1 / 32

Aggressive pro-drop and the specificity of the 3 rd person in Slavic languages

Aggressive pro-drop and the specificity of the 3 rd person in Slavic languages. Anton Zimmerling Moscow state university of the humanities, MGGU/ Russian state university of the humanities, RGGG meinmat@yahoo.com http://antonzimmerling.wordpress.com/. Basic facts.

henry
Télécharger la présentation

Aggressive pro-drop and the specificity of the 3 rd person in Slavic languages

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Aggressive pro-drop and the specificity of the 3rd person in Slavic languages Anton Zimmerling Moscow state university of the humanities, MGGU/ Russian state university of the humanities, RGGG meinmat@yahoo.com http://antonzimmerling.wordpress.com/

  2. Basic facts • The paper revises the Null-Subject-Parameter responsible for dropping thematic pronominal subjects of a finite clause and offers a new classification of Slavic languages in terms of pro-drop. I am focusing on two non-trivial facts: • A) Some languages including Vojvodina Rusinsky and Old Novgorod developed a constraint blocking BE-auxiliaries in clauses with overt subject pronouns. In this group inflected auxiliaries are licensed by T only in clauses with pro. I refer to this group as ‘aggressive pro-drop’. • B) Some other languages including Russian license pro-drop only in 1st-2nd persons.

  3. Claims: synchrony (1) • I prove that 3rd person pro is licensed in Russian only if its antecedent is D-linked. • I refer to this option as ‘weak/non-pro-drop’ and argue that it is different from ‘standard pro-drop’ (Polish, Czech). • Existing accounts of pro-drop – the ‘morphological uniformity’ criteria, the ‘impoverishment/ neutralization’ criteria, the ‘radical pro-drop’ conjecture, the conjecture on the alleged N /D contrast in the system of personal pronouns cannot predict the contrast of the supposed 1st-2nd vs pro-drop vs 3rd person non-pro-drop in Russian.

  4. Claims: synchrony (2) • A typologically valid classification of pro-drop languages must be based on the notion of argument pro-drop, not discourse pro-drop. • Slavic languages can be classified with 3 groups. • A. ‘standard pro-drop’ (Polish, Czech). 1st, 2nd & 3rd p. pro. Inflected auxiliaries are licensed both in clauses with and without overt pronouns. No zero auxiliaries or 3rd person zero auxiliaries only. • B. ‘Aggressive pro-drop’ (Rusinsky, Old Novgorod Russian). 1st, 2nd & 3rd p. pro. Inflected auxiliaries are licensed only in clauses with pro and banned in clauses with overt pronouns. • C. ‘Weak/no pro-drop’ (Modern Russian). 1st & 2ndp. pro-drop only. No inflected auxiliaries in verbal forms.o

  5. Claims: diachrony • Historically, aggressive pro-drop in Slavic results from a combination of two features – 1) pro-drop licensing with non-D-linked referents 2) licensing of zero auxiliaries/copula dropping. Standard pro-drop languages don’t license zero auxiliaries or restrict them to the 3rd person. The weak/non-pro-drop option in the history of Russian resulted from two processes – 1) loss of 3rd person auxiliaries 2) licensing of 1st-2nd auxiliary dropping. • Standard pro-drop languages kept the balance between these two extremes by making overt auxiliaries obligatory.

  6. MERGE & MOVE & SPELL-OUT • Well-formed structures (sometimes) can be generated and parsed even if some of their elements are not expressed explicitly. • Universal Grammarincludes operations of three types — merging of subtrees [of a tree structure] = Merge, Movement of a subtree = Move and mapping of subtrees and trees onto strings of some physical elements/linearly ordered strings of physical elements = Spell-Out.

  7. Zeros in theoretic syntax • Zero categories in syntax always result from the mapping of two levels of representation, the higher one (n + 1 level) interpreting the lower one (nth level). • Adding zero categories helps to recognize and parse well-formed structures. • Zero categories are real if they share some features with some non-zero categories. • Conclusive proof has been provided only for the existence of zero subject pronouns and zero auxiliaries.

  8. Zeros and Deletion • Two possible types of zeros. • A. Lieutenant Kije-type: big PRO (cf. Holmberg 2005). ‘the arrestant is incorporeal and has no body’. A ban on non-zero manifestation. ‘Lieutenant Kije’ are categories that does not spell-out at PF. • B. Wastebasket-fly-type: pro, Mel’čuk’s zero lexemes etc. The presence of such zero categories is due to Deletion operation. Some compatible category (say, overt pronominal) has been deleted and the ‘wastebasket flies’ fill the place.

