Morphology of Pro‐Drop

Abstract

AbstractSome languages allow subjects and even other arguments to be null, while others do not. This entry explores the role morphology plays in the licensing of pro‐drop. There are two ways in which morphology has been implicated. First, Taraldsen's generalization stated that languages that allow null subjects have rich verbal agreement morphology. Although this generalization seems to have stood the test of time, it is less clear what richness of agreement exactly means. In addition, there is also no consensus on what the exact grammatical mechanisms are that account for this generalization. We explore these issues by looking at languages with somewhat syncretic paradigms that nevertheless allow null subjects, languages with rich paradigms that do not, partial pro‐drop languages and the loss of null subject over time in languages like French. On the other hand, Neeleman and Szendrői proposed that in radical pro‐drop languages the personal pronominal paradigm must be agglutinating for case, number or some other nominal feature. Languages with non‐transparent, fusional pronominal paradigms do not allow radical pro‐drop. We discuss this proposal in detail as well as some challenges it faces, including a potential counter‐example. The final part of the entry explores the blocking effects that arise from languages having different pronominal inventories and how these contribute to the availability of null subjects. We conclude that overall morphology plays a substantial role in the licensing of null subjects and other arguments and that our understanding of null subject licensing is enhanced by exploring the role of morphology in this domain.