Jaume Solà i Pujols - Departament de Filologia Catalana ...

equired for both Null Subjects and subject inversion (see Agostini (1956)):
(142) a. Quand'*(ellu) canta...
When he-CL sings
'When he's singing...'
b. Quand'*(ellu) canta Petru...
When he-CL sings P.
'When Petru is singing...'
c. Quand Petru canta...
When P. sings
Our theory the null/non-null subject contrast is based on morphological richness and
does not say anything about the root/embedded distinction. It is therefore unable to deal with the
issue as it stands. I think, however, that the key to account for these facts lies precisely in
morphological richness: both Old French and Corsican have more syncretisms in the agreement
paradigm than other Romance NSLs (in the case of Old French, spelling often showed
distinctions which had no pronounced counterpart). This seems to suggest that 'slightly'
empoverished paradigms can still give birth to a restricted form of Null-subject-hood, only
available in root clauses.
6. A-dependencies and Minimality
Our characterization of I-subjects can be summarized as follows:
- in NSLs, a dependency is created between AGR o and an I-subject, which ultimately
implies that the I-subject will directly receive Case from AGR o .
- in non-NSLs, the same dependency is created, but since AGR o itself is too poor, Spec
of AGR has to be filled by a DP.
1