Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 1–30

On null operator structures

  • Heles Contreras
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a unified account of null operator structures, based on the hypothesis that the categorial status of empty categories (ECs) in A′ positions is determined by free assignment of the features [±a(naphor)] and [±p(ronominal)], essentially as suggested by Brody (1984) for ECs in A-positions. In so-called predicational structures, the null operator is ungoverned and can only surface as [+p]. As expected, it can be locally A-bound or discourse-licensed, just like argument PRO orpro. Null operators in adjunct clauses with parasitic gaps are governed, and can surface as [−a, −p] or [−a, +p]. The properties of these structures are only compatible with the assignment of the features [−a, −p]. This suggests that even though no general principle blocks [−a, +p] as a governed null operator, there are no licensing conditions for this category.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, Steven: 1987,The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Aoun, Josef and Robin Clark: 1985, ‘On Non-Overt Operators’,Working Papers in Linguistics, UCLA, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
  3. Baltin, Mark: 1987, ‘Do Antecedent-Contained Deletions Exist?’,Linguistic Inquiry 18, 579–595.Google Scholar
  4. Bordelois, Ivonne: 1986, ‘Parasitic Gaps: Extensions of Restructuring’, in I. Bordelois, H. Contreras, and K. Zagona, (eds.),Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Brody, Michael: 1984, ‘On Contextual Definitions and the Role of Chains’,Linguistic Inquiry 15, 355–381.Google Scholar
  6. Browning, M.: 1987a, ‘Null Operators and Their Antecedents,Proceedings of NELS 17, vol. 1, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 59–78.Google Scholar
  7. Browning, M.: 1987b,Null Operator Constructions, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  8. Browning, M.: 1991, ‘Bounding Conditions on Representation’,Linguistic Inquiry 22, 541–562.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam: 1981,Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam: 1982,Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam: 1986a,Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam: 1986b,Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  13. Cinque, Gugiielmo: 1990,Types of A′-Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  14. Contreras, Heles: 1984, ‘A Note on Parasitic Gaps’,Linguistic Inquiry 15, 698–701.Google Scholar
  15. Contreras, Heles: 1987, ‘Parasitic Gaps and Binding’, in C. Neidle and R. Núñez-Cedeño (eds.),Studies in Romance Languages, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  16. Emonds, Joseph: 1976,A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Faraci, Robert: 1974,Aspects of the Grammar of Infinitives and For-Phrases, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  18. Fukui, Naoki and Margaret Speas: 1986, ‘Features and Projection’,MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8, pp. 128–172.Google Scholar
  19. Gamon, Michael: 1991,Locality and Anti-Locality in Parasitic Gap Constructions, M.A. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  20. Horvath, Julia: 1981,Aspects of Hungarian Syntax and the Theory of Grammar, Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  21. Huang, James: 1982,Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  22. Huang, James: 1989, ‘Pro-Drop in Chinese: A Generalized Control Theory’, in O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.),The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 185–214.Google Scholar
  23. Jung, Yeun-Jin: 1988,Null Operator Movement in Tough Constructions and Its Theoretical Implications, M.A. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  24. Kirkpatrick, Charles: 1982, ‘A Note on Purpose Clause’,Proceedings of WCCFL, Stanford Linguistics Association, University, Stanford, California, pp. 268–279.Google Scholar
  25. Kitagawa, Yoshihisa: 1986,Subjects in Japanese and English, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  26. Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche: 1982, ‘Variables and the Bijection Principle’,The Linguistic Review 2, 139–160.Google Scholar
  27. Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche: 1988, ‘Subjects’, unpublished manuscript, UCLA.Google Scholar
  28. Kuroda, S-Y: 1988, ‘Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese’,Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1–47.Google Scholar
  29. Larson, Richard and Robert May: 1990, ‘Antecedent Containment or Vacuous Movement: A Reply to Baltin’,Linguistic Inquiry 21, 103–122.Google Scholar
  30. Levin, Juliette: 1984, ‘Government Relations and the Distribution of Empty Categories’,Proceedings of NELS 14, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 294–305.Google Scholar
  31. Lobeck, Anne: 1986,Syntactic Constraints on VP Ellipsis, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  32. May, Robert: 1985,Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  33. Nanni, Deborah: 1978,The Easy Class of Adjectives in English, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  34. Nishigauchi, Taisake: 1984, ‘Control and the Thematic Domain’,Language 60, 215–250.Google Scholar
  35. Rizzi, Luigi: 1986, ‘Null Objects in Italian and the Theory ofpro’,Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–557.Google Scholar
  36. Rizzi, Luigi: 1990,Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  37. Stowell, Tim: 1981,Origins of Phrase Structure, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  38. Stowell, Tim: 1983, ‘Subjects Across Categories’,The Linguistic Review 2, 285–312.Google Scholar
  39. Stowell, Tim: 1986, ‘Null Antecedents and Proper Government’,Proceedings of NELS 16, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 476–493.Google Scholar
  40. Stowell, Tim: 1989, ‘Subjects, Specifiers, and X-bar Theory’, in M. R. Baltin and A. S. Kroch (eds.),Alternative Concepts of Phrase Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 232–262.Google Scholar
  41. Tellier, Christine: 1988,Universal Licensing: Implications for Parasitic Gap Constructions, Doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
  42. Wilder, Christopher: 1991, ‘Tough Movement Constructions’,Linguistische Berichte 132, 115–132.Google Scholar
  43. Zagona, Karen: 1982,Government and Proper Government of Verbal Projections, Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  44. Zagona, Karen: 1988,Verb Phrase Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heles Contreras
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics GN-40University of WashingtonSeattle

Personalised recommendations