slides. - web hosting at umass amherst - university of
Post on 09-Feb-2022
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
.
......
Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister: aunifiedanalysis
AndrewWeir
UniversityofMassachusettsAmherstaweir@linguist.umass.edu
RegisterVariationandSyntacticTheoryworkshopInternationalCongressofLinguistsUniversityofGeneva, 26July2013
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Introduction
Focusofthistalk: object(pronoun)dropin‘abbreviatedEnglish’/’reducedwrittenregister’(RWR)
Usuallydiscussedforrecipes(Haegeman1987a,b,Massam&Roberge1989,Massam1992):
(1) Cutchickenintosmallpieces. Bake ∅ for20minutes.
Butinprinciplepossibleinnon-recipecontextsinRWR,e.g.diaries
(2) Receivedcreditcardbillinmailtoday. Willshred ∅ later.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Questionsaboutobjectdrop
WhatlicensesobjectdropinRWR,butnotstandardEnglish?
Whatistherelation, ifany, betweensubjectdropandobjectdropinRWR?
CanobjectdropbeunderstoodasaconsequenceofindependentlymotivatedassumptionsaboutRWR?(Myanswer: yes, it’saconsequenceofarticledrop.)
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Roadmapofthetalk
Grammaticalconstraintsonobjectdrop; comparisonwithsubjectdrop
NullarticlesinRWR
Pronoundropasaconsequenceofnullarticles(Tomioka2003)
Speculationsondifferenceswithsubjectdrop
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Subjectdropvs. objectdrop
PronounsseemtodropquitefreelyinRWR,bothsubjectandobjectpronouns
(3) ∅ Receivedcreditcardbillinmailtoday. ∅Will ∅ shredlater.
Isthisacaseofgeneral/‘radical’pronoundrop?
No; theconstraintsonsubjectpronoundropandobjectpronoundroparedifferent
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Subjectdropvs. objectdrop
Subjectdropcanbeanyperson.
(4) a. ∅ Wenttogymtoday. (1p)b. (commentsonastudent’sessay)
∅ Don’tneedtogointosomuchdetailhere. (2p)c. ∅ SawBilltoday. ∅ Didn’tlookveryhappy. (3p)
Objectdropcanonlybethirdperson.
(5) a. ∅ Receivedcreditcardbillinmailtoday.Willshred ∅ later. (3p)
b. Don’tsendmeanymoreemails. *Willfire ∅ . (*2p)c. Don’twanttotalktomyboss. *Wouldfire ∅ . (*1p)
Existinganalysesofobjectdropastopicdrop(Haegeman1987b)orasatypeofmiddleconstruction(Massam1992)don’tobviouslycapturethisasymmetry, giventhatfirst-andsecond-personscanbetopics/subjectsofmiddles.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Subjectdropvs. objectdrop
Droppedsubjectscanbeexpletives.
(6) a. ∅ Rainedalldayyesterday.b. ∅ Seemstobeaproblemwiththeengine.
Droppedobjectscan’tbeexpletives.
(7) a. Considered??(it)necessarytocallthedoctor.b. Proved??(it)toMarytobenecessarytocallthedoctor.
(afterRunner2000)
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Subjectdropvs. objectdrop
A curiousconstraintonobjectdrop: itcan’tco-occurwithanovertsubjectpronoun(Massam&Roberge1989,Massam1992)
(8) Receivedcreditcardbillinmailtoday.a. ∅ Willshred ∅ later.b. *I willshred ∅ later.
SubjectsassuchareOK (contratheabovereferences); it’sjustpronouns.
(9) a. Receivedcreditcardbillinmailtoday.?Billwillshred ∅ later.
b. Staffwillreplenish ∅ daily.(labelonahotelbottleofwater)
Thisispresumablywhydroppedobjectsaresocommoninrecipes:imperativesnormallyhavecovertsubjects(viz. Massam1992)
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Aninterestingparallel
Justasobjectpronounscan’tbedroppedtotheexclusionofsubjectpronouns, objectarticlescan’tbedroppedtotheexclusionofsubjectarticles(Mårdh1980,Stowell1991,Weir2013)
(10) a. MAN BITES DOGb. MAN BITES A DOGc. *A MAN BITES DOG
(11) a. Bossbroughtinbrokenlaptoptoday.b. Bossbroughtinabrokenlaptoptoday.c. Thebossbroughtin?*(a)brokenlaptoptoday.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Objectdrop=articledrop?
Thefactthatbothpronoundropandarticledropshowasubject-objectasymmetrysuggestthatwemighttrytounifythem
Myproposal: EnglishRWR containsanunpronouncedarticle, andit’sthisfactthatallowsthird-personobjectstogounpronounced
ProposalbasedonTomioka2003’sanalysisofpronoundropinJapanese, andHaegeman2004, whonotesanapparentcorrelationinEnglish-acquiringchildrenbetweenobjectdropandarticledrop
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. ThenullarticleinRWR
I arguethatarticle‘drop’inRWR isnotamatterofdroppingorelidingStandardEnglish a/the
Rather, I arguethatRWR possessesasilentarticle, whichstandardEnglishdoesnotpossess
Thisnullarticleintroducesavariableoverchoicefunctions;semantically, itcombineswithapredicateandreturnsanentitywhichsatisfiesthepredicate.
(12) a. J∅DK = f⟨et,e⟩b. J∅D dogK = f(dog)
(i.e. denotesamemberofthesetofdogs)
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. ThenullarticleinRWR
Evidenceforachoice-functionalsemanticsforthenullarticle(Weir2013): NPswithoutarticlesinRWR donothavethefullrangeofinterpretationsthatStandardEnglishindefinitesdo
Theyonlyhavespecificindefinitereadings
Forexample, theycannotgetgenericinterpretationsorbeboundbyadverbsofquantification
(13) a. Inmyday, (a/#∅ )gentlemanwouldn’tdosuchathing.b. ∅ Studentisusuallylatetomyclass.
(∃ student > usually, *usually > ∃ student)
Canthepresenceofthisnullarticlederiveobjectdrop?
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Thestructureof3ppronouns
I assume, following(andsomewhatsyncretizing)Postal1969,Elbourne2005,Kratzer2009,Johnson2012, thatthird-personpronounsaredeterminerscombinedwithnullnouns(orperhapssimplywithgender ϕ-features), asbelow.
(14)
DP
D
the
NP
MAN
DP
D
the
NP
WOMAN
DP
D
the
NP
THING
he, she, it arehowthedeterminer the ispronouncedinconstructionwiththenullnounsMAN,WOMAN,THING.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Interactionwithnullarticles
IfEnglishRWR hasanullarticle, thenthebelowstructureispredictedtobepossible.
(15) DP
D
∅D
NP
MAN
BoththearticleandtheNP arenull, sothisDP hasnophoneticcontent.
Moreconcretely: thereisamorphologicalrulethatspellsoutthelexicalitem the as he inthecontextin (15), butthatruledoesn’tapplytothenullarticle ∅D.EssentiallyTomioka2003’sproposalforJapanesepro-drop: nullarticleplusNP ellipsis/non-pronunciation
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Thestructureof1p/2ppronouns
Whydoonly3pobjectpronounsdrop?
Thereisevidencethat1p/2ppronounsareconstructeddifferentlyfrom3ppronouns
Kratzer2009pointsout, followingSiewierska2004, thattypologically, manylanguageslack3ppronouns(usingdemonstrativesordefinitedescriptions), butfewlack1p/2ppronouns
Kratzer’sanalysis: 1p/2ppronounsaredirectlyreferentialexpressions, ‘speaker’and‘hearer’, notcovertdefinitedescriptions
(16)
DP
D
[1p]
= I DP
D
[2p]
= you
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. The3p–1/2pasymmetry
If3ppronounsaredeterminers+nullnouns(and1/2ppronounsarenot), thenwederivethe3p–1/2pasymmetryinnullobjects
(17) a. ∅ Receivedcreditcardbillinmailtoday.Willshred ∅ later. (3p)
b. Don’ttalktome. *Willfire ∅ . (*2p)c. Don’twanttotalktomyboss. *Wouldfire ∅ . (*1p)
In (17a), thedroppedobjectisnullarticle+nullnounTHING.Thisreceivesazerospellout
Buttherules‘spellout[1p, acc]as me’and‘spellout[2p, acc]asyou’arestillactive
Thenullarticleisnotinvolvedin1p/2pobjectpronouns, sotheyarestillspelledouteveninRWR
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Lackofexpletivedrop
Recallthatexpletivescouldnotbedroppedinobjectposition:
(18) a. Considered??(it)necessarytocallthedoctor.b. Proved??(it)toMarytobenecessarytocallthedoctor.
Thisfollowsfromanull-articleviewofobjectdrop
Whatevertheinternalstructureofexpletive it is, itpresumablyisn’t[the/∅D THING];itdoesn’trefertoanentityinthedomainofthings(itdoesn’treferatall)
Plausibly, expletivepronounsaredifferentlexicalitemsfrompersonalpronouns, andaren’tbuiltupfromadeterminerplusnullnoun.
ThepresenceofanullarticleinRWR thereforehasnoeffectonthepronunciationofexpletiveobjects.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Objectdropcomesfromnullarticle
ThecurrentproposalissimplythatRWR containsanullarticlethatstandardEnglishdoesn’thave
Thatlexicaldifferenceallowsustoderivetheabilitytodropthird-personobjectpronouns(butnotfirst-orsecond-personpronounsorexpletives)
A smalllexicaldifferenceisallthatisneededtoaccountforbotharticledropandobjectpronoundropinRWR.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Wheredoessubjectdropcomefrom?
Recallthatsubjectpronoundropcouldbeanyperson, andexpletivescouldbedropped
(19) a. ∅ Wenttogymtoday. (1p)b. (commentsonastudent’sessay)
∅ Don’tneedtogointosomuchdetailhere. (2p)c. ∅ SawBilltoday. ∅ Didn’tlookveryhappy. (3p)d. Yesterday ∅ rainedallday. (expl.)
Subjectpronoundropdoesn’tseemamenabletothesameanalysisasobjectpronoundrop
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Article/objectdropparallelism
Wealsowanttounderstandwhythefollowingparallelismexists:
(20) a. ∅ Manbitesadogb. *A manbites ∅ dog
(21) (Receivedcreditcardbillinthemailtoday:)a. ∅ Willshreditlater.b. *I willshred ∅ later.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Subject/objectasymmetry
Intuitionseemstobe: (root)subjectsarespecial
Descriptivegeneralizationseemstobe: rootsubjectsinRWR mustnotcontainanyovertmaterialofcategoryD (nodeterminers, nopronouns)
I thinkthisisultimatelyderivablefromaformofthe‘truncation’accountofRWR (Rizzi1994,Haegeman1997,Rizzi2006,Haegeman2007)
Spaceprecludesadiscussionhere(butyoucanaskmeinthequestionperiodand/orseeWeir2012,2013)
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. NoDsinsubjectposition
Sentenceslike*A manbites ∅ dog or*I willshred ∅ later arebannedfromRWR,notbecauseofthedroppedobjectpronoun/determinerassuch, butbecausetheycontainDsinrootsubjectposition, whichisbarredinRWR.
*I willshred ∅ later isbadbecauseitinappropriatelymixesalexicalitemonlyfoundinRNR (∅D, insidetheobjectpronoun)withanovertsubjectpronoun.
Whenyouseeasentencelike I willshreditlater inadiary(etc.),thisrepresents‘code-switching’intothestandardregister.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Somequestionsforfurtherwork
Whyareexampleslikethebelowbad? (Haegeman1987a,b,Massam&Roberge1989)
(22) a. ??Addthepeanutoilto ∅ .b. ??Takefoil. Covercookieswith ∅ immediately.c. ??Givenofoodto ∅ .d. ??Takepanofoilandplacefishinto ∅ .
It’snotageneralproblemaboutprepositions:
(23) a. Donotplayinoraround ∅ . (Haegeman1987b)b. Greatseller, ∅ wouldbuyfrom ∅ again.c. Rubbishgame. Onlyeverplayedwith ∅ once.d. ?Donotlookat ∅ withoutprotectiveglasses.
