Ling 425/709
Null Pronominal Arguments
1. Describe Hyams’ (1984) proposal about the pro drop parameter.
2. What predictions does Hyams’ pro drop model make for language acquisition?
3. What logical flaws does Hyams’ pro drop model have?
4. What empirical evidence contradicts Hyams’ pro drop model?
5. Explain why the cross-linguistic evidence contradicts the predictions of the pro drop model.
6. What does the Subset Principle predict about the initial parameter setting?
7. What are two problems for the Subset Principle?
8. Describe Hyams’ (1992) topic drop parameter.
9. What empirical evidence contradicts the topic drop model?
10. What is the Root Infinitive Hypothesis?
11. What is the Agreement/Tense Omission Model (ATOM)?
12. How do children overcome the Unique Checking Constraint?
13. What advantages does ATOM have over Hyams’ pro drop hypothesis?
14. How does ATOM tie children’s use of subjects to verb inflection?
15. Describe Rizzi’s 1993/4 Truncation Hypothesis.
16. Explain the different predictions the Root Infinitive Hypothesis and the Truncation Hypothesis make about the acquisition of Wh-questions.
17. How does MOSAIC explain the eventivity constraint?
18. Why does MOSAIC miss the semantic basis of the eventivity constraint?
19. Explain why Wilson’s (2003) findings support the constructivist model of acquisition.
20. Explain the French negation evidence in support of the Root Infinitive Hypothesis.
21. Why does the Danish inflectional paradigm create a problem for the Root Infinitive Hypothesis?
22. What are the other problems for the Root Infinitive Hypothesis?
23. Why does verb omission create a problem for the Root Infinitive Hypothesis?
24. How does research on the acquisition of English limit both the generativist and constructivist accounts?
25. Why does the constructivist approach predict that children do not analyze inflection?
26. What problems do the Mayan findings on extended ergativity create for ATOM?
27. What problems do the Mayan findings on extended ergativity create for MOSAIC?