Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-07T02:10:06.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Object drop in Spanish is not island-sensitive

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2022

MATÍAS VERDECCHIA*
Affiliation:
IIF (SADAF-CONICET) & University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, Bulnes 642, C1176, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentinamnverdecchia@filo.uba.ar
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Campos (1986) argues that object drop in Spanish exhibits island effects. This claim has remained unchallenged up to today and is largely assumed in the literature. In this paper, I show that this characterization is not empirically correct: given a proper discourse context, null objects can easily appear within a syntactic island in Spanish. This observation constitutes a non-trivial problem for object drop analyses based on movement.

Type
Squib
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

As is well known, Spanish allows object drop when the antecedent is an indefinite bare noun (1), but not when it is a definite determiner phrase (DP) (2).Footnote 1

Following Huang (Reference Huang1982) and Raposo (Reference Raposo1984), Campos (Reference Campos1986) proposes that in sentences like (1B) the argument position is occupied by a wh-trace of an operator OP that moves in the syntax.

As evidence for this analysis, Campos argues that object drop in Spanish is subject to the same locality constraints that hold for wh-movement. Concretely, he claims that object drop is island-sensitive. Campos offers the following examples and grammatical judgments:

Besides the theoretical validity of Campos’s analysis, the claim that object drop in (‘Standard’) Spanish exhibits island effects has survived unchallenged to the present dayFootnote 2 and is largely assumed in the literature (see, for instance, Landau Reference Landau2010: 383; Gribanova Reference Gribanova2013: 110; Rothman & Iverson Reference Rothman and Iverson2013: 595; Armstrong Reference Armstrong2016: 13; Cyrino Reference Cyrino2019: 18, among many others). However, this characterization is not correct: none of the sentences in (4B)–(7B) is actually ungrammatical.

Campos’s examples are problematic for two different reasons. On the one hand, some of them contain dialogues that are pragmatically odd. This is the case of (5) and (7), which include a relative clause island and an adjunct islandFootnote 3 respectively. As can be observed in the following examples, given a proper discourse context, null objects can easily occur within these domains:

Furthermore, note that the answers in (5B) and (7B) are still anomalous even if they contain an overt accusative clitic referring to a definite antecedent, as in (10B) and (11B).

These cases severely weaken the claim that the oddness of (5) and (7) is related to object drop phenomenon or to syntactic constraints (i.e. islands). As said before, the unacceptability of these sentences and the ones above seems to be due to general discourse factors, namely, to the fact that none of these utterances constitutes a relevantFootnote 4 answer for the corresponding question. To illustrate, consider again the dialogue in (7) or its variant with a definite object in (11). In both cases, the assertion we were able to go into the cinema because we found (the) tickets clearly cannot be taken as a felicitous answer to the question did you find (the) tickets for the movie? Now, compare these dialogues to the one in (9a). In this case, this problem is avoided: the assertion do not bring bread because we have already bought some is a relevant answer to the question should I bring some bread? Thus, once pragmatic factors like relevance are properly controlled for, object drop can occur within an island domain without difficulty.

On the other hand, other examples proposed by Campos are not only grammatical, but also pragmatically acceptable. Consider first (4), which includes a complex NP island. According to my informants and to my own native judgment, the answer by speaker B is totally correct, especially if the main predicate existe el rumor de que ‘there exists the rumor that’ is interpreted parenthetically, i.e. if it functions as a kind of evidential which signals the source and reliability of the embedded claim (Simons Reference Simons2007). Once again, it is relatively easy to find similar and even more natural cases:

Finally, Campos’s example in (6), which includes a subject island, can be considered an analogous case: besides being grammatical, the answer in this dialogue is also felicitous. What makes this case a bit more tricky than the previous one is that here the assertion by speaker B requires a very particular interpretation, given that the anteposition of the clausal subject in Spanish typically triggers a contrastive topic reading.Footnote 5 Therefore, in order to make the utterance more natural, the example should contain a continuation that explicitly contrasts with the clausal subject, as in (14). Again, object drop can clearly occur within this strong island.