MaybetheV+P combinationsin (23)canbereanalysedandtheonesin (22)can’t; butit’snotobviousthatthatshouldmakeadifferenceonthecurrentproposal.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Somequestionsforfurtherwork
Doesthepresenceofanovertobjectbeforethedroppedonemakeadifference? Intuitionsnotveryclear:
(24) (?)Greatseller, ∅ wouldbuy games from ∅ again
(24)can’tbereanalysed(*Hewasboughtgamesfrom), butitsoundsreasonable(tome)
Taskforfuturework: regimenttheintuitionsaboutthisdata
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Conclusion
ObjectdropinEnglish‘reducedwrittenregister’canbeaccountedforbytheexistenceofanullarticle
ExtendsTomioka’sanalysisofJapanesepro-droptoEnglishRWR
Accountsforthethird-personpropertiesofobjectdrop
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
Thanksto:
LilianeHaegeman, KyleJohnson, EllenWoolford, andaudiencesatECO52012andLSA 2013forcommentsonthisprojectatvariousstages;
theUniversityofMassachusettsAmherstGraduateSchoolforthemoney;
youforlistening!
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. References I
Beghelli, Filippo&TimStowell.1997. Distributivityandnegation: thesyntaxof each and every. InAnnaSzabolcsi(ed.), WaysofScopeTaking, 71–107.Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Belletti, Adriana.2001. Inversionasfocalization. InA. Hulk&J.-Y.Pollock(eds.), SubjectinversioninRomanceandthetheoryofUniversalGrammar, 60–90.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.
Butler, Jonny.2004. Phasestructure, phrasestructure, andquantification. UniversityofYorkdissertation.
Elbourne, Paul D.2005. Situationsandindividuals. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Haegeman, Liliane.1987a. ComplementellipsisinEnglish: orhowtocookwithoutobjects. InA.M.Simon-Vandenbergen(ed.), StudiesinHonourofRenéDerolez, 248–261.Ghent: SeminarievoorEngelseenOud-GermaanseTaalkundeR.U.G.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. References II
Haegeman, Liliane.1987b. RegistervariationinEnglish: sometheoreticalimplications. JournalofEnglishLinguistics 20.230–48.
Haegeman, Liliane.1997. Registervariation, truncation, andsubjectomissioninEnglishandinFrench. EnglishLanguageandLinguistics1(2).233–70.
Haegeman, Liliane.2004. Notesonperipheralgrammarsandnullsubjectsontheperiphery. PresentationattheLinguisticsAssociationofGreatBritainAnnualMeeting.
Haegeman, Liliane.2007. Subjectomissioninpresent-daywrittenEnglish: Onthetheoreticalrelevanceofperipheraldata. Rivistadigrammaticagenerativa 32.91–124.
Johnson, Kyle.2012. Pronounsvs. definitedescriptions. Ms.UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst. http://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/Pronouns.pdf.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. References III
Kratzer, Angelika.2005. Indefinitesandtheoperatorstheydependon:FromJapanesetoSalish. InGregory N.Carlson&Francis J.Pelletier(eds.), Referenceandquantification: TheParteeeffect, 113–42.CSLIPublications.
Kratzer, Angelika.2009. Makingapronoun: Fakeindexicalsaswindowsintothepropertiesofpronouns. LinguisticInquiry 40(2).187–237.
Kratzer, Angelika&JunkoShimoyama.2002. Indeterminatepronouns:theviewfromJapanese. InYukioOtsu(ed.), Proceedingsofthe3rdTokyoconferenceonpsycholinguistics, 1–25.Tokyo: HituziSyobo.
Mårdh, Ingrid.1980. Headlinese: OnthegrammarofEnglishfrontpageheadlines. Malmö: CWK Gleerup.
Massam, Diane.1992. Nullobjectsandnon-thematicsubjects. JournalofLinguistics 28.115–37.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. References IV
Massam, Diane&YvesRoberge.1989. RecipecontextnullobjectsinEnglish. LinguisticInquiry 20(1).134–9.
Postal, Paul M.1969. Onso-called‘pronouns’inEnglish. InD. Reibel&S. Schane(eds.), ModernstudiesinEnglish, 201–44.EnglewoodCliffs, NewJersey: Prentice-Hall.
Rizzi, Luigi.1994. Earlynullsubjectsandrootnullsubjects. InT. Hoekstra&B. Schwarz(eds.), Languageacquisitionstudiesingenerativegrammar, 151–77.Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
Rizzi, Luigi.1997. Thefinestructureoftheleftperiphery. InLilianeHaegeman(ed.), Elementsofgrammar: handbookofgenerativesyntax, 281–337.Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi.2006. Grammatically-basedtarget-inconsistenciesinchildlanguage. InK.U.Deen, J. Nomura, B. Schulz&B.D.Schwartz(eds.),TheProceedingsoftheInauguralConferenceonGenerativeApproachestoLanguageAcquisition, UConn/MIT WorkingPapersinLinguistics.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. References V
Runner, Jeffrey T.2000. TheExternalObjectHypothesisandthecaseofobjectexpletives. InK. M.Crosswhite&J. S.Magnuson(eds.),UniversityofRochesterworkingpapersinthelanguagesciences,vol. 12, 257–69.
