Subjects, Topics and the Interpretation of Referential pro.

the spirit of the present proposal, it is tentatively suggested that this difference derives from
independent core grammar properties of these languages, the scrutiny of which cannot be
handled in this work.
6. Further Syntactic evidence
6.1 Preverbal ‘subjects’ and raised datives
Since the interpretation of referential pro depends on a matching relation with the Aboutnessshift
Topic, when a NS is apparently bound by a ‘subject DP’, the latter is either the local
Aboutness Topic or the ‘repetition’ of a previously established one. Specifically, we have
seen that continuing Topics are merged in the FamP projection, in which D-linked
information is realized and interpreted by means of a low tone.
This means that in a sentence like (43a) below, it is not the case that Carla is the
antecedent of the NS in the embedded (adverbial) clause. Rather, both the subject pro and the
Familiar Topic Carla are bound by a silent Aboutness-shift Topic in the matrix clause (cf.
(43b)). 53
(43) a. [mentre andava a scuola] Carla mangiava una mela.
while go.PAST.3SG to school Carla eat.PAST.3SG an apple
‘While (she was) going to school, Carla would eat an apple.’
b. [ShiftP [mentre andava [prok a scuola]] [FamP Carlak [AgrSP mangiava [prok
una mela]]]]
It is clear that in a sentence like (43a) Carla cannot be a newly introduced referent. Such a
sentence presupposes that Carla has been previously established as the Aboutness Topic, and
here repeated in a low Topic position. The presence of a null Topic is supported by data.
Consider, for instance, the ungrammaticality of (44), in which a different Aboutness-shift
Topic is overtly proposed:
(44) *Luisak [mentre andava prok a scuola] Carlaj mangiava proj una mela.
‘*Luisa, while going to school, Carla was eating an apple.’
The problem in (44) is the interpretation of the matrix pro, given the mismatch between the ccommanding
Familiar Topic (Carla) and the Aboutness-shift Topic (Luisa). Sentence (44)
therefore shows that a Familiar Topic (like Carla in (44)) cannot satisfy the Interpretation
Requirement (38) when its referential features are not a copy (through re-Merge) of the
current Aboutness-shift Topic. As a matter of fact, in order to obtain the interpretation that
‘Carla was eating an apple while Luisa was going to school’, the DP Luisa must be realized
as a Topic in the adverbial clause (so that it can locally c-command the subordinate pro),
while Carla can refer to the silent Aboutness Topic in the matrix C-domain:
(45) [ShiftP [mentre [Luisak [prok andava a scuola]]] [FamP Carlaj [ proj mangiava una
mela]]]
‘ when Luisa was going to school, Carla would eat an apple.’
The assumption that a preverbal ‘subject’ serving as the antecedent for a NS is a Topic
can also account for a number of syntactic asymmetries like the following:
53 The position of the adverbial clause is immaterial for the purposes of the present analysis. For proposals and
discussion, cf. Lipták (2005).
29