Null pro subject

Frazier highlights that this suggests that the speakers are implicitly aware of the reduction predictable material, and that children may recognize these deviations as being due to the performance system, thus not taking them as evidence that their target is a pro-drop grammar. Serratrice, ; Hyams, For instance, their discourse-situation is often immediate, and their interactions with adults are generally initiated by the latter. See Section 4.

The Case condition predicts that objects—to the extent that we assume that they are assigned structural accusative Case—should be omitted during the early stages of acquisition. A discussion of objects would require to first establish assumptions on the nature of a. I leave these issues open for future research. Section 2 , integrating in the account pro-drop languages that have no verbal agreement morphology e.

Indeed, these analyses assume that the syntax of pro-drop is constrained by specific grammatical mechanisms licensing and identification conditions , which implies that conceptually non-pro-drop is the default option.

For instance, whether Italian children also posit the positive value of the parameter that makes root subject drop possible, and how the two parameters are expected to interact. Alexiadou, A. Theory 16, — Allen, S. A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut.

Linguistics 38, — Bois, L. Kumpf, and W. Ashby Amsterdam: John Benjamins , — Google Scholar. Barbosa, P. Null Subjects. Bilbao: University of the Basque Country. Bel, A. The syntax of subjects in the acquisition of Spanish and Catalan. Probus Int. Latin Romance Linguist. Bennis, H. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Schoorlemmer, and F. Weermann Oxford: Oxford University Press , — Bonet, E.

Morphology after Syntax. Bromberg, H. Cai, Z. It is there whether you hear it or not: syntactic representation of missing arguments. Cognition , — Camacho, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cardinaletti, A. Van Riemsdijk Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter , — Chomsky, N.

Lectures on Government and Binding. Cambridge: Mouton de Gruyter. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Clancy, P. Sohn and J. Dryer, M. Dryer and M. Duguine, M. Argument ellipsis: a unitary approach to pro-drop. Linguistic diversity granularity: two case-studies against parametric approaches. Ezeizabarrena, M. Liceras Dordrecht: Kluwer , 35— Frampton, J.

Andronis, E. Debenport, A. Pycha, and K. Yoshimura Chicago , — Frascarelli, M. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. Theory 25, — Frazier, L. Do null subjects mis- trigger pro-drop grammars?

Grimshaw, J. Optimality and Competition in Syntax , eds P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis, and D. Guasti, M. Verb syntax in Italian child grammar: finite non-finite verbs.

Guerriero, A. Do, L. Dominguez, and A. Haegeman, L. Adult null subjects in the non-pro drop languages: two diary dialects. Halle, M. Harley, H. State-of-the-article: distributed morphology. GLOT Int. Hoekstra, T. Aspects of root infinitives. Lingua , 81— Holmberg, A. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts, and M. Sheehan Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 88— Huang, C. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Hughes, M. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, and C.

The effect of individual discourse-pragmatic features on referential choice in child English. Hyams, N. Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters.

Dordrecht: Foris. Juergen Weissenborn and T. Lust, G. Hermon, and J. Roeper Dordrecht: Springer , 13— Mateu, and M. Putnam London: Bloomsbury , — On the grammatical basis of null subjects in child language. Jaeggli, O. Kim, Y. Landau, I. Larson, R. Emphatic Pronouns. Legate, J. Johns Amsterdam: Springer , — Lorusso, P. Brugos, M. Clark-Cotton, and S. Mack, J. Not hearing optional subjects: the effects of pragmatic usage preferences.

McCloskey, J. On the syntax of person-number inflection in Modern Irish. Theory 1, — McShane, M. Asubjects Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Pres. Brandt and E.

Witkos and G. Fanselow Frankfurt: Lang , — O'Grady, W. Syntactic Development. Phillips, C. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes, and A. Pierce, A. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Platzack, C. Poeppel, D. The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language 69, 1— Posio, P. Semantics, Pragmatics, and Formulaic Sequences. Raposo, E. Jaeggli and C. Rizzi, L. Issues in Italian Syntax. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro.

Deen, J. Nomura, B. Schulz, and B. Schwartz Cambridge, MA , 19— Cinque and R. Kayne Oxford: Oxford University Press , 70— Roberge, Y. Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments. Roberts, I.

