a deletion analysis of null subjects - university of cambridge
TRANSCRIPT
A Deletion Analysis of Null Subjects: French as a Case Study1
Ian Roberts
Downing College, University of Cambridge
Introduction
One often-noted consequence of the general adoption of the copy theory of movement
since its reintroduction in Chomsky (1993) has been the collapse of the typology of
empty categories in terms of the values of the features [±anaphoric, ±pronominal]
(see, inter alia, Hornstein (1999:77-78), Manzini & Roussou (2000) for discussion).
The non-pronominal empty categories of government-binding theory and related
work, i.e. NP-trace and wh-trace, are now generally thought to be copies; their silence
is the result of a PF-deletion process affecting non-heads of chains (see in particular
Nunes (1995, 2004)). The status of the pronominal empty categories is less clear,
however. There has been a considerable discussion of the status of the pronominal
anaphor PRO, naturally connected to the question of the nature of the various types of
“control” dependency (Boeckx & Hornstein (2003, 2004), Culicover & Jackendoff
(2001), Davies & Dubinsky (2004), Hornstein (1999, 2003), Landau (2000, 2003,
2004), Manzini & Roussou (2000), Martin (1996, 2001), O’Neil (1997)). The
question of the status of the “pure pronominal” empty category pro is also uncertain;
many authors (including Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998), Barbosa (1995,
2006), Manzini & Savoia (2005), Nash & Rouveret (1997), Ordoñez (1997), Platzack
(2004), Pollock (1997)) have proposed that the pronominal property of the head
bearing subject-agreement features, observed to characterise consistent null-subject
languages since Rizzi (1982), may be enough to derive the null-subject parameter and
that, as a corollary, the idea that the canonical subject position is occupied by pro is 1 The research reported here was carried out under the auspices of the project “Null Subjects and the Structure of Parametric Theory” funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council of Great Britain (Grant No. APN14458). I’d like to thank the other members of the project group – Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Chris Johns, Michelle Sheehan and David Willis – for their comments on various earlier versions of this work. Preliminary versions of this paper were presented at the Null Subject Workshop held at York University in November 2003, the Linguistics Association of Great Britain Meeting at Roehampton University in September 2004, the Sounds of Silence Workshop, Tilburg University, October 2004, at the Universities of Geneva and Cambridge, and at the Encontro Lingua Falada e Escrita V, Maceió, Brazil. I’d like to thank the participants at those meetings, especially Claire Blanche-Benveniste, João Costa, Eric Haeberli, Ad Neeleman, Liliane Haegeman and Ur Shlonsky, for their comments and questions. All errors are my own.
1
not required, which in turn implies that the Extended Projection Principle either does
not need to be satisfied or can be satisfied by something other than a DP occupying
the relevant specifier position in these languages. This idea was first put forward by
Borer (1986) (see also Borer (1989:70-71)), and, following her terminology, we can
refer to this type of approach as the “I-subjects” approach to null subjects (the idea
being that I, as the functional head bearing subject agreement, has the subject role).
In the first part of this paper I want to put forward a new suggestion for accounting for
the core cases of pro in consistent, agreement-rich, null-subject languages of the
Italian type, one which owes much to, but departs from and develops, the ideas in
Holmberg (2005). An interesting facet of the analysis is that it also sheds some light
on another issue that arises in the context of the copy theory of movement: the
question of the conditions under which identical copies are deleted (and indeed the
further question of identifying the occurrences of copies). In the second part of the
paper, I will apply the analysis to pro in French; this will lead to a revision and
updating of the analysis of French subject enclitics proposed in Sportiche (1999), as
well as a rough characterisation of some aspects of register variation in French. On
both of these points, my proposals largely converge with those in Zribi-Hertz (1994).
1. Holmberg (2005)
Holmberg (2005) shows that the widely accepted pro-licensing analysis of null
subjects put forward in Rizzi (1986a:518-523) is incompatible with the feature-
valuing system put forward in Chomsky (1995, 2001). Rizzi’s proposal imposes the
following two conditions on pro:
(1) Rizzi (1986a):
a. pro must be licensed
b. pro must be identified
Let us consider how (1) applies to the case of pro in a null-subject language. Here,
pro appears in SpecTP, as shown in (2):
2
(2) TP
proi T’
Ti
[3pl]
In (2), pro is licensed by T, by assumption a member of the parametrised class of
designated licensers in a null-subject language (see Rizzi (1986a)). Furthermore, pro’s
content is identified by the φ-features of T, indicated in (2) as [3pl]. We can think of
identification as a process whereby the values of the pro’s features are assigned.
As Holmberg (2005:536-7) points out, Rizzi’s account of the identification of pro
cannot be maintained in the context of the approach to feature-valuing that has
emerged in Chomsky’s (1995, 2000, 2001) recent work. According to this approach,
formal features such as φ-features may be either interpretable or uninterpretable.
Uninterpretable features must be eliminated from the derivation before the LF
interface. According to Chomsky (2001), uninterpretable features are unvalued, and
part of the process of “eliminating” these features involves assigning them values.
Chomsky further assumes that the φ-features of T are uninterpretable, and are valued
by entering into an Agree relation with the subject DP (I will say more about the
technical details of Agree below). Argumental DPs are fully specified for φ-features,
and as such are fully interpretable and able to value the φ-features of T. Concerning
Rizzi’s notion that pro is in need of identification, however, this approach runs into
difficulties; as Holmberg points out, “[w]ithin this theory of agreement, it is obviously
not possible for an inherently unspecified pronoun to be specified by the φ-features of
I [i.e. T, IGR], as those features are themselves inherently unspecified” (2005:537).
It is useful to restate Holmberg’s point in slightly more formal terms, as this brings it
out more clearly and will be useful for the discussion of the conditions of deletion in
the next section. Let us take formal features to be attribute-value pairs of the general
type [Att:val] (see Chomsky (2001:5)). In that case, unvalued features can be seen as
being of the form [Att:__]. In the standard case of Agree, the valuing operation
consists of copying the values of the valued counterparts of the features into the blank
value matrices of the unvalued features. This can be defined as follows:
3
(3) In a well-formed Agree relation of which α and β are the terms, where α’s
feature matrix contains [Atti:__] and β’s contains [Atti: valj], for some feature
F = [Atti: (val{..,j,..})], copy valj into __ in α’s feature matrix.
(3) is meant as nothing more than a slightly more formal statement of what I take to
be intended in Chomsky (2001).2 According to Chomsky (2001), the originally
uninterpretable/unvalued features delete at the end of the relevant phase (which phase
is relevant depending on the precise formulation of the Phase Impenetrability
Condition, which need not detain us here; see Chomsky (2001:13-14)).
In terms of (3), both T (by Chomsky’s assumptions regarding the nature of
uninterpretable features) and pro (by Rizzi’s account of the licensing of null subjects)
will have a feature matrix of the form [Atti:__], hence neither will be able to value the
other. This restates Holmberg’s point in terms of the definition given in (3).
Holmberg observes that there are just two ways of dealing with this situation: one of
the two elements, T or pro, must have interpretable, i.e. valued/specified φ-features.
Whichever one it is will be able to value those of the other one. Accordingly,
Holmberg considers the following two hypotheses:
(4) Hypothesis A: in null-subject languages, the φ-features of T are interpretable.
SpecTP is therefore either absent or filled by an expletive (depending on
whether T’s EPP feature needs to be satisfied independently of its φ-features).
Hypothesis B: pro has interpretable features, occupies SpecTP and functions
just like an overt pronoun. That pro is silent is thus a PF matter.
2 Note that this definition does not guarantee the valuing of structural Case features, given Chomsky’s assumption that these features are valued by convention: a DP whose φ-features are valued by T is Nominative and DP whose φ-features are valued by v* is Accusative. Valuing of structural Case features must either be the consequence of a separate convention, or it can be subsumed under (3) if we supply T and v* with the features [Case:{Nom, Acc}] and DP with the feature [Case:__]. I will take the former option here. The fact that T and v* do not have Case features may be relevant to the formal characterisation of the nature of weak and strong pronouns, as I will briefly discuss in §2 (see Note 13).
4
These two hypotheses differ empirically in one crucial respect. Hypothesis B implies
that no expletive pronoun, overt or null, will be found with a null subject, since pro
moves to SpecTP to check T’s EPP feature. On the other hand, Hypothesis A does not
make a clear prediction in this connection: whether an overt expletive is allowed,
required or excluded depends on independent assumptions concerning the ability of
T’s φ-features to satisfy the EPP. Hence, if we can find a language with referential
null subjects but at least the possibility of an overt expletive, and if that expletive
cannot appear where we have reason to think that there is a referential pro in SpecTP,
Hypothesis B is favoured. Holmberg shows that Finnish is just such a language.
Finnish has null subjects and an overt expletive pronoun, sitä:
(5) a. Puhun englantia.
speak-1Sg English
“I speak English”
b. Sitä meni nyt hullusti.
EXPL went now wrong
“Now things went wrong.”
The expletive sitä does not cooccur with referential null subjects:
(6) a. *Sitä puhun englantia.
EXPL speak-1sg English
b. Oletteko (*sitä) käyneet Pariisissa?
have-2pl-Q EXPL visited Paris?
Holmberg concludes that Hypothesis B is right: pro occupies SpecTP.3 Since this
element is like an overt pronoun in all respects except phonological realisation,
Holmberg (2005:538) concludes that “the null subject is a pronoun that is not
3 Holmberg (2005:545f.) considers and rejects the possibility that Hypothesis A is correct and that an overt expletive is inserted only to satisfy the EPP. He shows that this is not compatible with the facts of Finnish.
5
pronounced”. Clearly, one way to see this in terms of deletion: pro is a deleted
pronoun. This constitutes a partial return to one of the main ideas in Perlmutter’s
(1971) analysis of null subjects, in that the null subject arises through deletion of a
subject pronoun.
Holmberg goes on to distinguish three varieties of null subject: “a null weak pronoun
.. specified for φ-features but lacking D and therefore incapable of (co)referring,
without the help of a D-feature in I .. Another type of null subject is a DP that is
deleted under the usual conditions of recoverability. A third type is the classical pro ..
a bare φ-featureless noun” (Holmberg (2005:534)). The first type is the “canonical”
null subject that we are concerned with here, found in Italian, Spanish, Greek, etc.
The second type is exemplified by Finnish and various other languages (Holmberg
(2005:553-4) mentions Brazilian Portuguese, Marathi and Hebrew; see also
Holmberg, Johns, Nayudu & Sheehan (this volume)). The third type is found in many
East Asian languages, including notably Chinese, and is discussed in Huang (1984,
1989) and Tomioka (2003), as well as by Neeleman & Szendrői (forthcoming).
Leaving aside the East Asian type,4 Holmberg distinguishes the first two types of null
subject in terms of the features of the licensing T. The first type, that found in
“consistent” null-subject languages such as Italian, Spanish, etc., is treated as a weak
pronoun in the sense of Cardinaletti & Starke (1999) (this is also proposed in
Cardinaletti (2004) and below). More precisely, a “definite null subject is a φP, a
deficient pronoun that receives the ability to refer to an individual or group from I
containing D” (Holmberg (2005:556)). The presence of a D-feature on T is what
makes a language a null-subject language (this idea appears in different forms in a
variety of analyses of null subjects, including Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998)
and Rizzi (1982), and I will maintain a version of it below). In a partial null-subject
language such as Finnish, on the other hand, T does not have a D-feature. This has a
range of consequences as discussed in Holmberg, Johns, Nayudu & Sheehan (this
volume). Now, however, it is time to introduce the technical ideas which will
motivate and restrict the environments of pronoun-deletion which give rise to null
subjects.
4 I will briefly return to the East Asian kind of null subject in §2.5 below, where I look at the nature of “rich” agreement in relation to null subjects.
6
2. Defective goals, clitics and weak pronouns
2.1 Clitics and incorporation
In Roberts (2006a) I present a general analysis of Romance clitics and cliticisation,
adopting and adapting ideas independently developed in Mavrogiorgos (2006). Here I
want to summarise that analysis and show how the conditions for pronoun-deletion
which can capture the distribution of null subjects can be derived from an extension of
that framework.
The central idea in Roberts (2006a) is that minimal categories, since they are non-
distinct from maximal categories in terms of bare phrase structure, can be phasal (see
also Marantz (2001, 2006), where the same idea is implemented in a rather different
way). As such, they can attract material to their left edge, and that left edge, unlike all
other material inside the minimal category, may be accessible to elements outside the
minimal head. This provides a basis for accounting for the puzzling property of
clitics: that they act in some respects like affixes, i.e. as parts of the words that host
them, and in some respects as syntactically autonomous items.
More concretely, I adopt the following definitions of minimal and maximal category,
which depart only slightly from the standard conception in Chomsky (1995):
(7) a. The label L of category α is minimal iff α dominates no category β
whose label is distinct from α’s.
b. The label L of category β is maximal iff there is no immediately
dominating category α whose label is non-distinct from β’s.
These definitions allow for head-movement in a highly restricted set of cases, one of
which is cliticisation.
To see how these definitions work, let us consider the derived structure of head-
movement, shown in (8):
7
(8) Y2
X Y1
By the definition in (7a), Y2 can be minimal, but only if X is minimal and has a label
non-distinct from Y. This is the central proposal regarding clitics (and head-
movement) in general: clitic-placement can form a derived structure like (8), since
clitics are minimal categories (Muysken (1982)), and defective in that they do not
have a label distinct from their host; this non-distinctness from the host is exactly the
content of the notion of defectivity. Because of this, head-movement, adjoining a
minimal category to a minimal head, is allowed. This is why clitics can adjoin to
heads, and, in fact, why they must adjoin to heads.
What exactly does the defectivity of clitics consist in? Cardinaletti & Starke (1999)
describe a form of “structural deficiency” in some detail, showing that a general
distinction can be made among strong, weak and clitic pronouns. The motivation for
the distinction between strong and weak/clitic pronouns goes back to Kayne’s
(1975:82f.) diagnostics for the clitic nature of French complement pronouns: clitic
pronouns cannot appear in surface argument positions, “peripheral positions”
(including environments where the pronoun is in isolation, owing to ellipsis), be
modified or be coordinated. Cardinaletti & Starke (1999:168-169) also provide
evidence that clitics must incorporate with their hosts, primarily from the fact that
they cannot appear in initial position in V2 clauses in V2 languages and the fact that,
on standard analyses, clitics move with the verb hosting them.5 They propose that
structural deficiency amounts to the “peeling off” of layers of functional structure,
with the result that clitic pronouns consist only of the inflectional part of the structure
of a pronoun. Roberts (2006a) adopts Déchaîne & Wiltschko (2002:428-31)’s
terminology in labelling Romance clitics as φPs, rather than DPs. Romance clitics
thus differ from the strong complement pronouns of a language like English in being
5 This last idea is challenged in Kayne (1994:42-46). Poletto & Pollock (2004) and Pollock (2006) develop Kayne’s conclusion and reject earlier approaches to subject-clitic inversion involving verb-movement to C in favour of remnant TP-movement; these questions are discussed in §3.2, see particular Note 35.
8
φmin/max, rather than Dmin/max. I will say more about the third element in Cardinaletti &
Starke’s typology, the weak pronouns, below.6
Since the label of (active, transitive) v* contains φ-features, in fact, unvalued versions
of the very φ-features that make up the clitic, the clitic’s label is not distinct from
v*’s. More precisely, the clitic’s features, essentially φ-features, form a proper subset
of v*’s features. Thus the clitic can adjoin to v* and form a derived minimal head.
The structure that results from cliticisation is as follows:
(9) v*min
[iφ] v*min le Root/Vmin v*min
voit [iV, uφ]
This account of clitic-incorporation has the following general consequence:
(10) Incorporation can take place only where the features of the incorporee are
properly included in those of the incorporation host.
(10) allows for the case where an acategorial root combines with v, as in “v-to-V
movement”, as in Chomsky (2001:35). If clitics are φmin/max, it allows for cliticisation
of the Romance kind. Where object pronouns are Ds, as in English, cliticisation (to
v*) is not possible (Roberts (2006a, §3.3) suggests that D-cliticisation is possible, but
that the target for this must be C). Thus, (9) is the derived structure of incorporation,
and incorporation can take place wherever (10) is met.7
6 Implicit in this is a rejection of Déchaîne & Wiltschko’s (2000:421-426) proposal that English 3rd-person pronouns are φPs while 1st- and 2nd-person pronouns are DPs. See Roberts (2006a, Note 28) for discussion. 7 One objection to incorporating φmin into v*min as shown in (9) is that the operation violates the Extension Condition (all operations must extend the root, Chomsky (2000:136-8), and cf. the remarks on head-movement and cyclicity in Chomsky (2001:38)). However, if XP-movement is triggered by an Edge Feature (EF) in the sense of Chomsky (2005), then movement to a maximal phase vmax or Cmax will always extend the root in virtue of this feature and a separate stipulation is redundant. Movement to a non-phase edge, e.g. SpecTP, does not satisfy the Extension Condition, and is not triggered by EF
9
What is the trigger for cliticisation? Roberts (2006a) proposes that this is nothing
other than Agree, seen as the need to value unvalued features in the most economical
way possible. Let us compare the standard Agree relation between v* and a non-clitic
direct object with that which obtains under direct-object cliticisation, construed as in
(9). The standard case of Agree between v* and the direct object is as follows:
(11) a. Trigger for Agree:
v*[Pers:__], [Num:__] D[Pers:a, Num:b], [Case:__]
b. Outcome of Agree:
v*[Pers:a, Num:b] D[Pers:a,Num:b], [Case:Acc]
The relations illustrated in (11) hold irrespective of the presence of an EPP feature on
v* which triggers movement of the direct object to its Specifier. The boldfaced
features are those copied into the feature matrices of the categories entering into the
Agree relation as defined in (3) (see Note 2 on the ACC feature in (11b)).
In cases of clitic-incorporation giving rise to the derived structure in (9) the same
Agree relation holds as in (11),8 and, as defined in (3), values v*’s unvalued features.
Schematically, then, we have the situation in (12):
(being an A-position, see Chomsky (2005:16)); raising to SpecCP satisfies the Extension Condition and is triggered by EF. A related point, again mentioned by Chomsky (2001:38), is that, if we want to ensure that the moved minimal category c-commands its copy in a derived structure like (9), we must in some way complicate the definition of c-command beyond the natural one implied by merge (the transitive closure of sisterhood and containment). However, if cliticisation is triggered by Agree, then it is unclear that any c-command relation is required beyond that between the probe and the goal, postulated independently of movement. If cliticisation is always movement of the goal to the probe, then downwards and sideways cliticisation will be ruled out by the c-command condition on Agree since such movements could only come about where the probe fails to c-command the goal. It is therefore unnecessary and redundant to impose an identical c-command condition on movement. Hence the derived structure of cliticisation in (9) is quite licit, as in this structure, the goal [iφ] is incorporated into the probe and the probe c-commands the copy of this feature bundle contained in its sister VP. 8 I follow Cardinaletti & Starke (1999) in assuming that the clitic lacks a Case feature. Thus there may no uninterpretable feature rendering it active in the sense of Chomsky (2001). I assume that goals, especially defective goals, do not have to be active (a possibility entertained in Chomsky (2001: 45, n. 29; 46, n. 38; 48, n. 56)).
10
(12) a. Trigger for Agree:
v*[[Pers:__], [Num:__] φ[Pers:a, Num:b]
b. Outcome of Agree:
v*[Pers:a, Num:b] (φ[Pers:a, Num:b])
Here v’s [Pers:a, Num:b] features are valued as an automatic consequence of Agree of
φmin with v*min. An important aspect of the copying of the features of the clitic valuing
the features of the probe is that, given the characterisation of incorporation in (10),
copying the features of the defective goal exhausts the content of the goal. Therefore
the operation is not distinguishable from the copying involved in movement. In the
case of incorporation, then, Agree and Move are formally indistinguishable. This
means that we can think of the deletion of the copies of the features of the goal in
terms of chain-reduction, i.e. the deletion of all identical copies in a dependency
except the highest one (see Nunes (2004:22f.)). This generally does not apply to
Agree, since the content of the goal is not exhausted by Match, and so the goal does
not constitute an identical copy of the copied feature bundle.9 But, precisely in the
case of incorporation, this is what happens. For this reason we see the PF effect of
movement, with the φ-features realised on the probe and the copy deleted. We can in
fact think of the EPP feature on the probe where the goal is non-defective as an
instruction to pied-pipe parts of the goal which are not involved in the Agree relation,
giving rise to copying and chain-reduction/copy-deletion. But in the case of
incorporation, no EPP feature is required on the probe in order to give the PF effect of
movement. This point – that incorporation is movement with no associated EPP (or
EF) feature – will be central to what follows, as we shall see below.
So, clitic-incorporation is a way for minimal (as well as minimal and maximal)
categories to satisfy Agree which gives the effect of movement. Hence, cliticisation
takes place wherever condition (10) is met. It is clear that this instance of Move/Agree
is quite distinct from those triggered by or connected with EPP features. In fact, an 9 Chomsky (2001:15f.) assumes that uninterpretable features are deleted at the end of the phase after Agree has taken place. But, if we take Agree to function as described in the text, it is unclear how the system can distinguish the originally unvalued features from the originally valued ones once all features are valued by Agree. Perhaps the condition is simply that one set of features has to delete, and, in the case of a defective goal, it is always the goal’s given the nature of copy deletion and the formal identity between Move and Agree in this context.
11
important consequence of this analysis is that cliticisation, since it is triggered purely
by Agree where (10) holds, is incompatible with an EPP feature on the probe, since if
there is an EPP feature, the probe will have to Agree with the moved goal, and this
goal cannot incorporate into the probe if it is to satisfy the EPP requirement of
creating a specifier. We conclude that EPP-features therefore only trigger XP-
movement (we might in fact think of them informally as “pied-piping” features).10 Let
us state this as a corollary of the above account of cliticisation/incorporation, as
follows:
(13) A probe P can act as an incorporation host only if it lacks an EPP feature.
In fact, in order to allow a T which attracts the subject to its specifier and the verb to
itself, as in standard analyses of French (see Pollock (1989)), we need to restate (13)
as (13’):11
(13’) A probe P can act as in incorporation host for a goal G only if P lacks an EPP
feature capable of attracting G.
(13) has a number of interesting consequences (see Roberts (2006a, §3.5.1, and
Chapter Four). We will see below that it plays a role in our understanding of null-
subject deletion too.
Here we can briefly note two consequences of (13). First, if it is correct, following
Kayne (1994), to think that surface OV order is derived, either by object-movement to
Specv* or by VP-movement to that position (pied-piping the object probed by v*; see
Richards & Biberauer (2005)), then (13) implies that complement clitics, or at least
object clitics, of the Romance kind are not found in OV languages, since v* must
have an EPP feature in order to trigger movement of the object, or of the category
containing the object. As far as I am aware, this prediction is correct; the languages
10 This is not quite accurate. If heads can move, head-movement to specifier position is definitely a possibility. Such an operation, which has been proposed by Matushansky (2006), Roberts (2006a), Vicente (2005), among others, does not involve pied-piping, and yet presumably satisfies the EPP. However, the general conclusion that the presence of an EPP feature as part of a feature bundle of a given head precludes incorporation as a means of valuing those features. The formulation in the text suffices for present purposes, however. 11 Thanks to Eric Haeberli for drawing my attention to this matter.
12
which show adverbal clitics of the Romance type are all quite clearly VO (i.e. the
Romance languages themselves, Modern Greek, Macedonian-Bulgarian, and possibly
Swahili and other Bantu languages). Also, at least in the case of the Romance
languages, it is fairly clear that the modern clitic system developed after the change
from OV to VO order (see Wanner (1987)).
The second prediction concerns verb- and auxiliary-movement. Roberts (2006a,
Chapter 4) shows that many standard cases of verb-movement to T can be analysed as
incorporation of the type in (9). The verb (i.e. the V-v complex) is a defective goal
where T has V-features (auxiliaries may always be defective goals if they lack V-
features but have T-features). In this context, it is interesting to contrast verb-
movement to T with VP-movement to SpecTP of the kind seen in various VOS and
VSO languages, according to recent analyses (Massam & Smallwood (1997), Massam
(2000), Rackowski & Travis (2000), and many of the papers in Carnie, Dooley &
Harley (2005)). In her study of VOS and VSO in Niuean, for example, Massam
(2000) argues that there is an operation fronting a verbal constituent, and that this
constituent is fronted to a position within TP. VOS order is derived by VP-fronting,
and VSO by object-shift to a VP-external position combined with remnant VP-
fronting, as shown in (14):12
(14) a. [TP [VP V O ] T [vP S v .. (VP) ]] -- VOS
b. [TP [VP V (O) ] T [vP S v [AbsP O (VP) ]]] -- VSO
As (14) shows, the landing-site of VP-fronting is taken to be SpecTP; Massam argues
that this is motivated by essentially the same property as that which causes the subject
to raise to SpecTP in languages like English, French and Mainland Scandinavian: the
operations “can be seen as two reflections of a single EPP predication feature”
(Massam (2000:111)). This type of analysis, first put forward by Massam &
Smallwood (1997), and developed by Rackowski & Travis (2000), has been applied
to a number of languages which display both VOS and VSO orders (mainly but not
exclusively Polynesian and Mayan languages; Roberts (2006a, Chapter 4) argues that
12 AbsP in (14b) stands for Absolutive Phrase, which Massam suggests may correspond to AgrOP in more familiar languages. My summary here glosses over the complication that Niuean is an ergative language and Massam’s treatment of the assignment of ergative and absolutive case.
13
VSO order in Celtic is derived by head-movement rather than remnant VP-
movement). Now, if VP-movement satisfies the EPP in languages like Niuean, and if
V-v must move to T in languages like the Romance languages since where T has V-
features V-v is a defective goal, then we predict that VP-movement to SpecTP is
found only in languages where V-movement to T is banned, given (13). Now, given
the proposal in Biberauer & Roberts (this volume) to the effect that verb-movement to
T is connected to richness of tense inflection, we arrive at the prediction that
VOS/VSO languages of the Niuean type have impoverished tense morphology. This
prediction certainly seems to be borne out in Niuean, in which tense/aspect
information is carried by sentence-initial particles, which Massam (2000:101)
concludes represents “a portmanteau Complementiser/Tense element”. In the terms
described above, we can simply take these elements to be realisations of T-features in
C. Both Tongan and Māori appear to pattern in the same way (Churchward (1953),
Chung & Ladusaw (2003), cited in Chung (2005); see also Otsuka (2005) on
Tongan)). This line of argument is developed and documented more fully in Roberts
(2006a, Chapter 4).
Here we have seen the basic mechanics of cliticisation/incorporation, according to
Roberts (2006a). The most important point for what follows is the incompatibility of
incorporation into a probe bearing an EPP feature, stated in (13). In the light of this,
let is return to the consideration of the nature of null subjects.
2.2 Clitics and “pro”: similarities and differences
The above account of the derived structure and mechanisms of clitic-incorporation
yields a notion of defective goal, which derives directly from the general
characterisation of the precondition for incorporation in (10):
(15) A goal G is defective iff G’s formal features are a proper subset of those of
G’s Probe P.
Since clitics are φ-elements, they count as defective in relation to v* in this way.
Object DPs do not, and neither do the other typical categories of complement (CP, PP,
AP, etc.). Defectivity as defined in (15) is a relative rather than an absolute notion; in
14
general a category is defective if is probed by a category of a similar type. As argued
in Roberts (2006a, Chapter 4), and briefly summarised above, verbal categories, in
particular auxiliaries, can count as defective when probed by categories such as T. As
presented so far, a defective goal must be incorporated into its probe: given the nature
of incorporation as a feature-copying operation, as described above, it is required as
the means of feature-valuation for v* in the case of object cliticisation. As already
mentioned, a consequence of all this is that head-movement/cliticisation entails that
the probe has no EPP feature and the presence of an EPP feature entails that the goal
is not incorporated.
Now, where do null subjects, which I continue to call pro for convenience, fit into this
picture? More specifically, can we treat pro as a kind of clitic, and perhaps derive the
deletion property from that? This is probably not feasible; both Cardinaletti & Starke
(1999) and Holmberg (2005) argue that pro is a weak pronoun. Cardinaletti & Starke
(1999:175-176) give three arguments for their position. First, pro has the semantic
properties of a deficient pronoun in that it can be expletive, impersonal, have non-
human referents and “cannot occur with ostension to denote a non-prominent
discourse referent” (Cardinaletti & Starke (1999:175)). These points are illustrated by
the following Italian examples:
(16) a. pro/*lui piove molto qui.
It rains a-lot here
b. pro/*loro mi hanno venduto un libro danneggiato.
They me have sold a book damaged
“I have been sold a damaged book.”
c. pro/*lui è molto costoso.
It is very expensive
d. Lui/*pro è veramente bello.
He (over there) is really nice.
15
Second, pro can only occur in designated specifier positions, like weak pronouns in
general. As Cardinaletti & Starke (1999) point out, the special distribution of pro, as
analysed by Rizzi (1986a), does not in fact follow from the fact that it is null, pace
Rizzi, but from the fact that it is weak. Weak pronouns are required to move as
maximal categories to designated specifier positions, although it is unclear why.
Third, “[g]iven the choice between a strong pronoun and a pro counterpart, pro is
always chosen” (Cardinaletti & Starke (1999:175)), as contrasts like the following
show:
(17) Gianni ha telefonato quando pro/*lui è arrivato a casa.
Gianni has called when he is arrived to home
“Gianni called when he got home.”
So pro is just like other weak pronouns regarding its syntactic and semantic
properties, but obviously differs phonologically. In fact, as Cardinaletti (2004:132)
observes, pro shares with weak pronouns the suprasegmental phonological property
of being unable to bear word stress. It differs from them only in lacking segmental
specification. Cardinaletti’s observation is clearly consistent with Holmberg’s (2005)
conclusion regarding pro.
The evidence in (16) and (17) clearly shows that pro is not a strong pronoun. Given
Cardinaletti & Starke’s (1999) three-way typology of pronominal elements, though,
the question arises as to whether pro is a clitic or a weak proinoun. There are several
reasons to think it is in fact a weak pronoun.
First, pro occupies a specifier position, namely SpecTP. This is clear from
Holmberg’s (2005) argument given in the previous section. Furthermore, Cardinaletti
(1997, §3; 2004:141) shows that overt weak pronouns such as egli (“he”) cannot
appear in dislocated positions and can appear in unambiguously TP-internal positions:
16
(18) a. Weak pronouns cannot be left-dislocated:
Gianni/*egli la nostra causa non l’ha appoggiata.
John/ he the our cause not it.has supported
“John, our cause, he hasn’t supported it.”
b. Weak pronouns can appear in “Aux-to-Comp” contexts (Rizzi (1982)):
Avendo Gianni/egli/pro telefonato a Maria, …
Having John/he telephoned to Mary, ..
“John/him having called Mary, …”
c. Complementiser deletion:
Credevo Gianni/egli/pro avesse telefonato a Maria.
I-thought John/he had telephoned to Mary
“I thought John had called Mary.”
(18a) shows that overt weak pronouns cannot be dislocated, so presumably the same
applies to pro. (18b) shows that weak pronouns, both overt and non-overt, can appear
in the Aux-to-Comp construction where the gerundive auxiliary has moved to C on
standard assumptions (Rizzi (1982, Ch 3)). Finally, dislocated elements are not
allowed in complementiser-deletion contexts like (18c) (cf. ??Credevo il libro Maria
lo avesse dato a Gianni “I thought, the book, Mary had given to John” (Cardinaletti
(2004:141)), but weak-pronoun and other subjects are. All of this, combined with
Holmberg’s argument given in the previous section, shows that pro can appear in the
preverbal subject position SpecTP.13
Furthermore, pro cannot appear in the “freely inverted” subject position. Cardinaletti
(1997:36-37) summarises two arguments that have been given for this. First, Burzio
13 If egli is a weak pronoun, and as such a Dmin/max, we might ask why it does not delete under the Agree relation with T, since its features appear to be subsumed by those of (null-subject) T (see below for the proposal that null-subject T has a D-feature). I tentatively propose (pace Cardinaletti & Starke (1999:186f.)) that this pronoun, and the similar esso series in Italian, differs from pro in having a Case feature. Owing to its Case feature, egli is not a defective goal in the sense described in the previous subsection, since it has a feature that its probe lacks. Strong pronouns arguably differ from weak pronouns in having the full functional structure of any DP, while, as we have suggested, weak pronouns are Dmin/max and clitics are φmin/max. For an alternative proposal regarding the feature content of egli, which is also compatible with the proposals made here, see Cardinaletti (2004:149-150).
17
(1986) showed that overt preverbal pronominal subjects are not allowed in
presentational sentences in Italian:
(19) a. *Io ci sono alla festa.
I there am at-the party
b. Ci sono io alla festa.
There am I at-the party
“I am at the party.”
Null subjects are not allowed here:
(20) *Ci sono alla festa.
There I-am at the party
If pro can only occur in preverbal subject position, then the ungrammaticality of (20)
is assimilated to that of (19a).
Second, Rizzi (1987) showed that only preverbal subjects can license a floated
quantifier:
(21) a. Tutti i bambini sono andati via.
All the children are gone away
b. I bambini sono andati tutti via.
The children are gone all away
c. Sono andati via tutti i bambini.
Are gone away all the children
d. *Sono andati tutti via i bambini.
Are gone all away the children
“All the children have gone away.”
18
e. Sono andati tutti via.
Are gone all away
“They have all gone away.”
In (21e), pro must be preverbal, since a postverbal subject cannot cooccur with a
floated quantifier, as the contrast between (21b) and (21d) shows.
Third, Cardinaletti (1997:38-39) observes that in the Central Italian dialect spoken
around Ancona, 3pl agreement may fail with inverted subjects, but not with preverbal
subjects:14
(22) a. Questo, lo fa sempre i bambini.
This, it does(3sg) always the children.
b. *Questo, i bambini lo fa sempre.
This, the children it does(3sg) always.
c. Questo, i bambini lo fanno sempre.
This, the children it do(3pl) always
“The children always do this.”
A 3pl null subject cannot appear with the 3sg verb:
(23) a. *Questo, lo fa sempre.
This, it does(3sg) always
(impossible with the 3pl interpretation of the subject)
b. Questo, lo fanno sempre.
This, it do(3pl) always
“They always do this.”
14 Manzini & Savoia (2005, I: 338f.) give many examples of this phenomenon, from a range of varieties, some of which have an expletive subject clitic with free inversion and some of which do not.
19
All of these arguments point to the conclusion that pro must appear in SpecTP. This
requirement to occupy a designated specifier position is typical of a weak pronoun, as
we have already observed.
I conclude then that pro is a Dmin/max not a φmin/max (in this I differ from Holmberg
(2005) – see §1 above; I also differ from Cardinaletti & Starke (1999) in assuming
that weak pronouns have no internal structure, or at least that pro doesn’t: hence, it is
a Dmin/max). Thus, pro cannot cliticise in the manner of complement clitics in
Romance, either to v or to T.
2.3 Pro and the EPP
If pro is a Dmin/max which, in Italian at least, must occupy SpecTP, it presumably
moves there to satisfy the EPP. Suñer (2002) argues essentially the same for Spanish,
as does Ordoñez (2006); Costa (2006) argues the same for European Portuguese, and
Adragão & Costa (2006) argue this for child European Portuguese (Brazilian
Portuguese appears to be a partial null-subject language; see the papers in Kato &
Negrão (2000), Holmberg, Johns, Nayudu & Sheehan (this volume) and the
references given there). Given (13), this is also consistent with the conclusion in the
previous section that pro is not a clitic.
Sheehan (2006) discusses the nature of the EPP in a range of Romance languages, and
concludes that the only case where the EPP does not seem to hold of SpecTP in
Romance is in VOS orders in Spanish and Italian. She proposes a variant of
Zubizarreta’s (1998) proposal for subject-lowering triggered by prosodic factors to
account for these orders. Hence the EPP can be taken to hold for SpecTP here too. See
also Sheehan & Roberts (this volume).
A further reason to think that pro can satisfy the EPP comes from the fact that we find
null subjects in OV languages. Turkish appears to be an example of a “rich-
agreement” null-subject language, and is clearly OV (Japanese is also OV, but shows
the “radical” type of null subject, while Marathi is OV and shows “partial null
subjects”, see Holmberg, Johns, Nayudu and Sheehan (this volume)). In her sketch of
the grammar of Turkish, Kornfilt (2003, IV:305) says “[b]ecause of the richly
20
differentiated agreement system, subjects of both main and embedded clauses … can
(and preferably do) remain unexpressed when interpreted as personal pronouns” (see
also Kornfilt (1997:132); cf. Öztürk (2001) for a different view). Here is a simple
example:
(24) Ben ev- e gel- di- m. pro kitap oku-du- m. pro televizyon seyret-ti-m.
I house-Dat come-Past-1sg book read-Past-1sg television watch-Past-1sg
“I came home. I did some reading. I watched TV.” (Öztürk (2001:241))
Assuming that this is a genuine case of an Italian-type “consistent” null subject in
Holmberg’s (2005) terminology (and see Öztürk (2001) for a dissenting view), we see
that there is no incompatibility between pro and OV order. Now, if we adopt the
analysis of OV (and VP-Aux) order put forward in Biberauer & Roberts (2005), the
derived structure of an SOVAux sentence is as follows:
(25) [TP [vP S tV-v [VP tV O ] ] V-v+T]
This structure is derived by V-movement to v and onward movement of V-v to T,
giving rise to the morphologically complex final verb forms observed in (24) and
known to be characteristic of Turkish (see the papers in Taylan (2001)), combined
with remnant VP-movement to SpecvP and remnant vP-movement to SpecTP. Both
VP-movement and vP-movement are triggered by EPP-features (of v and T,
respectively). Biberauer & Roberts (2005), following Richards & Biberauer (2005),
argue that v and T here probe DP, respectively the object and the subject, and that VP-
and vP-movement are the result of a pied-piping option. Biberauer & Roberts (2005)
argue this for Old English and the modern West Germanic languages. The analysis
can presumably extended to OV languages like Turkish. What this means is that T has
an EPP feature in Turkish, one which is associated with φ-features on T which probe
the subject.15 Turkish merely has the additional extra pied-piping requirement. Most
important for our purposes, pro can be the goal; it can be inside a larger pied-piped
category which satisfies the EPP.
15 At the same time, V-v incorporates with T as a defective goal. There is no incompatibility here between T’s probing the D-feature, leading to pied-piping, and incorporation of V-v triggered by T. Here T’s EPP feature attracts the category containing D, and cannot attract V-v.
21
Furthermore, Holmberg’s (2005) argument for a deleted pronoun in null-subject
sentences in Finnish depends on the idea that pro is able to satisfy the EPP (in
SpecTP, as Holmberg (2005:542-543) argues). This can be seen from contrasts like
that in (5), repeated here:
(5) a. Puhun englantia.
speak-1Sg English
“I speak English”
b. Sitä meni nyt hullusti.
EXPL went now wrong
“Now things went wrong.”
Here there is a pro in SpecTP in (5a).
So we see that pro can either satisfy the EPP, or that it can be a goal inside a larger
pied-piped category which satisfies the EPP. Given (13), this implies that pro cannot
be a clitic.
2.4 The trigger for deletion
I will follow the commonly articulated intuition that the core property which null
subjects (of the Italian kind) have is that T is “pronominal.” In different ways, this
idea underlies the analyses in Rizzi (1982), Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998)
and Holmberg (2005), for all that they otherwise differ.16 Following Holmberg
(2005:555), I take it that languages of this type have D-feature in T.17 Also following
16 Cf. also the following remark by Apollonius Dyscolus (On Syntax, Book 1, §17; Householder (1981:25)): The nominative [subject] is implicitly present in [finite] verbs, and it is definite (i.e. has definite reference) in the first and second persons, but indefinite in the third because of the unlimited number of possible referents. 17 Holmberg (2005:556) treats this D-feature as valued, and posits an unvalued D-feature on the subject pronoun. I see no strong reason to treat pro as different from other argumental Ds in this respect, and so tentatively treat the D-feature of T as unvalued, with that of pro being valued. This does not greatly affect what follows, however. On the other hand, I concur that null subjects in “partial” null-subject languages may lack an interpretable D-feature, something which explains a number of
22
Holmberg, I take this D-feature to be correlated with “rich” agreement (I will consider
the nature of rich agreement in more detail in §2.5).
The postulation of the D-feature on T in null-subject languages means that pro counts
as a defective goal in such languages. Its features, φ and D, are properly included in
T’s. But T also has an EPP-feature, which pro can satisfy, as we have seen. We saw in
§2.1 that defective goals must cliticise, and that a probe P can act as an incorporation
host for a given defective goal only if it lacks an EPP feature capable of attracting that
goal. In fact, we can now see that those conclusions are not exactly correct: a
defective goal can satisfy an EPP feature – this is what we observe with pro. But we
can exploit the fact that pro is a defective goal to derive its silent nature, in terms of
the following generalisation about defective goals:
(26) Defective goals always delete/never have a PF-realisation independently of
their probe.
(26) holds for clitics; as we saw in §2.1, the copy of the clitic, i.e. the goal itself,
deletes and its features are realised on the probe as the incorporated clitic. As we have
seen, pro does not incorporate, and in fact cannot, given (13). Nevertheless, it deletes
(or fails to be PF-realised – see §2.5 on this). In §2.1, we suggested that the reason for
(26) may be connected to the nature of chain reduction in the sense of Nunes (2004);
see also Note 9 for further discussion. To the extent that pronouns are often defective
goals, (26) entails the “Avoid Pronoun” principle of Chomsky (1981).
It ought to be possible to derive (26) from a suitable generalisation of chain-reduction,
since we have observed that in the case of incorporation Move and Agree cannot be
distinguished, we can think that the occurrence of the defective goal undergoes
deletion for the same reason as copies do. This can extend to pro if we see both its
first-merged and second-merged occurrence as essentially copies of (the features of)
the probe. Clearly, Nunes’ notion of chain-reduction needs to be generalised so as to
refer to copies of (subsets of) features of the probe.
their peculiarities; see Holmberg, Johns, Nayudu & Sheehan (this volume). In Roberts (2006b) I speculate as to how pro may have lost its D-feature in the recent history of Brazilian Portuguese.
23
Another, quite unrelated, example of (26) might be null wh-operators. It is natural to
see these as deleted wh-phrases (see Chomsky & Lasnik (1977:446) for a
characterisation of “deletion in COMP”, which is intended to interact with various
“surface filters”; we can think of the former as an operation taking place at the end of
the narrow-syntactic derivation subject to the effects of the latter, which are, or derive
from, output conditions at the (PF) interface). It may be that the context for their
deletion is exactly analogous to that of null subjects: they delete when attracted, by an
EPP feature, to the specifier of a head which has a superset of their features. In the
case of null operators, the relevant head would be a wh-C, and we might think of the
deleted element as being a defective goal, perhaps a bare wh-pronoun rather than a
full-fledged wh-DP. Null operators appear in the following contexts:
(27) a. Object relatives (optional in the context of that-deletion):
[ The man [ (who) I saw -- ]] is John.
b. Infinitival relatives (obligatory):
John found [ a book [ (*which) [ to read -- ]]].
c. Comparatives (normatively obligatory):
Ruth is stranger [ than [ (what) [ Richard is -- ]]].
d. Easy-to-please constructions (obligatory):
John is easy [ (*wh) [ to please -- ]].
On the other hand, null wh-phrases are impossible in interrogatives and wherever
material is pied-piped:
(28) a. *(Who) did you see -- ?
b. I wonder *(who) you saw -- /to talk to -- .
c. John is the man [ to *(whom) [ we should talk -- /to talk -- ]].
We can tentatively attribute the fact that interrogative wh-elements can never be
deleted to their semantics: an element like interrogative who simultaneously embodies
both a wh-quantifier and its restriction, i.e. it has an interpretation like for which x, x a
24
person (Baker (1970), Chomsky (1973)). For this reason, it is plausible to think that it
is more than just a bare quantifier, whatever its exact structure. On the other hand, in
the cases where deletion is either possible or required, the wh-element is arguably not
quantificational.
The impossibility of deletion when the wh-phrase is pied-piped with a preposition,
shown in (28c), cannot be attributed to the simple fact of pied-piping alone, since we
proposed in the previous section that a null subject can appear inside a pied-piped vP
in an OV language. It could be due to the fact that the complement is pied-piped here,
rather than the specifier as in the vP case in the previous section,18 or it could be due
to the fact that the preposition instantiates a Case feature, not borne by C, and so such
elements are not defective goals and therefore cannot be deleted. I will leave this and
other points regarding the nature of null operators open. The central observation in the
present context is simply that they constitute a further possible case of a defective
goal attracted to the specifier of their probe by an EPP feature, and as such they are
required to delete. In this connection, it is interesting to note that Kayne (1994:88)
mentions that an “avoid relative pronoun if possible” principle is at work in French
and Italian relatives, where only the complementiser que/che is allowed in subject and
object relatives:
(29) a. la persona che/*cui Bill ha visto (Italian)
b. la personne que/*qui Bill a vue (French)
the person that/who Bill has seen
A further prediction stemming from (26) concerns v. If consistent, agreement-licensed
null subjects are only found where T has φ-features, D-features and an EPP feature,
then we expect exactly the same to hold at the v level. We therefore expect to find
consistent, agreement-licensed null objects just where v has φ-features, a D-feature
and, most important, an EPP feature. It therefore follows that such null objects will
only be found in OV languages, since the presence of an EPP feature on v will
guarantee OV order (perhaps by means of VP-pied-piping; see (25) above). 18 Deletion is impossible where the relative is a possessive in SpecDP: (i) The man [(*whose) friends we met -- ]. This could be due to the fact that whose is really who combined with the determiner ‘s, and as such a non-constituent (see Chomsky (1995:263)).
25
Many of the cases of null objects that have been discussed in the literature appear to
be instance of “radical” argument drop; this is the case for Chinese, Japanese and
other East Asian languages, arguably also Brazilian Portuguese.19 Whatever is going
on here, it is clear that agreement is playing no role in licensing these elements, since
there is no object-agreement in these languages. The arbitrary null object of Italian,
discussed and analysed in Rizzi (1986a), may have more properties in common with
“partial” null subjects; again, it is not associated with object agreement and, given its
arbitrary interpretation, we conjecture that it is not associated with a D-feature (see
Note 17 and Holmberg, Johns, Nayudu & Sheehan (this volume)). There are,
however, languages with “rich” object agreement and what seem to be consistent null
objects, with properties similar to those of null subjects in languages like Italian and
Spanish (notably definite reference and the association with rich agreement). One
such case is Pashto, as discussed in Huang (1984). Pashto is a split-ergative language,
showing a nominative-accusative agreement pattern in tenses formed from the present
verb stem and an ergative-absolutive one in tenses formed from the past verb stem
(MacKenzie (2003:255-256)). The agreement marking is consistently rather “rich”. In
transitive clauses showing the ergative pattern, the verb agrees with the direct object,
as shown in (30a), and a null object (with definite reference) is possible, as (30b)
shows:
(30) a. ma maņa wə-xwar-a
I apple Prf-eat-3fsg
“I ate the apple.”
b. ma e wə-xwar-a
I Prf-eat-3fsg
“I ate it (fem.)” (Huang (1984:535-536))
19 These might be cases of topic deletion (in the sense of Huang (1984), Raposo (1986), Modesto (2000)), which it would be natural to account for in terms of the notion of defective goal. However, if Chomsky (2005) is correct in proposing that topicalisation is triggered by an Edge Feature, and that such cases of movement do not involve Agree, then it is difficult to see how to make such an account work in the terms being assumed here. See Note 22 for a further brief comment on “radical” pro-drop.
26
We see that the null object can appear exactly where there is agreement with the
object, and that object has a definite interpretation: so we interpret Huang’s e as pro.
Most importantly in the present context, we can observe from (30a), and other similar
examples given by Huang, that Pashto is OV (see also MacKenzie (2003:256)). So
this is an example of a consistent, agreement-licensed null object in an OV language.
The prediction that emerges from our discussion is that we do not expect to find VO
languages without object agreement showing definite, non-discourse-licensed null
objects. Unfortunately, it is hard to check this prediction, given the different types of
null object that are found, as noted above.
In this section we have seen the nature of the trigger for null subjects: the presence of
a D-feature on T makes pro a defective goal. Where T also has an EPP feature, pro
cannot cliticise, since this feature is incompatible with incorporation. Nevertheless,
since defective goals always delete under feature-identity with their probe, pro lacks
phonological realisation. In the final part of this section, I turn to the question of the
nature of pro’s non-realisation: is it deletion or is it failure to be associated with a
phonological matrix?
2.5 Deletion, non-realisation and syntactic impoverishment
Holmberg (2005:559) concludes that pro may be either a deleted pronoun, or one
which fails to have a PF realisation (depending on its person). The central point of his
analysis is that, as far as the core computational processes of narrow syntax are
concerned, pro is just like an overt pronoun; its non-overtness is purely a PF matter.
But we should briefly consider whether it is possible, or desirable, to distinguish the
two options of deletion and non-realisation. I will try to do this here, and in the
process introduce Müller’s (2005) notion of presyntactic impoverishment as a way of
accounting for the relation of “rich” verbal agreement inflection to null subjects. I will
show how Müller’s idea can be integrated into the proposals being made here. I will
argue that this entails, all other things being equal, that null subjects are in fact deleted
pronouns rather than feature matrices which fail to have a segmental realisation.
Let us begin with impoverishment. In distributed morphology, impoverishment is a
deletion operation which affects the feature bundles created and manipulated by the
27
syntax, taking place after syntax but before “vocabulary insertion”, the post-syntactic
operation which pairs phonological and morphosyntactic features (in the functional
domain; I will say nothing about the realisation of lexical items here).
Impoverishment rules “neutralize differences between syntactic contexts in
morphology” (Müller (2005:3)), thus having the effect of giving the same PF
realisation to syntactically (and LF-) distinct bundles of features. In other words,
impoverishment rules create what Müller refers to as “system-defining syncretisms”.
This kind of syncretism is distinct from accidental homophony or gaps in a paradigm.
System-defining syncretisms hold across a morphological subsystem: two or more
distinct feature specifications may have the same realisations where other aspects of
the specification varies independently. For example, Müller (2005:5) gives the
following two impoverishment rules for German verbal inflection:
(31) a. [±1] ø/[-2,-pl,+past] __
b. [±1] ø/[-2,+pl] __
These rules delete the 1st-person feature ([+1] is the value of 1st person, [-1] specifies
2nd and 3rd person) in two contexts: non-2nd person singular past tense, and non-2nd
plural in all tenses. Since the 1st-person feature distinguishes 1st and 3rd persons, the
upshot of (31) is these persons are never distinguished in the singular of past-tense
verb forms or in the plural of any verb in any tense. Both of these are correct
observations about German verbal inflection.
Müller (2005:10) proposes the “pro generalisation”, intended to link null subjects and
rich agreement in terms of impoverishment:
(32) An argumental pro DP cannot undergo Agree with a functional head α if α has
been subjected (perhaps vacuously) to a φ-feature neutralizing
impoverishment in the numeration.
(I will return directly to the idea that impoverishment takes place in the numeration).
We can relate this to the idea adopted in the previous section that the T which licenses
null subjects has a D-feature. Let us suppose that this D-feature is really a definiteness
feature (this idea is arguably implicit in Holmberg’s analysis, too). That is, pro in
28
consistent null-subject languages has a D-feature valued as definite, and, under Agree
with T, it values T’s D-feature in this way. This gives us a very concrete way of
specifying the fact that null subjects in consistent null-subject languages have definite
reference (and, as pointed out by Perlmutter (1971), they require a special element,
e.g. the subject clitic si in Italian, in order to have indefinite or arbitrary reference; see
also the discussion of generic null subjects in partial null-subject languages in
Holmberg (2005:548-550) and Holmberg, Johns, Nayudu and Sheehan (this volume)).
Following Russell (1905), I take the notion of definiteness to involve existence and
uniqueness.20 In order for existence and uniqueness to be determined, it is arguably
natural to require of a definite element that it have a full specification of person and
number features. Let us therefore adopt the following postulate, relating definite D to
φ-feature specifications:
(33) If a category α has D[def], then all α’s φ-features are specified.
As we have seen, impoverishment removes certain φ-features from a head. So it
follows from (33) that where this happens D cannot be specified as definite. In the
case of T, on the assumptions we have been developing here, this means that D cannot
be valued by pro if any of its features have been subject to impoverishment.21 If D is
present, then, the derivation will crash. Hence a T with impoverished features cannot
bear a D-feature. As we saw in the previous section, where T lacks a D-feature pro,
being a weak pronoun and therefore a DP, is not a defective goal. And therefore,
given (26), pro cannot be null, i.e. cannot undergo deletion or fail to have a PF
realisation. We can thus derive Müller’s pro generalisation from the postulate about
the interaction of D[def] with φ-features in (33) combined with our conclusions
regarding pro as a weak pronoun and the nature of defective goals. This also creates a
connection, exactly as postulated by Müller, between rich agreement and the licensing
of consistent null subjects.
20 May (1985:8) analyses the as a generalised quantifier as follows: (i) the(X, Y) = 1 iff X = X ∩ Y = {a} for a ∈ D. To put it another way, in [TP [DP the k NP ] .. VP ] “requires the existence of exactly k individuals” that are the denotation of VP (Larson & Segal (1995:320)). 21 The features cannot be valued by pro as they are absent, i.e. both the attribute and the value are missing, as indicated in (31). We will see directly that this should be interpreted to mean that they are marked for deletion.
29
In these terms, then, consistent null-subject languages have non-impoverished φ-
features on T, T bears a D-feature, and pro is a defective goal and therefore null. Non-
null-subject languages such as English have impoverished φ-features on T, and
therefore no D-feature and no pro (i.e. if there are weak subject pronouns they are
overtly realised). “Radical” pro-drop languages such as Chinese and various other
East Asian languages clearly lack φ-features on T and hence pattern with English
rather than with consistent null-subject languages in this regard; here, however, other
deletion processes are at work, such as those identifying null topics in the sense of
Huang (1984) (but see Note 19 above), as well as possibly N’-deletion as in Tomioka
(2003) and/or context-free zero-realisation of morphologically transparent pronouns
as proposed in Neeleman & Szendrői (2005).22
How does all this bear on the question of the precise nature of pro’s non-overtness?
Müller (2005:7-8) gives three conceptual arguments against post-syntactic lexical 22 Neeleman & Szendrői (2005) treat fully specified nominals as KPs (since they inherently contain a syntactic position for Case, according to Neeleman & Szendrői) and posit an operation of context-free KP-deletion. In languages with fusional pronoun morphology, this context-free operation is blocked by the principle of disjunctive ordering (the Elsewhere Condition of Kiparsky (1973)), which states that a more specific operation blocks a more general one in the case where both structural descriptions are met. They further adopt a “realisational” approach to the insertion of pronouns into positions created by the syntax; for example, the English pronoun him is the realisation, or “spell out,” of the feature complex [KP +pronoun, -anaphor, 3rd person, Singular, Masculine, Accusative]. The general “radical pro-drop” rule is the context-free zero-realisation rule (i): (i) [KP +pronoun, -anaphor] Ø The Elsewhere Condition will always block this realisation of pronouns in English, since, given their fusional nature, English pronouns always have more complex spell-out rules whose structural descriptions properly include that of (i). But this is not true in every language: in some languages, e.g. Japanese, regular, agglutinating case-markers are added to the pronominal root (watasi-ga “I”; watasi-o “me”, etc.). Japanese thus has separate spell-out rules for the Case (K) morpheme and for the pronoun, which is a category distinct from KP (probably NP). And here is the central idea of their analysis: because of the non-fusional make-up of pronominal KPs, neither the radical pro-drop realisation of KP nor the specific rules for NP and K are in an “elsewhere” relation. Hence Japanese pronominal KPs are optionally allowed a zero realisation. The analysis leads to the following generalisation: fusional pronouns block radical pro-drop. On the other hand, as Neeleman & Szendrői (2005:16) point out, fusional pronouns may be compatible with consistent null subjects (as determined by rich agreement, in what we can take to be the sense described by Müller’s pro generalisation) thanks to “context-sensitive zero-realization” of the general kind in (ii): (ii) [KP +pronoun, -anaphor, φi ] Ø/ ___ φi. Neeleman & Szendrői take “φi” to denote some set of person and number features; the coindexation is intended to indicate agreement with the same features of KP. Given the text proposal, we can take it to be a non-impoverished set of φ-features combined with a D feature.
30
insertion. One problem is that inflection markers are split into the functional element
and the vocabulary item. A second, more serious, problem is that insertion appears to
be a very different, and more complex, operation than the elementary operations of
current minimalist syntax (primarily merge and Agree). Third, following Alexiadou &
Müller (2005), Müller points out that late insertion cannot simultaneously satisfy both
the Inclusiveness Condition (which prevents new material from being added during
the derivation) and the Legibility Condition (features can be present in a given
component of the grammar only if they are interpretable in that component). In this
connection, Müller observes that morphological class features either violate
Inclusiveness, by being inserted (late) in the derivation, or Legibility, by being present
in the core syntax but irrelevant to it. Müller concludes that “a morphological
component of grammar that meets minimalist requirements should be pre-syntactic
rather than post-syntactic” (Müller (2005:8)), and goes on to suggest that inflectional
operations are carried out in the numeration. In these terms, since syntax and LF need
access to information regarding, for example, 1st vs. non-1st person, impoverishment
rules applying in the numeration merely mark certain features for deletion in PF,
rather than directly carrying out deletion at this point in the derivation.
If Müller is correct regarding the general impossibility of late insertion, then we
cannot treat the non-overtness of pro as a matter of PF non-realisation, where this
means post-syntactic insertion of a null segmental matrix. So either pro is present in
the numeration as an empty category, or null subjects are true pronouns which
undergo deletion. Of these, the second seems to be the more attractive alternative in
the context of current theoretical assumptions: as mentioned in the introduction, we
are no longer able to embed pro in a general theory of empty categories, while here I
have developed an analytical framework in which the conditions for deletion are
clear. Moreover, Nunes’ (2004) operation of chain-reduction, applied to probe-goal
dependencies, provides us with a deletion mechanism. Defective goals will delete
since they have no features not also present on the probe; in other words, ultimately
the very general principle of recoverability of deletion determines when a goal may
delete. Given this, there is no more reason to assume that pro is a theoretical primitive
than there is to assume traces.
31
Therefore, I follow Müller’s proposal regarding impoverishment and treat pro as a
pronoun marked in the syntax for deletion. Following the general “earliness”
guideline (Pesetsky (1989), Chomsky (2001:15)), we might think that it deletes as
soon as it can in the derivation, which I take to be at the point of transfer to PF (but
see Note 23). It does not seem possible to treat pro as an “accidentally silent”
element, i.e. to say that it lacks a segmental matrix since there is no systematic
relation between these matrices and the syntactic elements they realise. This would
amount to saying that the fact that pro is null in a given context is accidental in the
same way that he has an initial /h/; but in that case we would expect a quite random
incidence of null arguments, something which we do not find. It is clear that null
arguments of various kinds are subject to syntactic, discourse and morphological
conditioning; they are not just accidents of PF.
I conclude then that pro is a deleted pronoun. The operation that actually deletes a
weak pronoun, giving rise to the silent element pro, is related to that spelling out
clitics on their hosts, as we saw in §2.1, and, plausibly, to the general operation of
copy-deletion. Whether this is a PF operation or internal to core syntax is a further
question. Since copies need to be available at LF, presumably it does not feed LF, and
therefore must take place at Spell Out at the earliest; this is a standard view and I see
no reason to dissent from it here.23
23 It is, however, worth pointing out that pro’s features are properly included in those of the T which probes it. Therefore no LF-relevant information is lost by the deletion process; T’s φ- and D-features can recover the relevant properties of the referential, definite pronominal subject. This creates the intriguing possibility that a version of Holmberg’s Hypothesis A, with SpecTP absent (the “I-subject” approach to null subjects), is correct as far as the LF representation of null subjects is concerned. It is interesting to note that many of the arguments for this kind of approach (e.g. in Barbosa (1995, 2006) and Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998)) are interpretative, invoking the topicalised or focalised interpretation of overt subjects as evidence that they are not in the canonical subject position, scope interactions between overt subjects and quantifiers elsewhere in the clause, asymmetries between referential and non-referential quantified subjects, and restrictions on the interpretation of pronouns as bound variables of the kind first observed by Montalbetti (1984) (see in particular Barbosa (2006)). All of this could be interpreted, as the authors suggest, as evidence that (expletive/resumptive) pro is absent, i.e. that SpecTP is absent, at the level where these phenomena are represented: LF. In particular, this idea converges with Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou’s conclusions regarding expletive pro: this item arguably must delete prior to LF since it is uninterpretable. On the other hand, most of the objections to Hypothesis A, including Holmberg’s (2005) argument from Finnish given in §1 and the arguments from Burzio, Rizzi and Cardinaletti in §2.2, are distributional: they show that pro is present at some point in the derivation, but are neutral as to pro’s interface status. These arguments are obviously compatible with pro’s absence at PF, and could be compatible with its absence at LF. So it is conceivable that null-subject deletion takes place in core syntax: the deleted pronoun satisfies the EPP and the absence of a subject in SpecTP has the interpretative effects Barbosa and others discuss at LF. I will not pursue this intriguing hypothesis further here, however.
32
This concludes the general characterisation of pro: it is a weak pronoun, a DP which
is required to appear in certain designated positions (SpecTP in the case of subjects),
and which undergoes deletion where T has a D-feature, thanks to the general
properties of defective goals. T can only have a D-feature if none of its φ-features
have undergone (pre-syntactic) impoverishment; this establishes a connection with
“rich” agreement, since non-impoverished φ-features will tend to be realised by
distinct vocabulary items (although a certain amount of accidental homophony and
null realisation may exist). This, in the current theoretical context, is the nature of the
“pure pronominal empty category”: it is a pronominal goal deleted under identity by
pronominal probe.
In the final part of this paper, I apply this approach to French, a language whose status
in relation to the null-subject parameter has been debated. We will see that some
aspects of the questions concerning the nature and status of null subjects in French are
clarified by the considerations we have raised in this section.
3. Null subjects in French
3.1 Is French a null-subject language?
It is usually thought that French is not a null-subject language (Burzio (1986:135ff.),
Perlmutter (1971), Rizzi (1982, 1986b:400f.), Kayne (1989), Taraldsen (1978)). The
following contrasts with Italian motivate this ((34b) is a grammatical imperative, but
ungrammatical as a declarative):
(34) a. Parla italiano.
b. *Parle italien.
“(He/she) speaks Italian.”
(35) a. Chi hai detto che -- ha scritto questo libro?
b. *Qui as-tu dit qu’ – a écrit ce livre?
Who have-2sg said that – has written this book
33
(36) a. E’ arrivato Gianni.
b. *Est arrivé Jean.
Has arrived John.
“John has arrived.”
(37) a. Hanno telefonato molti studenti.
b. *Ont téléphoné beaucoup d’étudiants.
Have telephoned many students.
“Many students have telephoned.”
Regarding the three main properties identified by Rizzi (1982) as constituting
evidence for the setting of the null-subject parameter, then, French appears to pattern
consistently as a non-null-subject language.
However, it has often been suggested that the subject clitics of French are really
agreement markers of some kind, i.e. a realisation of the φ (and, given our analysis,
D) features of T (Hulk (1986, 1991), Jaeggli (1982), Roberge (1986), di Sciullo
(1990), Sportiche (1983, 1999); see also, in a typological-descriptive framework,
Harris (1978, 1988)). Thus, we would have a null subject in an example like (38):
(38) pro je mange la pomme.
I eat the apple
“I eat the apple.”
The contrast between the behaviour of subject clitics in French and in many (but not
all) Northern Italian dialects is usually taken to indicate that this is not the correct
analysis of French subject clitics (in proclisis; I will turn to the enclitics which arise
under subject-clitic inversion in the next section). Rizzi (1986b) and Brandi & Cordin
(1989) argue that subject clitics in many Northern Italian dialects are not subject
pronouns but markers of subject agreement, while those of French are subject
pronouns, on several grounds.
First, there are frequently gaps in the subject-clitic paradigms in Northern Italian
dialects but not in French, and pronominal paradigms do not normally show such gaps
34
(this is related to the point made at the end of the previous section that the incidence
of pro cannot be purely accidental). Second, in many (but not all) Northern Italian
dialects, the subject clitic must always appear, and, therefore “doubles” a nominal
subject. In many dialects (see below), it appears with the kind of non-referential
subject which cannot be left-dislocated. This contrasts with subject left-dislocation of
the type found in French:
(39) a. Nessuno gl’ha detto nulla. (Florentine)
Noone SCL.has said nothing
b. *Personne il n’a rien dit. (French)
Noone he not.has said anything
“Noone said anything.”
Third, some subject clitics in some varieties follow the preverbal negation, and as
such appear to be more fully integrated into the clitic cluster proclitic to the finite verb
than those of French, for example:
(40) a. No te ghe l’hai dit. (Trentino)
Not you to-him it.have said
b. Un tu gliel’ha detto. (Florentine)
Not you to-him-it.have said
“You have not said it to him.”
Fourth, under coordination, the clitics must be repeated in both conjuncts in Northern
Italian dialects, while this is not the case in French:
(41) a. Il chante et danse. (French)
He sings and dances
b. La canta e *(la) balla (Trentino)
she sings and she dances
35
Poletto (2000:18-30) gives a very detailed and critical review of these tests, showing
that Northern Italian subject clitics do not constitute a homogeneous set of entities.
Nevertheless, with the possible exception of those found in certain Veneto dialects,
they contrast in their distribution with French subject pronouns along the lines just
illustrated. For these reasons, Rizzi (1986b), Brandi & Cordin (1989), and, with
considerably more empirical breadth and depth, Poletto (2000) have concluded that
French subject clitics are pronouns which cliticise in PF to the finite verb they
precede. According to Rizzi and Brandi & Cordin (see also Manzini & Savoia (2005,
I: 117ff.)), subject clitics in many Northern Italian dialects are a form of subject
agreement, arguably a realisation of T’s φ- or D-features, and presumably
contributing thereby to the licensing of null subjects.24,25
Another case where it has been argued that French allows at least expletive null
subjects is in Stylistic Inversion (Styl-Inv), as analysed by Kayne & Pollock (1978)
and Pollock (1986):
(42) a. A qui a parlé ton ami?
To whom has spoken your friend?
“Who did your friend speak to?”
b. l’homme à qui a parlé ton ami
the man to whom has spoken your friend
“the man who your friend spoke to”
c. Je souhaiterais que vienne ton ami
I wish that come(subjunc) your friend
“I wish that your friend would come.”
Kayne & Pollock (1978) and Pollock (1986) essentially treated this construction as a
highly restricted occurrence of “free inversion”, with a null expletive in the preverbal
subject position (what we would now call SpecTP) and the overt subject in a lower 24 Cardinaletti & Repetti (2003) dissent from this general view. They argue that subject clitics, at least in certain Veneto dialects, are subject pronouns. 25 I will not speculate here on how this kind of analysis of Northern Italian subject clitics would interact with our account of Müller’s pro-generalisation discussed in the previous section.
36
position. In their more recent treatment, however, Kayne & Pollock (2005) argue that
the postverbal subject is in a “high” subject position and that Styl-Inv involves
remnant-TP movement to a still higher position. Regarding the expletive null subject,
they conclude that “no instance of SI is an expletive il sentence with il unpronounced”
(Kayne & Pollock (2005:23, Note 31)).
On the other hand, Kayne & Pollock posit a silent subject clitic in Styl-Inv
constructions, one which is capable of doubling a definite subject like ton ami in (42).
They give three pieces of evidence for this. First, in certain non-colloquial registers
3rd-person strong pronouns seem to appear as both preverbal and postverbal subjects,
but not 1st or 2nd-person ones, which must co-occur with an overt subject clitic:
(43) a. LUI a mangé/Qu’a mangé LUI?
HE has eaten/what has eaten HE?
“HE has eaten/what has HE eaten?”
b. *TOI as mange/*Qu’as mangé TOI?
YOU have eaten/what have eaten YOU?
“YOU have eaten/what have you eaten?”
c. TOI tu as mangé.
YOU you have eaten
“YOU have eaten”
Kayne & Pollock suggest that there is a 3rd-person null subject in (43a) in the position
occupied by tu in (43c). (43b) is ungrammatical because 2nd-person null subjects are
not allowed in French.26
Second, indefinite subjects are not good in Styl-Inv:
26 In more colloquial registers, a weak subject pronoun (il) obligatorily appears in (43a). Kayne & Pollock observe that registers which require the 3rd-person subject clitic here do not allow Styl-Inv at all (these include Quebec French).
37
(44) *Quel gâteau a mangé quelqu’un?
Which cake has eaten somebody?
If there is a weak subject pronoun in Styl-Inv, this can be assimilated to cases like
(39b), indicating the impossibility of dislocating a non-referential quantifier doubled
by a pronoun of this kind.
Third, weak subject pronouns can neither be dislocated nor can they be postverbal in
Styl-Inv:
(45) a. *Il, il mangera ce gâteau.
He, he will-eat this cake
b. *Quand a parlé il?
When has spoken he?
Again, these reduce to a single fact if il is “dislocated” in (45b) and there is a null
subject in the true subject position. As a weak pronoun, il cannot appear in a
dislocated position.
Kayne & Pollock’s arguments that there may be an argumental 3rd-person null subject
at least in certain non-colloquial registers of French in left dislocation and Styl-Inv
constructions are quite convincing. In the light of the arguments and analyses
presented in the preceding sections, I will treat this element as a weak pronoun, in fact
pro, rather than as a subject clitic. We can then conclude that the relevant register of
French is a highly restricted variety of partial null-subject language, in the sense of
Holmberg, Johns, Nayudu & Sheehan (this volume).
Let us very briefly consider how French complies with Müller’s pro-generalisation.
Are there cases of system-defining syncretism in the French verbal-agreement
paradigm? Harris (1988:224) gives the following summary of French verbal
conjugation:
38
(46) Present indicative by conjugation type:
donner “to give” voir “to see” rompre “to break” finir “to finish”
donn-e voi-s romp-s fini-s
donn-es voi-s romp-s fini-s
donn-e voi-t romp-t fini-t
donn-ons voy-ons romp-ons fin-iss-ons
donn-ez voy-ez romp-ez fin-iss-ez
donn-ent voi-ent romp-ent fin-iss-ent
(47) Other tenses (all conjugations):27
Imperfect Pres. Subjunctive Future Conditional
donn-ais donn-e donne-r-ai donne-r-ais
donn-ais donn-es donne-r-as donne-r-ais
donn-ait donn-e donne-r-a donne-r-ait
donn-ions donn-ions donne-r-ons donne-r-ions
donn-iez donn-iez donne-r-ez donne-r-iez
donn-aient donn-ent donne-r-ont donne-r-aient
As is well known, “[t]o say that French orthography is less than ideal would be
something of an understatement” (Harris (1988:215)). Accordingly, we need to take
certain phonological factors into consideration before we can fully evaluate the above
paradigms in relation to impoverishment. Furthermore, I will concentrate on the
person and number features, without speculating as to the best morphological analysis
of the tense markers (and the theme vowels in the present). The most salient fact is
that word-final obstruents are generally not pronounced. In fact the final orthographic
<s> in all the 2sg forms and all the 1sg forms where it appears is never pronounced.
The final <s> of the 1pl, on the other hand, is pronounced, but only in liaison contexts
(where the following word in the same prosodic domain begins with a vowel). This
probably justifies positing it as part of the relevant vocabulary item, and allowing it to
27 There are two further tenses which are not part of spoken French, the preterit (or passé simple) and the imperfect subjunctive. I will follow Harris in leaving these aside, as they are confined to the written language, and the latter is very rarely used even there.
39
be deleted in non-liaison contexts by the very general process of final-obstruent
deletion (see Anderson (1982), Dell (1985) for details). The same is arguably true of
the final <t> of the 3pl and the final <z> of the 2pl. These person endings are
therefore clearly distinct in all tenses; we may tentatively assign them the following
exponence, following the feature system in Müller (2005):28
(48) a. /onz/ > [ +pl, +1 ]
b. /ez/ > [ +pl, -1, +2 ]
c. /ət/ > [ +pl, -1, -2 ]
There is clearly no impoverishment here.
The singular forms are more interesting, however. Here again, the status of the
orthographic final consonants in relation to liaison, in particular in “high” registers, is
crucial. Armstrong (1962:165) states that optional liaison is found “[a]fter the third
person of verbs ending in the letter t, except when a personal pronoun follows, in
which case liaison is compulsory”.29 What this means is that we have syncretism
between 3rd singular and 3rd plural in the present tense.30 It is possible that we have
this syncretism in verbs of all conjugations in the imperfect and conditional tenses;
however, we can take the “imperfect” ending (common to both tenses) as /ε ~ i/
(perhaps more abstractly a non-low front vowel or glide) and then, as with the present,
treat the 3sg ending as /t/ and the plural as /ət/, with a regular phonological rule
deleting /ə/ after /ε/. In that case, the singular forms are as in (49):
(49) a. Ø > [-Pl, +Imperfect, αPersi, -αPersj] (i ≠ j)
b. /t/ > [-Pl, +Imperfect, -1, -2]
c. /e/ > [-Pl, +Future, +1]
d. /a/ > [-Pl, +Future, -1]
28 These are somewhat approximate phonological forms: /onz/ for example is realised with nasal vowel /õ/ and no nasal consonant. This results from regular phonological processes, however (see in particular Dell (1985)). 29 Thanks to Adam Ledgeway for pointing this quotation out to me. The “compulsory liaison” with an inverted pronoun alluded to here is arguably a different phenomenon involving the interrogative marker /t/. I will look at this in detail in the next section. 30 This does not apply to 1st-conjugation verbs, as shown in the paradigm for donner in (46), or for the subclass of 4th-conjugation verbs illustrated by ouvrir (“to open”), which have 3sg present ouvre, 3pl ouvrent.
40
(It is unclear whether the homophony of the 2sg and 3sg future endings really
represents a system-defining syncretism in Müller’s sense). In all tenses except the
future, there is syncretism between 1st and 2nd person. This latter point creates a
difficulty for Müller’s feature system for persons, since, by positing the features [±1]
and [±2], the prediction is made that impoverishment creates syncretism between 1st
and 3rd-person forms (specified as [-2]) and between 2nd and 3rd person forms,
(specified as [-1]), but not between 1st and 2nd person forms. I have indicated this in
using α-notation in (49a), intended to indicate that the positive value of one of the
person features, [+1] or [+2], must be chosen, along with the negative value of the
other one. Leaving aside the difficulty of formulating this rule given the feature
system Müller adopts (which does not in itself pose a problem for the general idea of
system-defining syncretism), it is clear that there is system-wide syncretism here. So
it seems clear that French conforms to Müller’s pro generalisation, and that we
therefore predict that it cannot be a consistent null subject language (whatever its
possible status as a (very) partial null-subject language, given Kayne & Pollock’s
observations reported above).31
So we conclude that (certain registers of) French may constitute a very limited null-
subject system. All registers show instances of system-defining syncretism in
Müller’s sense, and so none is a consistent null-subject language. Therefore, the
standard observation concerning the difference between French and Italian is
confirmed, although we arguably have a slightly deeper understanding of it now.
There is one very important proviso to this conclusion, however, concerning what
happens in cases of inversion in French. I now turn to this.
31 The 3rd-person liaison described by Armstrong is characteristic of rather careful, non-colloquial registers. Arguably, this kind of liaison is not found in more colloquial registers. Where this kind of liaison is not found, there is general syncretism of singular forms in all tenses except the future, where there is syncretism of 2nd and 3rd person. Clearly, then, we have different and more generalised impoverishment in these registers. These may also be the same registers as those which lack examples like (43a), although further research on the precise nature of the register variation is required in order to establish this. See Zribi-Hertz (1994) and the comments in the concluding section below for more on register variation.
41
3.2 Null subjects and subject-clitic inversion
Here I want to consider the status of null subjects in subject-clitic inversion in French.
I will argue that in this context French is a consistent null-subject language, and that
the subject clitic apparently enclitic to C in these contexts is in fact a realisation of the
φ-features of C; in these respects, my analysis is similar to those in Zribi-Hertz (1994)
and Sportiche (1999), although it differs from them in detail.
Subject-clitic inversion is illustrated in (50):
(50) As-tu vu Marie?
Have you seen Mary?
Standardly, the verb is thought to have moved through T to C (this analysis originated
in den Besten (1983), was developed in Kayne (1983) and Rizzi & Roberts (1989),
and has been challenged in Poletto & Pollock (2004), Pollock (2006), see Note 35).
The subject clitic is clearly enclitic to the verb in C here. This can be seen from the
fact that no material of any kind may intervene between the inverted verb and the
subject. In English parenthetical material can be marginally inserted between an
inverted auxiliary and the subject (although this deteriorates where the subject is
pronominal):
(51) a. ?Has, by the way, John seen Mary?
b. ?*Have, by the way, you seen Mary?
In French, interpolation is impossible here:
(52) **As, à propos, tu vu Marie? (=(51b))
In general, non-clitic subjects are impossible in the position occupied by the clitic in
(50):
42
(53) *A Jean vu Marie?
Has John seen Mary?
