Elly van Gelderen has posted a new paper by her and Jeff MacSwan: Interface Conditions and Codeswitching: Pronouns, Lexical DPs, and Checking Theory

From the introduction:

The ban on codeswitching between a (subject) pronoun and a verb, but not between a lexical DP and a verb, is an enduring puzzle in research on bilingual codeswitching. In this paper, we propose an account of the codeswitching facts by positing that pronouns and lexical DPs take advantage of different checking strategies: While lexical DPs check features in [Spec, TP], pronouns undergo D-to-T movement. In the latter case, the resulting formation is a mixed-language complex head, and therefore crashes at PF, as predicted by the PF Disjunction Theorem.

Also available there:

Elly van Gelderen: Syntactic variation in Corpora and I-language:Principles and Parameters in Change

Abstract:

In this paper, I examine variation in use between pronouns and nouns, between differently case marked pronouns and nouns, and between the different persons. These differences do not constitute absolute tendencies, or splits, and they are only detectable when looking at large numbers of instances. I show how this variation has theoretical implications, in particular for Economy Principles, thus providing insights into the I-language. I also consider historical data which show that fast change (e.g. with the loss of morphological case) is suggestive of a parameter resetting, but that slow change (e.g. the noun pronoun split) is indicative of a principle. Using three corpora, I also raise some questions concerning the nature of linguistic data.

Or this one:

Elly van Gelderen: Aspect, Infinitival Complements, and Evidentials

From the introduction:

This paper starts with an examination of Giorgi and Pianesi’s (1997) evidence for positing certain differences between English and German infinitives. They argue that bare (eventive) infinitives without -e(n), as in English, are perfective, but that infinitives with -e(n), as in German and Dutch, are not. Two pieces of evidence they provide are:(a) Perceptionverb (PV) complements in English are perfective, but they are not in Dutch and German, and (b) the simple present in English cannot be used to express present tense. I show that there are several problems with these parts of Giorgi and Pianesi’s analysis.

Check out Elly's web page for other papers, very useful course information, or other resources.