Subjects, Topics and the Interpretation of Referential pro.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

While exploring the licensing conditions of NSs, this investigation also leads to a novel analysis for the syntax and interpretation of preverbal subjects in a pro-drop language like Italian. This issue is addressed in the following section. 5. Null Subjects, Topics and the EPP feature 5.1 Preverbal Subjects and the Licensing of pro In the present analysis, evidence has been provided that referential NSs are interpreted as coreferent with the local (overt/silent) Aboutness-shift Topic. This means that any ‘subject’ DP that serves as an antecedent for pro (e.g., il mio capo in (13), un tizio di Formia in (15) and all the strong pronouns illustrated in the Figures above) cannot be considered as the ‘syntactic subject’ of the relevant sentence (sitting in Spec,AgrSP), but should instead be looked upon as A'-constituents located in the CP-phase. In other words, it is argued that preverbal ‘subjects’ sit in an A'-position whenever they serve as antecedents for a NS. This proposal allows us to predict that whenever a referential NS is realized, its interpretation relies on the presence of an Aboutness-shift Topic in the C-domain. On the other hand, since it is not the case that every preverbal subject serves this role, this claim leaves the possibility open for other types of subjects to be located in an A-position (see discussion below). 35 The position of overt preverbal subjects is a much debated issue in the literature (cf., among many others, Benincà and Cinque 1985; Barbosa 1995; Alexiadou 1997; Moro 1997; Poletto 2000; Hulk and Pollock eds. 2001, Suñer 2003) and is related to two major points of discussion, that is to say, the presence and licensing of a null element in argument position and the role of the Agr° head. Proposals on different languages generally deal with syntactic diagnostics and, under standard Minimalist assumptions, two main competing analyses can be identified. Some scholars argue for interpretable ϕ-features in Agr (cf. Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 1998; Rohrbacher 1999; Barbosa 2000): in this case no displacement is required for the subject, which remains in situ unpronounced (if pronounced, it must be for discourse requirements). Other scholars (cf. Roberts 2004; Holmberg 2005) refute a ‘pronominal Agreement’ analysis and propose that Agr is rather the spell-out of uninterpretable features. Both analyses have limits and advantages. The latter predicts that at least some preverbal subjects are in an A-position, attracted by a universal EPP; the former derives the VS property, leaving partial pro-drop (in languages like Finnish or Brazilian Portuguese) unsolved. To discuss these issues and their consequences in full is far beyond the purposes of this paper. However, a short discussion is needed in order to prove the A'-status of preverbal ‘subjects’ that serve as antecedents for referential NSs (and the contrast offered by other types of non-referential preverbal subjects). We can then proceed with the relevant analysis (section 5.2). Taking the facts discussed in Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) (henceforth, A&A 1998) as a diagnostics to establish the A/A' position of subjects, it is clear that in Italian – differently from Greek – preverbal quantified subjects obtain ambiguous readings. Consider the following example (adapted from A&A 1998, p. 504) (23) Qualche studente ha archiviato ogni libro della biblioteca. some student have.3SG filed every book of-the library ‘Some student filed every book in the library.’ (ambiguous) 35 This approach can derive the asymmetries noted in NS languages like Italian (Cardinaletti 1997) and Spanish (Suñer 2003). 20
The subject QP in sentence (23) can either have a specific interpretation and imply a quantification over events (wide scope interpretation), according to which ‘some specific students have filed every book at different times’, or a distributional interpretation (narrow scope), according to which ‘each book was filed by different students’. This means that preverbal subjects in Italian are not always interpreted as specific and can sit in an Aposition, preserving the scopal properties they had before movement (like in Spanish, cf. Suñer 2003). However, when the relevant ‘subject’ QP serves as the antecedent for a following pro, a specific reading (wide scope) is the only possible interpretation (24), exactly as is the case of CLLD objects (25) (cf. A&A 1998, p. 505): (24) [qualche studente]k ha archiviato ogni libro della biblioteca e some student have.3SG filed every book of-the library and prok è stato premiato. be.3SG been prized ‘Some (specific) student filed every book in the library and got a prize.’ (25) [qualche studente]k lok ha interrogato ogni professore some student him have.3SG interviewed every professor ‘Some (specific) student was examined by every professor.’ Given the exclusion of a narrow scope reading, we must conclude that the preverbal QPs in (24)-(25) are base-generated in an A'-position (as is argued in Cinque 1990 for specific bare quantifiers like qualcuno in CLLD constructions like qualcunok lok troveranno ‘somebodyk they will find himk’). Additional evidence in this direction comes from the scopal interaction between an indefinite and a QP. In Italian (like in Spanish, cf. Suñer 2003, p. 344), sentences like (26) are ambiguous (between ‘for every corner there is a different policeman’ and ‘the same policeman is in different corners’). However, a specific (wide scope) interpretation is only possible in (27), in which un poliziotto serves as the antecedent for a following pro: (26) Un poliziotto stava a guardia di ogni angolo. a policeman be.PAST.3SG at guard of every corner ‘A policeman guarded each corner.’ (ambiguous) (27) Un poliziotto k stava a guardia di ogni angolo e a policeman be.PAST.3SG at guard of every corner and prok fumava in continuazione. smoke.PAST.3SG in continuation ‘A (single) policeman guarded each corner and was smoking continuously.’ As for binding properties, pronominal subjects can serve as bound variables in postverbal position (28a), while this function is excluded for preverbal strong pronouns (28b). This contrast shows that the former are located in an A-position, while the latter have the properties of A'-constituents (with a shifting function). 36 (28) a. [ogni pilota]k pensa che vincerà luik la gara. every pilot think.3SG that win.FUT.3SG he the race ‘[Every pilot]k thinks that hek will win the race.’ 36 On the possibility of ogni-NP as an antecedent for pro, see discussion in section 6.2. 21
Page 1 and 2: Subjects, Topics and the Interpreta
Page 3 and 4: (2) Aboutness-shift Topic > Contras
Page 5 and 6: The problem is, therefore, to defin
Page 7 and 8: Among the different types of Topic
Page 9 and 10: As is shown, the tonic vowels of th
Page 11 and 12: lunatico, è capace che domani non
Page 13 and 14: guarda devi uscire (Figure 10) a Ma
Page 15 and 16: Figure 11 Also in this case, recove
Page 17 and 18: introduce an overt one and consider
Page 19: Figure 14 Then, a new Topic is prop
Page 23 and 24: in Frascarelli 2000, 2004a). As an
Page 25 and 26: 5.3 Rizzi’s (2006) Subject Criter
Page 27 and 28: component can forget about the othe
Page 29 and 30: the spirit of the present proposal,
Page 31 and 32: . [la storia che ha raccontato Leok
Page 33 and 34: (54’) … e [ [ [ogni studentej]
Page 35 and 36: Calabrese, Andrea. 1986. ‘Pronomi
Page 37 and 38: ⎯⎯⎯ 1989. ‘The Null Subject
Page 39: SigurDsson, Halldór Á. and Joan M

Subjects, Topics and the Interpretation of Referential pro.

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?