In sum, it can be concluded that object drop in Spanish is not island-sensitive. This means that Spanish behaves just like other well-studied languages, such as Greek, in which (indefinite) null objects can appear in island domains (Dimitriadis Reference Dimitriadis1994; Panagiotidis Reference Panagiotidis2002). From a theoretical point of view, this observation constitutes a non-trivial problem for an analysis of object drop in Spanish based on movement, and opens the possibility for a null pronoun approach (e.g. Giannakidou & Merchant Reference Giannakidou and Merchant1997) or a verb-stranding vP-ellipsis account (e.g. Merchant Reference Merchant, Merchant, Mikkelsen, Rudin and Sasaki2018).Footnote 6

Footnotes

[1] Quiteño Spanish (Suñer & Yépez Reference Suñer and Yépez1988) and Basque Spanish (Landa Reference Landa1995; Franco & Landa Reference Franco, Landa, Núñez-Cedeño, López and Cameron2003) constitute exceptions as they allow null definite objects in certain contexts.

[2] Once again, this does not hold for Quiteño Spanish: as Suñer & Yépez (Reference Suñer and Yépez1988) argue, in this variety object drop is insensitive to island constraints. The same pattern has been observed in other Romance languages, e.g. Brazilian Portuguese (Farrell Reference Farrell1990).

[3] Some informants even point out that the answer in (7) can be accommodated. The intended interpretation is that it is evident for the speaker that they could go to the cinema precisely because they found the tickets.

[4] I am adopting the standard notion of relevance from Roberts (Reference Roberts, Yoon and Kathol1996, Reference Roberts2012):

[5] Note that clausal subjects in Spanish canonically appear in postverbal position.

[6] Thanks to Andrés Saab for pointing this out to me.

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, Grant. 2016. Spanish unspecified objects as null incorporated nouns. Probus 28.2, 165229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campos, Héctor. 1986. Indefinite object drop. Linguistic Inquiry 17.2, 354359.Google Scholar
Cyrino, Sonia. 2019. Indefinite null objects in Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. Caderno de Squibs: Temas em estudos formais da linguagem 5.2, 1426.Google Scholar
Dimitriadis, Alexis. 1994. Clitics and island-insensitive object drop. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24.2, 153170.Google Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 1990. Null objects in Brazilian Portuguese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8.3, 325346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, Jon & Landa, Alazne. 2003. Null objects revisited. In Núñez-Cedeño, Rafael, López, Luis & Cameron, Richard (eds.), A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use, 311326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Merchant, Jason. 1997. On the interpretation of null indefinite objects in Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics 17, 141155.Google Scholar
Gribanova, Vera. 2013. Verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis and the structure of the Russian verbal complex. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31.1, 91136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C. T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Landa, Alazne. 1995. Conditions on null objects in Basque Spanish and their relation to leísmo and clitic doubling. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41.3, 357388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2018. Verb-stranding predicate ellipsis in Greek, implicit arguments, and ellipsis-internal focus. In Merchant, Jason, Mikkelsen, Line, Rudin, Deniz & Sasaki, Kelsey (eds.), A reasonable way to proceed: Essays in honor of Jim McCloskey, 229269. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center, University of California.Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2002. Pronouns, clitics and empty nouns, vol. 46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo. 1984. The null object in Portuguese. Paper presented at the 14th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Yoon, Je Hak & Kathol, A. (eds.), Ohio State University working papers in linguistics (OSUWPL). Vol. 49: Papers in semantics, 3557. Columbus: The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, Jason & Iverson, Michael. 2013. Islands and objects in L2 Spanish: Do you know the learners who drop ___? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35.4, 589618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, Mandy. 2007. Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117.6, 10341056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, Margarita & Yépez, Mara. 1988. Null definite objects in Quiteño. Linguistic Inquiry 19.3, 511519.Google Scholar