  9. pro and pro-drop • pro = zero equivalent of pronominal subject of a finite verb. • pro is inherently unspecified for φ-feature values. Its distribution is determined by the following two conditions: • a. pro must be licensed. • b. pro must be identified. • Pro-drop = subject pronominal dropped & replaced by pro.

  10. Some pro characteristics • pro is inherently unspecified for φ-feature values. • pro is restricted with subject position with finite verbs. • pro is a definite zero pronoun. • pro has the communicative status of a (zero) topic or ‘theme’. • Pro does lacks role-specific features characteristic of Agents, Patients, Experiencers etc.

  11. Accounts of pro • A. Morphologic uniformity (Jaeggli & Safir 1989). Pro-drop only licensed in languages with morphologically uniform verbal paradigms: either all persons are distincly inflected (cf. Italian) or none (cf. Chinese). • B. ‘Impoverishment’ (Műller 2005). Pro cannot be licensed by T if T is subject to an impoverishment operation that lead to a neutralization of φ-features. • C. ‘Agglutinative hypothesis’ (Neeleman & Szendröi 2005). Any pronoun can be dropped (radical pro-prop) if personal pronouns are agglutinating for case, number or some other nominal feature. • Holmberg’s hypothesis. 1st-2nd pronouns can be dropped since they are Ns while3rd person pronouns cannot since they are Ds.

  12. Argumentpro-drop • Argument pro-drop language type. The deleted 3 p. pronoun is unambiguously recoverable even it is *NOT* anaphoric and D-linked. • Someargument pro-drop languages. Strict VSO languages (Arabic, Irish), Romance and BalcanicSVO → VSO languages with verb movement and object clitics • Russian is not a standard pro-drop language. A sentence like pro пошел-Sg.Past.M. на лекциюis most naturally interpreted as having the value of 1 Sg. gets a more strained interpretation in the 2 p. , while аn interpretation in the 3rdpersonis excluded with the exception of contexts where the dropped pronoun is anaphoric. • On the contrary, in consistent argument pro-drop languages as Spanish andr Modern Greek a 3rd interpretation = ≪NN went to the lecture≫ is the default option: the antecedent of pro is not necessary recoverable in its narrow syntactic environment.

  13. Russian as a non-pro-drop language • Russian is not a standard pro-drop language. • A sentence like pro пошел-Sg.Past.M. на лекциюis most naturally interpreted as having the value of 1 Sg. =≪I(SPEAKER) went to the lecture≫, gets a more strained interpretation in the 2 p. = ≪You=Sg (HEARER) went to the lecture≫, while аn interpretation in the 3 person = ≪NN went to the lecture≫ is excluded with the exception of contexts where the dropped pronoun is anaphoric. • Anaphoric contexts. Cf. a dialogue ≪<А. Где Ваняi?> В. proi пошел на лекцию ≫. <А. Where is Vaniai?> В. proiwent to the lecture> • ‘Pro-testability’hierarchy of persons in Russian: 1 > 2 // (> *3)

  14. Zeros and constructions • In applied syntax, zero categories always correlate with a given set of constructions. Adding zeros to syntactic representation shows that these constructions are generated by some rules/principles thatallow for interpreting the absence of an overt category (e.g. <grammatical subject> or <NP>or<personal pronoun in the Nom. case≫ or <auxialiriary> etc) as a result of its deletion from a string of overt sentence categories. • The more zeros one adds, the more constructions one is able to parse, ceteris paribus. • Meanwhile, the set of postulated zeros cannot be expandedad libitum — otherwise turning to any new corpus of texts/any new language one will get new types of syntactic zeros.

  15. pro as agreement controller • Some consistent pro-drop languagesexclude overt personal prounouns and auxiliary clitics. • Subject forms (including subject pronouns) are controllers of inflexed auxiliaries/ • Rusinsky(Vojvodina dialect: well-formedphrases as e.g. Добри=є, Вон добри, but *Вон=є добри, which both has 3rd person Sg. Auxiliary clitic=є and overtsubject (nominative) pronoun 3rd person Sg. Mвон.[Browne 2008], [Браун 2008]. • A meaning like ≪I am a member of some organization≫ can be expressed in Rusinsky both with a phrase containing pro —pro член=сом, and with an overt pronoun — я член, but the pleonasm *я=сом член is banned. • A meaning like ≪I haven’t read this≫ can be expressed both with a phrase with an overt subject pronoun — я нє читалandwith a phrase with an auxiliary clitic — нє читал=сом, but these two agreement markers cannot be combined in one and the same phrase: *я нє читал=сом, *я=сом нє читал, *я нє=сом читал [Browne 2008]. • A-STATE-OF-ART OBSERVATION: in some pro-droplanguages clitic auxiliaries agree with grammatical subject only if the latter is not spelled-out.

