On Locative Inversion and the EPP in Spanish

Ivan Ortega-Santos
University ofMaryland, College Park
l.lNTRODUCTION

Within Generative Grammar, much effort has been devoted to understanding the mysterious nature of the Extended Projection Principle
(EPP), a linguistic universal that entered the theory in Chomsky's 1981
Lectures on Government and Binding and that still is the object of intense research. Informally speaking, the EPP can be defined as the ne- .
cessity that clauses have subjects. Ever since Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou's (1998) illustration of their parametric EPP proposal with
Spanish, this language has become the textbook case of a language.
where the EPP has no effects. Therefore, understanding how Spanish
works is an essential preliminary step towards understanding the EPP
across languages. The purpose of this paper is to take Locative Inversion structures as a point of departure in order to focus on the broader
picture of the EPP in this language. I will be providing different pieces
of evidence for a treatment of the EPP as active in Spanish against the
inactive/rich nominal agreement of Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou
(1998).1

2. ON LOCATIVE INVERSION IN SPANISH

Spanish has 'locative + V + S' structures which are liable of a Locative
Inversion (LI) analysis. Still, the fact that this language allows free inversion renders an LI analysis of such constructions unnecessary/dubious. In this paper, I will be arguing that Spanish indeed has LI.
1 A Research Training Grant awarded by the Department of Education, Universities and Research of the Basque Government supported this research. I would like to
thank Norbert Hornstein for useful comments on earlier versions of this paper. All
errors are my own.

136

~onLocative Inversion and the EPP in Spanish

First, I briefly introduce previous research on the topic. Then, I Tn"n~_,

my own analysis. Finally, I discuss the relevance of these findings
the debate on the EPP in Spanish.

2.2 Evidence for ~I in Spanish. Acc~rding to Kempchinsky (2001)

137

a1l1ong others, EnglIsh LI has the followmg features:

i. the adverb is argumental

2.1 Previous research. Different pieces of previous research are relevant to the present discussion. For instance, Torrego (1989) argues for
particular patterns of syntactic behavior of unaccusative verbs due to
the presence of hidden adverbial arguments in the structure. Addition_
ally, certain unergatives 2 show the same behavior when taking an overt
adverbial. While Torrego does not use the term LI in her discussion she
notes the similarities between ~I and the facts she focuses on Cfo;ego,
1989: 257 ftn.7). In turn, ZubIzarreta. (19,98) mades a closely-related
observation ~riginally due to work on Italian by Pinto (1994) and Adger
(1996). SpeCIfically, non-focused postverbal subjects of unaccusatives
are possible only in cases where an adverbial, be it overt or null, satisfies the EPP. Finally, Kempchinsky (2001) and Masullo (1992) refer to
Torrego's facts as LI, though they do not provide any argument for the
use ofthis label on top ofTorrego's discussion.
Paradoxically, apart from Torrego's analysis (which we will see in
s~me detail) an~ Zubizarreta's observation, not much evidence is proVIded f~r the eXIstence of LI in Spanish. In particular, a cross-linguistic
co.m~anson of Torrego's facts and LI in other languages seems to be
ffilssmg from the literature. Additionally, as noted before, the fact that
Spanis.h allows free inversion might render a Locative Inversion (LI)
analysIs of structures "loc + V + S" unnecessary. In the next section, I
address such concerns providing evidence for the existence of LI in
Spanish and discussing how it arises.

2 ~?cord~ng to the U~accusative Hypothesis (Perlmutter 1978), intransitive verbs

are dIVIded mto unergatIves and unaccusatives. The subject of unergative verbs behaves like the subject of a transitive verb. In contrast, the subject of the unaccusative
verb behaves syntactically and semantically as the object of a transitive verb.

ii. only unaccusatives accept LI; still unergative verbs might enter
the unaccusative class due to LI. 3
iii. the locative satisfies the EPP
I will provide evidence that the syntax of Spanish unaccusatives and
unergatives shows such phenomena.
2.2.1 Argumental adverbs. Movement of argumental wh-phrases, e.g.,
(I a), is known to be less restricted than movement of adjunct whphrases, e.g., (1 b). In this sense, locatives in unaccusative constructions,
(Ic), behave like arguments in contrast to pure adjuncts as in (lb):
(1) a. Quien no sabes por que no viene?
Who don't you know why he doesn't come

transitive; wh-argument
b. *D6nde no sabes por que compra cosas Pedro?
Where don't you know why buys things Peter?

