Anaphors are not referential, and are necessarily BVs, as <strong>in</strong> (7)(Re<strong>in</strong>hart 1983, Bür<strong>in</strong>g 2005). If pro-drop is to be accounted for under (4), we predict thatnull anaphors will not be licensed when <strong>the</strong> discourse context does not provide ano<strong>the</strong>ranaphor bound <strong>in</strong> an identical dependency. This is borne out: <strong>in</strong> (8), although <strong>the</strong> anaphor hasa coreferential antecedent, it cannot be elided, s<strong>in</strong>ce ellipsis of anaphors can only be licensedvia (4b). I show that <strong>the</strong> results are <strong>the</strong> same <strong>in</strong> languages with object-agreement like Basque.(8) John i -ga zibun i -o /#[e] i nagusameta (koto). JapaneseJohn-NOM self-ACC consoled (Hoji 1998: 130)'John consoled himself.'I also test predictions relative to MaxElide effects (Takahashi & Fox 2005, Merchant 2008).3 IN SUM, after defend<strong>in</strong>g that pro-drop boils down to DPE across all pro-drop languages, Ipush this result to its limits, by explor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> consequences for <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of <strong>the</strong> licens<strong>in</strong>g ofellipsis. I show that DPs are subject to <strong>the</strong> same identity condition on ellipsis both when <strong>the</strong>yare part of a larger elided constituent and when <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>the</strong> bare target of ellipsis.Selected references ▪ Barbosa, M.P., 2009, “Two k<strong>in</strong>ds of subject pro”, Studia L<strong>in</strong>guistica63:2-58 ▪ Gallego, Á., 2010, “B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g through Agree” L<strong>in</strong>guistic Analysis 34:163-192 ▪Holmberg, A., 2010, “Null subject Parameters”, Parametric variation, Biberauer et al. (eds),Cambridge: CUP, 88-124 ▪ Ish<strong>in</strong>o, N. & H. Ura, 2012, “Towards a <strong>the</strong>ory of split b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g”,
Nanzan <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> 8:17-45 ▪ Oku, 1998, A <strong>the</strong>ory of selection and reconstruction <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>M<strong>in</strong>imalist perspective, PhD diss., U. Connecticut ▪ Takahashi, D., 2007, “Argument ellipsisfrom a cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistic perspective: An <strong>in</strong>terim report”, ms., Tohoku University ▪ Takahashi, S.& D. Fox, 2005, “MaxElide and <strong>the</strong> Re-b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g Problem”, Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of SALT 15: 223-240.
- Page 1 and 2:
GLOW Newsletter #70, Spring 2013Edi
- Page 3 and 4:
INTRODUCTIONWelcome to the 70 th GL
- Page 5:
Welcome to GLOW 36, Lund!The 36th G
- Page 8 and 9:
REIMBURSEMENT AND WAIVERSThe regist
- Page 10 and 11:
STATISTICS BY COUNTRYCountry Author
- Page 12 and 13:
15:45-16:00 Coffee break16:00-17:00
- Page 14 and 15:
14:00-15:00 Adam Albright (MIT) and
- Page 16 and 17:
17:00-17:30 Anna Maria Di Sciullo (
- Page 18 and 19:
16.10-16.50 Peter Svenonius (Univer
- Page 20 and 21:
GLOW 36 WORKSHOP PROGRAM IV:Acquisi
- Page 22 and 23:
The impossible chaos: When the mind
- Page 24 and 25: 17. Friederici, A. D., Trends Cogn.
- Page 26 and 27: Second, tests replicated from Bruen
- Page 28 and 29: clusters is reported to be preferre
- Page 30 and 31: occur (cf. figure 1). Similar perfo
- Page 32 and 33: argument that raises to pre-verbal
- Page 34 and 35: Timothy Bazalgette University of
- Page 36 and 37: . I hurt not this knee now (Emma 2;
- Page 38 and 39: Rajesh Bhatt & Stefan Keine(Univers
- Page 40 and 41: SIZE MATTERS: ON DIACHRONIC STABILI
- Page 42 and 43: ON THE ‘MAFIOSO EFFECT’ IN GRAM
- Page 44 and 45: The absence of coreferential subjec
- Page 46 and 47: PROSPECTS FOR A COMPARATIVE BIOLING
- Page 48 and 49: A multi-step algorithm for serial o
- Page 50 and 51: Velar/coronal asymmetry in phonemic
- Page 52 and 53: On the bilingual acquisition of Ita
- Page 54 and 55: Hierarchy and Recursion in the Brai
- Page 56 and 57: Colorful spleeny ideas speak furiou
- Page 58 and 59: A neoparametric approach to variati
- Page 60 and 61: Lexical items merged in functional
- Page 62 and 63: Setting the elements of syntactic v
- Page 64 and 65: Language Faculty, Complexity Reduct
- Page 66 and 67: Don’t scope your universal quanti
- Page 68 and 69: Restricting language change through
- Page 70 and 71: 4. Conclusion This micro-comparativ
- Page 72 and 73: 2. Central Algonquian feature hiera
- Page 76 and 77: Repairing Final-Over-Final Constrai
- Page 78 and 79: a PF interface phenomenon as propos
- Page 80 and 81: (b) Once the learner has determined
- Page 82 and 83: cognitive recursion (including Merg
- Page 84 and 85: can be null, or lexically realized,
- Page 86 and 87: feature on C and applies after Agre
- Page 88 and 89: Nobu Goto (Mie University)Deletion
- Page 90 and 91: Structural Asymmetries - The View f
- Page 92 and 93: FROM INFANT POINTING TO THE PHASE:
- Page 94 and 95: Some Maladaptive Traits of Natural
- Page 96 and 97: Constraints on Concept FormationDan
- Page 98 and 99: More on strategies of relativizatio
- Page 100 and 101: ReferencesBayer, J. 1984. COMP in B
- Page 102 and 103: Improper movement and improper agre
- Page 104 and 105: Importantly, while there are plausi
- Page 106 and 107: This hypothesis makes two predictio
- Page 108 and 109: (3) a. Það finnst alltaf þremur
- Page 110 and 111: (2) Watashi-wa hudan hougaku -wa /*
- Page 112 and 113: However when the VP (or IP) is elid
- Page 114 and 115: More specifically, this work reflec
- Page 116 and 117: modality, or ii) see phonology as m
- Page 118 and 119: (I) FWHA The wh-word shenme ‘what
- Page 120 and 121: 1The historical reality of biolingu
- Page 122 and 123: Rita Manzini, FirenzeVariation and
- Page 124 and 125:
Non-counterfactual past subjunctive
- Page 126 and 127:
THE GRAMMAR OF THE ESSENTIAL INDEXI
- Page 128 and 129:
Motivating head movement: The case
- Page 130 and 131:
Limits on Noun-suppletionBeata Mosk
- Page 132 and 133:
Unbounded Successive-Cyclic Rightwa
- Page 134 and 135:
Same, different, other, and the his
- Page 136 and 137:
Selectivity in L3 transfer: effects
- Page 138 and 139:
Anaphoric dependencies in real time
- Page 140 and 141:
Constraining Local Dislocation dial
- Page 142 and 143:
A Dual-Source Analysis of GappingDa
- Page 144 and 145:
[9] S. Repp. ¬ (A& B). Gapping, ne
- Page 146 and 147:
of Paths into P path and P place is
- Page 148 and 149:
Deriving the Functional HierarchyGi
- Page 150 and 151:
Reflexivity without reflexivesEric
- Page 152 and 153:
Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of b
- Page 154 and 155:
on v, one associated with uϕ and t
- Page 156 and 157:
Merge when applied to the SM interf
- Page 158 and 159:
1 SachsThe Semantics of Hindi Multi
- Page 160 and 161:
Covert without overt: QR for moveme
- Page 162 and 163:
Morpho-syntactic transfer in L3 acq
- Page 164 and 165:
one where goals receive a theta-rel
- Page 166 and 167:
51525354555657585960616263646566676
- Page 168 and 169:
follow Harris in assuming a ranked
- Page 170 and 171:
changing instances of nodes 7 and 8
- Page 172 and 173:
Sam Steddy, steddy@mit.eduMore irre
- Page 174 and 175:
Fleshing out this model further, I
- Page 176 and 177:
(5) Raman i [ CP taan {i,∗j}Raman
- Page 178 and 179:
properties with Appl (introduces an
- Page 180 and 181:
econstruct to position A then we ca
- Page 182 and 183:
(5) Kutik=i ez guret-a.dog=OBL.M 1S
- Page 184 and 185:
sults summarized in (2) suggest tha
- Page 186 and 187:
Building on Bhatt’s (2005) analys
- Page 188 and 189:
Underlying (derived from ON) /pp, t
- Page 190 and 191:
out, as shown in (3) (that the DP i
- Page 192 and 193:
Word order and definiteness in the
- Page 194 and 195:
Visser’s Generalization and the c
- Page 196 and 197:
the key factors. The combination of
- Page 198 and 199:
Parasitic Gaps Licensed by Elided S
- Page 200 and 201:
Stages of grammaticalization of the