Sheehan Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 58— Sheehan Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , — Roeper, T. Powers and C. Hamann Dordrecht: Kluwer , — Frazier and J. De Villiers Dordrecht: Kluwer , — Rohrbacher, B. Had a great time. Got totally smashed with the subject I being truncated in each of the three sentences. Cambridge University Press, According to these arguments, there is an initial period in child L1 acquisition during which thematic referential lexical subjects are optional and lexical expletive subjects are entirely absent regardless of whether the target language is a null subject language or not Subjects are often dropped but objects , on the other hand, are rarely omitted.

John Benjamins, Gupta 10 lists their occurrence as one of the diagnostic features for colloquial Singapore English, but the educated Singapore English data from Hui Man also exhibits very frequent instances of null-subject structures It is, in fact, likely that both Malay and Chinese have influenced the sentence structure of Singapore English Poedjosoedarmo a , and furthermore, it seems true that a feature is most likely to be adopted into a local variety of English when it occurs in more than one indigenous language.

Edinburgh University Press, Languages that apparently lack subjects actually have null versions of them both thematic and expletive , and this parametric setting correlates with a cluster of syntactic properties. The six properties initially related to the NSP included a having null subjects , b having null resumptive pronouns, c having free inversion in simple sentences , d availability of 'long wh-movement' of subjects, e availability of empty resumptive pronouns in embedded clauses, and f presence of overt complementizers in that -trace contexts In addition, null and overt subjects are interpreted differently Actively scan device characteristics for identification.

Use precise geolocation data. Select personalised content. Create a personalised content profile. Measure ad performance. Select basic ads. Create a personalised ads profile. The content of null-subject is phonologically and morphologically covert but is recoverable in context by competent native speakers of the language. A null-subject is said to have grammatical and semantic properties but lacks overt phonetic form.

Going by the parameter of null-subject, some languages are classified as null-subject or pro-drop languages while some are classified as non-null-subject or non-pro-drop languages. English, according to Chomsky is a non-pro-drop language, but Italian is a pro-drop language because null-subject is a permissible parameter in it.

Pro-drop parameter has implications for language acquisition. The paper is hinged principally on theoretical linguistics which will provide linguistic information about the null-subject status of the two languages which in addition could facilitate the learning of either the two languages as L2.

The Null-subject or pro-drop parameter is a concept rooted in the principles and parameters theory of Universal Grammar UG. This is a theory formulated by Noam Chomsky and propagated by other linguists such as Radford , a and b , Webelhuth and Lasnik among others. The Principles and Parameters Theory PPT seeks to explain the similarities and variations that exist among natural languages. It identifies general principles possessed by all natural languages.

These similarities include the lexical categories of parts of speech, the structural categories of phrases and clauses, the presence of phrasal among others. Apart from lexical differences, languages also vary in word order or syntactic structure.

Therefore, the child learning the grammar of any particular language has to find out the permissible values or parameters in his language. This means that a language is a system of specifications for usually binary parameters in an invariant system of principles of Universal Grammar. Therefore, as Ali explains, linguistic diversity is determined by a variation in the setting of certain values. In other words, parametric variations are determined by the parameterized choices languages make in different dimensions.

They include word order, head directionality parameter, Null-subject or pro-drop parameter and wh-parameter. Principles and Parameters Theory is a useful instrument for CA since it concerns choices made by languages, as it will be seen in this study. For this reason, PPT is adopted in this study.

The English language, according to Chomsky is a non pro-drop language because the dropping of the subject in the sentence structure is not permissible. This is the syntactic parametric choice of the English language from a system of binary options. Consequently, a declarative sentence in English with a null-subject is considered by competent speakers of the language as ungrammatical, although, this is with the exception of imperative sentences which usually lack overt subjects. English is an SVO language; the canonical structure of a standard derivation in English is SVO consisting of the subject, verb and an object or adjunct as in the examples below.

These are convergent derivations in English because the subject position which is the Spec ifier of Inflection is not covert but overtly and morphologically realized.

In other words, the grammatical and semantic properties of the subject are given phonetic form. But if these derivations are presented with a null Specifier of Inflection, they would become ungrammatical and unacceptable to native speakers or other competent speakers of English as in [3] below. Although pro-drop is not permissible parameter English grammar, it is the parametric choice of Italian syntax.