transitive; wh-locative

3 Cross-linguistically, we find LI in the case of unaccusatives and, in addition, in

the case of some unergatives. One might want to analyze such facts as indicating that
LI is restricted to intransitive verbs (e.g. Levin and Rappaport (1995) among others).
In tIIrn, it could be argued that LI is restricted not to intransitive verbs but to unaccusative verbs. According to the latter point of view, unergatives accepting LI enter the unaccusative class (e.g. Collins (1997. My discussion is not contingent on the exact
analysis of such behavior and, therefore, I remain neutral on the exact analysis of such
facts. The crucial point is the generalization in (ii.).

138

Iv[m Ortega-Santos

c. ?Donde no sabes por que fue Pedro?

Where don't you know why went Peter?
un accusative; wh-Iocative
2.2.2. Unergatives and unaccusative verbs patterning together with respect to LI. Plural bare NPs in argumental positions can only appear in
object position in Spanish, e.g., postverbal subjects of unaccusative
verbs or ordinary objects (e.g., Torrego (1989) among others). This can
be seen in the grammaticality of (2a) and (2b) as opposed to (2c) and
(2d):
(2) a. Veo libras.
'I see books'
b. Llegaron libras.
arrived books
'Some books arrived'
c. ??Anidan palomas.
nest pigeons
'Pigeons nest'

postverbal subject ofan unaccusative

postverbal subject ofan unergative

c.' ??Corren chicos.

run boys
'Boys run'
d. *En esta pelicula han matado mujeres al vendedor dentro de
una tienda.
In this movie have killed women to the salesman inside a store.
(Torrego 1989)
'In this movie, (some) women have killed the salesman inside
the store'
postverbal subject oftransitive verb

011 Locative Inversion and the EPP ill Spanish

139

As a consequence ofthis distribution, one can use bare NPs as a diagnostic of the objecthood ofsubjects/unaccusativity of the verb. 4
4 This discussion is valid for unmodified bare NPs. Modified bare NPs have a less
restricted distribution and are, therefore, not a diagnostic of the objecthood of the subject or unaccusativity. Throughout this discussion, I restrict myself to distribution of
bare NPs functioning as (non-focused and non-dislocated) subjects. The reader might
consult Casielles (1996) for a broader view of the distribution of bare NPs. Additionally, it is interesting to point out that unaccusatives which do not include an adverbial
in the structure do not license such bare NPs:

*Maduran peras.
ripen pears.
'Pears are ripening'
This means the Torrego's facts are less general than this researcher argued for. In
particular, not all unaccusatives allow bare NPs, but only those which include an adverbial in their argumental structure. Therefore, the distribution of bare NPs becomes
not a diagnostic of objecthood but of the presence of adverbs in the structure, that is to
say, a diagnostic of LI. This would be consistent with the fact that passives do not license bare NPs as subjects.
In turn, see Benedicto (1998) for a different view on the distribution of subject bare
NPs which might illustrate some dialectal difference among speakers. In particular,
Benedicto (1998: 27-28) argues against the object restriction of bare NPs giving the
following examples:
i. La carrera de medicina la estudian mujeres desde hace treinta allos.
the program of medicine it-CL study-3pl women since ago thirty years
'Medicine has the property that there have been women studying it for thirty
years'
ii. Estas cos as las han sabido mujeres desde siempre.
these things them-cL have-3pl known women since always
'These things are such that there have been women knowing them forever'
The speakers of Peninsular Spanish I have consulted gave me mixed results for (i.),
whereas they consistently rejected (ii.). I personally find a contrast between these instances and (2a) and (2b) and (3b). It is important to notice that certain areas of Spanish syntax which are relevant to the study of the EPP, e.g. the availability of the preverbal slot for subjects in interrogatives or in 'preposition + infinitive' structures are
subject to dialectal variation. In particular, Peninsular Spanish showing more restrictions in such cases than at least certain varieties of Latinamerican Spanish. If Tor-

140

Iwin uneI!a-Sm,,~c'

As far as the criterion in (ii) is concerned, as in English locative inversion, exemplified in (3a), in Spanish certain unergatives pattern
unaccusative verbs when taking a locative in preverbal position (Torrego 1989), e.g., (3b) and (3b'), as seen in the fact that bare NPs are licensed as subjects of such unergative verbs. 5
(3) a. In this office works the President's personal secretary. (Kemp":":
chinsky 2001)
b. *(Aqui) anidan palomas.
here nest pidgeons
b.' *(Aqui) corren chicos.
here run boys
'Boys run here'
The felicity of such bare NPs is contingent on the presence of a locative in the structure.
In addition to the facts noted by Torrego, it is worth pointing out that
the parallelism between English LI and the syntax of Spanish unaccusative/unergatives is further strengthened by the fact that in both English
and Spanish, the postverbal subject of the unergatives which have
shifted into the unaccusative class/pattern with unaccusatives is structurally a theme as shown by their incompatibility with agentive purpose
clauses, as seen in (4a) and (4b) respectively.
rego's facts are indeed relevant to the study of the EPP, one would expect a certain
amount of variation there, too. It is beyond the scope of this paper to focus on how
Latinamerican and Peninsular Spanish differ from one another. See Goodall (2001) for
relevant discussion with an emphasis on Mexican Spanish and Toribio (2000) for a
discussion on Dominican Spanish.
5 Torrego claims that unergatives aIIowing bare NPs as subjects shift into the unaccusative class. As stated above, my discussion is not contingent on the exact account
of these facts, but rather on the patterning together of unaccusatives and unergatives
when combined with locatives.

On La ca.t ive Illversion and the EPP in Spanish

141

(4) a. ??Aqui anidan palomas para estar cerca de la comida.

here nest pidgeons in order to be next to the food
'Pidgeons nest here in order to be next to the food'
*In this office works the President's personal secretary to take
b. notes on everything which is discussed. (Kempchinsky 2001)
Irrespective of whether (3) and (4) illustrate a shift into the unacc~
sative class or not, that is to say, irrespective of what .the exact analysIs
Spanish turns out to be, It should be noted
f uch data in English and s
o
.
d
that the fact that the presence of a locative allows unaccusatlVes an
unergatives to pattern together is one of the hallmarks ofLP
2.2.3 EPP and LF. With regard to (iii.), the condition that the . locative
satisfy the EPP in LI, that-trace effects in English suggest that ill LI the
locative moves through Spec,TP satisfying the EPP. In particular, both
subjects and locatives in LI trigger that-trace effects, (5a) and (5b), respectively, as opposed to regular adjuncts, (5c):

6 For the sake of completeness, it is worth pointing out that in this use of unergarives the adverb fulfills the LI feature of being quasi-argumental, i.e. of having more
freedom of movement than regular adverbs. Compare (1b), repeated here as (i) with
(ii). The difference is subtle, nonetheless.

i. *Donde no sabes por que compra cosas Pedro? transitive; wh-Iocative

where don't you know why buys things Peter?
ii. ?Donde no sabes por que anidan palomas?
llnacc./unerg.; wlz-Iocative
where don't you know why nest pidgeons?
7 In technical terms, the EPP has developed from the original requirement that certain functional heads must have a Specifier to Chomsky's (1995) strong D-feature ofa
functional head high in the clausal structure. Even though A and A make use of .the
latter definition, nothing in the present discussion is contingent on the exa~t. technical
definition of the EPP. It is worth noticing that Chomsky's (2000) redefinitIOn of the
EPP as driving movement in general is irrelevant here.

142

I/lversio/l alld the EPP ill Spanish

(5) a. Who l do you think (*that) tl left early? (Lasnik and Saito 1
that-trace effocts _

.c:
s on the re1evance th at the present discussion might have
h

S anish, in particular for approac es

Next, I 10CU
the debate on the. EPP m. p
Alexiadou and Anagnostopouthat the EPP IS not actIve, e.g.
claimIng
loU (1998).

b. It's in the villages that we all believe (*that) can be found

best examples of this cuisine (Bresnan 1994)

that-trace effects_
c. WhYI do you think (that) he left early tl? (Lasnik and
1992)
lack ofthat-trace effects - (1I111'JJ7,,'
The fact that in cases as (3b) the preverbal adverb is obligatory
consistent with the claim that the adverb satisfies the EPP, as nn""'...... ,~ ...
already in Torrego (1989).

cc

To sum up, I have argued that there is Locative Inversion in Spanish.

