Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro

An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns

  • Original paper
  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper a novel approach to (a subpart of) the null subject parameter is proposed, in which the interpretation of a thematic pro in subject position is crucially dependent on the syntax and discourse properties of Topic constituents. Based on the analysis of spoken corpora and interface considerations, evidence is provided that preverbal ‘subjects’ sit in an A’-position in a null subject language like Italian and that the interpretation of referential null subjects depends on a matching relation (Agree) with a specific type of Topic. In a cartographic approach to discourse functions, this is identified with the Aboutness-shift Topic (Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl 2007) that is merged in the C-domain and is endowed with the edge feature [+aboutness] – an ‘extended EPP feature’. A Topic Criterion is thus proposed that correlates core grammar with discourse requirements and accounts for the syntactic identification of a referential pro. The Avoid Pronoun Principle is reinterpreted as a structural condition that implies the existence of silent Topics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham, W. (1993). Null subjects in the history of german: From IP to CP’. Lingua, 89, 117–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackema, P., Brandt, P., Schoorlemmer, M., & Weerman, F. (eds.) (2006). Agreement and arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Alba-Salas, J. (2004). Lexically selected expletives: Evidence from basque and romance. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 17, 35–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexiadou, A. (1997). Adverb placement: A case study in antisymmetric syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word Order, V-Movement and EPP Checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambar, M. (1992). Para uma Sintaxe da Inversão Sujeito-Verbo em Português. Lisbon: Colibri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbosa, P. (1995). Null subjects. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Barbosa, P. (2000). Clitics: A window into the null subject property. In J. Costa (Ed.), Essays in portuguese comparative syntax (pp. 31–94). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belletti, A. (2004a). Aspects of the low IP area. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2. The structure of CP and IP (pp. 16–51). Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  • Belletti, A. (ed.) (2004b). The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 3. Structures and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (eds.) (1996). Parameters and functional heads. essays in comparative syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Benincà, P. (2001). The position of topic and focus in the left periphery. In G. Cinque, & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (pp. 39–64). Amsterdam/London: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benincà, P., & Cinque, G. (1985). Lexical subjects in Italian and the pro-drop parameter. paper presented at the Comparative Generative Grammar Fiesta”, Salzburg.

  • Benincà, P., & Poletto C. (2004). Topic, focus, and V2. Defining the CP sublayers. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2, The structure of CP and IP (pp. 52–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benincà, P., Salvi, G., & Frison, L. (1988). L’Ordine degli Elementi della Frase e le Costruzioni Marcate. In L. Renzi (Ed.) Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione, Vol. I (pp. 115–225), Bologna: Il Mulino.

  • Bonvino, E. (2006). Le Sujet Postverbal en Italien Parlé: syntaxe, zones et intonation. Paris, Ophrys: Bibliotheque des faits des langues.

  • Büring, D. (1999). Topic. In P. Bosch, & van der Sandt, R. (Eds.), Focus. Linguistic cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 142–165). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese, A. (1986). Pronomina. Some properties of the italian pronominal system. In N. Fukui, T. R. Rapoport, & E. Sagey (Eds.), Papers in theoretical linguistics (pp. 1–46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese, A. (1992). Some remarks on focus and logical structure in Italian. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 91–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinaletti, A. (1990). Impersonal constructions and sentential arguments in German. Padua: Unipress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinaletti, A. (1997). Subjects and clause structure. In L. Haegeman (ed.), The new comparative syntax (pp. 33–63). London and New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinaletti, A. (2002). Against optional and zero clitics. Right dislocation vs. marginalization. Studia Linguistica, 56, 29–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinaletti, A. (2004). Towards a cartography of subject positions. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2, The structure of CP and IP (pp. 115–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinaletti, A., & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural dependency. A case study of three classes of pronouns. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the language of Europe (pp. 145–233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cecchetto, C. (1999). A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in romance. Studia Linguistica, 53, 40–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 3, structures and beyond (pp. 104–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (2005). On phases, ms. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, G. (ed.) (2002). The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1. Functional Structure in DP and IP. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • D’Imperio, M. (2002). Italian Intonation: An overview and some questions’, Probus 14, 37–69.Duarte, Maria Eugenia. 1993. ‘Do Pronome Nulo ao Pronome Pleno’, in I. Roberts and M.A. Kato (eds.), Portogês Brasileiro: uma viagen diacrônica, Editora da UNICAMP, Campinas, pp. 107–128.

