The paper discusses properties characteristic of partial null-subject languages, that is languages which allow null subjects but under more restricted conditions than consistent null-subject languages. Three such languages are compared: Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish, and Marathi. It is demonstrated that they have indefinite null subjects, in particular, a null counterpart of English generic one, but allow definite 3rd person null subjects only when controlled from a higher clause, while consistent null-subject languages do not allow null ÔoneÕ, but do allow definite 3rd person null subjects without a controlling antecedent. A theory is proposed to explain this difference between the two types, with elements from Holmberg (2005), Frascarelli (2007), and Roberts (2007). The structural difference is that consistent null-subject languages have an unvalued D-feature in T which is absent from partial null-subject languages. The relation between a null subject embedded in a finite clause and its controller is discussed in some detail. There is some degree of variation between the three languages, yet the relation in all three of them is different from obligatory control and from non-obligatory control, as familiar from non-finite clauses, and also different from the antecedence relation found in consistent null-subject languages.

No abstract

No abstract

An examination of the evidence for and the theoretical implications of a universal word order constraint, with data from a wide range of languages. This book presents evidence for a universal word order constraint, the Final-over-Final Condition (FOFC), and discusses the theoretical implications of this phenomenon. FOFC is a syntactic condition that disallows structures where a head-initial phrase is contained in a head-final phrase in the same extended projection/domain. The authors argue that FOFC is a linguistic universal, not just a strong tendency, and not a constraint on processing. They discuss the effects of the universal in various domains, including the noun phrase, the adjective phrase, the verb phrase, and the clause. The book draws on data from a wide range of languages, including Hindi, Turkish, Basque, Finnish, Afrikaans, German, Hungarian, French, English, Italian, Romanian, Arabic, Hebrew, Mandarin, Pontic Greek, Bagirmi, Dholuo, and Thai. FOFC, the authors argue, is important because it is the only known example of a word order asymmetry pertaining to the order of heads. As such, it has significant repercussions for theories connecting the narrow syntax to linear order.

A movement asymmetry arises in some languages that are otherwise symmetrical for both A-and A-bar movement in the double object construction (DOC), including Norwegian, North-West British English, and a range of Bantu languages including Zulu and Lubukusu: a Theme object can be A-bar-moved out of a Recipient (Goal) passive, but not vice versa. Our explanation of this asymmetry is based on phase theory, more specifically a stricter version of the Phase Interpretability Condition proposed by Chomsky (2001). The effect is that, in a Theme passive, a Recipient object destined for the C-domain gets trapped within the lower V-related phase by movement of the Theme. The same effect is observed in Italian, a language in which only Theme passives are possible. Moreover, a similar effect is also found in some Bantu languages in connection with object marking/agreement: object agreement with the Theme in a Recipient passive is possible, but not vice versa. We show that this, too, can be understood within the theory that we articulate.

This chapter addresses the crucial issue of how hierarchical structure relates to linear order, and provides evidence that the two are universally mediated by a version of Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). The discussion focuses on new data in support of the Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC), an apparent gap in disharmonic word orders. The data in question relate to the embedding of various types of clauses in OV languages. Almost universally, the FOFC-violating order (*[VP [CPC TP] V]) fails to surface, and what we see instead is extraposition, i.e. superficially: [VP V [CP C TP]]. Based on these data, the chapter argues that: (i) in such cases, obligatory extraposition comes about as an indirect result of FOFC; (ii) any adequate explanation of FOFC and its effects will need to refer to the LCA; and (iii) the pattern provides evidence for the independently proposed idea that certain CPs can be embedded under nominal structure.

No abstract

No abstract