The evidence was provided by the argumental nature of adverbs, the'
patterning together of unaccusatives and unergative verbs and hints that;
the locatives satisfy the EPP in the structures under consideration.
After presenting the arguments for the existence of LI in Spanish,
briefly discuss how LI arises in this language.

2.3 Spanish LI vs. English LI. CasieIIes (1997) might provide an insight
into how LI arises in the case of unergatives in Spanish and why bare
NPs become so central to the discussion. Casielles (1997) explains different characteristics of the syntactic and semantic behavior of the argumental subject bare NPs under discussion by arguing that their NP
lature prevents them from being DP-moved, that is to say, from being
:argeted by movement operations involving phi-features. This view
night draw the line between English-like locative inversion, where the
:yntax of bare NPs plays no significant role, and LI in Spanish, where
lare NPs are relevant when taking into account how unergatives come
D pattern with unaccusatives. 8
8 Additionally, it is interesting to notice that the exact nature of Spec, TP in Spanish
'ould have consequences for the characteristics of LI in Spanish. Therefore, it is ex~cted that one can draw a parallelism between LI and other constructions, (e.g., psych

143

(INACTIVE) EPP IN SPANISH

3. ON THE
. 0 fVIew,
.
Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou
linal11stic pomt
.
b
From a cross- I:>~
th t the EPP can be satIsfied y move
(1998), (hereafter A and ~ argu~ th: case of null subject languages like
or merge of a head or ~d b asetisfied by movement of the verb, ~ parSpanish, th~ EP~ wou n~r::ual agreement. Under this analysIs, the
ticular, by ItS nch (p:-o)
.d
they provide in the case of
f TP is not proJected. The eVI ence
Spec 0 .
.
.
.
Spanish IS the fol1owm~.
A-bar ro erties, as shown by certam
First, preverbal subJef:cts ha;e instan~e Ppreverbal subjects compete
d order and scope acts. or
,
:~ adverbs as nunca in the preverbal slot:

(6) a. Pedro nunca viene.

Peter never comes.
b. *Nunca Pedro viene.
Never Peter comes
dl the lack of Definiteness Effects is used as an argument
S
econ y,
.
. th language
against the presence of expletives m e .

is vast
Th literature on the nature of S pec,TP in Spanish
.
01)
verbs as in Masullo (1992. . e
(1998) Goodall (2001) or Kempcbirnsky (20
(e.g., see Masullo (1992), Z~blZarreta
'ture of Spec,TP is beyond the. p~ose
among many others). Focusmg on the ex~ct na
that Spec TP in Spanish IS mdeed
,
of the present paper. Rather, my purpose IS to argue
subject to the EPP.

144

jOn Locative Inversion and the EPP in Spanish

(7) a. There arrived a manJ*the manJ*every man.

one can reach a compromise between the different claims about the EPP
in Spanish. This is the topic of the next section.

b.

n est arrive un homme/*l'homme.

145

(A and A 1998:512)
c. Vino un niiio / el niiio / Pedro.
Arrived a kid / the kid / Peter
Since the subject is postverbal in (7c), if there is no expletive in the
structure, the EPP would not be satisfied. This fact together with the A~
bar status of preverbal subjects is interpreted by A and A as evidence
~at ~pec,TP. is not p.rojected. In contrast to languages as French or Eng}
hsh, ill Spamsh normnal agreement satisfies the EPP.
Nonetheless, A and A provide no direct evidence for the pronominal
nature of agreement in this language. Ord6fiez and Trevifio (1999), in a
closely-related research on contrastive subjects argue that the fact that
binding is crucially determined by subject agreement would support the
~dea that a~eement is pronominal (e.g. Taraldsen 1992) in Spanish, as
Illustrated ill (8) (their example):

4. AN ATIEMPT TO REACH A COMPROMISE

One possibility to put together the analysis of A and A and specific aspects of the syntax of unaccusative, psych verbs or impersonal verbs is
to argue that agreement is pronominal in general but not in such contexts, (e.g., Kempchinsky (2001) and Ortega-Santos (2004. If that
were the case, we would expect to find some evidence for this, that is to
say for the peculiarity of Agreement in impersonals and in unaccusa-:
tives.
That is indeed the case. In particular, V -classes show different degrees of readiness to agree with (postverbal) subjects (9).

(9) Degree of Readiness to agree with (postverbal) subjects transitives/ unergatives unaccusatives/psych verbs impersonals lO

(8) [Los estudiantes]x salimos j de la reuni6n despues de que nOSj /*losx

acusaran.
The studentsx left-lpLj the meeting after they accused USj /*themx.
'We students left the meeting after they accused US'9

Transitives and unergatives obligatorily agree with both preverbal

and postverbal SUbjects. In tum, unaccusatives and psych verbs obligatorily agree with preverbal subjects but do not have to do so with postverbal SUbjects. Finally, impersonal verbs do not have to agree with either preverbal or postverbal SUbjects. This is exemplified in (10):

Such view that the EPP is not standardly active is at odds with the
analysis of unaccusativeslLI I have argued for and also with the syntax
of impersonals and psych-verbs (e.g., see Soriano (1999) and Masullo
(1992) for arguments that the EPP holds in the syntax of impersonal Vs
and psych-verbs, respyctively). One logical question to ask is whether

(10) a. Transitive V -preverbal subject ~ obligatory agreement

Aqui el pan y la leche tienen/*tiene excelentes propiedades.
Here the bread and the milk have-3pLlhave-3SG excellent properties
'The bread and the milk have excellent properties here'

9 Iso = 1 person singular, IPL = 1 person plural, 3so = 3 person singUlar, 3PL = 3
person plural, CL = clitic.

10 Interestingly, psych verbs and the impersonal Vs discussed by Soriano (1999)

can be consider to be unaccusatives. Therefore, one could explore the possibility that
this peculiarity of agreement might be related to the objecthood of the subjects of unaccusatives in general.

146

/win Urt,~ga-Sal1ifn.

a.' Transitive V - postverbal subject -+ obligatory agreement

Aqui tienenl*tiene el pan y la leche excelentes propiedades.
Here have-3pLlhave-3sG the bread and the milk excellent
erties
b. Unaccusative V - preverbal subject -+ obligatory agreement
EI pan y la leche lleganJ?llega aqui todos los dias.
the bread and the milk arrive-3pLI?arrive-3sG everyday
'Bread and milk are brought here everyday'
b.' Unaccusative V - postverbal subject -+ optional agreement
Aqui llegaronilleg6 el pan y la leche.
here arrived-3pLlarrived-3sG the bread and the milk
c. Psych V - preverbal subject -+ obligatory agreement
EI pan y la leche me gustanJ?gusta.
the bread and the milk CL-ISG please-3PLl?please-3sG
'Milk and bread please me'
c'. Psych V -postverbal subject -+ optional agreement
Me gustanJgusta el pan y la leche.
CL-lsG please-3pLlplease-3sG the bread and milk
d. Impersonal V - preverbal subject -+ optional agreement
El pan y la leche en este lugar sobra/sobran. (Soriano 1999)
the bread and the milk in this place is/are-extra.
'There is more than enough bread and milk here'
d'. Impersonal V - postverbal subject -+ optional agreement
En este lugar sobra/sobran el pan y la leche.
in this place is/are-extra the bread and the milk.
According to this view, agreement seems to have idiosyncratic properties in the contexts where the EPP is active, that is to say, in the syntax of impersonals / unaccusatives. Such facts might constitute the basis
of an analysis reconciling the evidence that the EPP is active in the case

Inversion and the EPP in Spanish

147

Pf'

accusative verbs (as argued above) or in the case of impersonal

(e.g., Fernandez Soriano (1~99) and ~asullo (199.2),
.... ectively). While this might lead to a plaUSIble analYSIS, I would like
resp
"1"
...
to suggest another alternatIve. In partICU ar, certam mconsIstencIes m
tlieproposal of Alexiadou c:n~ Anagno~top?ulou (~998) open the door
to considering that the EPP IS mdeed actIve m SpanIsh.

~:rsych verbs

5. ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE: THE EPP IS ACTIVE IN SPANISH

With regard to Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998), the following
points are worth m a k i n g : .
. .
First, any evidence that prevebal subjects have A-bar properties IS a
priori compatible with an active EPP if Spec,TP is an A'bar posi~on in
Spanish (e.g. Zubizarreta (1998) or Masullo (1992)). In fact, a VIeW of
preverbal subjects as non-argumental predicts that such subjects and
preverbal objects should pattern together, contrary to the fact (e.g., see
Goodall (2001) for arguments based on information structure). II
Secondly, with regard to the lack of Definiteness Effects (DE) in
Spanish, it is worth mentioning that there is no link between expletives
and DE in different languages. 12 Therefore, the argument that no expletive satisfied the EPP in (7c), that is to say, the argument that the EPP is
not satisfied in such structures is not consistent. Consequently, I conclude that the evidence provided by A and A (1998) for their analysis is
not compelling.
II The exact NA-bar properties of preverbal subjects are a controversial issue. My
proposal is not contingent on what the right analysis turns out to be. Rather, my point
is more general: even if it were the case that preverbal subjects in Spanish have A-bar
properties, this does not necessarily imply the EPP is not active in this language. In
particular, an understanding of Spec,TP as an A-bar position (e.g. Masullo (1992) and
Zubizarreta (1998) among others) would allow us to maintain an active EPP. Therefore, the discussion provided by A and A regarding the status of preverbal subjects is
not decisive. Needless to say that if preverbal subjects have A-properties as argued by
(Goodall 2001) versus A and A, this would be in keeping with an active EPP.
12 E.g., see Longa et al. (1998) for Catalan.

148

With regard to the evidence provided by Ordonez and

(1999) for the pronominal nature of agreement, their analysis
predict that the contrastive subjects they discuss are not to be
the contexts where the EPP is active, that is to say, in the 1'<"'......__
where we find Locative Inversion (or in the impersonal "'''...,,,i-.-.
studied by Fernandez Soriano (1999). Still, the prediction is not
lIed.
(11) Aqui sobramos/faitamoslllegamos los anarquistas.
Here is-extra-1pL/is-missing-1PL/arrive-1PL the anarchists
'We anarchists are extra/are missing/are arriving'
Therefore, whatever the right analysis of the contrastive agreemeritf
facts turns out to be, it seems that such facts do not bear on the debat~
on the EPP in Spanish as approached in this paper. 13
6. CONCLUSION
There is Locative Inversion in Spanish, as shown by evidence that (i.):
adverbs are argurnental in such contexts; (ii.) both unaccusatives and
certain unergatives pattern together (Torrego 1989), a hallmark of LI;
(iii.) adverbs satisfy the EPP .
Such a view is at odds with claims that EPP is not standardly active
Spanish. In particular, Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) and
Ordonez and Trevrno (1999) argue that Agreement is pronominal and
satisfies the EPP. If we assume that agreement is exceptional in the
constructions where the EPP is active, we might reconcile approaches
as Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) and Ordonez and Trevino
(1999) with the Locative Inversion facts in this language. Still, the lack
of compelling evidence for the satisfaction of the EPP by agreement

13 See Kempchinsky (2001) for an analysis of pronominal agreement compatible

with the projection ofSpec,TP as an A-bar position.

