Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T19:33:51.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Register variation, truncation, and subject omission in English and in French1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2008

Liliane Haegeman
Liliane Haegeman
Affiliation:
Department of LinguisticsUniversity of GenevaCH 1211 Geneva 4Switzerlandhaegeman@uni2a.unige.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper concerns the null subject phenomenon attested in abbreviated written registers in English and in French (diaries, instructions) and in informal spoken English. Neither a pro drop analysis nor a topic drop analysis will account for the incompatibility of the English null subjects with wh-preposing and with embedded contexts. Rizzi's (1994) analysis for null subjects in child production is adopted here in a slightly modified form. Like the early null subject, the (adult) null subject in abbreviated registers is an antecedentless empty category in the A-specifier of the root. Null subjects depend on the truncation of CP, which turns the specifier of IP into the highest specifier of the clause. The paper explores apparent noninitial null subjects, i.e. null subjects co-occurring with preposed adjuncts (though not arguments) and shows that these can be accounted for in terms of partial truncation within an articulated CP. The null subject is an antecedentless empty category in the (A-)specifier of an AGR-projection dominating the Topic Projection. The incompatibility with wh-preposing and with argument preposing is accounted for. In a more speculative vein I also consider the deletion of be in the abbreviated styles, which I claim can also be analysed in terms of truncation.

Type
Articles
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , November 1997 , pp. 233 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Diaries

Leautaud, P. (1989). Le Fleau. Journalparticulier, 1917–1939. Paris: Mercure de France.Google Scholar
Pepys, S. (1985). The shorter Pepys. Ed. Latham, Robert. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Smart, E. (1992). Necessary secrets. Ed. Van Wart, Alice. London: Paladin/Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Smart, E. (1995). On the side of the angels. London: Flamingo/Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Woolf, V. (1985). The diary of Virginia Woolf, vol. V: 1936–1941, ed. Bell, A. O., assisted by McNeillie, A.. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Fiction

Rendell, R. (1994). A sleeping life: an Inspector Wexford mystery. London: Arrow.Google Scholar
Symons, J. (1967). The Julian Symons omnibus. London: Crime Club.Google Scholar
Symons, J. (1973). The plot against Roger Rider. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

References

Aarts, B. (1992). Small clauses in English: the nonverbal types. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akmajian, A., Demers, R. A. & Harnish, R. M. (1980). Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arimura, K. (1995). Object empty categories and coordinate structure in earlier English. The Konan Journal of English Studies 92: 1–34.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 491–504.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1977). Variables in the theory of transformations. In Culicover, P. (ed.), Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. 157–96.Google Scholar
Bromberg, H. & Wexler, K. (1995). Null subjects in wh-questions. In Schütze, C. T., Bandner, J. B., & Broihier, K. (eds.), Papers on Language Processing and Acquisition, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26: 221–47.Google Scholar
Browning, M. (1996). CP recursion and that-t effects. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 237–56.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M. (1993). On dependent pronouns and pronoun movement. Paper presented at the GLOW Conference, Lund.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1991). Some notes on the economy of derivation. In Freidin, R. (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 417–54.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1991). Types of A'-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1995). Adverbs and the universal hierarchy of functional projections. GLOW paper, Tromsö.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. (1991). Topicalization, inversion and complementizers in English. In Delfitto, D., Everaert, M., Evers, A., & Stuurman, F. (eds.), OTS working papers: going Romance and beyond. Utrecht: Department of Linguistics, University of Utrecht. 1–45.Google Scholar
Enç, M. (1987). Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633–58.Google Scholar
Friedemann, M.-A. (1992). The underlying position of external arguments in French: a study in adult and child grammar. Geneva Generative Papers 0.1–2: 123–44.Google Scholar
Guéron, J. (1993). Sur la syntaxe du temps. Langue Française 100: 102–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guéron, J. & Hoekstra, T. (1988). T-chains and the constituent structure of auxiliaries. In Cardinalettti, A., Cinque, G., & Guisti, G. (eds.), Constituent structure. Dordrecht: Foris. 35–99.Google Scholar
Guéron, J. & Hoekstra, T. (1992). Chaînes temporelles et phrases réduites. In Obenauer, H. G. & Zribi-Herz, A.(eds.), Structure de la phrase et théorie du liage. Vincennes: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. 69–91.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1984). Remarks on adverbial clauses and definite anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 715–19.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1988). Register variation in English: some theoretical observations. Journal of English Linguistics 20: 230–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1990a). Non-overt subjects in diary contexts. In Mascaro, J. & Nespor, M. (eds.), Grammar in progress. Dordrecht: Foris. 165–74.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1990b). Understood subjects in English diaries. Multilingua 9: 157–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1994a). Introduction to government and binding theory. 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1994b). Root infinitives, Tense and truncated structures. Geneva Generative Papers 2.2: 12–41.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1995). Null subjects in the non-pro-drop languages. Paper presented at Going Romance. MS, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1996). Root infinitives, Tense and truncated structure in Dutch. Language Acquisition 4: 205–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (ed.) (1997a). Elements of grammar: a handbook of generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (ed.) (1997b). The new comparative syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (in preparation). Be-deletion in specialized registers.Google Scholar
Hamann, C., Rizzi, L. & Frauenfelder, U. (1996). On the acquisition of the pronominal system in French. In Clahsen, H. (ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 309–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–74.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N. & Wexler, K. (1993). On the grammatical basis of null subjects in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 241–59.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. (1989). The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondrashova, N. (1996). The syntax of existential quantification. Ph.D. dissertation, Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1984). On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 235–98.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Stowell, T. (1991). Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 687–720.Google Scholar
Massam, D. & Roberge, Y. (1989). Recipe context null objects in English. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 134–9.Google Scholar
Müller, G. & Sternefeld, W. (1993). Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 461–507.Google Scholar
Nakajima, H. (1996). Complementizer selection. Linguistic Review 13: 143–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pierce, A. (1989). On the emergence of syntax: a crosslinguistic study. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Raposo, E. (1986). The null object in European Portuguese. In Jaeggli, O. & Silva-Corvalan, C. (eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics. Foris: Dordrecht. 373–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Definite NP-anaphora and C-command domains. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 605–35.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–58.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1991). Proper head government and the definition of A positions. GLOW, Leiden.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1993). A parametric approach to comparative syntax: properties of the pronominal system. English Linguistics 10: 1–27. Also in Haegeman, L. (ed.), The new comparative syntax. London: Longman, 1997b: 268–85.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1994). Early null subjects and root null subjects. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 151–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1995). Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: the case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition 3: 371–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of grammar: a handbook of generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 281–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, T. & Rohrbacher, B. (1994). Null subjects in early child English and the theory of economy of projection. MS, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1982). Pronoun deleting processes in German. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
Schmerling, S. (1973). Subjectless sentences and the notion of surface structure. Chicago Linguistic Society 9: 577–86.Google Scholar
Starke, M. (1994). On the format for small clauses. Geneva Generative Papers 2.1: 79–97.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1991). Empty heads in abbreviated English. Paper presented at the GLOW conference,Leiden.Google Scholar
Thrasher, R. (1977). One way to say more by saying less: a study of so-called subjectless sentences. (Kwansei Gakuin University Monograph Series, 11.) Tokyo: Eihosha.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (1991). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition 40: 21–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilder, C. (1994). Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. Geneva Generative Papers 2.2: 23–61.Google Scholar