Furthermore, although it is well-established that subject pronouns generally cliticise
in French (Kayne (1972, 1975); Cardinaletti & Starke (1999) treat the subject
proclitics as weak pronouns which cliticise/prosodically restructure at PF), both
Cardinaletti & Starke (1999) and Sportiche (1999:202) point out that enclitic subjects
are more restricted in distribution than proclitic ones in certain ways. For example,
coordinated subject pronouns are possible in preverbal position, but not where the
verb is inverted:
(54) a. Il ou elle connait bien le problème.
He or she knows well the problem.
“He or she knows the problem well.”
b. *Mange-t-il ou (t-)elle?
Eats he or she?
Further, as can in fact be seen in (54b), subject-clitic inversion with a 3sg clitic is
associated with a specific phonological operation, here insertion of an epenthetic /t/.32
Cardinaletti & Starke (1999:167) observe that subject clitics in enclitic position
cannot be omitted in the second conjunct of a coordinate structure:
(55) a. Il aime les choux, mais – ne les mange que cuits? 32 The epenthetic /t/ is not a liaison consonant. This can be seen by contrasting it with the underlying final /t/ of the 3pl ending with a 1st-conjugation verb. As we mentioned in §3.1, in very careful speech the 3pl form can give rise to liaison in non-inversion contexts, leading to a /t/ being pronounced in the onset of a following vowel-initial syllable, as in: (i) Ils jouent à la poupée. (/ižutalapupe/) They play with the doll The analogue to (i) is completely impossible with a 3sg 1st-conjugation verb (or a 4th-conjugation verb of the ouvrir subclass): (ii) Elle/il joue *-t- à la poupée. S/he plays with the doll. On the other hand, the epenthetic /t/ is obligatory in inversion in the 3sg in all registers which allow inversion, as we saw in the quotation from Armstrong (1962) given in §3.1. Pollock (2006:627-630) gives an analysis of epenthetic /t/ which makes its appearance central to the analysis of subject-clitic inversion, and which entails the postulation of a null variant of this element where the subject is 1pl, 2sg and 2pl.
43
He likes the cabbages, but – not them eats but cooked
b. *Aime-t-il les choux, mais – ne les mange que cuits?
Likes he the cabbages, but – not them eats but cooked?
“Does he like cabbage, but only eats it cooked?”
This, in their terms, suffices to classify enclitic il as a clitic, rather than a weak
pronoun.
Finally, in Modern French there are rather heavy restrictions on inversion over a 1sg
subject. Pollock (2006:651) observes that inversion over 1sg je is only possible where
the inverted element is a modal or aspectual auxiliary, or the verb is in the future or
conditional form; forms such as arrive-je? (“arrive I?”) and comprends-je
(“understand I?”) are highly marginal at best.
We have mentioned that Cardinaletti & Starke (1999) analyse the “subject clitics” of
French as weak pronouns. But this only applies to subject clitics in proclisis to the
verb. In the enclisis environment, as we can see from the above, these elements
behave differently. In terms of the general account of cliticisation in Roberts (2006a),
C is a target for cliticisation, being a phase head. We could regard subject pronouns as
cliticising directly to C from their first-merged position in SpecvP. However, this idea
is rather problematic. If subject φ-features are really features of C, as proposed in
Chomsky (2005), and C “withholds” these features from T in the residual V2
environment (see below), there is no reason to think that T has a V-attracting feature
in this environment either. If T does not attract V then V moves directly from v to C
(there is no reason to assume the Head Movement Constraint; see Roberts (2006a,
Chapter 5)) and, by the Strict Cycle, moves before the subject moves from SpecvP.
This would give rise to proclisis of the subject to the verb in C, assuming that head-
movement is always left-adjunction (Kayne (1991, 1994)). On these assumptions, it
is difficult to see how the subject could be enclitic to the verb.
Instead, still following Chomsky’s (2005) suggestion that T’s φ-features are actually
features of C, I propose what amounts in all respects except one to a version of the
analysis in Sportiche (1999) (my analysis is also close to those put forward in Zribi-
44
Hertz (1994) and Poletto (2000, Chapter 3) for Northern Italian dialects, in that I take
“subject-clitic inversion” to be “a morphological process of affixation” which “always
implies syntactic movement of the inflected verb” (Poletto (2000:45))). In the relevant
contexts in French (essentially a class of residual V2 contexts rather similar to those
of English: root interrogatives, counterfactual conditionals, quotes (optionally), and
clauses beginning with certain adverbs, e.g. peut-être (“perhaps”)), C simply does not
pass its features to T. C’s φ-features are then realised as enclitics in C. In other words,
I propose a variant of the idea that French has a special “interrogative conjugation”
(conjugaison interrogative; see also Pollock (2006:628f.)). Forms such as enclitic –tu,
-t-il, -t-elle, etc., are realisations of the φ-set of residual V2 C; we can think of them as
realisations of C[+Q], or whatever feature best characterises residual V2 C. We can
clearly capture the presence of epenthetic /t/ in this way (see Notes 29 and 32 above).
It seems that there is no 1sg form in the majority of verbs, unsurprising if this is an
inflection class, but surprising if we dealing with a pronominal paradigm (see the
discussion of French as opposed to Northern Italian subject clitics in §3.1, and Rizzi
(1986b)). Moreover, there is some evidence that the presence of an interrogative
ending of this class causes stem allomorphy on the verb, thereby showing a typical
property of an inflection (see Zwicky & Pullum (1983)): the modal verb pouvoir
(“can”) allows a 1sg “enclitic” or affix, but the suppletive and otherwise obsolete
form puis surfaces as the verb stem instead of the expected peux: puis-je? (“can I?”),
but not *peux-je?
The properties noted in (51-55) follow straightforwardly on this analysis:
interpolation, coordination and ellipsis are all operations which cannot affect affixes
independently of stems, and yet this is what must be happening in these examples.
Concerning (51), we can assume that, since there are no φ-features in T, there is no
Agree relation between T and the subject, and therefore no reason for the subject to
raise to SpecTP. Instead, the relevant Agree relation holds between C’s φ-set and the
subject, and indeed the subject may be attracted to SpecCP, giving rise to complex
inversion. The grammatical version of (51) is thus:
(56) Jean a-t-il vu Marie?
John has-3sg seen Mary?
“Has John seen Mary?”
45
As I mentioned above, this analysis is very close to that proposed in Sportiche
(1999:206ff.). The principal difference is that Sportiche proposes that the
interrogative conjugation is formed at the T-level rather than the C-level (Sportiche
proposes that it moves to C covertly; in this way, he captures the well-known root-
embedded asymmetry affecting this construction (den Besten (1983), Rizzi & Roberts
(1989)). Sportiche points out that there is evidence for this view from the fact that
adverbial material which would normally be analysed as appearing at the edge of TP
precedes the interrogative verb in complex inversion rather than following it. This is
the case of temporal adjuncts such as quand le vote a eu lieu (“when the vote had
taken place”), which can appear in pre-subject position (following dans quelle ville in
(57b)), but not readily between the auxiliary and the participle in examples like the
following:
(57) a. Les électeurs sont ??(quand le vote a eu lieu) allés à la pêche.
The voters are when the vote has had place gone to the fishing
“The voters, when the vote had taken place, went fishing.”
b. Dans quelle ville, les électeurs sont ??(quand le vote a eu lieu) allés à la
pêche?
In which town the voters are when the vote has had place gone to the
fishing.
“In which town did the voters, when the vote had taken place, go fishing?”
It may be possible, however, to think that this material is licensed by features of C
which are inherited by T in non-residual-V2 contexts, but “withheld” in residual V2
contexts.33
33 The difficulty of combining subject extraction with an apparent enclitic subject pronoun might be seen as a problem for this analysis: (i) *Qui a-t-il mangé de la soupe? Who has-3sg eaten of the soup However, Sportiche (1999:215) points out that examples of this type are attested, citing Grevisse (1980). Sportiche suggests that the operative restriction has to do with the specificity of the wh-expression, rather than with the possibility of extraction itself.
46
Again like Sportiche (1999), the analysis of complex inversion and subject-clitic
inversion just sketched predicts that where we have subject-clitic inversion we have a
null subject (see also Zribi-Hertz (1994:140)):
(58) pro A-t-il vu Marie?
has-3sg seen Mary?
“Has he seen Mary?”
The null subject occupies the specifier of the verb bearing interrogative inflection; it
is attracted there by the EPP feature associated with residual V2 C (a further feature
withheld from T in this context). Unlike Sportiche, I take this to be SpecCP. In fact,
the interrogative conjugation does not show any person-number syncretism, being of
the following form with main verbs (using Müller’s feature system; these are
realisation of φ-features on C rather than T, hence there is a further contextual
restriction here that is not specified in (59)):34
(59) a. [+1, -2, -pl] > ø
b. [-1, +2, -pl] > /ty/
c. [-1, -2, -pl, -fem] > /til/
d. [-1, -2, -pl, +fem] > /tεl/
e. [+1, -2, +pl] > /nuz/
f. [-1, +2, +pl] > /vuz/
g. [-1, -2, +pl, -fem] > /tilz/
h. [-1, -2, +pl, +fem] > /tεlz/
34 There are two further forms which need to be considered here: the generic element on, which surfaces here as /tõ/, and the “demonstrative” ce. The former can be integrated into the paradigm with the relevant feature specification (whatever characterises an arbitrary pronoun able also to receive a 1pl interpretation; see Cinque (1988)). The latter can, at a first approximation, be seen as an inanimate 3rd-person ending, although much more needs to be said about enclitic ce in questions (particularly of the qu’est-ce que (“what is it that”) variety); see Munaro & Pollock (2005)). This idea does not account for the fact that –ce is possible in subject-clitic inversion, but not in complex inversion: (i) Est-ce correct? Is it correct? (ii) *Cela est-ce correct? That is it correct? See Zribi-Hertz (1994:141-143) for a proposal and references. Thanks to Claire Blanche-Benveniste for drawing my attention to these forms.
47
(The final /z/ in the plural forms only surfaces in careful liaison contexts, e.g. ont-ils à
faire cela? /õtilzafεrsla/ “Do they have to do that?”). Given these forms, we expect C
to be able to have a D-feature, by the reasoning given in §2.5 above, and therefore to
be able to delete a weak pronoun and thereby give rise to a null subject.
Sportiche (1999:214) gives some evidence for the presence of a null subject in cases
of subject-clitic inversion from the following binding facts:
(60) a. Si Jeani était venu, ili aurait décidé.
If John was come, he would-have decided.
“If John had come, he would have decided.”
b. *Ili aurait, si Jeani était venu, décidé
he would-have, if John were come, decided
c. *Aurait-ili, si Jeani était venu, décidé
would-have-he, if John were come, decided
As Sportiche points out, (60b) is a Principle C effect, since il binds Jean. The effect is
also found in (60c); here this cannot plausibly be attributed to the interrogative
inflection –t-il, but may instead be attributed to pro.
Pollock (2006:622f.) points out some asymmetries in the distribution of preverbal
pronominal subjects in complex inversion. First, as also pointed out by Kayne (1983)
and Rizzi & Roberts (1989), a subject clitic is not allowed:
(61) *Où il est-il allé?
Where he is-3sg gone?
This relates to the distribution of weak, as opposed to strong pronouns. It appears
from (61) that overt weak pronouns cannot appear in SpecCP, but are restricted to
SpecTP. This follows from the fact that in French C can trigger null-subject deletion,
but not T, as described above. Thus, we can take it that il must delete in this context.
48
Second, only 3rd-person strong pronouns are allowed:
(62) a. Quel livre eux ont-t-ils apporté?
Which book they have-3pl brought?
“Which book have they brought?”
b. *Quel livre toi as-tu apporté?
Which book you did-2sg bring?
This contrast parallels that in (43) of the previous section, as Pollock points out.
However, given our analysis, the structure cannot be the same, since 2nd-person null
subjects are allowed in SpecCP (see (50)). It seems, then, that we have to conclude
that 3rd-person strong pronouns are allowed in SpecCP. Being strong pronouns, they
are not subject to deletion in this position (see Note 13 for a speculation regarding the
difference between strong and weak pronouns). This in turn implies that the weak
pronouns il/ils and their strong counterparts lui/eux are not purely contextual variants,
pace Cardinaletti & Starke (1999). If it is also the case that lui/eux can appear in
SpecTP, then this weakens Kayne & Pollock’s argument for a null subject in contexts
like (43a) above, but this does not fully undermine their case for a null subject in Styl-
Inv contexts. Clearly, there is in any case a contrast between 3rd person and other
persons, in that non-3rd-person strong pronouns cannot appear in this position, as
(62b) shows.35
35 Pollock in fact argues against T-to-C movement in the various inversion constructions in French (subject-clitic inversion, complex inversion and stylistic inversion), positing instead remnant-movement into the CP-field. This does not materially affect the analysis of subject enclisis and null subjects, either Pollock’s (which involves cliticisation to AgrS) or that proposed here; we could consider the interrogative conjugation to be a phrasal affix attached to the right of the fronted remnant XP; this is very close to what Pollock (2006:628) proposes for epenthetic /t/. However, the arguments given by Pollock (and Poletto & Pollock (2004)) against a head-movement analysis of verb-movement into the C-system do not in fact apply, given the assumptions about morphology adopted in §2.5. These arguments are based on Kayne’s (1994:42-46) discussion of the landing site of clitics in Romance. Kayne considers a basic example with a direct-object clitic: (i) Vous le voyez. You(pl) him/it see “You see him/it.” Kayne adopts three postulates. First, that morphologically derived forms such as voyez are syntactically formed, possibly by syntactically combining the root voi/voy- with the ending –ez. Second, that the LCA applies to sub-word-level operations, and, third, that the LCA bans multiple head-adjunction. Given these three postulates, the clitic would have to adjoin to the verb root, followed by adjunction of [ le voy-] to (the functional head occupied by) –ez. Where the verb bears a prefix, as in vous le prévoyez (“you foresee it”), the clitic would have to attach to the prefix. Kayne goes on to suggest that
49
Valdôtain has cases like (63), discussed in Roberts (1993) and Pollock (2006:632-
636), which appear to be instances of the same string as in (61):
(63) a. Cen que dz’i dzo fe?
What that I-have I done?
“What have I done?”
b. Dze medzo-dzò an pomma?
I eat I an apple
“Do I eat an apple?”