Loca!l've Inversion and the EPP in Spanish

149

to a simpler analysis where the EPP is active in Spanish, (e.g.,

(1998) and Goodall (2001) among others).
BIBLIOGRAFiA

Alexiadou, A. y E. Anagnostopoulou. 1998. ''Parametrizing AGR: word

order, V-movement and EPP checking". Natural Language and
Linguistics Theory. 16: 491-539.
Bresnan, J. 1994. "Locative inversion and the architecture of universal
grammar". Language. 70: 72-131.
Benedicto, E. 1998. "Verb movement and its effects on determinerless
plural subjects". En A. Schwegler et al. (eds.) ..Ro~ance linguistics:
theoretical perspectives. Amsterdam: John BenjaITIlllS. 25-39.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht:
Foris.
- . 1995. "Categories and transformations". In The, minimalist
.
program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 219-394.
--.2000. "Minimalist inquiries: the framework". En R. MartIn et
al. (eds.). Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of
Howard Lasnik. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. 89-155.
Casielles, E. 1996. "On the misbehavior of bare nouns in Spanish". In
C. Parodi et al. (eds.). Aspects in romance linguistics. Washington
DC: Georgetown University Press. 135-148.
Collins, C. 1997. Local economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fernandez Soriano, O. 1999. "Two types of impersonal sentences in
Spanish: locative and dative subjects". Syntax. 2: 2. 101-140.
Goodall, G. 2001. "The EPP in Spanish". In W. D. Davies y S.
Dubinsky (eds.). Objects and other subjects: grammatical functions,
functional categories and configurationality. Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers. 193-223.

150

Kempchinsky, P. 2001. "On the position of preposed PPs in -4.'....u.""

and Spanish". In J. Herschensohn et al. (eds.). Features
inteifaces in romance: essays in honor of Heles
Netherlands: John Benjamins. 161-174.
--.2001. "Locative inversion, PP topicalization and the EPP". In
Sattefield et al. Current issues in romance languages. N
John Benjamins. 145-158.
Lasnik, H. y M. Saito. 1992. Move a: conditions on its applications
output. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Levin, B. y M. Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge:
Press.
Longa, V. M., G. Lorenzo y G. Rigau. 1998. "Subject clitics and clitic
recycling: locative sentences in some iberian romance languages".
Journal ofLinguistics 34: 125-164.
Masullo, P. J. 1992. "Quirky datives in Spanish and the non-nominative
subject parameter". MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 82-103.
Ord6fiez, F. y E. Trevii'io. 1999. "Left dislocated subjects and the prodrop parameter: a case study of Spanish". Lingua 107: 1-2,39-68.
Ortega-Santos, r. 2004. Impersonal constructions, unaccusatives and the
EPP in Spanish. Talk at WCCFL 23, April 24th 2004 at UC Davis,
California.
Perlmutter, D. M. 1978. "Impersonal passives and the unaccusative
hypothesis". In Proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of the
Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society. 157-189.
Toribio, A. J. 2000. "Setting parametric limits on dialectal variation in
Spanish". Lingua. 10: 315-341.
Torrego, E. 1989. "Unergative unaccusative alternations". MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics. 10: 253-272.
Zubizarreta, M. L. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge:
MIT Press.

Elipsis nominal en castellano

Maria Emma Ticio
Universidad de Houston

O. INTRODUCCION
Este estudio tiene como objetivo fundamental el proponer un anaIisis
sintactico de los contextos en los que podemos tener elipsis nominal en
castellano. Con este fin en mente, el trabajo se ha estructurado en cuatro
apartados: el apartado 1 esta dedicado a la presentaci6n descriptiva de
los contextos en los que podemos tener elipsis nominal en castellano.
Seguidamente, en el apartado 2, se incluye una breve revisi6n critica de
algunos analisis propuestos hasta el momento para explicar los datos
descritos en el apartado 1. En el apartado 3 se prop one un anaIisis alternativo para estas construcciones, el cual pretende superar los obstaculos
propios de los anaIisis anteriores. El analisis que propongo se basa en la
estructura para las expresiones nominales propuesta en Ticio (2003) y
en la hip6tesis que defiende la naturaleza fonol6gica de los procesos de
elipsis. Finalmente, el estudio se cierra con un apartado en el que se detallan las conclusiones mas importantes del trabajo.

1. DATOS BAsICOS
Desde un punto de vista descriptivo se asume que el castellano permite
la elipsis nominal. Esta propiedad del castellano es la que hace posible
la omisi6n de ciertos elementos del Sintagma Nominal (de ahora en
adelante, SN) en oraciones como (1 a). La unica restricci6n a este tipo
de elisi6n nominal es la que se ilustra en (1 b). En este caso, la elipsis
nominal total se aplica a una expresi6n nominal introducida por el articulo definido y la oraci6n resultante es agramatical.