slides. - web hosting at umass amherst - university of

.

......

Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister: aunifiedanalysis

AndrewWeir

[email protected]

RegisterVariationandSyntacticTheoryworkshopInternationalCongressofLinguistsUniversityofGeneva, 26July2013

[email protected]

ConstraintsonobjectdropTherelevanceofnullarticles

SubjectdropFurtherworkandconclusion

.. Introduction

Focusofthistalk: object(pronoun)dropin‘abbreviatedEnglish’/’reducedwrittenregister’(RWR)

Usuallydiscussedforrecipes(Haegeman1987a,b,Massam&Roberge1989,Massam1992):

(1) Cutchickenintosmallpieces. Bake ∅ for20minutes.

Butinprinciplepossibleinnon-recipecontextsinRWR,e.g.diaries

(2) Receivedcreditcardbillinmailtoday. Willshred ∅ later.

AndrewWeir Objectdropandarticledropinreducedwrittenregister



.. Questionsaboutobjectdrop

WhatlicensesobjectdropinRWR,butnotstandardEnglish?

Whatistherelation, ifany, betweensubjectdropandobjectdropinRWR?

CanobjectdropbeunderstoodasaconsequenceofindependentlymotivatedassumptionsaboutRWR?(Myanswer: yes, it’saconsequenceofarticledrop.)




.. Roadmapofthetalk

Grammaticalconstraintsonobjectdrop; comparisonwithsubjectdrop

NullarticlesinRWR

Pronoundropasaconsequenceofnullarticles(Tomioka2003)

Speculationsondifferenceswithsubjectdrop




.. Subjectdropvs. objectdrop

PronounsseemtodropquitefreelyinRWR,bothsubjectandobjectpronouns

(3) ∅ Receivedcreditcardbillinmailtoday. ∅Will ∅ shredlater.

Isthisacaseofgeneral/‘radical’pronoundrop?

No; theconstraintsonsubjectpronoundropandobjectpronoundroparedifferent





Subjectdropcanbeanyperson.

(4) a. ∅ Wenttogymtoday. (1p)b. (commentsonastudent’sessay)

∅ Don’tneedtogointosomuchdetailhere. (2p)c. ∅ SawBilltoday. ∅ Didn’tlookveryhappy. (3p)

Objectdropcanonlybethirdperson.

(5) a. ∅ Receivedcreditcardbillinmailtoday.Willshred ∅ later. (3p)

b. Don’tsendmeanymoreemails. *Willfire ∅ . (*2p)c. Don’twanttotalktomyboss. *Wouldfire ∅ . (*1p)

Existinganalysesofobjectdropastopicdrop(Haegeman1987b)orasatypeofmiddleconstruction(Massam1992)don’tobviouslycapturethisasymmetry, giventhatfirst-andsecond-personscanbetopics/subjectsofmiddles.





Droppedsubjectscanbeexpletives.

(6) a. ∅ Rainedalldayyesterday.b. ∅ Seemstobeaproblemwiththeengine.

Droppedobjectscan’tbeexpletives.

(7) a. Considered??(it)necessarytocallthedoctor.b. Proved??(it)toMarytobenecessarytocallthedoctor.

(afterRunner2000)





A curiousconstraintonobjectdrop: itcan’tco-occurwithanovertsubjectpronoun(Massam&Roberge1989,Massam1992)

(8) Receivedcreditcardbillinmailtoday.a. ∅ Willshred ∅ later.b. *I willshred ∅ later.

SubjectsassuchareOK (contratheabovereferences); it’sjustpronouns.

(9) a. Receivedcreditcardbillinmailtoday.?Billwillshred ∅ later.

b. Staffwillreplenish ∅ daily.(labelonahotelbottleofwater)

Thisispresumablywhydroppedobjectsaresocommoninrecipes:imperativesnormallyhavecovertsubjects(viz. Massam1992)




.. Aninterestingparallel

Justasobjectpronounscan’tbedroppedtotheexclusionofsubjectpronouns, objectarticlescan’tbedroppedtotheexclusionofsubjectarticles(Mårdh1980,Stowell1991,Weir2013)

(10) a. MAN BITES DOGb. MAN BITES A DOGc. *A MAN BITES DOG

(11) a. Bossbroughtinbrokenlaptoptoday.b. Bossbroughtinabrokenlaptoptoday.c. Thebossbroughtin?*(a)brokenlaptoptoday.




.. Objectdrop=articledrop?

Thefactthatbothpronoundropandarticledropshowasubject-objectasymmetrysuggestthatwemighttrytounifythem

Myproposal: EnglishRWR containsanunpronouncedarticle, andit’sthisfactthatallowsthird-personobjectstogounpronounced

ProposalbasedonTomioka2003’sanalysisofpronoundropinJapanese, andHaegeman2004, whonotesanapparentcorrelationinEnglish-acquiringchildrenbetweenobjectdropandarticledrop




.. ThenullarticleinRWR

I arguethatarticle‘drop’inRWR isnotamatterofdroppingorelidingStandardEnglish a/the

Rather, I arguethatRWR possessesasilentarticle, whichstandardEnglishdoesnotpossess

Thisnullarticleintroducesavariableoverchoicefunctions;semantically, itcombineswithapredicateandreturnsanentitywhichsatisfiesthepredicate.

(12) a. J∅DK = f⟨et,e⟩b. J∅D dogK = f(dog)

(i.e. denotesamemberofthesetofdogs)




.. ThenullarticleinRWR

Evidenceforachoice-functionalsemanticsforthenullarticle(Weir2013): NPswithoutarticlesinRWR donothavethefullrangeofinterpretationsthatStandardEnglishindefinitesdo

Theyonlyhavespecificindefinitereadings

Forexample, theycannotgetgenericinterpretationsorbeboundbyadverbsofquantification

(13) a. Inmyday, (a/#∅ )gentlemanwouldn’tdosuchathing.b. ∅ Studentisusuallylatetomyclass.

(∃ student > usually, *usually > ∃ student)

Canthepresenceofthisnullarticlederiveobjectdrop?




.. Thestructureof3ppronouns

I assume, following(andsomewhatsyncretizing)Postal1969,Elbourne2005,Kratzer2009,Johnson2012, thatthird-personpronounsaredeterminerscombinedwithnullnouns(orperhapssimplywithgender ϕ-features), asbelow.

(14)

DP

D

the

NP

MAN

DP

D

the

NP

WOMAN

DP

D

the

NP

THING

he, she, it arehowthedeterminer the ispronouncedinconstructionwiththenullnounsMAN,WOMAN,THING.




.. Interactionwithnullarticles

IfEnglishRWR hasanullarticle, thenthebelowstructureispredictedtobepossible.

(15) DP

D

∅D

NP

MAN

BoththearticleandtheNP arenull, sothisDP hasnophoneticcontent.

Moreconcretely: thereisamorphologicalrulethatspellsoutthelexicalitem the as he inthecontextin (15), butthatruledoesn’tapplytothenullarticle ∅D.EssentiallyTomioka2003’sproposalforJapanesepro-drop: nullarticleplusNP ellipsis/non-pronunciation




.. Thestructureof1p/2ppronouns

Whydoonly3pobjectpronounsdrop?

Thereisevidencethat1p/2ppronounsareconstructeddifferentlyfrom3ppronouns

Kratzer2009pointsout, followingSiewierska2004, thattypologically, manylanguageslack3ppronouns(usingdemonstrativesordefinitedescriptions), butfewlack1p/2ppronouns

Kratzer’sanalysis: 1p/2ppronounsaredirectlyreferentialexpressions, ‘speaker’and‘hearer’, notcovertdefinitedescriptions

(16)

DP

D

[1p]

= I DP

D

[2p]

= you




.. The3p–1/2pasymmetry

If3ppronounsaredeterminers+nullnouns(and1/2ppronounsarenot), thenwederivethe3p–1/2pasymmetryinnullobjects

(17) a. ∅ Receivedcreditcardbillinmailtoday.Willshred ∅ later. (3p)

b. Don’ttalktome. *Willfire ∅ . (*2p)c. Don’twanttotalktomyboss. *Wouldfire ∅ . (*1p)

In (17a), thedroppedobjectisnullarticle+nullnounTHING.Thisreceivesazerospellout

Buttherules‘spellout[1p, acc]as me’and‘spellout[2p, acc]asyou’arestillactive

Thenullarticleisnotinvolvedin1p/2pobjectpronouns, sotheyarestillspelledouteveninRWR




.. Lackofexpletivedrop

Recallthatexpletivescouldnotbedroppedinobjectposition:

(18) a. Considered??(it)necessarytocallthedoctor.b. Proved??(it)toMarytobenecessarytocallthedoctor.

Thisfollowsfromanull-articleviewofobjectdrop

Whatevertheinternalstructureofexpletive it is, itpresumablyisn’t[the/∅D THING];itdoesn’trefertoanentityinthedomainofthings(itdoesn’treferatall)

Plausibly, expletivepronounsaredifferentlexicalitemsfrompersonalpronouns, andaren’tbuiltupfromadeterminerplusnullnoun.

ThepresenceofanullarticleinRWR thereforehasnoeffectonthepronunciationofexpletiveobjects.




.. Objectdropcomesfromnullarticle

ThecurrentproposalissimplythatRWR containsanullarticlethatstandardEnglishdoesn’thave

Thatlexicaldifferenceallowsustoderivetheabilitytodropthird-personobjectpronouns(butnotfirst-orsecond-personpronounsorexpletives)

A smalllexicaldifferenceisallthatisneededtoaccountforbotharticledropandobjectpronoundropinRWR.




.. Wheredoessubjectdropcomefrom?

Recallthatsubjectpronoundropcouldbeanyperson, andexpletivescouldbedropped

(19) a. ∅ Wenttogymtoday. (1p)b. (commentsonastudent’sessay)

∅ Don’tneedtogointosomuchdetailhere. (2p)c. ∅ SawBilltoday. ∅ Didn’tlookveryhappy. (3p)d. Yesterday ∅ rainedallday. (expl.)

Subjectpronoundropdoesn’tseemamenabletothesameanalysisasobjectpronoundrop




.. Article/objectdropparallelism

Wealsowanttounderstandwhythefollowingparallelismexists:

(20) a. ∅ Manbitesadogb. *A manbites ∅ dog

(21) (Receivedcreditcardbillinthemailtoday:)a. ∅ Willshreditlater.b. *I willshred ∅ later.




.. Subject/objectasymmetry

Intuitionseemstobe: (root)subjectsarespecial

Descriptivegeneralizationseemstobe: rootsubjectsinRWR mustnotcontainanyovertmaterialofcategoryD (nodeterminers, nopronouns)

I thinkthisisultimatelyderivablefromaformofthe‘truncation’accountofRWR (Rizzi1994,Haegeman1997,Rizzi2006,Haegeman2007)

Spaceprecludesadiscussionhere(butyoucanaskmeinthequestionperiodand/orseeWeir2012,2013)




.. NoDsinsubjectposition

Sentenceslike*A manbites ∅ dog or*I willshred ∅ later arebannedfromRWR,notbecauseofthedroppedobjectpronoun/determinerassuch, butbecausetheycontainDsinrootsubjectposition, whichisbarredinRWR.

*I willshred ∅ later isbadbecauseitinappropriatelymixesalexicalitemonlyfoundinRNR (∅D, insidetheobjectpronoun)withanovertsubjectpronoun.

Whenyouseeasentencelike I willshreditlater inadiary(etc.),thisrepresents‘code-switching’intothestandardregister.




.. Somequestionsforfurtherwork

Whyareexampleslikethebelowbad? (Haegeman1987a,b,Massam&Roberge1989)

(22) a. ??Addthepeanutoilto ∅ .b. ??Takefoil. Covercookieswith ∅ immediately.c. ??Givenofoodto ∅ .d. ??Takepanofoilandplacefishinto ∅ .

It’snotageneralproblemaboutprepositions:

(23) a. Donotplayinoraround ∅ . (Haegeman1987b)b. Greatseller, ∅ wouldbuyfrom ∅ again.c. Rubbishgame. Onlyeverplayedwith ∅ once.d. ?Donotlookat ∅ withoutprotectiveglasses.

MaybetheV+P combinationsin (23)canbereanalysedandtheonesin (22)can’t; butit’snotobviousthatthatshouldmakeadifferenceonthecurrentproposal.




.. Somequestionsforfurtherwork

Doesthepresenceofanovertobjectbeforethedroppedonemakeadifference? Intuitionsnotveryclear:

(24) (?)Greatseller, ∅ wouldbuy games from ∅ again

(24)can’tbereanalysed(*Hewasboughtgamesfrom), butitsoundsreasonable(tome)

Taskforfuturework: regimenttheintuitionsaboutthisdata




.. Conclusion

ObjectdropinEnglish‘reducedwrittenregister’canbeaccountedforbytheexistenceofanullarticle

ExtendsTomioka’sanalysisofJapanesepro-droptoEnglishRWR

Accountsforthethird-personpropertiesofobjectdrop




Thanksto:

LilianeHaegeman, KyleJohnson, EllenWoolford, andaudiencesatECO52012andLSA 2013forcommentsonthisprojectatvariousstages;

theUniversityofMassachusettsAmherstGraduateSchoolforthemoney;

youforlistening!




.. References I

Beghelli, Filippo&TimStowell.1997. Distributivityandnegation: thesyntaxof each and every. InAnnaSzabolcsi(ed.), WaysofScopeTaking, 71–107.Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Belletti, Adriana.2001. Inversionasfocalization. InA. Hulk&J.-Y.Pollock(eds.), SubjectinversioninRomanceandthetheoryofUniversalGrammar, 60–90.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.

Butler, Jonny.2004. Phasestructure, phrasestructure, andquantification. UniversityofYorkdissertation.

Elbourne, Paul D.2005. Situationsandindividuals. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Haegeman, Liliane.1987a. ComplementellipsisinEnglish: orhowtocookwithoutobjects. InA.M.Simon-Vandenbergen(ed.), StudiesinHonourofRenéDerolez, 248–261.Ghent: SeminarievoorEngelseenOud-GermaanseTaalkundeR.U.G.




.. References II

Haegeman, Liliane.1987b. RegistervariationinEnglish: sometheoreticalimplications. JournalofEnglishLinguistics 20.230–48.

Haegeman, Liliane.1997. Registervariation, truncation, andsubjectomissioninEnglishandinFrench. EnglishLanguageandLinguistics1(2).233–70.

Haegeman, Liliane.2004. Notesonperipheralgrammarsandnullsubjectsontheperiphery. PresentationattheLinguisticsAssociationofGreatBritainAnnualMeeting.

Haegeman, Liliane.2007. Subjectomissioninpresent-daywrittenEnglish: Onthetheoreticalrelevanceofperipheraldata. Rivistadigrammaticagenerativa 32.91–124.

Johnson, Kyle.2012. Pronounsvs. definitedescriptions. Ms.UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst. http://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/Pronouns.pdf.


http://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/Pronouns.pdf

http://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/Pronouns.pdf



.. References III

Kratzer, Angelika.2005. Indefinitesandtheoperatorstheydependon:FromJapanesetoSalish. InGregory N.Carlson&Francis J.Pelletier(eds.), Referenceandquantification: TheParteeeffect, 113–42.CSLIPublications.

Kratzer, Angelika.2009. Makingapronoun: Fakeindexicalsaswindowsintothepropertiesofpronouns. LinguisticInquiry 40(2).187–237.

Kratzer, Angelika&JunkoShimoyama.2002. Indeterminatepronouns:theviewfromJapanese. InYukioOtsu(ed.), Proceedingsofthe3rdTokyoconferenceonpsycholinguistics, 1–25.Tokyo: HituziSyobo.

Mårdh, Ingrid.1980. Headlinese: OnthegrammarofEnglishfrontpageheadlines. Malmö: CWK Gleerup.

Massam, Diane.1992. Nullobjectsandnon-thematicsubjects. JournalofLinguistics 28.115–37.




.. References IV

Massam, Diane&YvesRoberge.1989. RecipecontextnullobjectsinEnglish. LinguisticInquiry 20(1).134–9.

Postal, Paul M.1969. Onso-called‘pronouns’inEnglish. InD. Reibel&S. Schane(eds.), ModernstudiesinEnglish, 201–44.EnglewoodCliffs, NewJersey: Prentice-Hall.

Rizzi, Luigi.1994. Earlynullsubjectsandrootnullsubjects. InT. Hoekstra&B. Schwarz(eds.), Languageacquisitionstudiesingenerativegrammar, 151–77.Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Rizzi, Luigi.1997. Thefinestructureoftheleftperiphery. InLilianeHaegeman(ed.), Elementsofgrammar: handbookofgenerativesyntax, 281–337.Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Rizzi, Luigi.2006. Grammatically-basedtarget-inconsistenciesinchildlanguage. InK.U.Deen, J. Nomura, B. Schulz&B.D.Schwartz(eds.),TheProceedingsoftheInauguralConferenceonGenerativeApproachestoLanguageAcquisition, UConn/MIT WorkingPapersinLinguistics.




