A Cross-Linguistic Approach to the Pro-Drop Parameter

492 Pages·1987·7.526 MB·English

by  Gary Martin Gilligan

A CROSS-LINGUISTIC APPROACH TO THE
PRO-DROP PARAMETER
by
Gary Martin Gilligan
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Linguistics)
December 1987
UMI Number: DP71322
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMT
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP71322
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Pro
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089
This dissertation, written by
GARY MARTIN GILLIGAN
under the direction of .. Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re­
quirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Dean of Graduate Studies
Date December 1987
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
co-chairman
co-chairman
jB?. ..
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
i
I
I am pleased to boast of the friends and colleagues |
who have made my tenure at USC a richly rewarding
experience.
My committee has stimulated my intellectual growth
i
by alternating between conflict and reassurance, always in |
I
order to extract my best effort. Foremost among the |
I
combatants I must thank Osvaldo Jaeggli, who I may yet j
please. Without his vigilance, I might have blundered in |
every sentence; certainly, the final two chapters of this
dissertation would have been completely senseless without |
his cautions. j
I owe a massive intellectual and personal debt to
Jack Hawkins and Bernard Comrie, both of whom kept me
believing that at least part of my brain was still work-
I
ing. It has been a pleasure to be associated with these
gentlemen.
I
My gratitude extends also to Mario Saltarelli and j
Joseph Aoun, who also also served on my committee and
provided me with invaluable advice.
Many others merit mention, especially the following
individuals who have shared their expertise on languages !
that I was not born into: Werner Antersijn, Marc Authier,
i
Josef Bayer, Doug Biber, Virginia Carey, Loredona
Clementi, Jaime Daza, Matthew Dryer, Mtirvet Enp Ursula
Feola, Ger deHaan, Hajime Hoji, Rupert Hopsel, Marja-leena1
Jokinen, Nanna Kristinsddttir, Rick Lacy, Audrey Li,
Helene Makinen, Erkki Merlainen, Franz Mtiller-Gotama,
Jacob Nyamsangya, Charles Randriamasimanana, Suchitra
i
Sadanandan, Raija Vairis. These are the people who make
cross-linguistic work possible.
i I thank also the community of friends at USC who
bought me beers and listened to my ranting. Where would I
i
be without Mary Alvin, Heather Bowe, Juan Galindo, Chris
Hall, Kyle (the most thanked man in linguistics) Johnson,
M.A. Mohammad, Ian Roberts, Shelley Smith, and Bonnie
Schwartz?
Elaine Andersen, my benefactress, deserves more than
she’ll probably ever end up getting, but she knows that.
My wife Heather deserves the lion’s share of my
gratitude, however, for supporting a raving madman. Out-
i
side of Tukku and Cinder, she must have heard more of this
(dissertation than anyone. I’m sure she’ll forgive me if I
get a job.
Kudos also go to my parents, who taught me to dream.
i
i
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF TABLES x
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS xi
ABSTRACT xiii
1.0 Topic and methods............................... 1
vl.l The problem and its possible solutions . . . . . . 2
1.1.1 Pronominally interpreted missing arguments . 2
j 1.1.2 Evidence for syntactically represented null
! pronouns ................................... 4
1.2 A brief description of the GB framework........ 9
1.2.1 Levels of derivation......................... 10
1.2.2 D-structure modules ....................... 11
1.2.3 The interface between levels ............... 15
1.2.4 S-structure/LF modules ..................... 19
1.2.5 From UG to core grammar..................... 25
1.3 A consideration of typological syntax .......... 31
1.3.1 Typology and syn ta x......................... 32
1.3.2 Typological methods................ 35
1.3.3 Typology and GB ................... 40
1.3.4 Deep typology................................43
'1.4 The interaction of typology and GB theory . . . . 45
| 1.4.1 Typology as confirmation: word order
; parameters and word order types ............ 46
1.4.2 Typology as a constraint upon abstract
analysis: universals of the comparative
phrase and Dutch VP o r d e r ................... 55
1.5 Summary............................................ 67
2.0 Two views of Pro-drop parameters................... 72
2.1 Generative analyses of the Pro-drop Parameter . . 74
2.1.1 Null subjects and correlated phenomena . . . 74
| 2.1.2 Correlating the phenomena ................. 78
2.1.3 Less direct correlations..................... 86
2.1.4 Summary............................. 94
2.2 Preparations for the survey ....................... 96
2.2.1 The data base expanded....................... 96
2.2.2 The constructions defined.................. 104
| 2.2.2.1 Null thematic subjects ............ 105
i
2.2.2.2 Null nonthematic subjects ........ 113
2.2.2.3 Subject inversion constructions . . 120
2.2.2.4 that-trace filter violations . . . . 125
2.2.2.5 Summary .................. 127
2.3 Outcome of the surv e y .......... 129
2.3.1 The raw results.............................130
2.3.2 Discussion...................................135
2.3.2.1 Null thematic and nonthematic
subjects.............................136
2.3.2.2 The EXE-SI correlation and
Icelandic.......................... 137
2.3.2.3 Subject inversion and that-t filter
violations.......................... 140
2.3.2.4 EXE and THAT........................ 142
2.3.2.5 Other correlations ................. 144
2.3.2.6 Summary ........................... 146
I 2.3.3 Comparison with other samples ............ 147
2.3.3.1 Testing my results ................ 149
2.3.3.2 Counterexamples and the three
samples............................ 153
! 2.3.4 Conclusions ............................... 155
i
i
3.0 A wider perspective: null pronouns................ 160
i
i
3.1 The agreement hypothesis in previous work . . . . 163
3.2 Redefining the survey phenomena.................. 172
3.2.1 Null pronouns...............................173
3.2.1.1 The role of the Projection
Principle(s) ....................... 173
3.2.1.2 Possible sites for null pronouns
and the adequacy of the PP and EPP
as tests............................ 175
3.2.1.3 Interpretation and null arguments . 179
3.2.1.4 Testing the limits of null
pronouns...................... 183
3.2.2 Agreement (reprise) ....................... 185
3.2.3 Summary.....................................186
3.3 Results of survey I I .............................. 187
3.4 Discussion.........................................195
3.4.1 Site by site examination of the types . . . 196
3.4.1.1 Thematic subjects of finite
clauses............................ 196
3.4.1.2 Subjects of nonfinite sentences . . 197
i
j 3.4.1.3 Imperative subjects .............. 200
3.4.1.4 Nonthematic arguments ........ . . 201
»/ 3.4.1.5 Direct objects...................... 203
/3.4.1.6 Indirect objects ................... 205
i
3.4.1.7 Possessive pronouns .............. 206
3.4.1.8 Adpositional objects .............. 208
vi
3.4.1.9 Summary ........................... 209
3.4.2 New types in an IndoEuropean biased sample . 210
3.5 Comparison of types with predictions of theories . 217
3.5.1 Analysis by analysis comparison ......... 218
3.5.1.1 Taraldsen’s generalization ........ 218
3.5.1.2 Huang’s generalization ............ 219
3.5.1.3 Pesetsky and Rizzi on ’richness of
inflection’ ........................ 221
3.5.2 Ramifications for the remainder of the
thesis....................................... 223
4.0 Identification and null pronouns.................. 227
4.1 Identification by agreement ..................... 228
4.1.1 The features of identification.............. 229
4.1.2 Structural conditions ..................... 234
4.1.3 Association of target and agreement . . . . 239
4.1.4 Summary.....................................240
4.2 Definite null pronouns without agreement-
j identification ......................... . . . . . 242
4.2.1 Pronominally interpreted gaps in Mandarin . 242
4.2.1.1 The distribution of nullp ronouns
in Mandarin........................ 243
4.2.1.2 Topics as identifiers of null
pronouns.............................253
4.2.2 Null pronominal objects in agreementless
languages...................................261
t
4.3 PRO and identification by predication............267
4.3.1 Previous approaches to P R O .................. 269
4.3.2 The identification of arbitrary null
subjects.....................................271
vii
4.3.3 Obligatory control ......................... 279
4.3.4 Nonobligatory control .................... 289
j 4.3.5 Summary ................................... 299
^.4 Other null arbitrary pronouns and null pronouns
j identified by predication ....................... 301
4.4.1 Arbitrary null objects in Italian...........301
4.4.2 Null pronouns inside N P .................... 312
4.4.3 Orphan Prepositions and other arbitrary
agreement...................................323
4.4.4 Null subjects of imperative sentences . . . 329
4.4.5 Null heads of relative clauses..............334
4.5 Null indefinite pronouns.......................... 338
4.5.1 'Arbitrary' plural pronouns in Spanish . . . 339
4.5.2 Null third person pronouns in Finnish and
Hebrew.......................................344
4.6 Identification and visibility ................... 353
5.0 Licensing and null pronouns...................... 357
5.1 Principles of licensing.......................... 363
i
j 5.1.1 Licensing of E C s ............................ 364
5.1.2 Case theory revisited...................... 370
5.1.3 Licensing and visibility.................. 374
5.1.4 Positions for Caseless pronouns .......... 378
5.2 Subject pronouns ................................. 387
i 5.2.1 The cross-linguistically defined types . . . 387
j
5.2.2 Subject parameters and analysis of the
types . . . . . . . . . . .............. 398
5.2.2.1 Core N S L s .......................... 399
viii