Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 405–443 | Cite as

On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement

  • Elizabeth Ritter
Article

Abstract

This paper provides support for the claim that there are two functional projections in full noun phrases, Determiner Phrase (DP) and Number Phrase (NumP), based on an analysis of the dual marker in Modern Hebrew. The assumption of two nominal functional categories permits a structural account of differences in the distribution of elements that function as first/second person pronouns and those that function as third person pronouns. It is hypothesized that 1st/2nd person pronouns are DPs which contain only the head D and that this head is specified for person, number and gender. In contrast, 3rd person pronouns have a more complex structure, where D is specified for person and Num is specified for number and gender. Similarities between past tense agreement and 1st/2nd person pronouns on the one hand and between present tense agreement and 3rd person pronouns on the other suggest that the same nominal functional categories that act as pronouns also act as agreement. In other words, the difference between pronouns and agreement lies not in their category, but in their role in the syntax. Finally, this view of pronouns and agreement is applied to complex null subject phenomena in Modern Hebrew. In order to account for the fact that the distribution of null subjects varies across persons and across tenses, we propose a matching condition on both the category and content of the null pronoun and agreement.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Functional Category Noun Phrase Matching Condition Syntactic Category 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, Steven Paul: 1987,The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, Marianne: 1987, ‘From Old French to the Theory of Pro-Drop’,Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
  3. Belletti, Adriana: 1990,Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Syntax, Rosenberg and Sellier, Torino.Google Scholar
  4. Berman, Ruth A.: 1980, ‘The Case of an (S)VO Language: Subjectless Constructions in Modern Hebrew’,Language 56, pp. 759–776.Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, Judy: 1991, ‘DPs in French and Walloon: Evidence for Parametric Variation in Nominal Head Movement’,Probus 3, pp. 101–126.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, Judy: 1992, ‘On the Syntactic Status of Adjectives in Romance’,CUNYForum 17.Google Scholar
  7. Bernstein, Judy: 1993,Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structure Across Romance, Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Bolczky, Shmuel: 1982, unpublished ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  9. Borer, Hagit: 1981, ‘Comments on the Pro-Drop Phenomena’, in Hagit Borer and Youssef Aoun (eds.),MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 3:Theoretical Issues in the Grammar of Semitic Languages, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 127–149.Google Scholar
  10. Borer, Hagit: 1984,Parametric Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Borer, Hagit: 1986, ‘I-Subjects’,Linguistic Inquiry 17, pp. 375–416.Google Scholar
  12. Borer, Hagit: 1988, ‘On the Morphological Parallelism Between Compounds and Constructs’, in Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.),Yearbook of Morphology, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 45–65.Google Scholar
  13. Borer, Hagit: 1989, ‘Anaphoric AGR’, in Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth J. Safir (eds.),The Null Subject Parameter, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 69–109.Google Scholar
  14. Borer, Hagit: 1991, ‘The Causative-Inchoative Alternation: A Case Study in Parallel Morphology’,The Linguistic Review 8, pp. 119–158.Google Scholar
  15. Cardinaletti, Anna and Giuliana Giusti: 1991, ‘Partitivene and the QP-Hypothesis: A Case Study’, in Elisabetta Fava (ed.),Proceedings of the XVII Meeting of Generative Grammar, Rosenberg and Sellier, Torino, pp. 121–141.Google Scholar
  16. Carstens, Vicki: 1991,The Morphology and Syntax of Determiner Phrases in Kiswahili, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam: 1989, ‘Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation’, in Itziar Laka and Anoop Mahajan (eds.),MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10:Functional Heads and Clause Structure, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 43–74.Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam: 1992, ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’,MIT Ocassional Papers in Linguistics 1, Department of Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  19. Delfitto, Denis and Jan Schroter: 1991, ‘Bare Plurals and the Number Affix in DP’,Probus 3, pp. 155–185.Google Scholar
  20. Doron, Edit: 1983,Verbless Predicates in Hebrew, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  21. Doron, Edit: 1988, ‘On the Complementarity of Subject and Subject-Verb Agreement’, in Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.),Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions, CSLI, Stanford, pp. 201–218.Google Scholar
  22. Glinert, Lewis: 1989,The Grammar of Modern Hebrew, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  23. Hazout, Ilan: 1990,Verbal Nouns: Theta-theoretic Studies in Hebrew and Arabic, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  24. Hazout, Ilan: 1991, ‘The Pronoun “ZE” and the Syntax of Sentential Subjects’, unpublished ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  25. Jackendoff, Ray: 1977,X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  26. Mahajan, Anoop: 1990,The A/A-bar Distinction and Movement Theory, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  27. Moravcsik, Edith A.: 1978, ‘Agreement’, in Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.),Universals of Human Language 4:Syntax, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, pp. 331–374.Google Scholar
  28. Pesetsky, David: 1978, ‘Category Switching and So-Called So-Called Pronouns, in Donka Farkas, Wesley M. Jacobsen and Karol W. Todrys (eds.),Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 14, pp. 350–361.Google Scholar
  29. Picallo, M. Carme: 1991, ‘Nominals and Nominalizations in Catalan’,Probus 3, pp. 279–316.Google Scholar
  30. Pollock, Jean-Yves: 1989, ‘Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP’,Linguistic Inquiry 20, pp. 365–424.Google Scholar
  31. Postal, Paul: 1966, ‘On So-Called “Pronouns” in English’, in F. Dinneen (ed.), 19th Monograph on Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., in David A. Reibel and Sanford A. Schane (eds.),Modern Studies in English, Prentice-Hall, Englewood, New Jersey, 1969 pp. 201–224.Google Scholar
  32. Rapoport, Tova R.: 1987,Copular, Nominal, and Small Clauses: A Study of Israeli Hebrew, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  33. Ritter, Elizabeth: 1988, ‘A Head-movement Approach to Construct-state Noun Phrases’,Linguistics 26, pp. 909–929.Google Scholar
  34. Ritter, Elizabeth: 1991, ‘Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew’, in Susan Rothstein (ed.),Syntax and Semantics 25:Perspectives on Phrase Structure, Academic Press, New York, pp. 37–62.Google Scholar
  35. Ritter, Elizabeth: 1993, ‘Where's Gender?’,Linguistic Inquiry 24, pp. 795–803.Google Scholar
  36. Rizzi, Luigi: 1982, ‘Negation, Wh-movement and the Null Subject Parameter’, inIssues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  37. Rohrbacher, Bernhard: 1992, ‘English AUX NEG, Mainland Scandinavian NEG AUX and the Theory of V to I Raising’,Proceedings of the 22nd Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) 22.Google Scholar
  38. Shlonsky, Ur: 1989, ‘The Hierarchical Representation of Subject Verb Agreement’, unpublished ms., Haifa University, Haifa.Google Scholar
  39. Siloni, Tali: 1991, ‘Noun Raising and the Structure of the Noun Phrase’, in Jonathan D. Bobaljik and T. Bures (eds.),MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 14:Papers from the Third Student Conference in Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  40. Speas, Peggy: 1993, ‘Null Arguments in a Theory of Economy of Projection’, unpublished ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  41. Szabolcsi, Anna: 1987, ‘Functional Categories in the Noun Phrase’, in István Kenesei (ed.),Approaches to Hungarian 2, JATE, Szeged, pp. 167–190.Google Scholar
  42. Szabolcsi, Anna: 1992, ‘The Noun Phrase’, unpublished ms., UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  43. Tonoike, Shigeo: 1991, ‘Two Additional Arguments for the Extended DP Analysis’, unpublished ms., Meiji Gakuin University, Tokyo, and MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  44. Travis, Lisa: 1984,Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  45. Valois, Daniel: 1991, ‘The Internal Syntax of DP and Adjective Placement in French and English’, in Tim Sherer (ed.),Proceedings of NELS 21, pp. 367–382.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Ritter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations