Workshop Description

   While null subjects (NSs) are a well-researched and discussed phenomenon cross-linguistically, null objects (NOs) have still not received much attention. The interpretation of NOs is influenced by syntactic, semantic and discourse-pragmatic factors, and languages that allow NOs show different sensitivity to these factors. Additionally, data from language acquisition have suggested that NOs are found more often in child language than in adult language (Pérez-Leroux, Pirvulescu & Roberge 2008; Costa & Lobo 2009). An effective theory of omitted arguments must determine what factors restrict or favor object drop in a given language and explain the conditions that affect the obligatoriness or the optionality of NOs.

   When it comes to object omission, cross-linguistically, indefinite (unspecified) object drop is a more widespread and less restricted phenomenon than definite object drop. Non-anaphoric indefinite NOs (like cognate objects) do not offer any information that would not be already stated overtly, so there is no reason to pose a deleted element in object position in this case (Cummins & Roberge 2004). However, for anaphoric indefinite and definite NOs, it is argued that they are syntactically present and need an antecedent mentioned in the discourse (Campos 1986 on European Spanish; Cyrino 2001 and Rinke, Flores & Barbosa 2017 on European Portuguese; Giannakidou & Merchant 1997 on Modern Greek; Ruda 2017 on Polish; Dvorak 2015 on Czech). Hence, the question of the status of this gap awaits an answer.

   There are currently two main approaches concerning the analysis of object omission. The first option is the argument ellipsis analysis, according to which the construction with NOs involves a DP ellipsis that includes only the omission of the complement of V (Cyrino 2016, 2019, 2020 on Brazilian Portuguese; Giannakidou & Merchant 1997 on Modern Greek; Oku 1998 and Takahashi 2013 on Japanese; Kim 1999 on Chinese and Korean; Landau 2018 on Hebrew). The second option is the pro analysis, according to which NOs exhibit pronominal properties, and their interpretation is retrieved from the discourse, thus reproducing the behavior of a typical pronoun (Rizzi 1986 on Italian; Farrell 1990 on Brazilian Portuguese; Raposo 1986 and Barbosa, Duarte & Kato 2005 on European Portuguese; Cummins & Roberge 2004 on French). If we are to study the nature of NOs, it is a must to think about the necessity of positing an empty category to account for the facts.

   Another issue regarding object omission is whether NOs are typologically correlated to NSs. Interestingly, European Spanish, a language with indefinite NOs (Campos 1986), allows for indefinite NSs under restrictive conditions. This leads us to think about a symmetry in the licensing of NSs and NOs. This suggests a unified approach to both null arguments and a reconsideration of the pro-drop parameter (Barbosa 2019).

   The main goal of this workshop is to discuss and provide new empirical and theoretical insights on the concept of NOs from a crosslinguistic and developmental perspective. Talks will be 40’ long (30’ for presentation and 10’ for discussion). Abstract submissions to the workshop can focus on one of the following issues, among others:

1. Which syntactic, semantic and discourse-pragmatic factors determine the identification and interpretation of null objects?

2. When are null objects optional and when obligatory?

3. Are empty categories with pronominal (pro) features involved in the case of null objects? Is an empty category necessary to account for the facts?

4. Could there be a unified analysis of null objects cross-linguistically?

5. Are null subjects and null objects typologically correlated?

6. What insights does a developmental perspective on null objects offer? And a diachronic one?