Linguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

Lecture 7Lecture 7

About NothingAbout Nothing

Nothing in grammarNothing in grammar

• Language often contains irregular Language often contains irregular paradigms where one or more expected paradigms where one or more expected forms are absentforms are absent

• E.g. English present tense verb E.g. English present tense verb agreementagreement

– We see from the paradigm for We see from the paradigm for bebe that that number and person play a role in number and person play a role in determining the form of the verb in the determining the form of the verb in the present tense:present tense:

1st 2nd 3rd

Singular Am Are Is

plural Are Are Are

• But other verbs do not show the same But other verbs do not show the same patternpattern

• The only form which shows any The only form which shows any agreement is the 3agreement is the 3rdrd person singular person singular

• Two choices:Two choices:– Assume that there is no verbal agreement Assume that there is no verbal agreement

except for 3except for 3rdrd person singular and for 1 person singular and for 1stst, 2, 2ndnd and 3and 3rdrd person singular with the verb person singular with the verb bebe

– Assume that there is a complete set of Assume that there is a complete set of verbal agreements, only most of them are verbal agreements, only most of them are realised by a null morphemerealised by a null morpheme

• The second choice is the one usually The second choice is the one usually made as it makes the system more made as it makes the system more regularregular

1st 2nd 3rd

Singular

Smile Smile Smiles

Plural Smile Smile Smile

Other kinds of nothingOther kinds of nothing

• EllipsisEllipsis– She wanted to watch the TV, but I didn’t She wanted to watch the TV, but I didn’t – (want to watch the TV)(want to watch the TV)– * (take any notice)* (take any notice)

• There is a difference:There is a difference:– null morpheme = absent at the phonological null morpheme = absent at the phonological

level level – elliptical material = present at the semantic elliptical material = present at the semantic

levellevel

Nothing in the 1960sNothing in the 1960s

• One possible way to treat ellipsis is as a One possible way to treat ellipsis is as a deletion:deletion:– John drank beer and Bill wineJohn drank beer and Bill wine

• John drank beer and Bill drank wineJohn drank beer and Bill drank wine

• Deletions are Deletions are recoverablerecoverable::– * John drank beer and Bill biscuits* John drank beer and Bill biscuits

• John drank beer and Bill ate biscuitsJohn drank beer and Bill ate biscuits

• This shows that ‘recoverability’ is a This shows that ‘recoverability’ is a limited notion:limited notion:– Recoverable from syntactic not pragmatic Recoverable from syntactic not pragmatic

contextcontext

• A similar approach can account for the A similar approach can account for the following observations:following observations:

• It is assumed that the same process is It is assumed that the same process is involved in relative clause and involved in relative clause and interrogative clause formationinterrogative clause formation

• But if so, why can the wh-relative But if so, why can the wh-relative delete but not the wh-interrogative?delete but not the wh-interrogative?

• The wh-relative has an antecedent in The wh-relative has an antecedent in the noun that it modifies, so is the noun that it modifies, so is recoverable. The wh-interrogative does recoverable. The wh-interrogative does not and so is unrecoverable.not and so is unrecoverable.

– The man [who I spoke The man [who I spoke to]to]

– The man [who I spoke The man [who I spoke to]to]

– He asked [who I spoke He asked [who I spoke to]to]

– * He asked [who I spoke * He asked [who I spoke to]to]

Equi NP DeletionEqui NP Deletion

• John wants [Bill to leave]John wants [Bill to leave]

• Bill wants [to leave]Bill wants [to leave]

• BillBill11 wants [Bill wants [Bill11 to leave] to leave]

• Equi-NP deletion:Equi-NP deletion:In structures: ... NPIn structures: ... NP11 ... NP ... NP11 ... ...

Delete the second NPDelete the second NP

• But due to constraints on But due to constraints on transformations, deletion transformations, deletion transformations fell out of favourtransformations fell out of favour

• Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) proposed Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) proposed that instead of a deletion, ‘Equi’ that instead of a deletion, ‘Equi’ structures involve a phonologically null structures involve a phonologically null pronoun (PRO):pronoun (PRO):

• BillBill11 wants [PRO wants [PRO11 to leave] to leave]

• PRO has two properties that need to be PRO has two properties that need to be accounted for:accounted for:– Its referential behaviour (control)Its referential behaviour (control)– Its distributionIts distribution

ControlControl

• Like most pronouns, PRO can take its Like most pronouns, PRO can take its reference from an antecedent:reference from an antecedent:– JohnJohn11 dressed himself dressed himself11

– JohnJohn11 thinks Mary likes him thinks Mary likes him11

– JohnJohn11 wants [PRO wants [PRO11 to be loved] to be loved]

• However, it has special referential However, it has special referential properties of its ownproperties of its own– Subject/Object controlSubject/Object control

• JohnJohn11 promised Bill [PRO promised Bill [PRO11 to be good] to be good]

• John persuaded BillJohn persuaded Bill11 [PRO [PRO11 to be good] to be good]

– Obligatory/Arbitrary controlObligatory/Arbitrary control• JohnJohn11 tried [PRO tried [PRO1/*21/*2 to sing] to sing]

•[PRO[PROarbarb to sing now] would be inappropriate to sing now] would be inappropriate

The distribution of PRO: The distribution of PRO: the PRO theoremthe PRO theorem

• PRO is an NPPRO is an NP

• But its distribution is not the same as But its distribution is not the same as a typical NP: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 himI saw him

• I spoke to himI spoke to him

• He leftHe left

• * I tried [him to * I tried [him to sing]sing]

• At first sight it seems that PRO At first sight it seems that PRO cannot appear in a Case position (it cannot appear in a Case position (it is an exception to the Case Filter)is an exception to the Case Filter)

• But there are non-Case positions But there are non-Case positions where PRO cannot go eitherwhere PRO cannot go either– * John’s picture PRO* John’s picture PRO– * John is very fond PRO* John is very fond PRO

• So the restriction on the distribution So the restriction on the distribution of PRO is more stringentof PRO is more stringent

GovernmentGovernment

• Government is a relationship between Government is a relationship between certain elements (governors) and certain certain elements (governors) and certain positions:positions:– Governors = lexical heads (N, V, P and A) and Governors = lexical heads (N, V, P and A) and

finite Inflectionfinite Inflection– Governors govern complement and specifier Governors govern complement and specifier

positions:positions:• XPXP

spec X’spec X’

X comp X comp

• Case assigners are governorsCase assigners are governors

• (but not all governors are Case (but not all governors are Case assignors)assignors)

• So the set of all Case positions is a So the set of all Case positions is a subset of the set of all governed subset of the set of all governed positions:positions: Governed positions

Case positions

• PRO must be ungovernedPRO must be ungoverned

• Therefore it cannot appear in a Case Therefore it cannot appear in a Case positionposition

Governed positions

Case positions

PRO

Explaining the PRO theoremExplaining the PRO theorem

• Anaphors (reflexive pronouns and NP Anaphors (reflexive pronouns and NP traces) must have a close by traces) must have a close by antecedentantecedent– JohnJohn11 admires himself admires himself11

– * John* John11 thinks [Mary admires himself thinks [Mary admires himself11]]

– JohnJohn11 was admired t was admired t11

– * John* John11 was believed [Mary to admire t was believed [Mary to admire t11]]

• Pronominals (personal pronouns) Pronominals (personal pronouns) cannot have a close by antecedent:cannot have a close by antecedent:– * John* John11 admires him admires him11

– JohnJohn11 thinks [Mary admires him thinks [Mary admires him11]]

• Pronominals don’t have to have Pronominals don’t have to have antecedents at all (anaphors do):antecedents at all (anaphors do):– He leftHe left– * himself left* himself left

• There is a part of the structure which There is a part of the structure which contains (at least) the pronoun and a contains (at least) the pronoun and a governorgovernor= the = the governing categorygoverning category

• Binding theoryBinding theory– A: an anaphor must be bound in its A: an anaphor must be bound in its

governing categorygoverning category– B: a pronominal must be free in its B: a pronominal must be free in its

governing categorygoverning category•Bound = coindexed with an appropriate Bound = coindexed with an appropriate

antecedentantecedent•Free = not boundFree = not bound•So pronominals and anaphors are in So pronominals and anaphors are in

complementary distributioncomplementary distribution

• (Controled) PRO is like an anaphor(Controled) PRO is like an anaphor– Because it must have an antecedentBecause it must have an antecedent

• (Arbitrary) PRO is like a pronominal(Arbitrary) PRO is like a pronominal– Because it does not need an antecedentBecause it does not need an antecedent

• So PRO is a pronominal anaphorSo PRO is a pronominal anaphor• So PRO must be bound and free in its So PRO must be bound and free in its

governing categorygoverning category• But this is a contradiction!!!But this is a contradiction!!!• The contradiction can be solved if PRO The contradiction can be solved if PRO

has no governing categoryhas no governing category• PRO will have no governing category if PRO will have no governing category if

it is not governedit is not governed• Hence the PRO theoremHence the PRO theorem

A typology of empty A typology of empty categories:categories:Overt + pronominal - pronominal

+ anaphor * himself

- anaphor him John

Covert + pronominal - pronominal

+ anaphor PRO NP-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.