Linguistic Theory Lecture 7 About Nothing

Nothing in grammar Language often contains irregular paradigms where one or more expected forms are absent Language often contains irregular paradigms where one or more expected forms are absent E.g. English present tense verb agreement E.g. English present tense verb agreement –We see from the paradigm for be that number and person play a role in determining the form of the verb in the present tense: 1 st 2 nd 3 rd SingularAmAreIs pluralAre

But other verbs do not show the same pattern But other verbs do not show the same pattern The only form which shows any agreement is the 3 rd person singular The only form which shows any agreement is the 3 rd person singular Two choices: Two choices: –Assume that there is no verbal agreement except for 3 rd person singular and for 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd person singular with the verb be –Assume that there is a complete set of verbal agreements, only most of them are realised by a null morpheme The second choice is the one usually made as it makes the system more regular The second choice is the one usually made as it makes the system more regular 1 st 2 nd 3 rd SingularSmile Smiles PluralSmile

Other kinds of nothing Ellipsis Ellipsis –She wanted to watch the TV, but I didn’t –(want to watch the TV) –* (take any notice) There is a difference: There is a difference: –null morpheme = absent at the phonological level –elliptical material = present at the semantic level

Nothing in the 1960s One possible way to treat ellipsis is as a deletion: One possible way to treat ellipsis is as a deletion: –John drank beer and Bill wine John drank beer and Bill drank wine John drank beer and Bill drank wine Deletions are recoverable: Deletions are recoverable: –* John drank beer and Bill biscuits John drank beer and Bill ate biscuits John drank beer and Bill ate biscuits This shows that ‘recoverability’ is a limited notion: This shows that ‘recoverability’ is a limited notion: –Recoverable from syntactic not pragmatic context

A similar approach can account for the following observations: A similar approach can account for the following observations: It is assumed that the same process is involved in relative clause and interrogative clause formation It is assumed that the same process is involved in relative clause and interrogative clause formation But if so, why can the wh-relative delete but not the wh-interrogative? But if so, why can the wh-relative delete but not the wh-interrogative? The wh-relative has an antecedent in the noun that it modifies, so is recoverable. The wh-interrogative does not and so is unrecoverable. The wh-relative has an antecedent in the noun that it modifies, so is recoverable. The wh-interrogative does not and so is unrecoverable. –The man [who I spoke to] –He asked [who I spoke to] –* He asked [who I spoke to]

Equi NP Deletion John wants [Bill to leave] John wants [Bill to leave] Bill wants [to leave] Bill wants [to leave] Bill 1 wants [Bill 1 to leave] Bill 1 wants [Bill 1 to leave] Equi-NP deletion: Equi-NP deletion: In structures:... NP 1... NP 1... Delete the second NP

But due to constraints on transformations, deletion transformations fell out of favour But due to constraints on transformations, deletion transformations fell out of favour Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) proposed that instead of a deletion, ‘Equi’ structures involve a phonologically null pronoun (PRO): Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) proposed that instead of a deletion, ‘Equi’ structures involve a phonologically null pronoun (PRO): Bill 1 wants [PRO 1 to leave] Bill 1 wants [PRO 1 to leave] PRO has two properties that need to be accounted for: PRO has two properties that need to be accounted for: –Its referential behaviour (control) –Its distribution

Control Like most pronouns, PRO can take its reference from an antecedent: Like most pronouns, PRO can take its reference from an antecedent: –John 1 dressed himself 1 –John 1 thinks Mary likes him 1 –John 1 wants [PRO 1 to be loved]

However, it has special referential properties of its own However, it has special referential properties of its own –Subject/Object control John 1 promised Bill [PRO 1 to be good] John 1 promised Bill [PRO 1 to be good] John persuaded Bill 1 [PRO 1 to be good] John persuaded Bill 1 [PRO 1 to be good] –Obligatory/Arbitrary control John 1 tried [PRO 1/*2 to sing] John 1 tried [PRO 1/*2 to sing] [PRO arb to sing now] would be inappropriate [PRO arb to sing now] would be inappropriate

