Abstract
A well established assumption in the literature on null arguments is that so-called consistent pro-drop and radical (or discourse) pro-drop are distinct phenomena, characterizing different types of pro-drop languages. This paper argues that this dichotomy must be abandoned in favor of a unitary approach, and proposes to reduce both types of pro-drop to ellipsis of full-fledged argument DPs. It then shows that Fox' (2000) NP-Parallelism requirement, which accounts for the strict-sloppy ambiguities in VP-ellipsis, directly carries over to the same ambiguities in pro-drop (i.e. argument-ellipsis), and that the analysis explains a set of seemingly problematic data. The approach put forth here ultimately leads to characterizing the patterns of pro-drop observed across languages as epiphenomena.
©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston