Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 691–734 | Cite as

Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro

An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns
  • Mara Frascarelli
Original paper

Abstract

In this paper a novel approach to (a subpart of) the null subject parameter is proposed, in which the interpretation of a thematic pro in subject position is crucially dependent on the syntax and discourse properties of Topic constituents. Based on the analysis of spoken corpora and interface considerations, evidence is provided that preverbal ‘subjects’ sit in an A’-position in a null subject language like Italian and that the interpretation of referential null subjects depends on a matching relation (Agree) with a specific type of Topic. In a cartographic approach to discourse functions, this is identified with the Aboutness-shift Topic (Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl 2007) that is merged in the C-domain and is endowed with the edge feature [+aboutness] – an ‘extended EPP feature’. A Topic Criterion is thus proposed that correlates core grammar with discourse requirements and accounts for the syntactic identification of a referential pro. The Avoid Pronoun Principle is reinterpreted as a structural condition that implies the existence of silent Topics.

Keywords

Aboutness-shift topic Agree C-domain Interface Preverbal subject(s) Referential pro Silent topic Strong/weak pronoun(s) Matching Topic criterion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abraham, W. (1993). Null subjects in the history of german: From IP to CP’. Lingua, 89, 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackema, P., Brandt, P., Schoorlemmer, M., & Weerman, F. (eds.) (2006). Agreement and arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alba-Salas, J. (2004). Lexically selected expletives: Evidence from basque and romance. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 17, 35–100.Google Scholar
  4. Alexiadou, A. (1997). Adverb placement: A case study in antisymmetric syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  5. Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word Order, V-Movement and EPP Checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ambar, M. (1992). Para uma Sintaxe da Inversão Sujeito-Verbo em Português. Lisbon: Colibri.Google Scholar
  7. Barbosa, P. (1995). Null subjects. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Barbosa, P. (2000). Clitics: A window into the null subject property. In J. Costa (Ed.), Essays in portuguese comparative syntax (pp. 31–94). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Belletti, A. (2004a). Aspects of the low IP area. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2. The structure of CP and IP (pp. 16–51). Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Belletti, A. (ed.) (2004b). The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 3. Structures and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (eds.) (1996). Parameters and functional heads. essays in comparative syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Benincà, P. (2001). The position of topic and focus in the left periphery. In G. Cinque, & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (pp. 39–64). Amsterdam/London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Benincà, P., & Cinque, G. (1985). Lexical subjects in Italian and the pro-drop parameter. paper presented at the Comparative Generative Grammar Fiesta”, Salzburg.Google Scholar
  14. Benincà, P., & Poletto C. (2004). Topic, focus, and V2. Defining the CP sublayers. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2, The structure of CP and IP (pp. 52–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Benincà, P., Salvi, G., & Frison, L. (1988). L’Ordine degli Elementi della Frase e le Costruzioni Marcate. In L. Renzi (Ed.) Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione, Vol. I (pp. 115–225), Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  16. Bonvino, E. (2006). Le Sujet Postverbal en Italien Parlé: syntaxe, zones et intonation. Paris, Ophrys: Bibliotheque des faits des langues.Google Scholar
  17. Büring, D. (1999). Topic. In P. Bosch, & van der Sandt, R. (Eds.), Focus. Linguistic cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 142–165). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Calabrese, A. (1986). Pronomina. Some properties of the italian pronominal system. In N. Fukui, T. R. Rapoport, & E. Sagey (Eds.), Papers in theoretical linguistics (pp. 1–46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Calabrese, A. (1992). Some remarks on focus and logical structure in Italian. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 91–127.Google Scholar
  20. Cardinaletti, A. (1990). Impersonal constructions and sentential arguments in German. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
  21. Cardinaletti, A. (1997). Subjects and clause structure. In L. Haegeman (ed.), The new comparative syntax (pp. 33–63). London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  22. Cardinaletti, A. (2002). Against optional and zero clitics. Right dislocation vs. marginalization. Studia Linguistica, 56, 29–57.Google Scholar
  23. Cardinaletti, A. (2004). Towards a cartography of subject positions. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2, The structure of CP and IP (pp. 115–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Cardinaletti, A., & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural dependency. A case study of three classes of pronouns. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the language of Europe (pp. 145–233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Cecchetto, C. (1999). A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in romance. Studia Linguistica, 53, 40–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  27. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 3, structures and beyond (pp. 104–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Chomsky, N. (2005). On phases, ms. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Cinque, G. (ed.) (2002). The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1. Functional Structure in DP and IP. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. D’Imperio, M. (2002). Italian Intonation: An overview and some questions’, Probus 14, 37–69.Duarte, Maria Eugenia. 1993. ‘Do Pronome Nulo ao Pronome Pleno’, in I. Roberts and M.A. Kato (eds.), Portogês Brasileiro: uma viagen diacrônica, Editora da UNICAMP, Campinas, pp. 107–128.Google Scholar
  33. Féry, C. (1992). Focus, topic and intonation in German. Arbeitspapiere des sonder-forschungsbereichs 340, Bericht Nr. 20, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  34. Frascarelli, M. (2000). The syntax-phonology interface in focus and topic constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  35. Frascarelli, M. (2004a). Dislocation, clitic resumption and minimality: A comparative analysis of left and right topic constructions in Italian. In R. Bok-Bennema, B. Hollebrandse, B. Kampers-Manhe, & P. Sleeman (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2002 (pp. 99–118). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  36. Frascarelli, M. (2004b). ‘L’interpretazione del Focus e la Portata degli Operatori Sintattici. In F. Albano Leoni, F. Cutugno, M. Pettorino, & R. Savy (Eds.), Il parlato italiano. Atti del Convegno Nazionale (13–15 febbraio 2003), M. D’Auria Editore, CIRASS, Naples, (CD Rom), B06.Google Scholar
  37. Frascarelli, M. (2006). The fine structure of the topic field, paper presented at the “Bantu-Romance Connection” Workshop, Leeds, May, 25–27.Google Scholar
  38. Frascarelli, M., & Hinterhölzl, R. (2007). Types of topics in German and Italian. In S. Winkler & K. Schwabe (Eds.), On information structure, meaning and form (pp. 87–116). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  39. Frascarelli, M., & Puglielli, A. to appear. ‘Focus in the Force-Fin System. Information Structure in Cushitic Languages. In A. Enoch, K. Hartmann, & M. Zimmermann (Eds.), Focus Strategies: Evidence from African languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  40. Frota, S. (2000). Prosody and focus in european portoguese: Implication for intonation theory. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  41. Gilligan, G. M. (1987). A cross-linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter, Ph.D. dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  42. Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 5–41). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  43. Goldsmith, J. A. (ed.) (1999). Phonological Theory. The essential readings, Blackwell Publishing, London.Google Scholar
  44. Grimshaw, J., & Samek-Lodovici, V. (1998). Optimal subjects and subject universals. In P. Barbosa, et al. (Ed.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax (pp. 193–219). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  45. Haegeman, L. (1992). Sentential negation in Italian and the NEG criterion. GenGenP, 0, 10–26.Google Scholar
  46. Hasegawa, Y. (1985). On the so-called ‘Zero-pronouns’ in Japanese. The Linguistic Review, 4, 243–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hayes, B., & Lahiri, A. (1991). Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 47–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases, Ph.D dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  49. Hicks, G. (2005). Binding theory and its consequences for features, phases, and derivation, ms., The University of York.Google Scholar
  50. Hinterhölzl, R., & Pili, D. (2002). Argument Shift across Language Types’, paper presented at the XXVIII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Università di Lecce.Google Scholar
  51. Holmberg, A. (2005). Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 535–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hornstein, N. (2000). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Horvath, J. (1986). Focus in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  54. Huang, C. T. J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531–574.Google Scholar
  55. Huang, C. T. J. (1989). Pro-drop in Chinese: A generalized control theory. In O. Jaeggli, & K. Safir (Eds.), The null subject parameter (pp. 185–214). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  56. Huang, Y. (2000). Anaphora. a cross-linguistic approach. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Hulk, A., & Pollock, J.-Y. (eds.) (2001). Subject inversion in romance and the theory of universal grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Ihsane, T., & Puskás, G. (2001). Specific is not definite. In U. Shlonsky & T. Ihsane (Eds). Generative Grammar in Geneva, 2, 39–54.Google Scholar
  59. Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Jaeggli, O. (1982). Topics in romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  61. Jaeggli, O., & Safir, K. (eds.) (1989a). The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  62. Jaeggli, O., & Safir, K. (1989b). The null subject parameter and parametric theory. In O. Jaeggli, & K. Safir (Eds.), The null subject parameter (pp. 1–44). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  63. Kato, M. A. (1999). Strong pronouns and weak pronominals in the null subject parameter. Probus, 11, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kayne, R. (2002). Pronouns and their antecedents. In S. D. Epstein, & T. D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program (pp. 133–166). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. Kayne, R. (2005). On parameters and on principles of pronunciation. ms., NYU.Google Scholar
  66. Kenesei, I. (2006). Focus is identification. In V. Molnár, & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (pp. 137–168). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  67. Kenstowicz, M. (1989). The null subject parameter in modern arabic dialects. In O. Jaeggli, & K. Safir (Eds.), The null subject parameter (pp. 263–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  68. Kiss, É. K. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). The categorical and thetic judgment. Foundations of Language, 9, 153–185.Google Scholar
  70. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Lasnik, H., & Stowell, T. (1991). Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 687–720.Google Scholar
  72. Lipták, A. (2005). Relativization strategies in temporal adjunct clauses, ms. ULCL, Leiden University.Google Scholar
  73. Marotta, G. (2000). Allineamento e Trascrizione dei Toni Accentuali Complessi: una proposta. In Atti delle Decime Giornate del Gruppo di Fonetica Sperimentale, A.I.A, Naples, pp. 139–149.Google Scholar
  74. Marotta, G., & Sardelli, E. (2003). ‘Sulla Prosodia della Domanda con Soggetto Postverbale in due Varietà di Italiano Toscano (pisano e senese)’, in P. Cosi, E. Magno Caldognetto and A. Zamboni (eds.), Voce, Canto, Parlato. Studi in onore di F. Ferrero, Unipress, Padua, pp. 205–212.Google Scholar
  75. Molnár, V. (2002). Contrast – from a contrastive perspective. In H. Hallelgard, S. Johansson, B. Behrens, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 147–162). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  76. Moro, A. (1997). The raising of predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  78. Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (In)definiteness (pp. 98–129). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  79. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and phonetics of english intonation, Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  80. Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, R. Philip, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  81. Poletto, C. (2000). The higher functional field. Evidence from northern italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Poletto, C., & Pollock, J.-Y. (2004). On the left periphery of some romance wh-questions. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 2, The structure of CP and IP (pp. 251–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Pollock, J.-Y. (1996). Elements de Syntaxe du Verbe dans les Langues Germaniques et Romaines. Ms., Université d’Amiens.Google Scholar
  84. Ramaglia, F. (2006). ‘Focused Topic’, paper presented at the “XXXII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa”, Università di Firenze.Google Scholar
  85. Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence Topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94.Google Scholar
  86. Reuland, E., & Reinhart, T. (1995). Pronouns, anaphors and case. In H. Haider, S. Olsen, & S. Vikner (Eds.), Studies in comparative germanic syntax (pp. 241–269). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  87. Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  88. Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 501–558.Google Scholar
  89. Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  90. Rizzi, L. (1994). Early null subjects and root null subjects. In T. Hoekstra, & B. Schwartz (Eds.) Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 151–176). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  91. Rizzi, L. (1996). Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In A. Belletti & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Parameters and functional heads. essays in comparative syntax (pp. 63–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Rizzi, L. (1997a). A parametric approach to comparative syntax properties of the pronominal system. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), The new comparative syntax (pp. 268–285). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  93. Rizzi, L. (1997b). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  94. Rizzi, L. (2001). Locality and left periphery, ms. Università di Siena.Google Scholar
  95. Rizzi, L. (ed.) (2004). The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2. The Structure of CP and IP. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Rizzi, L. (2006). On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In L. Cheng, & N. Corver (Eds.), Wh Movement: Moving on (pp. 97–133). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  97. Roberts, I. (2004). ‘Some Consequences of a Deletion Analysis of Null Subjects’, paper presented at the “LAGB Annual Meeting”, University of Surrey, Roehampton.Google Scholar
  98. Rochemont, M., & Culicover, P. (1990). English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Rohrbacher, B. W. (1999). Morphology-driven syntax: A theory of V to I raising and pro-drop. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  100. Safir, K. (1985). Missing subjects in german. In J. Toman (Ed.), Linguistic theory and the grammar of german (pp. 193–229). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  101. Samek-Lodovici, V. (2005). Prosody-syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 687–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Selkirk, E. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology, 3, 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Selkirk, E. (2000). The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment. Studies presented to Gösta Bruce (pp. 231–261). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  104. Selkirk, E., & Kratzer, A. (2007). Focus, Phases and Phrase Stress’, ms. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  105. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1993). Argument-drop in old Icelandic. Lingua, 89, 247–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2004a). The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 16, 219–251 [Special issue, ed. by V. Bianchi and K. Safir].Google Scholar
  107. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2004b). Agree and agreement: Evidence from germanic. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Focus on germanic typology (Studia Typologica 6) (pp. 61–103). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  108. Sigurðsson, H. Á., & Maling, J. (2006). Argument drop and the empty left edge condition (ELEC), lingBuzz 000313.Google Scholar
  109. Steedman, M. (2000). Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 649–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Suñer, M. (2003). The lexical preverbal subject in a romance null subject language. Where are thou? In R. Núñez-Cedeño, L. López, & R. Cameron (Eds.), A romance perspective on language knowledge and use (pp. 341–357). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  111. Svenonius, P. (ed.) (2002). Subjects, Expletives and the Extended Projection Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  113. Trecci, A. (2006). Who is lui? Reference of italian overt and covert subject pronouns. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (pp. 321–339). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  114. Truckenbrodt, H. (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 219–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Vanelli, L. (1986). Strutture tematiche in italiano antico. In H. Stammerjohann (Ed.), Tema-rema in italiano (pp. 249–273). Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  116. Zubizarreta, M. L. (1994). The grammatical representation of topic and focus: Implication for the structure of the clause. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 97–126.Google Scholar
  117. Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  118. Zwart, J.-W. (2002). Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In S. D. Epstein, & T. D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program (pp. 269–304). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di LinguisticaUniversità degli Studi Roma TreRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations