Cover not available
Part of
Points of Convergence in Romance Linguistics: Papers selected from the 48th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL 48), Toronto, 25-28 April 2018
Edited by Gabriela Alboiu and Ruth King
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 360] 2022
► pp. 111–126

Chapter 6
Same EPP, different null subject type

| University of Toronto
| University of Toronto
It is commonly assumed that all languages with Extended Projection Principle (EPP) type X will have null subject language (NSL) type Y, and vice versa (see Holmberg 2005, inter alia). We argue that although EPP type and NSL type interact, they are not co-extensive. We demonstrate that General Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese, and French have different NSL types (consistent, partial, and non-NSLs, respectively), but share the same EPP type (DP EPP). We also argue that both Brazilian Portuguese and Dominican Spanish underwent a change in EPP type, followed by the loss of agreement and a change in NSL type. Crucially, EPP type and NSL type did not change simultaneously. It therefore follows that EPP and NSL type cannot be co-extensive.
Keywords: null-subject languages, EPP, loss of agreement, Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese, French
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Background on the EPP
    • 1.2Background on NSLs
  • 2.Different NSL type, same EPP
    • 2.1Consistent vs partial NSL types
      • 2.1.1Portuguese
      • 2.1.2Spanish
    • 2.2EPP type
      • 2.2.1French
      • 2.2.2General Spanish
      • 2.2.3Brazilian Portuguese
  • 3.Synchronic and diachronic variation
    • 3.1Diachronic variation
      • 3.1.1Goiás BP
      • 3.1.2Dominican Spanish
    • 3.2Synchronic variation
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 10 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.360.06don
References (43)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing agr: Word order, v-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(3). 491–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 2009. Two kinds of subject pro. Studia Linguistica 63(1). 2–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Pro-drop and theories of pro in the Minimalist Program Part 1: Consistent null subject languages and the pronominal-agr hypothesis. Language and Linguistics 5(8). 551–570.Google Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar, Maria Duarte & Mary Aizawa Kato. 2005. Null subjects in European and Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4. 11–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa. 2010. Semi null-subject languages, expletives, and expletive pro reconsidered. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 153–199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts. 2008. Subject, tense and verb movement in Germanic and Romance. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 3. 24–43.Google Scholar
Bilgin, Çağrı. 2017. Synchro-diachronic approach to null subjects: An account of null subject language diversity and associated diachronic change. Toronto: University of Toronto MA forum paper.Google Scholar
Borges, Humberto & Acrisio Pires. 2017. The emergence of Brazilian Portuguese: Earlier evidence for the development of a partial null subject grammar. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 2(31). 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruno, Chris. 2016. Three kinds of locative preposing. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 36.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. Reidel: Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabrera-Puche, Maria. 2008. Null subject patterns in language contact: The case of Dominican Spanish. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation.
Camacho, José. 2006. Do subjects have a place in Spanish? In Chiyo Nishida & Jean-Pierre Y. Montreuil (eds.), New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Volume I: Morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Selected papers from the 35th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL). Austin, Texas, February 2005, 51–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. The null subject parameter revisited: The evolution from null subject Spanish and Portuguese to Dominican Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. In Mary Aizawa Kato & Francisco Ordóñez, (eds.) The morphosyntax of Portuguese and Spanish in Latin America, 27–48. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corr, Alice. 2015. Overt expletives in Ibero-Romance: A diachronic and diatopic perspective. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 60 (2–3). 205–222.Google Scholar
Costa, João. 2010. PB e PE: orientação para o discurso importa? [BP and EP: Does discourse orientation matter?] Estudos de Línga(gem) 8(1). 123–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, William & Stanley Dubinsky. 2001. Functional architecture and the distribution of subject properties. In William Davies & Stanley Dubinsky (eds.). Objects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality, 247–279. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doner, Julianne. 2019. The EPP across languages. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.
Goodall, Grant. 2001. The EPP in Spanish. In William Davies & Stanley Dubinsky (eds.). Objects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality, 193–223. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. Adult null subjects in non pro-drop languages. In Marc-Ariel Friedemann & Luigi Rizzi, The acquisition of syntax: Studies in comparative developmental linguistics, 129–169. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2013. The syntax of registers: Diary subject omission and the privilege of the root. Lingua 130. 88–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 533–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, Aarti Nayudu & Michelle Sheehan. 2009. Three partial null-subject languages: A comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Marathi. Studia Linguistica 63. 59–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kato, Mary Aizawa. 1999. Strong pronouns, weak pronominals and the null subject parameter. Probus 11. 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Brazilian Portuguese and Caribbean Spanish: Similar changes in Romania Nova. In Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo & Juanito Avelar (eds.), Parameter theory and linguistic change, 117–132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kattan-Ibarra, Juan & Christopher Pountain. 2003. Modern Spanish grammar: A practical guide. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, Ruth, France Martineau & Raymond Mougeon. 2011. The interplay of internal and external factors in grammatical change: First person plural pronouns in French. Language 87(3). 470–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane & Carolyn Smallwood. 1997. Essential features of predication in English and Niuean. In Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 27, 263–272. Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Student Union, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Mayol, Laia. 2012. An account of variation in the rates of overt subject pronouns in Romance. Spanish in Context 9(3). 420–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naves, Rozana, Eloisa Pilati & Heloise Salles. 2013. ‘As cidades da Amazônia chovem muito’: sujeitos não temáticos e as propriedades de INFL no Português do Brasil. [‘The cities of the Amazon rain a lot’: Non-thematic subjects and the properties of INFL in Brazilian Portuguese.] Abstract. Paper presented at the Portuguese Linguistics in the United States (PLUS) Conference, Athens, GA, November 14–16. [URL]. Accessed April 23, 2018.
Pöll, Bernhard. 2015. Caribbean Spanish = Brazilian Portuguese? Some comparative thoughts on the loss of pro-drop. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 8(2). 317–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc & Theresa Biberauer. 2005. Explaining expl. In Marcel den Dikken & Christina Tortora (eds.), The function of function words and functional categories, 115–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Varieties of French and the null subject parameter. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 303–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Cilene. 2004. Impoverished morphology and a-movement out of case domains. College Park, MD: University of Maryland dissertation.
Ross, John. 1982. Pronoun deleting processes in German. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, CA, December 27–30.
Sheehan, Michelle. 2007. The EPP and null subjects in romance. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Newcastle University dissertation.
. 2016. Subjects, null-subjects and expletives in Romance. In Susann Fischer & Cristoph Gabriel (eds.). Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance (Manuals of Romance Linguistics 10), 329–362. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spyropoulos, Vassilios & Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 2001. ‘Subject’ and EPP in Greek: The discontinuous subject hypothesis. Journal of Greek Linguistics 2. 149–186.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 2003. The lexical preverbal subject in a Romance null subject language: Where are thou? In Rafael Núñez-Cedeño, Luis López & Richard Cameron (eds.), A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use: Selected papers from the 31st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Chicago, 19–22 April 2001, 341–357. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline. 2000. Setting parametric limits on dialectal variation in Spanish. Lingua 110(5). 315–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weir, Andrew. 2012. Left-edge deletion in English and subject omission in diaries. English Language and Linguistics 16(1). 105–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar