Null Arguments in English Registers: A Minimalist Account

Horsey, Richard (1998) Null Arguments in English Registers: A Minimalist Account. [Thesis]

Full text available as:



The syntax of null arguments in the diary and instructional registers of English is investigated in a Minimalist framework. The first unified analysis of null arguments in the two registers is given. Following Haegeman (1996, 1997) and Rizzi (1997) the null argument in these registers is analysed as an antecedentless nonvariable DP (‘ec’) which is licensed only in the leftmost position of the clause. In clauses with such null arguments, a TopP (topic phrase) is posited as the highest projection. The head of this projection is taken to have a [D-] feature. The licensing requirement of ec ensures that it must raise to check the [D-] feature of the topic head, enabling ec to be identified with the discourse topic; if there is any closer [D] feature, then ec will not raise and it will fail to be licensed, causing the derivation to crash. It is shown that the distribution of ec in diaries and instructions can be captured on these assumptions. In each case where ec is ungrammatical, it is shown that some element with a [D] feature intervenes between ec and TopP, preventing ec from raising to a position where it can be licensed. Telegraphese, note-taking and headlinese, other registers of English which also exhibit null arguments, are then investigated to see if the analysis also extends to these cases. It is argued that the analysis cannot fully account for null arguments in these registers. However, subject drop in colloquial speech is demonstrated to be an instance of the same phenomenon, suggesting that null arguments, and in particular null subjects, are a general possibility in English rather than a marked phenomenon.

Item Type:Thesis
Keywords:null arguments, diaries, registers, recipes, instructions, minimalism, syntax
Subjects:Linguistics > Syntax
ID Code:1538
Deposited By:Horsey, Richard
Deposited On:03 Jun 2001
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:54

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Ackema, P. & A. Neeleman 1998. Optimal questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16: 443–490.

Baker, C. L. 1970. Notes on the descriptions of English questions. Founda-tions of Language, 6: 179–219.

Barton, E. L. 1998. The grammar of telegraphic structures. Journal of English Linguistics, 26: 37–67.

Beukema, F. & P. Coopmans 1989. A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English. Journal of Linguistics, 25: 417–436.

Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In A. Akmajian, P. Culicover & T. Wasow (eds) Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.

Chomsky, N. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representa-tion. In R. Freidin (ed.) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 417–454. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Reprinted in The Minimalist Program, 129–166. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (1995).

Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale & Keyser (eds) 1993b, 1–52. Reprinted in The Minimalist Program, 167–217. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (1995).

Chomsky, N. 1994. Bare phrase structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 5. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Reprinted in G. Webelhuth (ed.) Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 383–439. Oxford: Blackwell (1995).

Chomsky, N. 1995. Categories and transformations. In The Minimalist Program, 219–394. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. & H. Lasnik 1993. Principles and Parameters theory. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld & T. Vennemann (eds) Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 505–569. Ber-lin: de Gruyter. Reprinted in The Minimalist Program, 13–127. Cam-bridge, Mass.: MIT Press (1995).

Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A¢-Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Collins, C. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Cook, V. J. 1988. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Culy, C. 1996. Null objects in English recipes. Language Variation and Change, 8: 91–124.

Curme, G. O. 1931. Syntax. Boston: Heath. Vol. 3 of A Grammar of the English Language, 3 vols.

Fodor, J. A. 1987. Modules, frames, fridgeons, sleeping dogs, and the music of the spheres. In J. L. Garfield (ed.) Modularity in Knowledge Repre-sentation and Natural-Language Understanding, 25–36. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Grimshaw, J. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 373–422.

Haegeman, L. 1987a. Complement ellipsis in English: Or, How to cook without objects. In A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen (ed.) Studies in Honour of René Derolez, 248–261. Ghent: University of Ghent.

Haegeman, L. 1987b. Register variation in English: some theoretical observations. Journal of English Linguistics, 20: 230–248.

Haegeman, L. 1990a. Understood subjects in English diaries. Multilingua, 9: 157–199.

Haegeman, L. 1990b. Non-overt subjects in diary contexts. In J. Mascaro & M. Nespor (eds) Grammar in Progress, 167–174. Dordrecht: Foris.

Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government & Binding Theory, second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Haegeman, L. 1996. Non overt subjects in the core grammars of English and French. Ms, University of Geneva.

Haegeman, L. 1997. Register variation, truncation, and subject omission in English and French. English Language and Linguistics, 1: 233–270.

Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser 1993a. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale & Keyser (eds) 1993b, 53–109.

Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser (eds) 1993b. The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Horvath, J. 1997. The status of ‘wh-expletives’ and the partial wh-movement construction of Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15: 509–572.

Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyams, N. 1986. Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Janda, R. J. 1985. Note-taking English as a simplified register. Discourse Processes, 8: 437–454.

Jespersen, O. 1922. Language, Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: Allen & Unwin.

Katz, J. J. & P. M. Postal 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descrip-tions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Kitahara, H. 1997. Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Larson, R. K. 1985. Bare-NP adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 16: 595–621.

Larson, R. K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19: 335–391.

Larson, R. K. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21: 589–632.

Larson, R. K. & G. Segal 1995. Knowledge of Meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Lasnik, H. & T. Stowell 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry, 22: 687–720.

Massam, D. & Y. Roberge 1989. Recipe context null objects in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 20: 134–139.

McCarthy, J. & P. Hayes 1969. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (eds)

Machine Intelligence, vol. 4, 463–502. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

McCawley, J. D. 1988. Adverbial NPs: Bare or clad in see-through garb? Language, 64: 583–590.

Ouhalla, J. 1994. Introducing Transformational Grammar. London: Arnold.

Poutsma, H. 1928. The Elements of the Sentence. Groningen: Noordhoff. Part 1, vol. 1 of A Grammar of Late Modern English, 2 parts, 5 vols. (1904–1929).

Radford, A. 1997. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativised Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Rizzi, L. 1994. Early null subjects and root null subjects. In T. Hoekstra & B. D. Schwartz (eds) Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar, 151–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rizzi, L. 1995. The fine structure of the left periphery. Ms, University of Geneva. Published with minor revisions as Rizzi (1997).

Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dor-drecht: Kluwer.

Roberts, I. 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Roberts, I. 1997. Comparative Syntax. London: Arnold.

Roberts, I. 1998. Have/be raising, Move F, and Procrastinate. Linguistic Inquiry, 29: 113–125.

Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Published as Infinite Syntax! Norwood, N.J.: Ablex (1986).

Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. 1981. The Grammar of Headlines in The Times, 1870–1970. Brussels: AWLSK.

Sperber, D. & D. Wilson 1986. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.

Thrasher, R. 1977. One Way to Say More by Saying Less: A Study of So-Called Subjectless Sentences. Tokyo: The Eihoásha.

Visser, J. 1996. Object drop in Dutch imperatives. In C. Cremers & M. den Dikken (eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Webelhuth, G. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zwicky, A. M & A. D. Zwicky 1982. Register as a Dimension of Linguistic Variation. In R. Kittredge & J. Lehrberger (eds) Sublanguage, 213–218. Berlin: de Gruyter.


Repository Staff Only: item control page