Similar examples, from various Provençal varieties, are mentioned by Poletto
(2000:54-55). One possibility is to treat the enclitic as a realisation of C’s φ-features,
just as in French, and the proclitic as attracted there from SpecvP. The proclitic must
be a clitic, rather than a weak pronoun as in French. This in turn implies, given (13), it is more plausible to assume that clitics adjoin to empty functional heads. Kayne further observes enclisis to infinitives of the type found in Italian and Spanish (e.g. farlo “to do it”, etc.), along with the well-known facts of enclisis to imperatives as in fais-le (“do it”). Kayne concludes from these cases that in general verb-movement to C does not “carry along” clitics. It then follows that, in standard cases of subject-clitic inversion, the clitic+verb combination has not moved to C as a single element. Kayne follows Sportiche’s (1999) proposal that there may be V-movement to C at LF, hence accounting for the root nature of the construction (he suggests that the clitic may delete at LF; see his Note 16). Finally, Kayne observes that high-register examples such as .. le bien faire.. (“to do it well”) support the idea that the clitic and the verb do not have combine. Poletto & Pollock (2004) and Pollock (2006) endorse Kayne’s general conclusion that clitics and verbs cannot and do not combine in syntax, but propose that, instead of covert verb-movement into the C-system in subject-clitic inversion, there is overt remnant movement. The derivation of an example like l’as-tu fait (“Have you done it?”) would proceed as follows: (ii) a. Tu [XP le [YP as [ZP fait ]]] (movement of ZP) b. Tu [ZP fait ] [XP le [YP as (ZP)]]] (remnant movement of XP) c. [XP le [YP as (ZP)]] tu [ZP fait ] (XP) Remnant XP-movement is triggered by the interrogative feature of the attracting head, which is part of an articulated C-system, and which is realised as epenthetic /t/ in the 3rd person (see Note 32). It is unclear what the trigger (or the landing site) of ZP-movement is, and what the nature of XP is, as well as the cliticisation operation itself. Given the general approach to cliticisation adopted here, and outlined in detail in Roberts (2006a), we do not need to draw the conclusions drawn by Kayne and adopted by (Poletto and) Pollock. Although I have been assuming a version of the LCA (cf. the discussion of OV languages in §§2.3 and 2.4), I do not assume that all morphology is syntactic affixation, and therefore that the LCA necessarily applies at the sub-word level. Moreover, I do not adopt Kayne’s specific conclusion, from his formulation of the LCA, that multiple head-adjunction is impossible. In the terms of Roberts (2006a), minimal phases can have multiple specifiers at their edges just as maximal phases can. In fact, I have been assuming that cliticisation is movement to a functional head, v in the case of Romance. A complement clitic and verb can and must combine at v, with only “excorporation” of the highest specifier of the minimal phase v*min allowed, giving rise to clitic-climbing, as argued in detail in Roberts (2006a; §3.4). Thus we are not forced to a remnant-movement analysis of verb-movement into the C-system (see Roberts (2006a, Chapter 4) on how full and residual V2 should be handled).
50
that C in this variety does not have an obligatory EPP feature. Assuming that
expletives are merged directly in their surface positions purely in order to satisfy the
EPP, this then implies that we not find the equivalent of (63) with an expletive
pronoun. However, examples such as the following suggest that we do find expletive
proclitics in the construction analogous to (63) in Valdôtain:
(64) a. Cenque l’y est-ë ba-lé?
What it-there is-it over-there
“What is there over there?”
(“Qu’y a-t-il là-bas?” Chenal (1986:389))
b. Que l’est-ë que te va trové?
What it-is-it that you will find?
“What will you find?” (Chenal (1986:388))
Furthermore, Valdôtain has complex inversion, where the preverbal subject cooccurs
with a subject clitic:
(65) a. Ton ommo l’est-ë dza tornà?
Your man he is-he already come-back
“Has your man already come back?” (Chenal (1986:350))
b. Pierre l’at- ë mandà euna lettra a Caterine?
Pierre he-has-he sent a letter to Catherine?
“Has Pierre sent a letter to Catherine?” (Chenal (1986:373))
Finally, Valdôtain subject clitics are of the type that appear with subjects of all kinds,
including extracted wh-phrases and non-referentially quantified subjects, as shown in
Roberts (1993):36
36 (66a) is an example of another phenomenon of interest in Valdôtain (also found in some Piedmontese varieties; Parry (1994)), which Roberts (1993:329) calls “OCL-for-SCL”. Here it seems that there is just one morphological “slot” for a proclitic. Where there is more than one proclitic, objects are enclitic to the past participle, as here. In some varieties (as in the Val d’Ayas, from which this example is taken), object-enclisis to the participle is optional, and the object can seemingly replace the subject clitic, as in (i): (i) Gnunc m’a viu.
51
(66) a. Gnunc l’a viu-me.
No-one he-has seen me
“Noone saw me.” (Roberts (1993:330))
b. Ki y et vinyà?
Who he is come?
“Who has come?” (Roberts (1993:328))
For all these reasons, it seems best to regard the apparent proclitic subject in (63) and
(64) as a realisation of φ-features (this is really the analysis in Rizzi (1986b) and
Brandi & Cordin (1989); Poletto (2000:140f.) shows that this is one type of “subject
clitic” among several found in Northern Italy). This in fact implies that interrogative
C realises φ-features twice over, although the interrogative conjugation may be seen
as the syncretic realisation of the Q-morpheme and φ-features, while the “proclitic” in
these cases is the realisation purely of φ-features. A possibly more attractive
alternative is to regard the “proclitic” as a realisation of the D-feature (this is proposed
by Manzini & Savoia (2005, I:57f.)), with the interrogative conjugation realising Q
and φ-features.
The idea that the apparent enclitic subject pronoun in contexts of subject-clitic and
complex inversion is really a manifestation of the φ- or D-features associated with an
inversion-triggering “residual V2” C, which I will continue to refer as the
interrogative-conjugation analysis, carries over quite successfully to a number of
Northern Italian dialects, notably the Veneto dialects. Here, as was observed by Renzi
& Vanelli (1983), we find a distinct clitic paradigm in inversion contexts. Poletto
(2000:53f.) argues in detail for an analysis along these lines (but see Cardinaletti &
Repetti (2006a,b) for a different perspective). This idea is developed in Roberts
(2006a, Chapter 3). What I have tried to show here is that this analysis accounts best
for the facts of French subject-clitic and complex inversion, largely following
No-one me-saw “No-one saw me.” In other varieties, e.g. Châtillon, this is not possible, and objects must be enclitic to the participle in the presence of a subject clitic.
52
Sportiche (1999). A consequence of this analysis of French enclitic subject pronouns
is that French allows referential null subjects in all persons in this context.
3.3 Conclusion
Concerning the specific question of the status of null subjects in French, we conclude
that French is a (very) partial null-subject language at the TP-level in registers which
allow (43a) and stylistic inversion; otherwise it is a non-null-subject language at this
level. In interrogatives and other residual-V2 environments, it is a consistent null-
subject language, owing to the interrogative conjugation. There are registers,
including probably Quebec French, in which French has no null-subject property at
the TP-level, but retains consistent null subjects in the residual-V2 environment.
Furthermore, there are very colloquial registers in which complex inversion and
subject-clitic inversion are lacking: these are fully non-null-subject systems. Finally,
according to a number of authors (see Lambrecht (1981), Roberge & Vinet (1989),
Zribi-Hertz (1994) and the references given there) in the variety which Zribi-Hertz
(1994:137) refers to as français très évolué (FTE, or “very evolved French”) subject
proclitics are to be analysed as realising φ-features of T rather as in certain Northern
Italian dialects and Valdôtain, as we saw at the end of the last section. This is shown
by the fact that they cooccur with non-referentially quantified subjects, as in the
attested examples in (67):
(67) a. Tout le monde il est beau, tout le monde il est gentil. (film title)
Everyone he is handsome, everyone he is nice
“Everyone is handsome, everyone is nice.”
b. Personne il fiche rien, à Toulon.
No-one he does anything at Toulon
“No-one does anything in Toulon.”
(Zribi-Hertz’ (19a, e), p. 137); (67b) from P. Mille Barnavuax et
quelques femmes, 1908)
Further evidence for the clitic status of these pronouns comes from the fact that they
cannot be dropped under coordination:
53
(68) a. Il mangera beaucoup de viande et *(il) boira du bon vin.
He will-eat much of meat and (he) will-drink of-the good wine
“He will eat a lot of meat and drink good wine.”
b. Il a mangé beaucoup de viande et **(il) a bu du bon vin.
He has eaten much of meat and (he) has drunk of-the good wine
“He has eaten a lot of meat and drunk good wine.”
(Zribi-Hertz’ (21), p. 138)
As Zribi-Hertz points out, if il realises T’s φ-features here, rather than being a
pronoun, then an example like il parle must feature a null subject. Hence FTE is a
null-subject language at the TP-level.
We see, then, that there is a range of synchronic variation across dialects and
sociolects of French. There are at least four register levels:
(69) (i) “high” registers:
allowing (43a) and stylistic inversion: (very) partial null-subject system in
TP, fully null-subject in CP;
(ii) registers not allowing (43a) and stylistic inversion: non-null-subject in
TP, consistently null-subject in CP;
(iii) colloquial registers in which complex inversion and subject-clitic
inversion are lacking: fully non-null-subject systems;
(iv) the variety/varieties seen in (67) and (68) in which subject proclitics are
to be analysed as realising φ-features of T rather as in some Northern
Italian dialects and Valdôtain: fully null-subject in TP.
The variety in (69i) is formal literary French, or perhaps français standard moderne
(FSM) in the terminology of Zribi-Hertz (1994:136), which she describes as “the
productive standard language, without archaisms, i.e. well-formed constructions of
54
Classical French which nowadays are no longer productive.”37 This variety also
makes use of the cases of careful, optional liaison discussed in §3.1. The variety in
(69ii) may correspond to Quebec French (Kayne & Pollock (2005:13)), as well as
slightly less formal varieties than (69i) spoken elsewhere. Both (69iii) and (69iv)
represent the colloquial spoken French often referred to as français avancé. More
precisely, we can perhaps identify (69iii) with Zribi-Hertz’ (1994:137) français parlé
courant (FPC, or “common spoken French”). Zribi-Hertz points out that français
avancé lacks enclitic subject pronouns, since it lacks subject-clitic and complex
inversion. Finally, variety (69iv) is Zribi-Hertz’ FEC, as already mentioned.
This synchronic variation across dialects and sociolects of French clearly requires
further investigation, particularly in relation to the status of optional liaison, given the
importance of this phenomenon to determining the underlying phonological forms of
certain inflections and the implications of those forms for determining system-
defining syncretisms in the sense discussed in §3.1 above. It seems likely that this
kind of optional liaison is unavailable in français avancé, and possibly in variety
(69ii). Other syntactic features may correlate with these distinctions: français avancé
lacks the preverbal negative element ne (as can in fact be observed in (67b)), and may
have systematic wh-in-situ in root clauses, for example.
The approach to null subjects outlined in §2 allows us to clarify the situation in
French in a useful way. We can see that our results are fully consistent with the
general deletion approach to null subjects and Müller’s pro-generalisation; we saw
also that the latter is derivable from the general approach.
4. Conclusion
We began this paper by observing that the typology of empty categories, including
empty pronouns, that was developed in GB theory cannot be maintained in the context
of the copy theory of movement. Following Holmberg (2005), we have seen that there
is evidence for a pronominal empty category, pro, in consistent and partial null-
37 “la langue standard productive, c’est-à-dire débarrassée des ses archaïsmes, i.e. des tournures bien formées du français classique devenues improductives aujourd’hui” (Zribi-Hertz (1994:136)). My translation.
55
subject languages. Against this background, I developed an account of pro in terms of
the general notion of defective goal put forward in the analysis of clitics and head-
movement in Roberts (2006a). In these terms, pro is a weak pronoun in the sense of
Cardinaletti & Starke (1999), a DP which is required to appear in certain designated
positions (SpecTP in the case of subjects), and which undergoes deletion where T has
a D-feature, thanks to the general properties of defective goals. T can only have a D-
feature if none of its φ-features have undergone (pre-syntactic) impoverishment; this
establishes the connection between null subjects and “rich” agreement, since non-
impoverished φ-features can be realised by distinct vocabulary items while
impoverished ones cannot (although a certain amount of accidental homophony and
null realisation may exist). If impoverishment is pre-syntactic, as Müller (2005)
suggests, then it follows either that pro is marked for deletion in the syntax, or that the
deletion operation which gives rise to null subjects takes place in syntax. The latter
view has the interesting consequence, yet to be fully explored, that the “I-subjects”
approach to null subjects (i.e. Holmberg’s (2005) Hypothesis A in (4), originally put
forward by Borer (1986) and developed in different ways by Barbosa (1995),
Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998) (for expletive null subjects), Manzini &
Roussou (2000) and Manzini & Savoia (2005)), which takes the view that there is no
argumental subject DP in null-subject sentences, may be correct for the semantic
interface, although not for (all of) the derivation in narrow syntax. Whether or not that
view turns out to be sustainable, we have arrived here at a general characterisation of
the “pure pronominal empty category” of GB theory whose main elements stem from
core aspects of current theory, and in particular from the nature of defective goals in
the sense of Roberts (2006a). In its reliance on a deletion process, this analysis harks
back to the earliest generative analysis of null subjects, that in Perlmutter (1971). An
obvious further question is whether PRO could also be analysed in these terms,
recalling perhaps Rosenbaum’s (1967) transformation of Equi-NP Deletion, but that
remains for future work.
56
References
Adams, M. (1987a) “From Old French to the Theory of Pro-Drop,” Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 5:1-32.
Adams, M. (1987b) Old French, Null Subjects and Verb-Second Phenomena. PhD
Dissertation, UCLA.
Adragão & J. Costa (2006) “On the status of preverbal subjects in null subject
languages: evidence from acquisition,” ms. Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (1998) “Parametrizing Agr: word order, verb-
movement and EPP-checking.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491-539.
Anderson, S. (1982) “The analysis of French schwa, or how to get something for
nothing,” Language 58:534-573.
Armstrong, L. (1962) The phonetics of French. A practical handbook, London: Bells
& Son
Baker C.L. (1970) “Notes on the description of English questions: the role of an
abstract question morpheme,” Foundations of Language 6: 197-219.
Barbosa, P. (1995) Null Subjects. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Barbosa, P. (2006) “Two kinds of subject pro,” talk given at the Workshop on Null-
Subject Languages, Cambridge.
Barbosa, P., E. Duarte & M. Kato (2005) “Null Subjects in European and Brazilian
Portuguese,” ms. Universities of Minho, Rio de Janeiro and Campinas.
den Besten, H. (1983) “On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive
rules,” in W. Abraham (ed) On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, pp. 47-131.
Biberauer, T. & I. Roberts (2005). Changing EPP-parameters in the history of
English: accounting for variation and change. English Language and Linguistics 9: 5
– 46.
Biberauer, T. & I. Roberts (this volume). “Subjects, Tense and Verb-movement in
Germanic and Romance.”
Boeckx, C. & N. Hornstein (2003) “Reply to ‘Control is not Movement’” Linguistic
Inquiry 34: 269-280.
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N., 2004. “Movement under control.” Linguistic Inquiry
35, 431-452.
57
Borer, H. (1986) “I-Subjects,” Linguistic Inquiry 17: 375-416.
Borer, H. (1989) “Anaphoric Agr” in O. Jaeggli & K. Safir (eds) The Null Subject
Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 69-109.
Brandi, L. & P. Cordin (1989) “Two Italian Dialects and the Null Subject Parameter,”
in O. Jaeggli & K. Safir (eds) The Null Subject Parameter, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp.
111-142.
Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Cardinaletti, A. (1997) “Subjects and clause structure,” in L. Haegeman (ed) The New
Comparative Syntax. London: Longman.
Cardinaletti, A. (2004) “Towards a cartography of subject positions.” In L. Rizzi (ed)
The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 115-165.
Cardinaletti, A. & L. Repetti (2006a) “Proclitic vs Enclitic Pronouns in Northern
Italian Dialects,” talk given at the 1st Cambridge Italian Dialect Syntax Meeting.
Cardinaletti, A. & L. Repetti (2006b) “Subject Clitics in Interrogative Sentences:
Phonology, Syntax and Microvariation,” ms. SUNY Stony Brook/University of
Venice.
Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke (1999) “The typology of structural deficiency: A case
study of the three classes of pronouns,” in H van Riemsdijk (ed) Clitics in the
Languages of Europe. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 145-235.
Carnie, A., S. A. Dooley & H. Harley (2005) Verb First. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Chenal, A. (1986) Le franco-provençal valdôtain. Aosta: Musumeci Editeur.
Chomsky, N. (1973) “Conditions on Transformations,” in S. Anderson & P Kiparsky
(eds) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston, pp. 232-
286.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1993) “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory,” in K. Hale &
S.J. Keyser (eds) The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of
Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 1-52.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
58
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” in R. Martin, D.
Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor
of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 89-156.
Chomsky, N. (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” in M. Kenstowicz (ed) Ken Hale: A Life
in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 1-52.
Chomsky, N. (2005) “On Phases,” ms. MIT.
Chomsky, N. & H. Lasnik (1977) “Filters and Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 8:425-304.
Chung, S. (2005) “What Fronts? On the VP Raising Account of Verb-Initial Order.”
in A. Carnie, H. Harley & S. Dooley (eds) Verb-First, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
pp. 9-29.
Chung, S. & W. Ladusaw (2003) Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Churchward, C. (1953) Tongan Grammar. Oxford.
Cinque, G. (1988) “On si-constructions and the theory of arb,” Linguistic Inquiry
19:521-81.
Culicover, P. & R. Jackendoff (2001) “Control is not movement,” Linguistic Inquiry
32: 493-512.
Cyrino, S., E. Duarte & M. Kato (2000) “Visible Subjects and Invisible Clitics in
Brazilian Portuguese,” in M. Kato & E. Negrão (eds) The Null Subject Parameter in
Brazilian Portuguese, Frankfurt: Vervuert-IberoAmericana, pp. 55-74.
Davies, W. & S. Dubinsky (2004) The Grammar of Raising and Control. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Déchaîne, R. & M. Wiltschko (2002) “Decomposing Pronouns,” Linguistic Inquiry
33: 409-442.
Dell, F. (1985) Les règles et les sons. Paris: Hermann.
Duarte, E. (1995) A Perda do Princípio “Evite pronome” no Português Brasileiro.
PhD Dissertation, Unicamp.
Figueiredo-Silva, C. (2000) “Main and embedded null subjects in Brazilian
Portuguese,” in M. Kato & E. Negrão (eds) The Null Subject Parameter in Brazilian
Portuguese, Frankfurt: Vervuert-IberoAmericana, pp. 127-146.
Galves, C. (1987) “A sintaxe do português brasileiro” Ensaios Lingüísticos 13:31-50.
Grévisse, M. (1980) Le bon usage. Paris: Glembloux.
Harris, M. (1978) The Evolution of French Syntax: A Comparative Approach.
London: Longman.
59
Harris, M. (1988) “French,” in M. Harris & N. Vincent (eds) The Romance
Languages. London: Routledge, pp. 209-245.
Hawkins, J. (1979) Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and
grammatiacality prediction. London: Croom Helm.
Holmberg, A. (2005) “Is There a Little Pro? Evidence from Finnish,” Linguistic
Inquiry 36: 533-564.
Holmberg, A., C. Johns, A. Nayudu and M. Sheehan (this volume) “Partial Null-
Subject Languages.”
Hornstein, N. (1999) “Movement and Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 30:69-96.
Hornstein, N. (2003) “On control.” In Hendrick, R. (ed), Minimalist Syntax
Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 6-81
Householder, F. (1981) Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Huang, C-T. J. (1984) “On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns,”
Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531-574.
Huang, C-T. J. (1989) “Pro-drop in Chinese: A generalized control theory,” in Jaeggli
& K. Safir (eds) The Null Subject Parameter, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 185-214.
Hulk, A. (1986) “Subject clitics and the pro-drop parameter,” in P. Coopmanns, Y.
Bordelois & B. Dotson-Smith (eds) Going Romance: Formal Parameters of
Generative Grammar II. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 107-120.
Hulk, A. (1991) “Les pronoms clitiques sujet et la théorie linguistique,” Actes du
XVIIIe congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes. Tübingen:
Niemeyer, oo. 504-514.
Jaeggli, O. (1982) Topics in Romance Syntax, Dordrecht: Foris.
Kato, M. (1999) “Strong Pronouns, Weak Pronominals and the Null Subject
Parameter,” Probus 11:1-37.
Kato, M. & E. Negrão (eds) The Null Subject Parameter in Brazilian Portuguese,
Frankfurt: Vervuert-IberoAmericana.
Kayne, R. (1972) “Subject inversion in French interrogatives,” in J. Casagrande & B.
Saciuk (eds) Generative Studies in Romance Linguistics. Rowley, Mass: Newbury
House, pp. 70-126.
Kayne, R. (1975) French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Kayne, R. (1983) “Chains, categories external to S, and French complex inversion,”
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 107-139 (reprinted in Kayne (1984)).
60
Kayne, R. (1991) “Romance Clitics, Verb Movement and PRO,” Linguistic Inquiry
22: 647-686. (Reprinted in Kayne (2000:60-97)).
Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kayne, R. (2000) Parameters and Universals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, R. (2005) Movement and Silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, R. & J.-Y. Pollock (1978) “Stylistic Inversion, Successive Cyclicity and Move
NP in French,” Linguistic Inquiry 9: 595-621.
Kayne, R. & J.-Y. Pollock (2001) “New Thoughts on Stylistic Inversion,” in A. Hulk
& J.-Y. Pollock (eds) Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal
Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 107-162. (Reprinted in Kayne
(2005:3-49)).
Kiparsky, P. (1973) “’Elsewhere’ in Phonology,” in S. Anderson & P Kiparsky (eds)
A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston, pp. 93-106.
Kornfilt, J. (1997) Turkish. London: Routledge.
Kornfilt, J. (2003) “Turkish,” in William J. Frawley (ed) International Encyclopedia
of Linguistics (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Volume IV, pp. 301-
307.
Lambrecht, K. (1981) Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard French.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Landau, I. (2000) Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival
Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Landau, I. (2003) “Movement out of control,” Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471-498.
Landau, I. (2004) “The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control.” Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 811-877.
Larson, R. & G. Segal (1995) Knowledge of Meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Mackenzie, D. (2003) “Pashto,” in William J. Frawley (ed) International
Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Volume
III, pp. 251-257.
Manzini, M.-R. & L. Savoia (2005) I dialetti italiani e romanci, Alessandria: Edizioni
dell’Orso (3 volumes).
Manzini, M.-R. & A. Roussou (2000) “A minimalist theory of A-movement and
control,” Lingua 110: 409-447.
Marantz, A. (2001) “Words,” WCCFL XX handout, University of Southern
California.
61
Marantz, A. (2006) “Phases and Words,” ms. New York University.
Martin, R. (1996) A Minimalist Theory of PRO and Control. University of
Connecticut PhD Dissertation.
Martin, R. (2001) “Null Case and the distribution of PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry 32,
141-166.
Massam, D. (2000) “VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean Word Order,” Carnie, A. & E.
Guilfoyle (2000) The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 97-116. Reprinted here as Volume V, Chapter Nine.
Massam, D. & C. Smallwood (1997) “Essential Features of Predication in Niuean and
English” in K. Kusumoto (ed) Proceedings of NELS 27, GLSA, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst. pp. 236-272.
Matushansky, O. (2006) “Head Movement in Linguistic Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry
37: 69-110.
Mavrogiorgos, M. (2006) “Morphology is at the Edge,” ms. University of Cambridge.
May, R. (1985) Logical Form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Modesto, M. (2000) “Null Subjects without “rich” Agreement,” in M. Kato & E.
Negrão (eds) The Null Subject Parameter in Brazilian Portuguese, Frankfurt:
Vervuert-IberoAmericana, pp. 147-174.
Montalbetti, M. (1984) After Binding. MIT PhD Dissertation.
Müller (2005) “Pro-drop and impoverishment,” ms. University of Leipzig.
Munaro, N. & J.-Y Pollock (2005) “Qu-est-ce-que (qu)-est-ce-que? A Case Study in
Comparative Romance Interrogative Syntax,” in G. Cinque & R. kayne (eds) The
Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. Oxford; Oxford University Press, pp. 542-
606.
Muysken, P. (1982) “Parametrizing the notion ‘head’” Journal of LinguisticResearch
2: 57-75.
Nash, L. & A. Rouveret (1997) “Proxy Categories in Phrase Structure Theory”, in K.
Kusumoto (ed) Proceedings of NELS 27, pp. 287-304.
Neeleman, A. & K. Szendrői (2005) “Case Morphology and Radical Prodrop,” ms.
University College London and Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.
Neeleman, A. & K. Szendrői (forthcoming) “Radical pro-drop and the morphology of
pronouns,” in M.T. Biberauer (ed) The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
62
Negrão & A. Müller (1996) “As Mudanças no Sistema Pronominal do Português do
Brasil: Substitução ou Especialização de formas?” DELTA 12:125-152.
Negrão, E. & E. Viotti (2000) “Brazilian Portuguese as a Discourse-Oriented
Language,” in M. Kato & E. Negrão (eds) The Null Subject Parameter in Brazilian
Portuguese, Frankfurt: Vervuert-IberoAmericana, pp. 105-126.
Nunes, J. (1995) The Copy Theory of Movement and Linearization of Chains in the
Minimalist Program. University of Maryland, College Park, PhD Dissertation.
Nunes, J. (2004) Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. MIT Press.
O’Neil, J. (1997) Means of Control: Deriving the Properties of PRO in the Minimalist
Program. Harvard University PhD Dissertation.
Ordoñez, P. (1997) Word order and clause structure in Spanish and other Romance
languages. CUNY Graduate Center PhD Dissertation.
Ordoñez, P. (2006) “The order of subjects in Spanish and Catalan,” talk given at the
Encontro Lingua Falada e Escrita V, Federal University of Maceió.
Otsuka, Y. (2005) “Two derivations of VSO: a comparative study of Niuean and
Tongan,” in A. Carnie, S. A. Dooley & H. Harley (2005) Verb First. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, pp. 65-90.
Öztürk, B. (2001) “Turkish as a non-pro-drop language,” in E. E. Taylan (ed) The
Verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239-260.
Parry, M. (1994) “Posizione dei clitici complemento nelle costruzioni verbali
perifrastiche del piemontese,” in G.P. Clivio & C. Pich (eds) At dël (X) Rëscontr
antërnassional dë Studi an sla Lenga e la Literatura piemontèisa 8: 247-259.
Perlmutter, D. (1971) Deep and Surface Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Pesetsky, D. (1989) “Language particular processes and the Earliness Principle,” ms.
MIT.
Platzack, C. (2004) Agreement and the Person Phrase hypothesis. Working Papers in
Scandinavian Syntax, 73: 83-112.
Poletto, C. (2000) The Higher Functional Field in the Northern Italian Dialects,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poletto, C. & J.-Y. Pollock (2004) “On the left periphery of some Romance wh-
questions,” in L. Rizzi (ed) The Structure of IP and CP. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 251-296.
63
Pollock, J.-Y. (1986) “Sur la syntaxe de EN et le parameter du sujet nul.” In M. Ronat
& D. Couquaux (eds) La grammaire modulaire. Paris: Les editions de minuit, 211-
246.
Pollock, J.Y. (1989) “Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP”
Linguistic Inquiry 20:365-424.
Pollock, J.Y. (1997) Langage et Cognition: Introduction au Programme Minimaliste
de la Grammaire Générative. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Pollock, J.Y. (2006) “Subject-Clitic Inversion, Complex Inversion and Stylistic
Inversion in French,” in M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds) Syncom; The Syntax
Companion, Oxford, Blackwell, Vol V.
Rackowski, A. & L. Travis (2000) “V-initial Languages: X or XP Movement and
Adverbial Placement,” in Carnie, A. & E. Guilfoyle (2000) The Syntax of Verb-Initial
Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117-142.
Raposo, E. (1986) “On the Null Object in European Portuguese,” in O. Jaeggli & C.
Silva-Corvalán (eds) Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 373-390.
Renzi, L. & L. Vanelli (1983) “I pronomi soggetto in alcune varietà romanze” in Studi
in onore di G.B. Pellegrini, Padua.
Richards, M. & M.T. Biberauer (2005) “Explaining EXPL”, in M. den Dikken & C.
Tortora (eds) The function of function words and functional categories. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, pp. 115-154.
Rizzi, L. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Rizzi, L. (1986a) “Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro,” Linguistic Inquiry
17: 501-557.
Rizzi, L. (1986b) “On the Status of Subject Clitics in Romance,” in O. Jaeggli & C.
Silva-Corvalán (eds) Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 391-420.
Rizzi, L. (1987) “Three Remarks on Null Subjects,” talk given at the Workshop on
Dialectology, GLOW X, University of Venice.
Rizzi, L. & I. Roberts (1989) “Complex Inversion in French,” Probus 1, 1-30.
Roberge, Y. (1986) The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments. University of
British Columbia PhD Dissertation.
Roberge, Y. & M-T. Vinet (1989) La variation dialectale en grammaire universelle.
Montréal: Presses Universitaires de Montréal/Editions de l’Université de Sherbrooke.
Roberts, I. (1993a) "The Nature of Subject Clitics in Franco-Provençal Valdôtain," in
A. Belletti (ed) Dialects of Italy, Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, pp. 319 - 353.
64
Roberts, I. (1993b) Verbs and Diachronic Syntax: A Comparative History of English
and French, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roberts, I. (2006a) “Clitics, head movement and defective goals,” ms. University of
Cambridge.
Roberts, I. (2006b) “Two Ways to Lose Null Subjects,” talk given at the Encontro
Lingua Falada e Escrita V, Federal University of Maceió.
Rosenbaum, P. (1967) The Grammar of English Predicate Complement
Constructions. Cambridge, Mass. :MIT Press.
Russell, B. (1905) “On Denoting,” Mind 14: 479-493.
Di Sciullo, A-M. (1990) “On the Properties of Clitics,” in Binding in Romance,
Carleton University, Ottawa: Canadian Linguistics Association.
Sheehan, M. (2006) The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance. University of
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne PhD Dissertation.
Shlonsky, U. (1989) “The hierarchical representation of subject-verb agreement.”
Shlonsky, U. (forthcoming) “Partial null subjects in Hebrew,” ms. University of
Geneva.
Sportiche, D. (1983) Structural Invariance and Symmetry in Syntax. MIT PhD
Dissertation.
Sportiche, D. (1999) “Subject Clitics in French and Romance, Complex Inversion and
Clitic Doubling”, in K. Johnson & I. Roberts (eds) Beyond Principles and
Parameters: Essays in Memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 189-222.
Suñer, M. (2002) “The Lexical Preverbal Subject in a Romance Null-Subject
Language: Where Art Thou?” Nuñez-Cedeño, R., L. Lopez & R. Cameron (eds) A
Romance Perspective on Language Knowledge and Use. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Taraldsen, T. (1978) “On the NIC, vacuous application and the that-trace filter,” ms.
MIT.
Taylan, E. E. (ed) (2001) The Verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tomioka, S. (2003) “The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic
implications,” in K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (eds) The interfaces: Deriving and
interpreting omitted structures. Benjamins, pp. 321-40.
Vance, B. (1989) Null Subjects and Syntactic Change in Medieval French, PhD
Dissertation, Cornell University.
65
Vance, B. (1997) Syntactic Change in Medieval French: Verb Second and Null
Subjects, Dodrecht: Kluwer.
Wanner, D. (1987) The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns from Latin to Old
Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà (1985) “Typologie des pronoms sujets dans les langues
romanes,” Actes du XIIe Congrès des Linguistique et Philologie Romanes. Aix-en-
Provence.
Vicente, L. (2005) “Towards a unified theory of movement: an argument from
Spanish predicate clefts,” in M. Salzmann & L. Vicente (eds) Leiden Papers in
Linguistics 2:43-67.
Zubizarrets, M.-L. (1998) Word Order, Prosody and Focus. Cambridge, Mass.MIT
Press.
Zribi-Hertz (1994) “La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs en français standard et en
français avancé,” in G. Kleiber & G. Roques (eds) Travaux de linguistique et de
philology. Strasbourg-Nancy: Klincksieck, pp. 131-147.
Zwicky, A. & G. Pullum (1983). Cliticisation vs. inflection: English n’t.” Language
59: 502 – 513.
66