.. References V

Runner, Jeffrey T.2000. TheExternalObjectHypothesisandthecaseofobjectexpletives. InK. M.Crosswhite&J. S.Magnuson(eds.),UniversityofRochesterworkingpapersinthelanguagesciences,vol. 12, 257–69.

Siewierska, Anna.2004. Person. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann.2004. ThesyntaxofPerson, Tense, andspeechfeatures. ItalianJournalofLinguistics/RivistadiLinguistica 16.219–51.

Stowell, Tim.1991. EmptyheadsinabbreviatedEnglish. GLOWabstract.

Tomioka, Satoshi.2003. ThesemanticsofJapanesenullpronounsanditscross-linguisticimplications. InKerstinSchwabe&SusanneWinkler(eds.), Theinterfaces: derivingandinterpretingomittedstructures, 321–39.Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.




.. References VI

Weir, Andrew.2012. Articledropinheadlines: failureofCP-levelAgree. Ms.UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst. http://people.umass.edu/aweir/weir-headlines-cp-agree.pdf.

Weir, Andrew.2013. ArticledropinheadlinesandtruncationofCP.LinguisticsSocietyofAmericaAnnualMeetingExtendedAbstracts.http://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/3540-6845-1-SM.pdf.


http://people.umass.edu/aweir/weir-headlines-cp-agree.pdf

http://people.umass.edu/aweir/weir-headlines-cp-agree.pdf

http://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/3540-6845-1-SM.pdf

http://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/3540-6845-1-SM.pdf



.. Appendix

Whyarerootsubjectsspecial? A sketchofanidea(formoredetails, seeWeir2013):

ImaginethatovertD headscontainuninterpretablefeatureswhichmustbecheckedbyhigher, interpretablefeatures

Perhaps(1p/2p)pronounsneedtochecktheirpersonfeaturesagainstSpeaker/Hearerprojections(Sigurðsson2004); perhapsdeterminersneedtocheckfeaturesagainsthigherquantificationalprojections(Beghelli&Stowell1997,Kratzer&Shimoyama2002,Kratzer2005)

CovertDsdon’thavethesefeaturestocheck(orhaveinterpretablefeatures). (Orperhapsequivalently: overtdeterminersaremorphologicalreflexesofAgreement, Kratzer2005; noAgreement, noovertdeterminer.)




.. Checkingfeatures

Assumethattheinterpretablefeaturesarehostedin‘peripheries’ofCP (Beghelli&Stowell1997,Rizzi1997)andofv/VP (Belletti2001,Butler2004a.o.), andenterintoanAgreerelationwiththeiruninterpretablecounterparts

I illustratewithdeterminers(inStandardEnglish):




.. Checkingfeatures

(25) RefP

Ref

[i indef]

…

TP

DP

D

a[u indef]

NP

man

TP

T RefP

Ref

[i indef]

…

VP

V

bit

DP

D

a[u indef]

NP

dog




.. Truncation

Proposalintheliterature: RWR truncates theleftperiphery(Rizzi1994,Haegeman1997,Rizzi2006,Haegeman2007)

I assumetheoriginalanalysisoftruncationasliteralnon-projectionoftheleft-peripheralprojections(ratherthanthephase/spelloutbasedapproachofRizzi2006,Haegeman2007)

ButiftheCP-levelquantificational/person-anchoringprojectionsaretruncated/notprojected, theycannotAgreewithDsinsubjectsandchecktheiruninterpretablefeatures

CovertDsinsubjectsarefine, becausetheydonothaveuninterpretablefeaturestocheck.

AndbothovertandcovertDsinobjectsarefine, becauseovertobjectDscanalwayschecktheirfeaturesagainsttheprojectionsinthevP periphery.




.. Truncation=noDsinsubjectposition

(26) TP

DP

D

a[u indef]

NP

man

TP

T …

RefP

Ref[i indef]

VP

V

bites

DP

D

a[u indef]

NP

dog

The a insubjectpositioncan’thaveitsuninterpretablefeaturechecked, sothederivationcrashes.




.. Truncation=noDsinsubjectposition

(27) TP

DP

D

∅

NP

man

TP

T …

RefP

Ref[i indef]

VP

V

bites

DP

D

a[u indef]

NP

dog

CovertD inthesubjectpositionhasnouninterpretablefeatures, sodoesnotpromptacrash.


slides. - web hosting at umass amherst - university of

Documents