PRO and pro: Comments on Quicoli

  • Ken Safir
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 35)

Abstract

Aside from word order perhaps, there are very few aspects of linguistic typology that have been as closely studied as the null subject property, especially from the perspective of recent theoretical work within the principles and parameters framework initiated by Chomsky (1981). The appeal of the parametric perspective is that a variety of language typological characteristics can be linked, if the account is successful, merely by selecting appropriate value settings (provided by Universal Grammar) for formal properties of grammar that are permitted to vary (parameters). Within a principled theory of grammar, the formal setting will have predictable effects which may then be examined in detail. In a wide variety of studies informed by this perspective (see Jaeggli and Safir (1989) for discussion and references) the null subject property has been linked to a range of other properties, or else the parametric perspective has provided a stimulus to distinguish the effects of a positive setting of Null Subject Parameter (i.e., a setting that results in null subjects) from independent sorts of linguistic variation.

Keywords

Relative Clause Positive Setting Universal Grammar Case Assignment Recent Theoretical Work 
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. Berwick, R. (1986) The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  3. Dell, F. (1981) “On the Learnability of Optional Rules,” Linguistic Inquiry 12.1.Google Scholar
  4. Jaeggli, O. (1986) “Arbitrary Plural Pronominals,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4; 43–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jaeggli, O. and K. Safir, eds., (1989) The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Lebeaux, D. (1984) “Anaphoric Binding and the Definition of PRO.” in The Proceedings of NELS 14, U. of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  7. Raposo, E. (1987) “Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: The Inflected Infinitive in European Portuguese,” Linguistic Inquiry 18;85–110.Google Scholar
  8. Raposo, E. (1989) “Prepositional Infinitival Constructions in European Portuguese,” in K. Safir and O. Jaeggli, eds., The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Rizzi, L. (1986) “Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro,” Linguistic Inquiry 17; 501–558.Google Scholar
  10. Safir, K. (1985) Syntactic Chains, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
  11. Thrainsson, H. (1979) On Complementation in Icelandic, Ph. D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  12. Wexler, K and M.-R. Manzini (1987) “Parameters and Learnability,” in T. Roeper and E. Williams, eds., Parameter Setting, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ken Safir

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations