The Linguistic Review
Editor-in-Chief: Hulst, Harry
4 Issues per year
IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.676
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.831
CiteScore 2016: 0.52
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.662
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.573
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.
Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.