Number marking in Colloquial Singapore English

Number marking in Colloquial Singapore English (CSE) has often been described as sporadic or random. This description stems from the fact that plural marking is largely optional in CSE, combined with a lack of precise characterization of its optionality. We show that CSE number marking is not random but systematic; plural marking is obligatory on a noun that occurs with a number-neutral determiner in Determiner+Noun sequence, and optional elsewhere. We propose a principle called Avoid Ambiguity Principle and derive the optional but not-so-optional nature of CSE number marking from an interaction between the principle and the structure of a nominal expression. Unlike CSE, English displays obligatory number marking. We argue that this is a result of the two languages differing in two respects – (i) English always projects D, whereas CSE does so optionally; (ii) English D comes with unvalued [αpl], whereas CSE D comes with valued [+/−pl]. These language-specific parameters, coupled with the Avoid Ambiguity Principle, capture the differences between the two languages. Under our analysis, English transformed to CSE by a parameter resetting in category D when it came to Singapore

Anaphoric Expressions in Javanese

this paper we examine three types of anaphoric expressions in Javanese: (i) pronouns, e.g. deen '3PSG', (ii) true reflexives, e.g. awak+pronoun+dewe and (iii) "pseudo-reflexives", e.g. awak+pronoun. We argue that the distribution of pronouns like deen and true reflexives like awake deen dewe follows from Principle B and A of the Binding Theory: namely, while pronouns cannot have a local c-commanding antecedent, reflexives must have a local c-commanding antecedent. The third type of anaphoric expression, awak+pronoun, constitutes a problematic case for the Binding Theory. Its distribution is peculiar in that it can take either a local or a non-local antecedent. These facts might appear to suggest that the typology of anaphoric expressions predicted by the Binding Theory does not hold in Javanese, and, hence, that the Binding Theory is not universa