DGfS – Frankfurt/Main, 7 - 9 March 2012
The Loss and Rise of Null Subjects within the Subject Cycle
Ewa Trutkowski
University of Potsdam / Centre for General Linguistics, ZAS Berlin
[email protected]
0. Topic and Aim of this Talk
Topic: Referential (non-arbitrary) null subjects in unrelated languages/different (non-)
null subject systems
Aim: to show …
that null subjects are licensed by different strategies (identification/licensing mechanisms), i.e. inflectional morphology, discourse antecedents, speaker/hearerfeatures[?]
that these strategies are not exclusive to any of the existing (non-)null subject systems (e.g. partial / radical / “genuine” pro-drop languages, non-null subject languages)
that cyclical changes within the Subject Cycle are caused by:
(i)
language internal economy considerations => emergence of syncretisms
(ii)
the need for unique subject identification => overt pronoun/Infl marking
that these changes take place uni- & bidirectionally
that licensing/identification strategies have to be differentiated between 1st | 2nd | 3rd
person (null) subject pronouns (instead of a 1st/2nd | 3rd separating line)
• Assumed Subject Cycle (Hypothesis):
(1) pro-drop > (topic drop +) partial pro drop > no pro-drop > (speaker feature +)
diary drop > radical pro-drop
[Assumption that (i) antecedent licensing ‘topic drop’-like component and (ii) speaker
feature are always present, however, they are only grammaticalised at certain stages]
• Some examples:
(2) Unidirectionally:
(a) Finnish (partial null subjects) Colloquial Finnish (no null subjects)
(b) Portuguese (null subjects) Brazilian Portuguese (partial null subjects)
(c) Old English (null subjects(?)) English (no null subjects) Colloquial English
(diary drop)
(d) Spanish (null subjects) Spanish Imperfect paradigm (partial null subjects)
(3) Bidirectionally:
(a) Old High German (null subjects) Middle High German (no/sporadic null subjects) Early Middle High German (null subjects)
(b) German (no null subjects) Colloquial German (partial null subjects)
(See e.g. Axel 2007; Axel & Weiss 2010; Holmberg 2010, Kwon 2010 (for a bidirectional change), van Gelderen 2011)
2
• General problems/questions:
-
When assuming bidirectional changes: not predictable in which direction (cyclical) changes proceed
Which persons trigger the cyclical changes between the above mentioned (non-)
null subject systems?
• Claims/observations:
-
-
In an out of the blue context, 1st and 3rd person null subjects are (equally well)
licensed/identified throughout all (non-)null subject systems, cf. data (4)-(20)
(=> due to a speaker-feature / antecedent licensing identificational component)
Cyclical changes are triggered by the 1st and 3rd person
Non-null subject systems (cf. English, Swedisch) and radical pro drop languages have to be included into the Subject Cycle (contra van Gelderen 2011)
1. Licensing and Identification of Referential Null Subjects
Determining the distribution of 1st | 2nd | 3rd person null subjects in different languages
on the ground of two tests:
(i)
Coordinated antecedents
(ii)
Out of the blue drop
(i): Coordinated (non-salient) NPs in the context (e.g. ‘Hans and I’)
- Two contextually given antecedents, which are equally (non-)salient
- each of them hardly inferable as a single antecedent (given, however not salient enough)
(implausible that coordinated NPs differ syntactically and/or information structurally)
(ii): Context-free (out of the blue) subject omission
- No contextually given antecedent
Line of argumentation for both tests: If the same differences w.r.t. the occurrence of 1st
| 2nd | 3rd person null subjects exist throughout different (non-)null subject systems …
then these differences can be ascribed to language independent licensing conditions
of particular persons – and not to licensing conditions of particular languages
Tests seek to determine the inherent pragmatic status of 1st/2nd/3rd persons, and hence
their ability of being recovered in discourse
• Above tests applied to different (non-)null subject systems => data (4)-(20)
–
pro-drop (Polish)
–
partial pro-drop I (Finnish, Hebrew)
–
no pro-drop / diary drop (Colloquial English, Swedish)
–
radical pro-drop (Chinese, Thai)
–
partial pro-drop II (Colloquial German)
pro-drop languages, cf. Polish:
• Coordinated antecedents, (4)-(5):
Ewa Trutkowski, DGfS Jahrestagung, Frankfurt/Main – 7-9 March 2012
(4)
a.
b.
c.
