Comparative syntax of argument ellipsis in languages without agreement: A case study with Mandarin Chinese

Abstract

This paper investigates the cross-linguistic distribution of argument ellipsis (AE) with an emphasis on Chinese, an Asian language well-known for its lack of overt morphological agreement. It is observed in the literature that Japanese permits AE in both null subject and null object positions whereas Chinese permits it in null object positions, but not in null subject positions. Adopting Saito’s (2007) hypothesis that the presence of $\unicode[STIX]{x03C6}$-feature agreement associated with v or T blocks AE, Miyagawa (2013) and Takahashi (2014) argue that the absence of subject AE in Chinese follows from abstract subject agreement. After presenting three empirical arguments against this analysis from the Chinese literature, I propose that the distribution of AE is better predicted by topichood and link this proposal to Saito’s (2017) recent analysis of AE developed for Japanese, whereby AE, analyzed as LF Copy, cannot apply to an operator–variable configuration. My analysis is supported by the novel observation that the null subject position in Chinese actually allows AE when it is not linked to the topic position, as in hanging topics, relative clauses and conditional clauses.

The effect of previously acquired languages on third language acquisition

“…4b). In Japanese, AE can be in the position of the subject or object [ 46 ]. AE in Chinese is similarly allowed in the object position (cf.…”

“…AE in Chinese is similarly allowed in the object position (cf. 5) [ 46 , 47 ]. This study only considers AE in the object position in Japanese and Chinese.…”

In defense of verb‐stranding VP ellipsis

“…One line of analysis, initiated in Otani & Whitman 1991 and developed further in works such as Goldberg 2005, Gribanova 2013, Funakoshi 2016, and Manetta 2019, pursues the idea that the ellipsis in such examples may involve the deletion of a VP constituent following the raising of the verb to a higher, VP‐external position: “verb‐stranding verb‐phrase ellipsis”/VSVPE. A second analysis of such object gaps, argued for in Oku 1998 and adopted in works such as Takahashi 2008a, 2008b, Cheng 2013, Sato 2019, and Landau 2020b, is that they result from ellipsis of simply the object, rather than any larger, VP constituent: “argument ellipsis”/AE.…”