Presentation on theme: "1 On-Usa Phimsawat Burapha University Anders Holmberg Newcastle University."— Presentation transcript:
1 On-Usa Phimsawat Burapha University Anders Holmberg Newcastle University
2 (1)One mustn’t dance here. (2)They speak lots of different languages in India. In some languages these pronouns can be, or must be, null. (3)Her má ekki dansa.[Icelandic] here may not dance ’One must not dance here.’ (4)hàak wáicay khɔn cà cɔncay eeŋ[Thai] if trust person FUT regret by-oneself ‘If one trusts acquaintances one will regret it later ’ = ‘People in general mustn’t dance here.’ = ‘People in general in India speak lots of different languages.’
3 Some languages allow null (subject) pronouns, other languages don’t. (1)(Io) parlo italiano.[Italian] I speak.1SG Italian ‘I speak Italian.’ (2)*(I) speak Italian.[English] Languages with rich agreement are pro-drop languages. Italian: io parl-o, tu parl-i, lui parl-a, noi parl-iamo,... I speak you speak he speaks we speak But some languages which have no agreement are pro-drop languages. Thai: phuut phaasaathin daaj speak dialect able ‘I can speak a dialect’.
4 Languages that have rich agreement can have null pronouns. Languages that have no agreement can have null pronouns. Languages that have poor agreement cannot have null pronouns. We will show that Huang was right. But his explanation of the generalization is not quite right. Huang was talking about personal pronouns. Null impersonal pronouns don’t fall under Huang’s generalization: Some languages with rich agreement don’t allow null ‘one’. *(Si) lavora sempre troppo.[Italian] one works always too.much ‘One always works too much.’ Languages with no agreement have null ‘one’, but don’t allow certain other kinds of null impersonal pronouns.
5 The topic of this talk: The syntax of impersonal pronouns in languages with agreement and languages without agreement, consequences for the theory of pronouns, the theory of agreement. What principles determine when a pronoun must be pronounced, and when it can be, or must be left silent? How do we explain the variation we find among languages?
6 Personal: I, you, he/she/it, we, you(PL), they Refer to a specific individual or group. The 3 rd person pronouns typically have an antecedent. I met John and Mary yesterday. They were in a good mood. Impersonal: Do not refer to a specific individual or group. Typically do not have an antecedent. Two classes of impersonal pronouns: Purely impersonal: one (in English) One mustn’t dance here. Pronouns that can be personal or impersonal: They speak lots of languages in India. We eat too much meat in the UK. You’re not allowed to smoke here.
7 Generic reading (‘people in general’): One/you can never be too careful. They speak lots of languages in India. Arbitrary reading (‘somebody’, ‘some people’): They’ve broken into my car. = ‘Some unspecified person or persons have broken into my car.’ Generic inclusive reading: One has to pay more for organic products. ‘People in general, including the speaker and the addressee, must pay more for organic products.’ Generic exclusive reading: They have dinner at 8 in France. ‘People in general, not including the speaker and the addressee, have dinner at 8 in France.’
Thai is a ‘radical pro-drop language’, with highly frequent use of null pronouns/arguments without involvement of agreement morphology. An example of radical pro-drop in Thai can be found in the following exchange: (5) A: e ha ̌ a e cəə yaŋ (you) seek (it ) find Q ‘Have you found it?’ B: e yaŋ ha ̌ a e mày cəə e mày rúu e sày e wa ̂ y thi ̂ ina ̌ y (I) still search (it) NEG find (I) NEG know (I) put (it) PERF where ‘I still can’t find it. I don’t know where I put it.’ In Thai, just as in English, impersonal pronominal meanings can be expressed through the use of personal pronouns. 8 Context: B has been searching for a necklace, which A knows, and they meet a little later
Thai does not have any overt inclusive generic pronoun (corresponding to English one). To express generic inclusive reading Spell-out the argument as null. (6) ba ̂ anm ʉ aŋ cà na ̂ ayùu Ø t ɔ̂ ŋ ch ʉ̂ ay ráksàa khwaamsààad city FUT liveable must help keep cleanliness ‘The city will be liveable if one keeps it clean.’ 9
