1

Anton Zimmerling Moscow state university of the humanities, MGGU/

Russian state university of the humanities, RGGGmeinmat@yahoo.com

http://antonzimmerling.wordpress.com/

2

Basic factsThe paper revises the Null-Subject-Parameter responsible for

dropping thematic pronominal subjects of a finite clause and offers a new classification of Slavic languages in terms of pro-drop.

I am focusing on two non-trivial facts: A) Some languages including Vojvodina Rusinsky and Old

Novgorod developed a constraint blocking BE-auxiliaries in clauses with overt subject pronouns. In this group inflected auxiliaries are licensed by T only in clauses with pro. I refer to this group as ‘aggressive pro-drop’.

B) Some other languages including Russian license pro-drop only in 1st-2nd persons.

3

Claims: synchrony (1) I prove that 3rd person pro is licensed in Russian only if

its antecedent is D-linked. I refer to this option as ‘weak/non-pro-drop’ and argue

that it is different from ‘standard pro-drop’ (Polish, Czech).

Existing accounts of pro-drop – the ‘morphological uniformity’ criteria, the ‘impoverishment/ neutralization’ criteria, the ‘radical pro-drop’ conjecture, the conjecture on the alleged N /D contrast in the system of personal pronouns cannot predict the contrast of the supposed 1st-2nd vs pro-drop vs 3rd person non-pro-drop in Russian.

4

Claims: synchrony (2)A typologically valid classification of pro-drop languages

must be based on the notion of argument pro-drop, not discourse pro-drop.

Slavic languages can be classified with 3 groups.A. ‘standard pro-drop’ (Polish, Czech). 1st, 2nd & 3rd p. pro.

Inflected auxiliaries are licensed both in clauses with and without overt pronouns. No zero auxiliaries or 3rd person zero auxiliaries only.

B. ‘Aggressive pro-drop’ (Rusinsky, Old Novgorod Russian). 1st, 2nd & 3rd p. pro. Inflected auxiliaries are licensed only in clauses with pro and banned in clauses with overt pronouns.

C. ‘Weak/no pro-drop’ (Modern Russian). 1st & 2ndp. pro-drop only. No inflected auxiliaries in verbal forms.o

5

Claims: diachronyHistorically, aggressive pro-drop in Slavic results

from a combination of two features – 1) pro-drop licensing with non-D-linked referents 2) licensing of zero auxiliaries/copula dropping. Standard pro-drop languages don’t license zero auxiliaries or restrict them to the 3rd person. The weak/non-pro-drop option in the history of Russian resulted from two processes – 1) loss of 3rd person auxiliaries 2) licensing of 1st-2nd auxiliary dropping.

Standard pro-drop languages kept the balance between these two extremes by making overt auxiliaries obligatory.

6

MERGE & MOVE & SPELL-OUTWell-formed structures (sometimes) can be

generated and parsed even if some of their elements are not expressed explicitly.

Universal Grammar includes operations of three types — merging of subtrees [of a tree structure] = Merge, Movement of a subtree = Move and mapping of subtrees and trees onto strings of some physical elements/linearly ordered strings of physical elements = Spell-Out.

7

Zeros in theoretic syntaxZero categories in syntax always result from

the mapping of two levels of representation, the higher one (n + 1 level) interpreting the lower one (nth level).

Adding zero categories helps to recognize and parse well-formed structures.

Zero categories are real if they share some features with some non-zero categories.

Conclusive proof has been provided only for the existence of zero subject pronouns and zero auxiliaries.

8

Zeros and DeletionTwo possible types of zeros.A. Lieutenant Kije-type: big PRO (cf. Holmberg 2005).‘the arrestant is incorporeal and has no body’. A ban on non-zero manifestation. ‘Lieutenant Kije’ are

categories that does not spell-out at PF. B. Wastebasket-fly-type: pro, Mel’čuk’s zero lexemes

etc.The presence of such zero categories is due to Deletion

operation. Some compatible category (say, overt pronominal) has been deleted and the ‘wastebasket flies’ fill the place.

9

pro and pro-drop pro = zero equivalent of pronominal subject

of a finite verb. pro is inherently unspecified for φ-feature

values. Its distribution is determined by the following two conditions:

a. pro must be licensed. b. pro must be identified.

Pro-drop = subject pronominal dropped & replaced by pro.

10

Some pro characteristicspro is inherently unspecified for φ-feature values.pro is restricted with subject position with finite

verbs.

pro is a definite zero pronoun.pro has the communicative status of a (zero) topic

or ‘theme’.

Pro does lacks role-specific features characteristic of Agents, Patients, Experiencers etc.

11

Accounts of proA. Morphologic uniformity (Jaeggli & Safir 1989).Pro-drop only licensed in languages with morphologically uniform verbal

paradigms: either all persons are distincly inflected (cf. Italian) or none (cf. Chinese).

B. ‘Impoverishment’ (Műller 2005).Pro cannot be licensed by T if T is subject to an impoverishment operation

that lead to a neutralization of φ-features.C. ‘Agglutinative hypothesis’ (Neeleman & Szendröi 2005).Any pronoun can be dropped (radical pro-prop) if personal pronouns are

agglutinating for case, number or some other nominal feature.Holmberg’s hypothesis. 1st-2nd pronouns can be dropped since they are Ns while 3rd person pronouns

cannot since they are Ds.

12

Argument pro-drop Argument pro-drop language type. The deleted 3 p. pronoun is

unambiguously recoverable even it is *NOT* anaphoric and D-linked.

Some argument pro-drop languages. Strict VSO languages (Arabic, Irish), Romance and Balcanic SVO → VSO languages with verb movement and object clitics

Russian is not a standard pro-drop language. A sentence like pro пошел-Sg. Past.M. на лекцию is most naturally interpreted as having the value of 1 Sg. gets a more strained interpretation in the 2 p. , while аn interpretation in the 3rd person is excluded with the exception of contexts where the dropped pronoun is anaphoric.

On the contrary, in consistent argument pro-drop languages as Spanish andr Modern Greek a 3rd interpretation = NN ≪ went to the lecture ≫ is the default option: the antecedent of pro is not necessary recoverable in its narrow syntactic environment.

13

Russian as a non-pro-drop languageRussian is not a standard pro-drop language. A sentence like pro пошел-Sg. Past.M. на лекцию is most naturally

interpreted as having the value of 1 Sg. =≪I (SPEAKER) went to the lecture , ≫ gets a more strained interpretation in the 2 p. = ≪You=Sg (HEARER) went to the lecture , ≫ while аn interpretation in the 3 person = NN ≪ went to the lecture ≫ is excluded with the exception of contexts where the dropped pronoun is anaphoric.

Anaphoric contexts. Cf. a dialogue <А. Где Ваня≪ i?> В. proi пошел на лекцию .≫ <А. Where is Vaniai?> В. proi went to the lecture> ‘Pro-testability’ hierarchy of persons in Russian: 1 > 2 // (> *3)

14

Zeros and constructionsIn applied syntax, zero categories always correlate

with a given set of constructions. Adding zeros to syntactic representation shows that these constructions are generated by some rules/principles that allow for interpreting the absence of an overt category (e.g. <grammatical subject> or <NP> or <personal pronoun in the Nom. case≫ or <auxialiriary> etc) as a result of its deletion from a string of overt sentence categories.

The more zeros one adds, the more constructions one is able to parse, ceteris paribus.

Meanwhile, the set of postulated zeros cannot be expanded ad libitum — otherwise turning to any new corpus of texts/any new language one will get new types of syntactic zeros.

15

pro as agreement controller Some consistent pro-drop languages exclude overt personal prounouns and

auxiliary clitics. Subject forms (including subject pronouns) are controllers of inflexed

auxiliaries/

Rusinsky (Vojvodina dialect: well-formed phrases as e.g. Добри=є, Вон добри, but *Вон=є добри, which both has 3rd person Sg. Auxiliary clitic =є and overt subject (nominative) pronoun 3rd person Sg. M вон. [Browne 2008], [Браун 2008].

A meaning like ≪I am a member of some organization ≫ can be expressed in Rusinsky both with a phrase containing pro — pro член=сом, and with an overt pronoun — я член, but the pleonasm *я=сом член is banned.

A meaning like ≪I haven’t read this≫ can be expressed both with a phrase with an overt subject pronoun — я нє читал and with a phrase with an auxiliary clitic — нє читал=сом, but these two agreement markers cannot be combined in one and the same phrase: *я нє читал=сом, *я=сом нє читал, *я нє=сом читал [Browne 2008].

A-STATE-OF-ART OBSERVATION: in some pro-drop languages clitic auxiliaries agree with grammatical subject only if the latter is not spelled-out.

16

Null subject and expletive Faroese:(1) Far. Vit byrjuðu hesa greinina við at siga, [CP

at tað-Expl gongur-3Sg upp og niður í fiskivinnuni-DatPrepSg]. ≪We began this article with an statement, [CP that in fishery things are going up and down ], ≫ lit. …[≪ CP that it goes up and down ]. ≫

(2) Far. í fiskivinnuni-DatPrepSg ∅-gongur-3Sg alt í ð upp og niður, ≪In fishery, ∅-goes always up and down≫

Hypothesis: zero subjects and expletive take the same position – SpecCP.

17

Finnish(3) Fin. а. pro Meni hullusti. went wrong ≪(things) are in a bad way≫ б. Sitä meni hullusti. EXPL went wrong ≪the same≫ в. *Meni nyt hullusti. Went now wrong Hypothesis: the expletive is inserted (Expletive Merge) when the initial

elemant is a ‘bad’ topic. Two possible scenarios – pro/Expletive Merge (3а-б) or inversion:

*Meni nyt hullusti → nyti meni ti hullusti. Unlike in Faroese, expletive sita and se are not deleted in the postposition

to the verb, as e.g. in general questions.(4) Fin. Meni-ko sita taas hullusti? Went-Q EXPL again awry ‘Are things in a bad way or something?

18

Expletive as a formal theme Fin. sitä, unlike Rus. это, cannot precede a topical subject if both

elements are preverbal (5aб) is grammatical because the pronominal subject е minä «I» is the rheme or focus of contrast. Meanwhile, it is difficult to fine an appropriate communicative reading for (5b) :

 (5) Fin. a. Sitä olen minä -kin käynyt Pariisissa. EXPL have-1Sg I-too visited Paris-INE ‘I have indeed been to Paris»’ б. Minä sitä olen käynyt Pariisissa. ‘I have been to Paris, too (fancy that)’ /’But I have been to

Paris’.  в. *sitä minä olen käynyt Pariisissa.

Hypothesis: Fin. sitä is not as much an expletive subject as an ‘expletive topic’.

19

Structures with subject-predicate agreement 

Pro

Fin. (Minä) puhun englantia.Rus. (Я) говорю по-английски.

Fin. (Me) puhumme englantia.Rus. (мы) говорим по-английски.

Pro II. Fin. (Sinä) puhut englantia.Rus. (Ты) говоришь по-английски.

II. Fin. (Te) puhutte englantia.Rus. (Вы) говорите по-английски.

* III. Fin. (*Han) puhuu englantia.Rus. (*Он/она) говорит по-английски.

III. Фин. (*He) puhuvat englantia.Рус. (*Они) говорят по-английски.

20

Coreferent deletion and zerosCoreferent deletion in embeddedclausesNP1 = NP2

I-III. Fin. Pekkai väittää [että Øi /häni puhuu englantia]. ‘P. thinks [CPthat (he) speaks English].’Rus. I think/you think/Pjotri thinks [CP that ?(I) speak/, (you-Sg) speak/ (hei) speaks English].

Structures with a zero/expletive element: non-agreeing predicates.Ø3Sg ~ EXPL Markers of ‘impersonal’ predicates: Fin. Ø3Sg meni hullusti; Nyt Ø3Sg

/ se taas sataa ’Now it is raining again’. Rus. Ø3Sg плохо подвигается; Ø3Sg (*оно) морозит, светает.

Ø3S ~ EXPL Anticipating expletive, correlative to CP: Fin. Ø3Sg /Sei oli hauskaa [CPettä tulit käymään] i ‘(Iti) is nice [CPthat you came to see him] i’ .Rus. Ø3Sg /Этоi странно, что [[CPчто он опоздал]] i. (*Этоi) мне странно, что [[CPчто он опоздал]] i.

21

Two types of zero agents in Modern IcelandicInanimate Agent, {-CONTROL}

Animate agent { CONTROL}

Verbal-impersonal construction: Impersonal passive:

Btnum=DatSg 1-hvolfdi=3SgPret “the boat was turned over", lit.“лодке опрокинул(о)”.

Btnum=DatSg 2-var=3SgPret hvolft=Sup lit. «лодке опрокинул(о)».

*Btnum=DatSg 1-hvolfdi=3SgPret viljandi lit. *«лодке опрокинул(о) умышленно».

Btnum=DatSg 2-var hvolft=Sup viljandi, lit. «лодку опрокинуто умышленно».

22

Generic pronoun Ø2Sg

Russian bans correlative clauses with 3rd p. с pro,cf. (1а) and requires a non-zero pronoun in the left clause, cf. (1b); in the right clause pro is possible(1c) though not obligatory.

(1) а. * [proi ищет] i, proi всегда найдет; *[proi что болит] i, proi о том и говорит.

  b. [Ктоi ищет] i, тотi всегда найдет. [У

когоi чтоj болит] i, тотi о томj и говорит.  c. [Ктоi ищет] i, proi всегда найдет. [У

когоi чтоj болит] i, proi о томj и говорит.

23

Ø2Generic

in correlative clauses

In the right clause Ø2Generic does not alternate with overt generic 2Sg pronoun ты, cf. ill-formed (2a) и (2b):

 (2) a. [Ø2Generic

i Ищешь в чужом государстве], [Ø2Generici /

proi находишь в своем болоте].  b. *[Ø2Generic

i Ищешь в чужом государстве], [ тыi находишь в своем болоте].

 (3) a. [Ø2Generic

i как посеешь] i, [Ø2Generici/ proi так и

пожнешь]. b. *[Ø2Generic

i как посеешь] i, [так тыi и пожнешь].

24

How many 2 person zeros are there in Russian?From the one side, Ø2Generic in correlative clauses stands in

Nom.Sg., while in structures with secondary predication generic 2 Sg. Pronoun stands in the Accusative case but can assume the forms of all genders and numbers.

From the other side, postulation one zero generic 2 p. pronoun taking either Nom. Or Acc in both genders, but not other case forms seems a lesser evil than postulating zero pronouns specified as objects.

Structural uses of Acc. And Nom correlate and the accusative argument in structures with secondary predications correlate. This argument can be interpreted as subject of a *small clause*.

25

Agreement with Ø2Generic and with generic тыOne can prove for in configurations with secondary

predication one deals with Ø2Generic, and not with an NP-ellipsis (pro-form) of an overt generic 2 p. ты,.

Overt generic ты agrees in gender and natural gender[sex] with the gender and natural gender of the referent: (3) with a zero 2 p. pronoun is appropriate in a situation with a male referent, while (4) in this situation is completely excluded.

 (3) Пластический хирург не сделает Ø2Generic

i {M/F; Sg} красавицей i{F; Sg}.

 (4) Пластический хирург не сделает тебя i {F; Sg}

красавицей i {F; Sg}.

26

Outlook Unifying all kinds of zero pronouns attested in finite clauses to one and

the same category pro is infelicitous. Discourse dropping of personal pronouns, coreferent deletion of pronouns and constraints on spell-out of overt pronominal subjects are three different mechanisms.

A crucial disctinction for a ‘zero typology’ is the distinction of zero subjects with role semantics of their own (cf. ‘Mel’čuk’s zeros’) vs role-indifferent zeros (cf. Chomskyan pro). One should also distinguish zero pronouns linked with given person forms vs person-indifferent pronouns.

Some zero pronouns of 3rd person exhibit properties not characteristic of 1st-2nd person zeros/ zero pronouns taking the forms of different persons.

Zerp pronouns of 3rd person Sg. vs 3rd person Pl. can be involved in a semantic contrast (as in Modern Russian), but the same semantic contrast can be expressed by a different combination of syntactic zeros (cf. Modern Icelandic).

Some zero pronouns may express Case and Gender: this seems to depend on agreement morphology of particular languages rather than with semantics. Zero pronouns with a role semantics of Agents may coexist with non-agentive zero pronouns in different predicate classes: this typologically rare situation is attested in Modern Icelandic.

27

References, I Alexiadou A. & E.Anagnastopoulou 1998. Parametrizing AGR:

Word Order, V-movement and EPP-checking // Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:491-539.

Babby L. 2002. Subjectlessness, External Subcaterization, and the Projection Principle // Journal of Slavic Linguistics. 10: 341-88.

Boeckx C. & N.Hornstein. 2004. Movement under Control // Linguistic Inquiry 34, 269-280.

Browne 2008. Clitic Ordering in Vojvodina Rusinski // Slavic Linguistic Society 3, Ohio June 10-12, 2008.

Chomsky N., Lasnik H. 1993. Syntax in generativen Grammatik // Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research / J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W.Stermfeld, T.Venneman, eds. Berlin & New York, Walter de Gryuter, 506- 569.

Gilligan, Gary M. 1987. A cross-linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. Univ. of Southern California PhD.

28

References, IIHavrnek B. 1962. K historickosrovnvacmu poznn

syntaxe slovanskch jazyků // Otzky slovansků syntaxe. Praha.

Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 533–564.

Holmberg A. & C.Platzack. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. N.Y: Oxford UP.

Jaeggli O., Safir K. (eds.) 1989. The null subject parameter. 1989. Dordrecht, Foris.

Lavine J. 2005. The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian –no/-to // Journal of Slavic Linguistics 13: 75-117.

Mel’čuk I. 1979. Syntactic, or Lexical Zero in Natural Language //Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.Berkeley: UCB, 224-260.

Rizzi L. 1986. Null subjects in Italian and the Theory of pro. L. 501-557.

29

References, IIISigursson Halldr rmann. 2008. Conditions on

argument drop - in press.Sigursson Halldr rmann. 2008a. The Case of

PRO // Natural language and linguistic Theory - in press.

Stabler, E.P.1997. Derivational minimalism. In Christian Retore, ed., Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. Springer, p. 68–95.

Zimmerling A. 2007. Zero Lexemes and Derived Sentence Patterns. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sondetrband 69.

Zimmerling A. 2008. Dative Subjects and Semi-Expletive Pronouns in Russian // Formal Description of the Slavic Languages, FdSL 7 / U.Junghanns, L.Szucsic, G.Zybatow (eds) – in press.

30

References, IVZubáty J.1954. Studie a lnky, II. Praha.Мельчук И.А. 1995. Русский язык в модели

Смысл Текст. Москва-Вена: Языки русской культуры. (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 39).

Циммерлинг А.В. 2002.Типологический синтаксис скандинавских языков. Москва. Циммерлинг А.В. 2008. Нулевые лексемы в синтаксисе: догматика и типология. Acta linguistica Petropolitana IV, part 2. Sankt-Petersburg, 2008, 226-244.

31

References, VFranks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic

Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP, 1995.Lindseth, Martina. 1998. Null-subject properties of

Slavic languages: with special reference to Russian, Czech and Sorbian. Vol. 361. Műnchen, Sagner.

Meyer, Roland. 2007. The history of pro drop in Russian. SLS-2. Berlin. 25-27.08.2007.

Műller, G. 2005. Pro-drop and impoverishment. Ms. University of Leipzig.

Zalizniak, Andrej A. 2008. Drevnerusskie enklitiki. Moscow

32

AcknowlegmentsResearch is a part of the project “The

typology of syntactic constraints” funded by the Russian Foundation for Humanities (RGNF 09-04-00297a) whose support is gratefully acknowledged.