  • Féry, C. (1992). Focus, topic and intonation in German. Arbeitspapiere des sonder-forschungsbereichs 340, Bericht Nr. 20, University of Tübingen.

  • Frascarelli, M. (2000). The syntax-phonology interface in focus and topic constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frascarelli, M. (2004a). Dislocation, clitic resumption and minimality: A comparative analysis of left and right topic constructions in Italian. In R. Bok-Bennema, B. Hollebrandse, B. Kampers-Manhe, & P. Sleeman (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2002 (pp. 99–118). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frascarelli, M. (2004b). ‘L’interpretazione del Focus e la Portata degli Operatori Sintattici. In F. Albano Leoni, F. Cutugno, M. Pettorino, & R. Savy (Eds.), Il parlato italiano. Atti del Convegno Nazionale (13–15 febbraio 2003), M. D’Auria Editore, CIRASS, Naples, (CD Rom), B06.

  • Frascarelli, M. (2006). The fine structure of the topic field, paper presented at the “Bantu-Romance Connection” Workshop, Leeds, May, 25–27.

  • Frascarelli, M., & Hinterhölzl, R. (2007). Types of topics in German and Italian. In S. Winkler & K. Schwabe (Eds.), On information structure, meaning and form (pp. 87–116). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frascarelli, M., & Puglielli, A. to appear. ‘Focus in the Force-Fin System. Information Structure in Cushitic Languages. In A. Enoch, K. Hartmann, & M. Zimmermann (Eds.), Focus Strategies: Evidence from African languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Frota, S. (2000). Prosody and focus in european portoguese: Implication for intonation theory. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, G. M. (1987). A cross-linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter, Ph.D. dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

  • Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 5–41). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, J. A. (ed.) (1999). Phonological Theory. The essential readings, Blackwell Publishing, London.

  • Grimshaw, J., & Samek-Lodovici, V. (1998). Optimal subjects and subject universals. In P. Barbosa, et al. (Ed.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax (pp. 193–219). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haegeman, L. (1992). Sentential negation in Italian and the NEG criterion. GenGenP, 0, 10–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasegawa, Y. (1985). On the so-called ‘Zero-pronouns’ in Japanese. The Linguistic Review, 4, 243–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, B., & Lahiri, A. (1991). Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 47–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases, Ph.D dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

  • Hicks, G. (2005). Binding theory and its consequences for features, phases, and derivation, ms., The University of York.

  • Hinterhölzl, R., & Pili, D. (2002). Argument Shift across Language Types’, paper presented at the XXVIII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Università di Lecce.

  • Holmberg, A. (2005). Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 535–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, N. (2000). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvath, J. (1986). Focus in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C. T. J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C. T. J. (1989). Pro-drop in Chinese: A generalized control theory. In O. Jaeggli, & K. Safir (Eds.), The null subject parameter (pp. 185–214). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. (2000). Anaphora. a cross-linguistic approach. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulk, A., & Pollock, J.-Y. (eds.) (2001). Subject inversion in romance and the theory of universal grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Ihsane, T., & Puskás, G. (2001). Specific is not definite. In U. Shlonsky & T. Ihsane (Eds). Generative Grammar in Geneva, 2, 39–54.

  • Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeggli, O. (1982). Topics in romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeggli, O., & Safir, K. (eds.) (1989a). The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Jaeggli, O., & Safir, K. (1989b). The null subject parameter and parametric theory. In O. Jaeggli, & K. Safir (Eds.), The null subject parameter (pp. 1–44). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kato, M. A. (1999). Strong pronouns and weak pronominals in the null subject parameter. Probus, 11, 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R. (2002). Pronouns and their antecedents. In S. D. Epstein, & T. D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program (pp. 133–166). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

  • Kayne, R. (2005). On parameters and on principles of pronunciation. ms., NYU.

  • Kenesei, I. (2006). Focus is identification. In V. Molnár, & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (pp. 137–168). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenstowicz, M. (1989). The null subject parameter in modern arabic dialects. In O. Jaeggli, & K. Safir (Eds.), The null subject parameter (pp. 263–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Kiss, É. K. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). The categorical and thetic judgment. Foundations of Language, 9, 153–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipták, A. (2005). Relativization strategies in temporal adjunct clauses, ms. ULCL, Leiden University.

  • Marotta, G. (2000). Allineamento e Trascrizione dei Toni Accentuali Complessi: una proposta. In Atti delle Decime Giornate del Gruppo di Fonetica Sperimentale, A.I.A, Naples, pp. 139–149.

