Register variation, truncation, and subject omission in English and in French

Abstract

This paper concerns the null subject phenomenon attested in abbreviated written registers in English and in French (diaries, instructions) and in informal spoken English. Neither a pro drop analysis nor a topic drop analysis will account for the incompatibility of the English null subjects with w/i-preposing and with embedded contexts. Rizzi's (1994) analysis for null subjects in child production is adopted here in a slightly modified form. Like the early null subject, the (adult) null subject in abbreviated registers is an antecedentless empty category in the A-specifier of the root. Null subjects depend on the truncation of CP, which turns the specifier of IP into the highest specifier of the clause. The paper explores apparent noninitial null subjects, i.e. null subjects co-occurring with preposed adjuncts (though not arguments) and shows that these can be accounted for in terms of partial truncation within an articulated CP. The null subject is an antecedentless empty category in the (A-)specifier of an AGRprojection dominating the Topic Projection. The incompatibility with Wi-preposing and with argument preposing is accounted for. In a more speculative vein I also consider the deletion of be in the abbreviated styles, which I claim can also be analysed in terms of truncation. Introduction Aim and scope of the paperLanguages differ with respect to whether the pronominal subject in a finite clause may be omitted or not. This parametric variation, referred to as the pro drop parameter, is illustrated in (1): (1) (a) Italian (Io) Compro un giornale.(I) buy a newspaper (b) English *(I) buy a newspaper (c) French *(Je) achete un journal Italian is a pro drop language: it allows a pronominal subject of a finite clause to be nonovert (la). English and French are not pro drop languages: the pronominal 1 Earlier versions of this paper were presented on a number of occasions: the Graduate Students

Pragmatically motivated null subjects in English: A relevance theory perspective

“…Haegeman (1990b;1997) and Haegeman and Ihsane (2001) discuss examples from French, and Haegeman (1990b) provides examples from Dutch, German and Danish.…”

“…Given the significance for syntactic theory of null subject sentences in a non-null subject language, it is perhaps not surprising that most existing analyses have been heavily syntax oriented (Haegeman, 1990a(Haegeman, , 1990b(Haegeman, , 1997(Haegeman, , 2000Rizzi, 1994;Bromberg and Wexler, 1995;Horsey, 1998;Haegeman & Ihsane, 1999;2001;Haegeman and Gueron, 1999). However, all of the existing syntactic treatments are united by the acknowledgement that the interpretation and acceptability of null subject utterances varies considerably from situation to situation.…”

“…(Schmerling, 1972:582) (18) Isn't much we can do about it. (Thrasher, 1977:44) (19) Seems weird to have been so close during the year... (Fielding, 1996:296) Rizzi (1994), Haegeman (1997), and Haegeman and Gueron (1999) assume that null subjects are restricted to root clauses, and their syntactic analyses are based on this assumption. However, Ihsane (1999, 2001) discuss data which cast doubt on the validity of this assumption.…”

VP-Ellipsis Is Not Licensed by VP-Topicalization

“…See Thrasher (1977); Haegeman (1997Haegeman ( , 2002Haegeman ( , 2008 and Ihsane (1999, 2002) for extensive discussion and analyses. …”

The syntax of registers: Diary subject omission and the privilege of the root

“…Similarly in (8c), it is contextually clear that the subject of the relative where clause is the diary writer (cf. for early discussion: Haegeman (1990Haegeman ( , 1997. While plausibly the first overt pronoun he in (8e) might not be fully recoverable, the second occurrence is fully recoverable and yet it cannot be omitted.…”