Editor for this issue: <>
Content-Length: 3022 Some time ago I posted a query about unidentified/non-agreeing null objects. My question was whether or not there are languages other than Chinese, Japanese and Korean, which have non-agreeing null objects which can fit simultaneously in with more than one type of empty category in the Chomskyan sense, that is, they can have more than one interpretation. I received three replies, which were from Charatdao Intratat (g34citMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuechulkn.chula.ac.th) Shin Ja Hwang (shinja_hwang
sil.org) F.K.L. Chit Hlaing (flehman
ux1.cso.uiuc.edu) In addition David Lee sent me some comments on the original Chinese example. I'd like to thank them for responding to my query. (I have also reponded to them individually.) Charatdao Intratat pointed out that Thai is another language which has the quite similar phenomenon to Chinese. In Thai, the null object can have more than one reading. Shin Ja Hwang confirmed that the null object in Korean behaves in a way that is parallel to that in Chinese. Chit Hlaing sent the followin comments: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many Tibeto-Burman and some Tai languages are like this. They allow, even prefer, a null pronominal whenever the pronominal argument (or non-argument, for the matter of that) is not stressed/focussed or whatever. This is the case whether or not there are agreement markers for one or more of the argument positions.The reason seems to be that, if there are agrement clitics, as in, say, Chin languages, or Himalayan ones (the so-called pronominalising languages), these are not morphologically linked to INFL; either, in such cases, the AGR categories are dominant over INFL or whatever, but in any cased they are, for instance, left of the verb while any INFL material is right of the verb, and so on. These are the F(ree) E(mpty) C(ategory) languages: the parameter setting appears to be unlikke that for Pro-drop languages, where it is the presence of at least some agreement-in-scope-of-INFL that triggers the rule: no drop unless the agreement is rich enough. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I found all the replies very useful and I would be interested to receive further comments and information on this topic.