Volume 19, Winter 1997

Permanent URI for this collection

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/100050

Browse

Browsing Volume 19, Winter 1997 by Subject "Grammar, Comparative and general--Direct object"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 19, Winter 1997
    (University of Calgary, 1997-01) Pasquini, Ana; Rowsell, Lorna V; Smith, Laura Catharine
    The editors of this issue, Ana Pasquini, Loma Rowsell and Laura Catharine Smith, are pleased to present the nineteenth issue of the Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics published by the Department of Linguistics at the University of Calgary. The papers contained in this volume represent works in progress and as such should not be considered in any way final or definitive.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Null object constructions in standard Spanish revisited*
    (University of Calgary, 1997-01) Jevenois, Marta
    Most of the literature of null objects has accounted for the categorial status of these empty constituents by resorting to categories such as PRO, pro, NP-trace or wh-trace, and most recently, null epithet (Lasnik & Stowell, 1991). These categories are shown to be insufficient to describe null objects in standard Spanish. Therefore, a new type of empty category seems to be necessary in this language to account for null non-definite bare direct object constructions. This paper also specifically examines subjunctive and indicative constructions that contain null objects in complement clauses. The difference between these two types of constructions is looked at in terms of operator-variable binding and subjacency effects. In this regard, it is shown, following a suggestion by Campos (1986), that subjunctive and infinitive costructions constitute a weak bounding node for subjacency while indicative constructions constitute a strong bounding node. I claim that subjunctive and indicative constructions are better characterized as [-Tense] by being devoid of time features whereas indicative is characterized as [+Tense]. A number of reasons and relevant data are put forward to support the conjoined analysis of subjunctive-infinitive as opposed to indicative.