The distribution of PRO: the PRO theorem PRO is an NP PRO is an NP But its distribution is not the same as a typical NP: But its distribution is not the same as a typical NP: * I saw PRO * I saw PRO * I spoke to PRO * I spoke to PRO * PRO left * PRO left I tried [PRO to sing] I tried [PRO to sing] I saw him I saw him I spoke to him I spoke to him He left He left * I tried [him to sing] * I tried [him to sing]

At first sight it seems that PRO cannot appear in a Case position (it is an exception to the Case Filter) At first sight it seems that PRO cannot appear in a Case position (it is an exception to the Case Filter) But there are non-Case positions where PRO cannot go either But there are non-Case positions where PRO cannot go either –* John’s picture PRO –* John is very fond PRO So the restriction on the distribution of PRO is more stringent So the restriction on the distribution of PRO is more stringent

Government Government is a relationship between certain elements (governors) and certain positions: Government is a relationship between certain elements (governors) and certain positions: –Governors = lexical heads (N, V, P and A) and finite Inflection –Governors govern complement and specifier positions: XP spec X’ X comp XP spec X’ X comp

Case assigners are governors Case assigners are governors (but not all governors are Case assignors) (but not all governors are Case assignors) So the set of all Case positions is a subset of the set of all governed positions: So the set of all Case positions is a subset of the set of all governed positions: Governed positions Case positions

PRO must be ungoverned PRO must be ungoverned Therefore it cannot appear in a Case position Therefore it cannot appear in a Case position Governed positions Case positions PRO

Explaining the PRO theorem Anaphors (reflexive pronouns and NP traces) must have a close by antecedent Anaphors (reflexive pronouns and NP traces) must have a close by antecedent –John 1 admires himself 1 –* John 1 thinks [Mary admires himself 1 ] –John 1 was admired t 1 –* John 1 was believed [Mary to admire t 1 ]

Pronominals (personal pronouns) cannot have a close by antecedent: Pronominals (personal pronouns) cannot have a close by antecedent: –* John 1 admires him 1 –John 1 thinks [Mary admires him 1 ] Pronominals don’t have to have antecedents at all (anaphors do): Pronominals don’t have to have antecedents at all (anaphors do): –He left –* himself left

There is a part of the structure which contains (at least) the pronoun and a governor There is a part of the structure which contains (at least) the pronoun and a governor = the governing category Binding theory Binding theory –A: an anaphor must be bound in its governing category –B: a pronominal must be free in its governing category Bound = coindexed with an appropriate antecedent Bound = coindexed with an appropriate antecedent Free = not bound Free = not bound So pronominals and anaphors are in complementary distribution So pronominals and anaphors are in complementary distribution

(Controled) PRO is like an anaphor (Controled) PRO is like an anaphor –Because it must have an antecedent (Arbitrary) PRO is like a pronominal (Arbitrary) PRO is like a pronominal –Because it does not need an antecedent So PRO is a pronominal anaphor So PRO is a pronominal anaphor So PRO must be bound and free in its governing category So PRO must be bound and free in its governing category But this is a contradiction!!! But this is a contradiction!!! The contradiction can be solved if PRO has no governing category The contradiction can be solved if PRO has no governing category PRO will have no governing category if it is not governed PRO will have no governing category if it is not governed Hence the PRO theorem Hence the PRO theorem

A typology of empty categories: Overt+ pronominal- pronominal + anaphor*himself - anaphorhimJohn Covert+ pronominal- pronominal + anaphorPRONP-trace - anaphor**Wh-trace * doesn’t exist because all (overt) NPs must have Case and therefore must be governed ** exists, but not in English: missing subject of finite clause in e.g. (most) Romance languages, Slavic languages, Semitic languages, Hungarian, etc.