The noun meaning ‘people’ and the overt indeterminate pronoun khraykhray ‘who’ only have an exclusive reading: (7) ba ̂ anm ʉ aŋ cà na ̂ ayùu kh ɔ n/ #khraykhray t ɔ̂ ŋ ch ʉ̂ ay ráksa ̌ a city FUT liveable people/ who must help keep khwaamsààad cleanliness ‘The city will be liveable if people/ they keep it clean.’ 10
The pronoun khraykhray is also degraded in object position, with an intended generic inclusive reading: (8) kaankoohòk sa ̌ ama ̂ at nam ??khraykhray paysùu kaansi ̌ a ch ʉ̂ʉ si ̌ aŋ lie can bring who DIR harm reputation ‘Lies can harm ??one’s reputation.’ The 2 nd person singular pronoun khun ‘you’ cannot be used as a generic pronoun. Conclusion: There is no overt inclusive generic pronoun in Thai. 11
The exclusive generic pronoun (corresponding to English they) can either be overt or null. (9) bon k ɔ ̀ níi sùanyài (kha ̌ w) plùuk chaa kha ̌ ay on island DEM mostly they grow tea sell ‘On this island they grow and sell tea.’ The quasi-inclusive generic pronoun (corresponding to English we) must be overt. (10) *(raw) kin cee nay d ʉ an tùlaakh ɔ m we have vegetarian food in month October ‘We have vegetarian food in October.’ 12
A personal pronoun can be null if it has a local enough antecedent (Phimsawat 2011). The null pronoun can be identified: (a) by control (into finite clauses) (11) A: ca ̂ wtùub 1 ha ̌ ay pay s ɔ̌ɔ ŋ wan lέεw Ajax disappear DIR two day PERF ‘My dog Ajax has been gone for two days!’ B: cim 2 b ɔ ̀ ɔ k waa (kha ̌ w 2 ) cəə man 1 lέεw. Jim say COMP he find it PERF ‘Jim said that he has found it.’ 13
(b) via a topic chain: (12) lu ̂ uksa ̌ aw 1 (kh ɔ̌ɔ ŋ) ceen 2 kèŋ khamnuan khruu 3 b ɔ ̀ ɔ k wa ̂ a (*kha ̌ w 1 ) daughter of Jane good at calculation teacher say COMP she s ɔ ̀ ɔ b le ̂ ek da ̂ y khánεεn súuŋsùd exam maths get mark highest ‘Jane’s daughter is good at calculations. The teacher said that she got top marks for maths.’ (c) if it has the speaker as antecedent (or the addressee): (13) Ø ráb thàay pha ̂ ab n ɔ ̀ ɔ k sàtha ̌ anthi ̂ i offer shoot photo out place ‘I/ *one/ *(s)he offer on-location photo shoot.’ 14
15 Personal pronouns: Can be null, and usually are, if they have a close enough antecedent. The generic inclusive pronoun (‘one’): Must be null. The generic exclusive pronoun (‘they’): Can be overt or null. The generic quasi-inclusive pronoun (‘we’): Must be overt. How can we explain this? Surprising: In a radical pro-drop language like Thai, there are some pronouns that must be overt.
16 Personal pronouns: Can be null, and usually are, if they have a close enough antecedent. (1)La Maria ti aspetta. Ø ha bevuto il caffé. ’Maria is waiting for you. She has drunk the coffee.’ The generic inclusive pronoun (‘one’): Must not be null. (2)Si lavora sempre troppo. ‘One always works too hard.’ The generic exclusive pronoun (‘they’): Must be null. (3) Ø parlano molte lingue in India. ‘They speak many languages in India.’ The generic quasi-inclusive pronoun (‘we’): Can be, or even must be, null. (4) Secondo il primo ministro, Ø dobbiamo essere píu produttivi. ’According to the PM, we need to be more productive.’ The crucial difference between Thai and Italian is agreement: Italian has rich agreement, Thai has no agreement. How does this work? Our theory involves the internal structure of pronouns.
Generic pronouns have no antecedent. For the exclusive and quasi- inclusive pronouns this explains, in part, why they must be overt. How come the inclusive pronoun is null, though? We propose that there are no inherent or lexical differences between null pronouns in Thai. They are all made up of the features unvalued referential and nominal: [uR, N]. [uR] is assumed to be the head of [uR,N], the way D is taken to be the head of [D NP]. These features are sufficient for the category to function as an argument, capable of receiving a θ-role. 17
18 Null pronounsOvert pronouns uRP DP uR N D P N = person, number, gender D = a variable over referential indices (1, 2,... n)
19 The structure of the pronoun kha ̌ w ‘he’ in (1) is (2). (1)kha ̌ w 1 cəə ca ̂ wtùub 2 lέεw he find Ajax PERF ‘He has found Ajax.’ (2)1P 1 P [3,SG,M] N 1 is the index of the person we are talking about. the -features [3,SG,M] define that person and determine the form (the pronunciation) of the pronoun.
20 The structure of the null pronoun in (3) is (4), before it inherits, or copies, the index of the antecedent. (3)cim 1 b ɔ ̀ ɔ k waa [Ø] cəə ca ̂ wtùub 2 lέεw Jim say COMP find Ajax PERF ‘Jim said that he has found Ajax’ (4)uRP uR N After it inherits (or copies) the index of the antecedent, it has the structure (5): (5)1P 1 N It has no features, so it can’t be pronounced. There is nothing to pronounce. But it has an interpretation: The same interpretation as the antecedent: 1.
21 The null inclusive generic pronoun has the same structure, initially. uRP uR N In this case the interpretation comes from a generic operator GEN x in spec of CP, which is similar to an adverb meaning ‘generally’. (Moltmann 2006) hàak [Ø] wáicay kh ɔ n cà [Ø] c ɔ ncay eeŋ[Thai] if trust person FUT regret by-oneself ‘If one trusts acquaintances one will regret it later ’ CP GEN x C’ C IP GEN x I’ GEN x N I VP The meaning is ‘It is generally true of x that if x trusts acquaintances x will regret it later.’
22 The generic inclusive pronoun (‘one’): Must be null. ba ̂ anm ʉ aŋ cà na ̂ ayùu Ø t ɔ̂ ŋ ch ʉ̂ ay ráksa ̌ a khwaamsààad city FUT liveable must help keep cleanliness ‘The city will be liveable if one keeps it clean.’ The generic exclusive pronoun (‘they’): Can be overt or null. bon k ɔ ̀ níi sùanyài (kha ̌ w) plùuk chaa kha ̌ ay on island DEM mostly they grow tea sell ‘On this island they grow and sell tea.’ The generic quasi-inclusive pronoun (‘we’): Must be overt. *(raw) kin cee nay d ʉ an tùlaakh ɔ m we have vegetarian food in month October ‘We have vegetarian food in October.’ Explanation: The inclusive pronoun is null, because it has no -features. There is nothing to pronounce. It has inclusive reading because it has no -features. It has no features restricting the interpretation, so it gets the most general reading, which is the inclusive one: ‘me, you, and everybody else’.
23 The quasi-inclusive pronoun has the features [1 st person,PL]. CP GENx C’ C IP I GENx I VP GENx [1,PL] N The reading is ‘It is generally true of x, where x is [1,PL], that x has vegetarian food in October.’ And because it has -features, it cannot be null. If they are not pronounced, the meaning is not expressed. If not pronounced, the interpretation will be inclusive (‘one’), not quasi- inclusive (‘we’).
24 In the case of the generic exclusive pronoun (‘they’) it typically co-occurs with a locative adverbial, and unlike other generic pronouns, it can be either overt or null. bon k ɔ ̀ níi sùanyài (kha ̌ w) plùuk chaa kha ̌ ay on island DEM mostly they grow tea sell ‘On this island they grow and sell tea.’ When overt, we assume that such a pronoun is bound by a generic operator. It has to be overt because it has -features: [3,PL]. When null, we claim that the locative comes with a concealed argument ‘people’ (Brody 2011, Phimsawat 2011): (kh ɔ n 1 ) bon k ɔ ̀ níi sùanyài Ø 1 plùuk chaa kha ̌ ay people on island DEM mostly grow tea sell ‘On this island they mostly grow and sell tea.’ This phrase behaves just like an antecedent; the null pronoun has an antecedent, which is 3 rd person plural. So the null pronoun is 3 rd person plural.
25 Null pronouns in Thai have no -features. Null personal pronouns get their interpretation by copying a referential index from an antecedent. Generic pronouns are bound by a generic operator in spec,CP. Null generic pronouns have no antecedent, but are bound by the generic operator. The null generic inclusive pronoun (‘one’) gets its generic interpretation from the generic operator, and its inclusive interpretation because it is unrestricted. The generic quasi-inclusive pronoun (‘we’) gets its interpretation from the generic operator and its own [1,PL] features. Having -features, it must be pronounced. The generic exclusive pronoun (‘they’) gets its interpretation from the generic operator and its own [3,PL] features. Having -features, it must be pronounced. Often there is another interpretation where the null pronoun has an antecedent, which is an implicit [3,PL] NP ‘people’. If a pronoun is a category with -features (person, number, gender), then Thai doesn’t have any null pronouns, only null nouns, used pronominally.
26 Thai is representative of ‘radical pro-drop languages’, i.e. languages which have pro-drop and no agreement (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.) Ha bevuto il caffé.[Italian] has.3.SG drunk the coffee ’He/she has drunk the coffee.’ Sherbet l-qeħwa.[Moroccan Arabic] drank.3.SG.F the-coffee ’She drank the coffee.’
27 Note: In agreement-pro-drop languages, too, a null personal pronoun must have an antecedent (Grimshaw &Samek-Lodovici 1998, Holmberg 2010a) La Maria i ti aspetto. Ø i ha bevuto il caffé. the Maria you waits has drunk the coffee ’Maria is waiting for you. She has finished her coffee.’
28 TP T VP PAST D VP uD 3 uPn SG uNr shrb l-qeħwa drink the-coffee the agreement features the subject pronoun (personal) How agreement works ( Holmberg 2010a, Roberts (2010a,b), Chomsky 2001 ) must be assigned a value
29 TP T VP PAST D VP D 3 3 SG SGshrb l-qeħwa the pronoun is now a copy of features in T How agreement works: after feature valuation When there are two copies of the same category in the same sentence, only one is pronounced. The copy that is not pronounced is the pronoun. T must be pronounced because it has other features, too (tense).
30 TP T VP sherbet PAST D VP D 3 3 SG SG shrb l-qeħwa In Arabic, the verb moves to T and gets spelled out with the -features. The subject, being a copy of T is not pronounced.
31 Two types of null pronouns: (a)Pronouns that have no -features. This is what we have in radical pro-drop languages. (b)Pronouns that are copies of a category in the local context, and are therefore not pronounced. This is what we have in pro-drop languages with agreement. Languages with agreement (= with unvalued -features in T) cannot have a -featureless subject pronoun, because in that case the unvalued features in T will get no value. A tree with unvalued features is not interpretable (= is not grammatical) (Chomsky 1995: ch. 4, 2001). So if there is agreement in T, the subject pronoun must have features. If T has -features matching all of the subject pronoun’s features, the subject pronoun can be null.
32 Huang 1989: Languages that have rich agreement can have null pronouns. Languages that have no agreement can have null pronouns. Languages that have poor agreement cannot have null pronouns. If T has unvalued -features (if there is agreement), the pronoun must have features valueing the unvalued -features of T. If there is no agreement (no -features in T), then the pronoun need not have any features --> It can be null, as long as it can be either coindexed with an antecedent, or interpreted as generic (by a generic operator). If agreement is rich, so that T has features matching all of the pronoun’s features, then the pronoun need not be pronounced, because it is a copy of T.
33 If there is only poor agreement: The subject pronoun must have some features; enough to value the poor agreement. But if T does not have -features matching all of the pronoun’s features, then the pronoun will not be a copy of T, and must be pronounced. TP T VP PST uNr D VP 3 PL Assume T only has a number feature
34 If there is only poor agreement: The subject pronoun must have some features; enough to value the poor agreement. But if T does not have -features matching all of the pronoun’s features, then the pronoun will not be a copy of T, and must be pronounced. TP T VP PST PL D VP 3 PL Not a copy of T. So it must be pronounced.
35 Huang 1989 explained Languages that have rich agreement can have null pronouns. Languages that have no agreement can have null pronouns. Languages that have poor agreement cannot have null pronouns. Generic pronouns do not follow this pattern. Some languages with rich agreement have a null pronoun ‘one’, a 3 rd person singular generic inclusive pronoun. Generic exclusive and quasi-inclusive pronouns in languages with no agreement cannot be null. Generic inclusive pronouns in languages with no agreement must be null. Other languages with rich agreement do not have a null ‘one’.
36 Icelandic, Finnish, Brazilian Portuguese, Marathi, Assamese,... null ‘one’: OK. null personal 3SG pronoun: Not OK. Her má Ø ekki dansa.[Icelandic] here may.3SG not dance Italian and Arabic (Greek, Persian, Spanish, Telugu,... ) null ‘one’: Not OK. null personal 3SG pronoun: OK. ‘One must not dance here.’ NOT ‘He must not dance here.’ Ø può controllare questo macchinario con una mano sola. can.3SG control this machine with one hand only ‘He can control this machine with one hand.’ NOT ‘One can control this machine with one hand.’
37 In some languages you can have both: ambiguity is tolerated. (1) Ah John waa hai Jinggwok Ø jiu gong Jingman [Cantonese] PRT John say in England need speak English ‘John says that one/he needs to speak English in England.’ (2) cim bɔ̂ɔk wâa Ø tham dii dâay dii [Thai] Jim say COMP do good get glory ‘Jim says that one/he does good deeds and gets glory [in return].’ What is the difference? Agreement!
38 TP T VP PST VP uD 3 3 SG SGshrb l-qehwa Impersonal pronouns have no D-feature. impersonal pronoun (no D) The unvalued uD-feature cannot be valued A tree with unvalued features is not interpretable/is not grammatical. Therefore, a language with agreement, which can have a null 3 rd person personal pronoun, cannot have a null impersonal 3 rd person pronoun.
39 Personal pronouns have a D-feature. Impersonal pronouns have no D-feature. D 3 he, she, khǎw, lui,.. SG 3 one, on (French), man (German) SG
40 TP T VP PST D VP uPn 3 uNr SG Icelandic, Finnish, Marathi, etc. have no [D]-feature in T. Their agreement is ‘indefinite’. Italian, Arabic, Greek, etc. have a [D]-feature in T. Their agreement is definite. Finnish/Icelandic situation A pronoun with D will never be a copy of T --> cannot be null
41 TP T VP PST VP 3 SG SG Finnish/Icelandic situation A pronoun without D can be a copy of T --> can be null
42 TP T VP PST D VP uD 3 uPn SG uNr Italian/Arabic situation A pronoun with D can be a copy of T --> can be null
43 TP T VP PST D VP D 3 3 SG SG Italian/Arabic situation A pronoun with D can be a copy of T --> can be null
44 TP T VP PST VP uD 3 3 SG SG A pronoun without D causes a problem. The [uD] feature can’t get a value. This problem is solved in different ways in different languages. Mainly, they use an overt pronoun instead. A tree with unvalued features is not interpretable/is not grammatical.
45 Thai null arguments are referential if they have an antecedent. Or they are inclusive generic (‘one’). They are not pronounced because they have no features. They don’t need to have features, because there is no agreement which needs to be valued. PRO in English has the same properties: John wants [PRO to leave ] (referential when controlled by an antecedent) It’s nice [PRO to be rich] (or inclusive generic) Only found in clauses without agreement, i.e. non-finite clauses, in English.
46 1. Languages with ‘poor agreement’ in T (English, French, German): The copy strategy is not available. The -featureless strategy is not available (except in non-finite clauses). Overt inclusive generic pronoun. 3. Languages with ‘very rich agreement’, including [uD], in T (Arabic, Italian, Farsi, Greek): The copy strategy not available for a D-less pronoun, because it leaves [uD] unvalued. Overt indefinite pronoun used with generic meaning, or 2sg null generic pronoun. 2. Languages with rich agreement but no [uD] in T (Finnish, Icelandic, Marathi): The copy strategy is available for a D-less pronoun (inclusive generic) Null 3sg inclusive generic pronoun. 4. Languages without agreement (Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Korean): Null ( -featureless) inclusive generic pronoun.
An argument with ϕ -features is pronounced (unless it is a copy of a head with u features), an argument without ϕ -features is never pronounced. A null argument can be interpreted referentially, if it inherits a referential index from an antecedent, or generically if it is bound by a generic operator. In the latter case it is interpreted as inclusive generic, because without features it will have the most general reading. A pronoun can be generic and have -features, but in that case it must be pronounced (in a language lacking u -features, like Thai). If we are right, then null arguments in Thai are (radically) null nouns, which are used pronominally. There are no null pronouns in Thai. 47
Brody, M. 2011. On the ‘universal-impersonal’ readings of personal pronouns. Talk presented at ICSH 10, Lund University. Chomsky, N. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.). Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1-53. Grimshaw, J. and V. Samek-Lodovici. 1998. Optimal subjects and subject universals. In P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis and D. Pesetsky (eds.). Optimality and competition in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harrell, R.S., M. Abu-Talib & W.S. Carroll 1965. A basic course in Moroccan Arabic. Georgetown University Press. Holmberg, A. 2005. ‘Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish’. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533– 564. 2010a. ‘Null subject parameters’. In T. Biberauer et al. Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 88–124. 2010b. ‘The null generic subject pronoun in Finnish: a case of incorporation in T’. In T. Biberauer et al. Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 200–230. Holmberg, A., A. Nayudu and M. Sheehan. 2009. ‘Three partial null-subject languages: a comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish, and Marathi’. Studia Linguistica 63:59–97. 48
Holmberg, A. & I. Roberts. 2012. The syntax-morphology relation. Lingua 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.006 Huang, J. 1989. Pro-drop in Chinese: a generalized control theory. In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.). The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 185-214. Moltmann, F. 2006. ‘Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person’. Natural Language Semantics 14: 257–281. Phimsawat, O. 2011. The syntax of pro-drop in Thai. PhD, Newcastle University. Roberts, I. 2010a. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation and Defective Goals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 2010b. ‘A deletion analysis of null subjects’. In T. Biberauer et al. Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 58–87. 49