Siewierska, Anna.2004. Person. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversityPress.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann.2004. ThesyntaxofPerson, Tense, andspeechfeatures. ItalianJournalofLinguistics/RivistadiLinguistica 16.219–51.
Stowell, Tim.1991. EmptyheadsinabbreviatedEnglish. GLOWabstract.
Tomioka, Satoshi.2003. ThesemanticsofJapanesenullpronounsanditscross-linguisticimplications. InKerstinSchwabe&SusanneWinkler(eds.), Theinterfaces: derivingandinterpretingomittedstructures, 321–39.Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. References VI
Weir, Andrew.2012. Articledropinheadlines: failureofCP-levelAgree. Ms.UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst. http://people.umass.edu/aweir/weir-headlines-cp-agree.pdf.
Weir, Andrew.2013. ArticledropinheadlinesandtruncationofCP.LinguisticsSocietyofAmericaAnnualMeetingExtendedAbstracts.http://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/3540-6845-1-SM.pdf.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Appendix
Whyarerootsubjectsspecial? A sketchofanidea(formoredetails, seeWeir2013):
ImaginethatovertD headscontainuninterpretablefeatureswhichmustbecheckedbyhigher, interpretablefeatures
Perhaps(1p/2p)pronounsneedtochecktheirpersonfeaturesagainstSpeaker/Hearerprojections(Sigurðsson2004); perhapsdeterminersneedtocheckfeaturesagainsthigherquantificationalprojections(Beghelli&Stowell1997,Kratzer&Shimoyama2002,Kratzer2005)
CovertDsdon’thavethesefeaturestocheck(orhaveinterpretablefeatures). (Orperhapsequivalently: overtdeterminersaremorphologicalreflexesofAgreement, Kratzer2005; noAgreement, noovertdeterminer.)
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Checkingfeatures
Assumethattheinterpretablefeaturesarehostedin‘peripheries’ofCP (Beghelli&Stowell1997,Rizzi1997)andofv/VP (Belletti2001,Butler2004a.o.), andenterintoanAgreerelationwiththeiruninterpretablecounterparts
I illustratewithdeterminers(inStandardEnglish):
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Checkingfeatures
(25) RefP
Ref
[i indef]
…
TP
DP
D
a[u indef]
NP
man
TP
T RefP
Ref
[i indef]
…
VP
V
bit
DP
D
a[u indef]
NP
dog
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Truncation
Proposalintheliterature: RWR truncates theleftperiphery(Rizzi1994,Haegeman1997,Rizzi2006,Haegeman2007)
I assumetheoriginalanalysisoftruncationasliteralnon-projectionoftheleft-peripheralprojections(ratherthanthephase/spelloutbasedapproachofRizzi2006,Haegeman2007)
ButiftheCP-levelquantificational/person-anchoringprojectionsaretruncated/notprojected, theycannotAgreewithDsinsubjectsandchecktheiruninterpretablefeatures
CovertDsinsubjectsarefine, becausetheydonothaveuninterpretablefeaturestocheck.
AndbothovertandcovertDsinobjectsarefine, becauseovertobjectDscanalwayschecktheirfeaturesagainsttheprojectionsinthevP periphery.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Truncation=noDsinsubjectposition
(26) TP
DP
D
a[u indef]
NP
man
TP
T …
RefP
Ref[i indef]
VP
V
bites
DP
D
a[u indef]
NP
dog
The a insubjectpositioncan’thaveitsuninterpretablefeaturechecked, sothederivationcrashes.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles
SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion
.. Truncation=noDsinsubjectposition
(27) TP
DP
D
∅
NP
man
TP
T …
RefP
Ref[i indef]
VP
V
bites
DP
D
a[u indef]
NP
dog
CovertD inthesubjectpositionhasnouninterpretablefeatures, sodoesnotpromptacrash.
AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister
top related