this paper. Towards that end, comments are welcome. 1 (1) S

this paper we will only propose them for universal principles, though there are some intriguing possibilities for language-particular application as well. But to make serious proposals along these lines, one would need to have a restrictive theory of what kinds of conditionals are found in natural-language grammars, something we will not attempt to provide here.

this paper I want to look at what the evidence from Complex Predicates can tell us about the design parameters of an empirically adequate theory of Universal Grammar (UG). This is a fertile field for investigation because, according to the standard assumptions of the field, complex predicates are monoclausal with respect to some properties and multiclausal with respect to others and this tension can only be resolved by giving up some cherished beliefs. After introducing the problem in Section 1, Sections 2--4 will lay out the basis of the dilemma. Sections 2 and 3 argue that Romance complex predicates have an articulated rightwardbranching phrase structure, and cannot be analyzed as some sort of verb compound or verbal complex while conversely Section 4 shows how in many respects a complex predicate does behave just like a single predicate. Hence we require a notion of monoclausality that these complex predicates satisfy despite their articulated phrase structure. Section 5 then draws out the implications of this result for theories that have monostratal syntactic levels (in the sense of Ladusaw 1988) such as LFG, HPSG or Categorial Grammar.

This paper argues for the use of two levels in syntactic description, grammatical relations and argument structure, at which sentences may have different representations: the prominence ranking may differ, as in syntactically ergative and Western Austronesian languages, and the argument structure may be more nested, as in passives or causatives. We begin with binding theory.

The paper is concerned with the realization of subjects in Russian (Ru) as compared with Polish (Po) and Czech (Cz). Non-overt realization seems to be a general option in the Slavic languages. However, whereas Cz and Po are uncontroversially pro-drop languages, the status of Ru needs a closer look. On the one hand, Ru allows both subjects and non-subjects to be absent at the surface without a difference concerning contexts and conditions. On the other hand, gaps and overt expressions turn out to be just different options that are freely available for the realization of non-emphatic subjects in Ru. We conclude that Ru is not a pro-drop language. Gaps can be accounted for as ellipsis. In the last part of the paper we bring scales into the picture. One can try and invoke Silverstein’s (1976) person/animacy hierarchy and a reduction scale to account for non-overt vs. overt realization of subjects. However, different systems of weak pronouns turn out to be the true factor determining subject realization in Ru, Po, and Cz. 1. Initial data Russian (Ru) sentences often have gaps in positions where one expects to find a subject. At first glance, there doesn’t seem to be any difference between Ru and other Slavic languages. There are structural null subjects with non-finite verb forms (like, e.g., infinitives and adverbial participles (gerunds)) as shown in examples (1a, b). This type of subject gap can be analyzed as PRO or an unpronounced copy. These gaps will not play a role in the present paper. ∗ This is a slightly revised version of the paper that we presented at the Workshop on Scales, Leipzig, March 29-30, 2008. We would like to thank the audience of the workshop for helpful discussion.