3
Janek i ty byliście w kinie.
Janek and you-sg were-2pl in cinema
Ø Słyszałam, że Ø znałaś ten film już.
[I] heard that [you-sg] knew the film already
?Ø Słyszałam, że Ø znał ten film już.
[I] heard that [he] knew the film already
Ø Słyszałam, że Ø znaliście ten film już.
[I] heard that [you-pl] knew the film already
(5) Janek i ja byliśmy w kinie, ale niestety Ø znałam/?znał/znaliśmy ten film już.
Janek and I were-1pl in cinema, however sadly [I/he/we] knew the film already
=> Coordinated antecedents: 1st/2nd person null subjects; *3rd person null subjects
‘topic drop-like’ omission of 1st/2nd person pl subject (antecedent = Janek i ja/ty)
• Out of the blue drop, (6a/b):
(6) a. *Ø Mówi / Mówią po Polsku.
[He/She/It] speaks / [They] speak in Polish
b. Ø Mówię/Mówisz / Mówimy/Mówicie po Polsku.
[I/You-sg] speak / [We/You-pl] speak in Polish
=> Out of the blue drop:
1st/2nd person null subjects; *3rd person null subjects
• 3rd person null subjects only well-formed when an antecedent is contextually given:
(7) Co mi możesz opowiedzieć o Janku/tych dzieciach?
What me can-you tell-inf about Janek/these children?
Ø Mówi/Mówią po Polsku.
[He/They] speak(s) Polish
• Above tests give similar, however not identical outcomes in a pro-drop language like
Polish – (4)/(5) vs. (6) shows: A coordinated antecedent is more salient than one uttered out of the blue (? vs. *, for 3rd person null subjects)
Partial pro-drop languages I, cf. Finnish, Hebrew, Vainikka & Levy (1999):
• Out of the blue drop, (8a/b)-(9):
(8)
a. *Nousi junaan.
step-PAST/3SG train-into
‘(He/she) boarded the train.’
b. Nousin junaan.
step-PAST-1SG train-into
‘I boarded the train.’
(9) Kun soititte, olimme juuri kaupassa.
When call-PAST-2PL be-PAST-1PL just store-INE
‘When you called, we were just at the store.’
4
=> Out of the blue drop:
1st/2nd person null subjects; *3rd person null subjects
Cf. Vainikka & Levy (1999), their examples (1a/b) and (13b)) – the same pattern holds
for Hebrew, see V&L (1999).
Non-null subject / Diary drop languages, cf. Colloquial Finnish, English, Swedish
▫▫ Colloquial Finnish: No null subjects ((*)1st/*2nd/*3rd), Vainikka & Levy (1999)
▫▫ English
• Coordinated antecedents, (12)-(13):
(10) Yesterday, Maria and I went to the cinema.
Ø Was / Were a bit disappointed how the movie ended.
[I/*She] was / [We] were a bit disappointed how the movie ended
(11) Hans and I have already seen that movie,
Ø will therefore come a bit later.
[We/*I/*He] will therefore come a bit later.
(12) You and John made some beer,
?Ø could bring some to the party.
[You-sg/You-pl] could bring some to the party
=> Coordinated antecedents: (*)1st/?2nd person sg null subject; *3rd person null subject
‘topic drop like’ omission of 1st person pl null subject (antecedent = M./H. and I)
? ‘topic drop like’ omission of 2nd person pl null subject (antecedent = You and John)
Ad contrast (10) vs. (11):
(Even) in English, non-syncretic inflection is decisive w.r.t. null subject licensing
(10): 1st person (1st = 3rd ≠ rest) // (11): *1st person (1st = 3rd = rest)
Ad (11): ‘topic drop-like’ omission is preferred over 1st person interpretation
whilst having syncretic inflection, an antecedent seems to be a more unmistakable
identifying/licensing source than a (here assumed) speaker feature
• Out of the blue drop, (13)-(14):
(13) Ø Wish you were here
[I/We/*You/*He/*She/*You-pl/*They] wish you were here
(14) ?*Ø Tried to drive me crazy.
[You-sg] tried to drive me crazy
(14) = ok, when referring to an external antecedent; pace me / not myself Ø ≠ 1st person
• When no addressation situation is given, (12), 2nd person gaps are only licensed when
hearer is directly addressed, (15), often accompanied by a specific intonation, (16):
(15) He lives up the road a couple of miles, Pebwater Farm, [ec2] can’t mistake it…’ 1
1
Symons, J., The Progress of a Crime, datum from Haegeman (2007), her example (5c)
Ewa Trutkowski, DGfS Jahrestagung, Frankfurt/Main – 7-9 March 2012
5
(16) Ø Went to the hairdresser?!
[You-sg] went to the hairdresser?!
=> Out of the blue drop: 1st person sg null subject; *3rd person sg null subject
=> 2nd person null subject only when hearer is directly addressed (in discourse)
▫▫ Swedish
• Out of the blue drop, (17): Only 1st person interpretation
(17) [ec] Ligger [ec] bara på stranden.
lie.Ø-AGR just on beach.the
=> Sigurðsson (2011:279), 2nd and 3rd person subjects hardly omittable
=> Mörnsjö (2002): 1st/3rd, but no 2nd person null subjects
(Haegeman 2007: rare occurrence of 2nd person gaps in English, however this is also
due to the envisaged data / register specific reasons)
Radical pro-drop languages, cf. Chinese, Thai
▫▫ Chinese (data from Janna Lipenkova, Jin Cui):
• Coordinated antecedents, (18a):
(18a) Wo3 he2 Zhang1san1 zuo2tian1 qu4 dian4ying3yuan4, hui2 jia1
yi3jing1
back home already
Me and Zhangsan yesterday go cinema
hen3 wan3 le.
very late PFV
‘Me and Zhangsan went to the cinema yesterday. I/We/*Zhangsan was/were back
home very late.’ (We were back home very late (entails that we were back at the same home))
(18b)Hansi he2 ni3 (, ni3men) ye3 ke3yi3 lai2.
Hans and you (you.PL) also can
come
Ken3ding4 hui4 chuan1 de
hen3 piao4liang.
sure
FUT dress PRT very pretty
‘Hans and you can also come. I am sure, [You/*He] will be dressed nicely’
=> Coordinated antecedents: 1st/2nd person null subject; *3rd person null subject;
‘topic drop like’ omission of 1st person pl gap (antecedent = Me and Zhangsan)
! Despite syncretisms in both languages, in contrast to English, Chinese allows 1st and
2nd person subject drop out of coordinated antecedents, cf. above data (18) vs. (11)
• Out of the blue drop, (19): Context dependent(?) 2nd person interpretation possible
(19) Pang4 le.
fat PFV
‘You have gained weight’
▫▫ Thai (Phimsawat & Holmberg 2011)
• Out of the blue a Thai null argument will be construed as referring specifically to the
speaker (Phimsawat & Holmberg 2011; Holmberg p.c.):
6
(20) Ø ráb thàay phâab nɔ̀ɔk sàthǎanthîI
offer shoot photo out place
‘I/*one/*(s)he offer on-location photo shoot.’
• Conclusions / (Pre-)theoretical assumptions, driven from the data in (4)-(20)
Pragmatically, 1st / 3rd null subjects behave identical in all (non-)null subject languages
1st person null subjects licensed by (i) discrete INFL; (ii) speaker feature (cf. Giorgi 2010), however no ‘universal’ hearer feature, cf. English, Swedish
[Vainikka & Levy 1999; Sigurðsson (2008) 2011; Holmberg 2010: assumption of
speaker and hearer features / projections]
2nd person null subjects are licensed by (i) discrete inflectional morphology, as in
(partial) pro drop languages, or (ii) by a context / discourse situation in which the
hearer is directly addressed (as in diary drop and radical pro drop languages)
[Assumption: antecedent licensing of 1st/2nd person null subjects only ok, when no
‘uneconomical’ person conversion from context to target (1st 2nd; 2nd 1st); cf. impossibility/marginality of 1st/2nd person topic drop (Cardinaletti 1990; Trutkowski
2011)]
3rd person referential null subjects (as well as full pronouns) are licensed by an
identifying discourse antecedent; this holds for all (non-)null subject systems
[German topic drop in (21) shows that this antecedent is not necessarily a (familiar)
aboutness topic (as claimed for Italian by Samek-Lodovici 1996; Frascarelli 2007)
=> Existence presupposition of the dropped element suffices; dropped instance must
only be speaker-salient, not hearer-salient (= not part of the ‘Common Ground’)
(21) A: Wen hast du gestern getroffen? B: _ Kennst du nicht.
A: Whom have you yesterday met? B: [Underspecified X] know you not ]
2. Changes within the assumed Subject Cycle
• Interim question
Given a licensing 1st person speaker feature and a 3rd person antecedent
licensing/identificational component: How to account for cyclical changes?
• Look at languages in which licensing conditions are subject to changes (at least in
some inflectional paradigms)
- Colloquial German
- Colloquial Finnish
- Spanish Imperfect, Spoken Polish
Colloquial German:
• Coordinated antecedents, (22)-(23):
(22) [[Hans] und [ich]] haben den Film schon gesehen.
Hans and I have the film already seen
a. Øi Will deshalb lieber Zuhause bleiben (und michi entspannen). (1. person sg)
[I] will therefore rather at home stay (and myself relax)
Ewa Trutkowski, DGfS Jahrestagung, Frankfurt/Main – 7-9 March 2012
b.
c.
7
*Øi Will deshalb lieber Zuhause bleiben (und sichi entspannen). (*3. person sg)
[He] will therefore rather at home stay (and himself relax)
Øi Wollen deshalb lieber Zuhause bleiben (und unsi entspannen). (1. person pl TD)
[We] will therefore rather at home stay (and ourselves relax)
(23) [[Hans] und [du]] (, ihr) seid auch eingeladen.
Hans and you-sg (, you-pl) are also invited
a. Ø Wirst sicher was nettes anziehen.
[You-sg] will surely something nice wear
b. *Ø Wird sicher was nettes anziehen.
[He] will surely something nice wear
c. *Ø Werdet sicher was nettes anziehen.
[You-pl] will surely something nice wear
(2. person sg)
(*3. person sg)
(2. person pl TD)
• Out of the blue drop, (24)-(26):
(24) *Ø Is’ mein Nachbar.
[He] is my neighbour
(25) Wolfram Müller – „Ø Nutzen jetzt unsere Stärken“
Wolfram Müller – [We] deploy now our strengths
(News heading)2
(26) a. Ø Bist mir so nah
(Song title, pop singer Sandra Weiss)
[You-Sg] are me so close
b. Dann: „Die lässt sich die Haare trotzdem so schneiden. Ø Kennst sie doch.”3
Then: “She gets REFL the hair nevertheless so cut. [You] know her PRT”
=> Coordinated antecedents & Out of the blue drop: both tests give the same output
1st | 2nd | *3rd person null subjects; gap identification via topic drop also possible
(27) Out of the blue drop (OBD) of 1st/2nd person subjects in Colloquial German
OBD is licensed by non-syncretic verbal inflections which distinctly mark person
and number features of the subject (located in Spec-CP of V2 clauses)
Syncretisms within German inflectional paradigms are marked bold:
Modal
conjugation
Weak
Strong
conjugation conjugation
Strongumlauting
conjugation
1.Sg kann/konnte
sage/sagte
komme/kam
trage/trug
2.Sg kannst/konntest sagst/sagtest kommst/kamst
trägst/trugst
3.Sg kann/konnte
trägt/trug
sagt/sagte
kommt/kam
1.Pl können/konnten sagen/sagten kommen/kamen tragen/trugen
2.Pl könnt/konntet
sagt/sagtet
kommt/kamt
tragt/trugt
3.Pl können/konnten sagen/sagten kommen/kamen tragen/trugen
Suppletive
conjugation
bin/war
bist/warst
ist/war
sind/waren
seid/wart
sind/waren
Table 1: Inflectional paradigms, indicative present/preterite active, German
können=can; sagen=say; kommen=come; tragen=wear; sein=be
2
3
http://www.deutscher-leichtathletik-verband.de/index.php?NavID=1&SiteID=28&NewsID=21594
DWDS Corpus, Berliner Zeitung, 22.01.2005, p.3
8
• Why should inflections be distinctly marked (whilst syncretisms are present)?
- 1st / 2nd person gaps licensed via discrete inflections
- 3rd person null subjects always identified via topic drop antecedent
due to different licensing strategies (1.+2. OBD => discrete inflections | 3. TD =>
external antecedent), syncretisms (between 1-3; 2-3) can arise, and do not matter
! 2-2 syncretisms matter – verb stem ending with /s/: Ø *Kotzt/ Machst mich total an!
(28) Hypothesis:
• Cyclical changes are started …
(i)
by the 3rd person, because 3rd person null subjects must anyway be identified
by an external discourse antecedent
allows syncretisms to arise, and concerns the loss of null subjects (partial pro drop
no pro drop)
w.r.t. bidirectional change, ‘hinge’-like TD component allows for the rise of null
subjects, cf. ‘oscillating’ status of German: OHG / MHG / EMHG / Std G / Coll G
(ii)
by the 1st person when syncretisms affect the whole inflectional paradigm
involves the speaker feature and concerns the rise of null subjects (no pro-drop
diary drop radical pro drop)
• Some evidence/examples for the hypothesis in (28):
▫ For bidirectionality -- Colloquial German: null subjects despite syncretisms
▫ Unidirectional, ad 1st/3rd persons: (a) Out of the blue drop of 1st persons throughout
different languages (b) modulo embedded clauses, overt Infl marking of 3rd persons is
uneconomical (= double marking: antecedent + inflection; pro drop), therefore …
According to (28): syncretisms should occur (first) between 3rd person + 1st or 2nd or 3rd
Colloquial Finnish (3sg – 3pl)
Brazilian Portuguese (2sg – 3sg at stage 1; 1pl – 3sg at stage 2, cf. Rodrigues 2005)
German (1sg – 3sg / 1pl – 3pl), (3sg – 2pl)
Spanish Imperfect (1sg – 3sg)
Spoken Polish (1sg – 3sg)
[Problem4: English present tense]
Polish, Spanish: “modern” types of inflectional paradigms within pro-drop languages:
(29) ?Jak Ania wróci, Ø napisze(˛) dłuższy list.
When Ania returns, [I/she] writes a-longer letter
(30) ?Juan y yo llegamos tarde. Ø Tenia mucho que hacer.
Juan and I came too late. [I/He] hadImp a-lot to do
(Núria Bertomeu5, p.c.)
Null subjects in (29)-(30) are hardly interpretable - syncretisms matter as long as
no new licensers (here: speaker features) are endowed to license the null subject
Compare other ‘syncretic systems’: Chinese, German, (English): 1st person gap
However: Out of the blue, null subjects in (29’)-(30’) are interpreted as 1st persons:
4
However, the here taken view (and data) do not fit with the general findings of Baerman (2007:3) “crosslinguistically, there seems to be a preference for syncretism of first with second person, and of second person
with third, in both cases restricted to non-singular or number- neutral contexts”.
5
The original datum stems from M. Cole (2009)
Ewa Trutkowski, DGfS Jahrestagung, Frankfurt/Main – 7-9 March 2012
(29’) Ø Wiesz, że Ø napisze(˛) dłuższy list.
(30’) Tú pensabas que Ø llegaría tarde.
You thought that [I/*He] came late
9
(You know that [I] write a longer letter )
Claim: If there are syncretisms + no matching antecedent => speaker feature becomes active
3. Summary
unidirectional
TEST / Language
type
Coordination Test
Out of the blue Test
‘Topic drop-like’
TD / speaker f. become ‘grammaticalised’
bidir. … TD ||
pro drop
1, 2, ?3
1, 2, *3
Partial pro | Coll.
drop | German
1, 2, *3
1, 2, *3
speaker feature
no pro
drop
Diary drop
Radical pro drop
lack of data
( )
1, 2, *3
1, 2, *3,
( )
* 1,*2,*3
*3
* 1, ?2, *3
1, (*)2, *3
Table 2: Overview tests + cyclical changes (uni- and bidirectional)
Polish, Spanish, Italian …
Swedish, English, Finnish /
BP (embedded), German
(main + embedded clauses)
Finnish, German, Polish
English, Chinese
English, Chinese
3rd pro drop
non-syncretic inflection +
antecedent
rd
3 diary drop
syncretic inflection, antecedent
3rd radical pro drop
(in some partial pro drop lanrd
rd
3 partial pro drop, 3 topic drop guages: INFL = non-syncretic)
1st/2nd (partial) pro-drop
non-syncretic inflection
nd
2 diary drop
syncretic inflection, (hearer ad2nd radical pro drop
dressation)
st
1 radical pro drop
syncretic inflection, speakerst
1 diary drop
feature
Table 3: Example languages / Person, dropping mechanisms / Means of licensing + identification
(31) Main claims made:
(i) 3rd person leads the change to the decline (bidirectional: rise6) of null subjects,
syncretisms can occur since 3rd persons are anyway licensed by an external antecedent
Double (antecedent + inflectional) marking only useful in embedded sentences, where a full
pronoun refers to a third party and a null pronoun to the matrix clause antecedent, cf. pro drop
(ii) 1st person leads the change when null subjects are emerging within syncretic verbal
inflectional paradigms: Is there no antecedent => speaker feature becomes active
(iii) speaker feature & TD component = universally given, but become grammaticalised (due to unique identification; economy considerations)
4. Appendix: German = a partial null subject language
(i) Displays 1st/2nd person null subjects in Spec-CP of V2 clauses, as shown in (22)-(26)
(ii) When bound by a matrix argument, null subjects in embedded V2 clauses display the
same coreference relations as null subjects in partial pro drop languages, (32c)
(32) a.
Il profesorei ha parlato dopo che Øi/*j / lui*i/j è arrivato
The professor has spoken after that (he) arrived
b.
Pekkai väittää että häni/j / Øi/*j puhuu englantia hyvin.
Pekka claims that (he) speaks English well
6
(from Holmberg 2010)
(from Holmberg 2010)
See also section 4. / Appendix where middlefield drop is concerned => only possible with 3rd persons
10
c.
Hansi glaubt, eri/j / Øi/*j sei durchgefallen. // c.’… Ø*i/j seien durchgefallen.
Hans thinks, (he) failed
(we) failed
(iii) Optional realisation of ‘weather expletives’ in partial pro drop languages, (33)
(33) Nyt sataa. (Finnish; from Holmberg, HO without year)
Now rains
In German (expletive drop is situationally determined, cf. Falk 1993:172): Expletives can
represent situations as current discourse topics and hence, can optionally be dropped, (34):
(34) a.
b.
_ Regnet ja wirklich übelst grad’. [uttered while looking out of the window]
[It] rains PRT really very-bad at-the-moment
*_ Regnet bestimmt, wenn wir in Urlaub gehen.
[It] rains for sure, when we in holidays go
(iv) In very colloquial registers (3rd person) null subjects are not mere restricted to the prefield, (35); for middle field topic drop see Schalowski (2009)
(35) a.
X:
Y:
b.
X:
Y:
d.
X:
Y:
e.
X:
Y:
Ist das Bad frei?
c. X: Wo kommst Du her?
Is the bathroom free?
Where come you from?
Ja, is Ø.
Y: Aus Krakau.
Yes, is [free]
From Cracow
X: Soll ja voll schön sein.
(After a girl left the bar) Was is?
Shall PRT very nice be
What is?
Y:
Is
auch Ø.
Nix is, weg is Ø.
Is indeed [very nice]
Nothing is, away is [she]
Der war auch Mitglied in der Wehrsportgruppe Hoffmann.
He was also member in the militant sports group “Hoffmann”
Echt, war er Ø?!
Really, was he [that]? – different intonation than Really, [that] was he?
Wann ist denn wieder Vollmond?
When is PRT again full moon?
Gestern war Ø.
Yesterday was [full moon]
5. References
Axel, K. (2007) Studies on Old High German Syntax. Left Sentence Periphery, Verb Placement and Verb Second. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Axel, K. & H. Weiß (to appear) ‘Pro-drop in the History of German. From Old High German to the modern dialects’. To appear in: P. Gallmann, M.
Wratil (eds.): Empty Pronouns. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter (Studies in Generative Grammar)]
Baerman M. (2008) ‘Typology and the formal modelling of syncretism’. Ms.
Biberauer, T., A. Holmberg, I. Roberts and M. Sheehan (2010) Parametric Variation. Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cardinaletti, A. (1990). ‘Subject/Object Asymmetries in German Null-Topic Constructions and the Status of SpecCP.’ In J. Mascaró & M. Nespor
(eds.) Grammar in Progress. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 75-84.
Cole, M. (2009) ‘Null subjects: a reanalysis of the data.’ Linguistics 47(3), 559-587.
Falk, C. (1993) ‘Non-referential subjects and agreement in the history of Swedish.’ Lingua 89: 143-180.
Frascarelli, M. (2007) ‘Subjects, topics, and the interpretation of referential pro.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 691-734.
Gelderen, E. van (2011) The Linguistic Cycle. Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: OUP.
Giorgi, A. (2010) About the speaker. Oxford University Press
Haegeman, L. (2007) ‘Subject omission in present-day written English. On the theoretical relevance of peripheral data.’ Rivista di Grammatica Generativa (RGG ) 32, 91-124.
Holmberg, A. (2010) ‘Null Subject Parameters’. In: Biberauer et al. (2010)
Holmberg, A. (without year) ‘Null Subject Parameters’ Handout
Holmberg, A. & M. Sheehan (2010) ‘Control into finite clauses in partial null-subject languages’. In: Biberauer et al. (2010)
Kwon, K. (2009) ‘The subject cycle of pronominal auxiliaries in old North Russian’ In: Van Gelderen, Elly: Cyclical Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins
(Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 146): 157-184
Mörnsjö, M.(2002) V1 declaratives in spoken Swedish. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Phimsawat, O & A. Holmberg (2011) ‘Generic Pronouns in Thai.’ Talk handout, CNRS, 20.09.2011
Rodrigues, C. (2005) ‘Brazilian Portuguese and Finnish Referential Null Subjects.’ Abralin, 3. p. 75-118.
Samek-Lodovici, V. (1996) Constraints on Subjects: An Optimality Theoretic Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Schalowski, S. (2009) Über Topik-Drop im Deutschen. M.A. Thesis, Humboldt University Berlin
Sigurðsson, H. (2011) ‘Conditions on argument drop.’ Linguistic Inquiry 42,2: 267–304
Trutkowski, E. (2011) ‘Referential null subjects in German.’ Proceedings of CamLing 2010. University of Cambridge.
www.srcf.ucam.org/camling/proceedings/trutkowski.pdf