  16. Null subject and expletive Faroese: • (1) Far. Vit byrjuðu hesa greinina við at siga,[CP at tað-Expl gongur-3Sg upp og niðurí fiskivinnuni-DatPrepSg].≪We began this article with an statement, [CP thatin fishery things are going up and down≫ ], lit. ≪…[CP thatitgoes up and down≫]. • (2) Far. í fiskivinnuni-DatPrepSg ∅-gongur-3Sg alt í ðupp og niður,≪In fishery,∅-goesalways up and down≫ • Hypothesis: zero subjects and expletive take the same position– SpecCP.

  17. Finnish (3) Fin. а. pro Meni hullusti. went wrong ≪(things) are in a bad way≫ б. Sitä meni hullusti. EXPL went wrong ≪the same≫ в. *Meni nyt hullusti. Went now wrong • Hypothesis: the expletive is inserted (Expletive Merge) when the initial elemant is a ‘bad’ topic. Two possible scenarios – pro/Expletive Merge (3а-б) or inversion: *Meni nyt hullusti → nyti meni ti hullusti. • Unlike in Faroese, expletive sita and se are not deleted in the postposition to the verb, as e.g. in general questions. (4) Fin. Meni-ko sita taas hullusti? Went-Q EXPL again awry ‘Are things in a bad way or something?

  18. Expletive as a formal theme • Fin.sitä, unlike Rus. это, cannot precede a topical subject if both elements are preverbal (5aб) is grammatical because the pronominal subject е minä «I» is the rheme or focus of contrast.Meanwhile, it is difficult to fine an appropriate communicative reading for (5b) : (5) Fin. a. Sitä olenminä -kin käynytPariisissa. EXPL have-1Sg I-too visited Paris-INE ‘I have indeed been to Paris»’ б. MinäsitäolenkäynytPariisissa. ‘I have been to Paris, too (fancy that)’/’But I have been to Paris’. в. *sitäminäolenkäynytPariisissa. • Hypothesis: Fin. sitä is not as much an expletive subject as an ‘expletive topic’.

  19. Structures with subject-predicate agreement

  20. Coreferent deletion and zeros

  21. Two types of zero agents in Modern Icelandic

  22. Generic pronoun Ø2Sg • Russian bans correlative clauses with 3rd p. сpro,cf. (1а) andrequires a non-zero pronoun in the left clause, cf. (1b); in the right clause prois possible(1c) though not obligatory. (1) а. * [proi ищет]i, proi всегда найдет; *[proiчто болит]i, proi о том и говорит. b. [Ктоi ищет]i, тотi всегда найдет. [У когоi чтоj болит]i,тотi о томj и говорит. c. [Ктоi ищет]i, proi всегда найдет. [У когоi чтоj болит]i,proi о томj и говорит.

  23. Ø2Genericincorrelative clauses In the right clause Ø2Genericdoes notalternate with overt generic 2Sg pronounты, cf.ill-formed (2a) и (2b): (2) a. [Ø2Generici Ищешь в чужом государстве], [Ø2Generici /proi находишь в своем болоте]. b. *[Ø2Generici Ищешь в чужом государстве], [ тыi находишь в своем болоте]. (3) a. [Ø2Generici как посеешь]i, [Ø2Generici/proi так и пожнешь]. b. *[Ø2Generici как посеешь]i, [так тыi и пожнешь].

  24. How many 2 person zeros are there in Russian? • From the one side, Ø2Generic in correlative clausesstands in Nom.Sg., while in structures with secondary predication generic 2 Sg. Pronoun stands in the Accusative case but can assume the forms of all genders and numbers. • From the other side, postulation one zero generic 2 p. pronoun taking either Nom. Or Acc in both genders, but not other case forms seems a lesser evil than postulating zero pronouns specified as objects. • Structural uses of Acc. And Nom correlate and the accusative argument in structures with secondary predications correlate. This argument can be interpreted as subject of a *small clause*.

  25. Agreement with Ø2Genericandwithgeneric ты • One can prove for in configurations with secondary predication one deals with Ø2Generic, and not with an NP-ellipsis (pro-form) of an overt generic 2 p.ты,. • Overt genericты agrees in gender and natural gender[sex] with the gender and natural gender of the referent: (3)with a zero 2 p. pronoun is appropriate in a situation with a male referent, while (4) in this situation is completely excluded. (3) Пластический хирург не сделает Ø2Generici {M/F; Sg} красавицейi{F; Sg}. (4) Пластический хирург не сделает тебяi {F; Sg} красавицейi{F; Sg}.

  26. Outlook • Unifying all kinds of zero pronouns attested in finite clauses to one and the same categoryprois infelicitous. Discourse dropping of personal pronouns, coreferent deletion of pronouns and constraints on spell-out of overt pronominal subjects are three different mechanisms. • A crucial disctinction for a ‘zero typology’ is the distinction of zero subjects with role semantics of their own (cf. ‘Mel’čuk’s zeros’)vs role-indifferent zeros (cf. Chomskyanpro). One should also distinguish zero pronouns linked with given person forms vs person-indifferent pronouns. • Some zero pronouns of 3rd person exhibit properties not characteristic of 1st-2nd person zeros/ zero pronouns taking the forms of different persons. • Zerp pronouns of 3rd person Sg. vs 3rd person Pl. can be involved in a semantic contrast (as in Modern Russian), but the same semantic contrast can be expressed by a different combination of syntactic zeros (cf. Modern Icelandic). • Some zero pronouns may express Case and Gender: this seems to depend on agreement morphology of particular languages rather than with semantics. Zero pronouns with a role semantics of Agents may coexist with non-agentive zero pronouns in different predicate classes: this typologically rare situation is attested in Modern Icelandic.

  27. References, I • Alexiadou A. & E.Anagnastopoulou1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word Order, V-movement and EPP-checking // Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:491-539. • Babby L. 2002. Subjectlessness, External Subcaterization, and the Projection Principle // Journal of Slavic Linguistics. 10: 341-88. • Boeckx C. & N.Hornstein. 2004. Movement under Control // Linguistic Inquiry 34, 269-280. • Browne 2008. Clitic Ordering in Vojvodina Rusinski // Slavic Linguistic Society 3, Ohio June 10-12, 2008. • Chomsky N., Lasnik H. 1993. Syntax in generativen Grammatik // Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research / J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W.Stermfeld, T.Venneman, eds. Berlin & New York, Walter de Gryuter, 506- 569. • Gilligan, Gary M. 1987. A cross-linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. Univ. of Southern California PhD.

  28. References, II • Havrnek B. 1962. K historickosrovnvacmu poznnsyntaxeslovanskchjazyků // Otzkyslovanskůsyntaxe.Praha. • Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 533–564. • Holmberg A. & C.Platzack. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. N.Y: Oxford UP. • Jaeggli O., Safir K. (eds.) 1989. The null subject parameter. 1989. Dordrecht, Foris. • Lavine J. 2005. The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian –no/-to // Journal of Slavic Linguistics 13: 75-117. • Mel’čuk I. 1979. Syntactic, or Lexical Zero in Natural Language //Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.Berkeley: UCB, 224-260. • Rizzi L. 1986. Null subjects in Italian and the Theory of pro. L. 501-557.

  29. References, III • SigurssonHalldrrmann. 2008. Conditions on argument drop - in press. • SigurssonHalldrrmann. 2008a.The Case of PRO //Natural language and linguistic Theory - in press. • Stabler, E.P.1997. Derivational minimalism. In Christian Retore, ed., Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. Springer, p. 68–95. • Zimmerling A. 2007. Zero Lexemes and Derived Sentence Patterns. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sondetrband 69. • Zimmerling A. 2008. Dative Subjects and Semi-Expletive Pronouns in Russian // Formal Description of the Slavic Languages, FdSL 7 / U.Junghanns, L.Szucsic, G.Zybatow (eds) – in press.

  30. References, IV • Zubáty J.1954. Studie a lnky, II. Praha. • Мельчук И.А. 1995. Русский язык в модели Смысл  Текст. Москва-Вена: Языки русской культуры. (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 39). • Циммерлинг А.В. 2002.Типологический синтаксис скандинавских языков. Москва. Циммерлинг А.В. 2008. Нулевые лексемы в синтаксисе: догматика и типология. Acta linguistica Petropolitana IV, part 2. Sankt-Petersburg, 2008, 226-244.

  31. References, V • Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP, 1995. • Lindseth, Martina. 1998. Null-subject properties of Slavic languages: with special reference to Russian, Czech and Sorbian. Vol. 361. Műnchen, Sagner. • Meyer, Roland. 2007. The history of pro drop in Russian. SLS-2. Berlin. 25-27.08.2007. • Műller, G. 2005. Pro-drop and impoverishment. Ms. University of Leipzig. • Zalizniak, Andrej A. 2008. Drevnerusskie enklitiki. Moscow

  32. Acknowlegments • Research is a part of the project “The typology of syntactic constraints” funded by the Russian Foundation for Humanities (RGNF 09-04-00297a) whose support is gratefully acknowledged.

More Related