  • Marotta, G., & Sardelli, E. (2003). ‘Sulla Prosodia della Domanda con Soggetto Postverbale in due Varietà di Italiano Toscano (pisano e senese)’, in P. Cosi, E. Magno Caldognetto and A. Zamboni (eds.), Voce, Canto, Parlato. Studi in onore di F. Ferrero, Unipress, Padua, pp. 205–212.

  • Molnár, V. (2002). Contrast – from a contrastive perspective. In H. Hallelgard, S. Johansson, B. Behrens, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 147–162). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moro, A. (1997). The raising of predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (In)definiteness (pp. 98–129). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and phonetics of english intonation, Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

  • Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, R. Philip, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poletto, C. (2000). The higher functional field. Evidence from northern italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poletto, C., & Pollock, J.-Y. (2004). On the left periphery of some romance wh-questions. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 2, The structure of CP and IP (pp. 251–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.-Y. (1996). Elements de Syntaxe du Verbe dans les Langues Germaniques et Romaines. Ms., Université d’Amiens.

  • Ramaglia, F. (2006). ‘Focused Topic’, paper presented at the “XXXII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa”, Università di Firenze.

  • Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence Topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuland, E., & Reinhart, T. (1995). Pronouns, anaphors and case. In H. Haider, S. Olsen, & S. Vikner (Eds.), Studies in comparative germanic syntax (pp. 241–269). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 501–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1994). Early null subjects and root null subjects. In T. Hoekstra, & B. Schwartz (Eds.) Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 151–176). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1996). Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In A. Belletti & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Parameters and functional heads. essays in comparative syntax (pp. 63–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1997a). A parametric approach to comparative syntax properties of the pronominal system. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), The new comparative syntax (pp. 268–285). London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1997b). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (2001). Locality and left periphery, ms. Università di Siena.

  • Rizzi, L. (ed.) (2004). The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2. The Structure of CP and IP. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Rizzi, L. (2006). On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In L. Cheng, & N. Corver (Eds.), Wh Movement: Moving on (pp. 97–133). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, I. (2004). ‘Some Consequences of a Deletion Analysis of Null Subjects’, paper presented at the “LAGB Annual Meeting”, University of Surrey, Roehampton.

  • Rochemont, M., & Culicover, P. (1990). English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbacher, B. W. (1999). Morphology-driven syntax: A theory of V to I raising and pro-drop. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safir, K. (1985). Missing subjects in german. In J. Toman (Ed.), Linguistic theory and the grammar of german (pp. 193–229). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samek-Lodovici, V. (2005). Prosody-syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 687–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology, 3, 371–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E. (2000). The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment. Studies presented to Gösta Bruce (pp. 231–261). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E., & Kratzer, A. (2007). Focus, Phases and Phrase Stress’, ms. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1993). Argument-drop in old Icelandic. Lingua, 89, 247–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2004a). The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 16, 219–251 [Special issue, ed. by V. Bianchi and K. Safir].

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2004b). Agree and agreement: Evidence from germanic. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Focus on germanic typology (Studia Typologica 6) (pp. 61–103). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á., & Maling, J. (2006). Argument drop and the empty left edge condition (ELEC), lingBuzz 000313.

  • Steedman, M. (2000). Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 649–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suñer, M. (2003). The lexical preverbal subject in a romance null subject language. Where are thou? In R. Núñez-Cedeño, L. López, & R. Cameron (Eds.), A romance perspective on language knowledge and use (pp. 341–357). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenonius, P. (ed.) (2002). Subjects, Expletives and the Extended Projection Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Trecci, A. (2006). Who is lui? Reference of italian overt and covert subject pronouns. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (pp. 321–339). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truckenbrodt, H. (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 219–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanelli, L. (1986). Strutture tematiche in italiano antico. In H. Stammerjohann (Ed.), Tema-rema in italiano (pp. 249–273). Tubingen: Narr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zubizarreta, M. L. (1994). The grammatical representation of topic and focus: Implication for the structure of the clause. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 97–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, J.-W. (2002). Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In S. D. Epstein, & T. D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program (pp. 269–304). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Linguistica, Università degli Studi Roma Tre, Via Ostiense, 236 00146, Roma, Italy

    Mara Frascarelli

Authors
  1. Mara Frascarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mara Frascarelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frascarelli, M. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro . Nat Language Linguistic Theory 25, 691–734 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9025-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9025-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation