Empty Categories:

pro-drop
Parameter
RICH AGREEMENT FEATURES
❖ NULL SUBJECT
❖ NULL EXPLETIVE
❖ (POST-VERBAL SUBJECTS)
❖ SUBJECT EXTRACTION ACROSS OVERT C
Rich Agreement Features
leo, leés, lee, leemos, leéis, leen

I read, you read, we read, etc.

 Null Subject

pro Lee muchas revistas.

* pro Reads a lot of magazines.

 Null Expletive
pro Llueve
pro Hace frío
pro Son las tres y cuarto

* pro Rains.
* pro Is cold.
* pro Is quarter past three.
 There is a man in the garden.
There exist many fine
counter-examples in the wild.

Hay un hombre en el jardín.

Existen muchos contraejemplos
buenos en la naturaleza.
 … there remain a few actresses
who go for blunt whack jobs.

… quedan algunas actrices que eligen

papeles burdos y sufridos.
There always lay a cat outside the door.

Siempre había un gato tirado

en el suelo al lado de la puerta.
 Behind every successful man
there stands a woman.

Detrás de todo gran hombre

hay [?parada] una gran mujer.
 Post-verbal Subjects
POST-Verbal MATRIX SUBJECTS with unergatives
and transitive verbs

Acá trabaja/come/duerme Alberto.

Llamó tu esposa.
 Subject extraction across overt C
*This audience, I think that this audience will enjoy the book.
(topicalisation)
*Which readers should I expect that which readers will like my
book. (operator movement)

Este público, me parece

que disfrutará el libro.
¿Qué lectores debo esperar
que disfruten mi libro?
 Subject extraction across overt C

You told me (…) [that you would give me

some names of those (op [who] Ø you think
{Ø [who] could give me some lessons})].

Vd. me dijo (…) [que me daría algunos

nombres de personas (op [quienes] que
Vd. considera {que [quienes] podrían
darme algunas clases particulares})].
 Which are the consequences of weak AGR inflection in English?
___________________________________________________________

• V does NOT raise to T° (in any case) and then to C° (in root questions).
• DO-insertion becomes necessary in questions and negative sentences.
• Identification of null pro subjects is impossible, hence there must be overt
subjects, overt expletives, (pre-verbal subjects), and a covert
complementiser is required for extraction of subjects from embedded
clauses.
 ROOT QUESTIONS EMBEDDED CLAUSES
*I think must read Dante of a morning.
*Ought to resign?
*I must work, as told Sally G.
*Can do this in time?
*I don't think need lie quaking at night.
*And what could do?
*Now who is? [Diaries of Virginia Woolf, 1936]

Root sentences with TOPICALISED ARGUMENTS:

*This story repeated to Duncan last night.
*And there was in the rush of an end.
*The next book think of calling Answers to Correspondents.

Root sentences with TOPICALISED PREDICATE:

*Such twilight gossip seemed.
*Slow though was some nights, Aisa managed to serve fresh food for the entire two-week trip.

Root sentences with FOCALISED NEGATIVE CONSTITUENT:

*Seldom have been more completely miserable than I was about 6:30 last night.
*Never have worked so hard at any book.
*Nor do wish even to write about it here.
*No sooner did reach the top, than a tremendous explosion was heard.
*Not until she had talked to her boss, did figure out where she would travel to.
The distribution of non-overt subjects in special registers of English is unlike that of the non-overt
subject in pro-drop languages, and does not justify a pro-drop analysis for the English data.
The non-overt subject in the abbreviated register appears only in a restricted set of root environments.

Non-overt subjects are the leftmost elements in the structure, and they are excluded as soon as one of
the components of the CP layer of the clause is occupied by some overt element.

If non-overt subjects are seen as traces or copies of A'-movement (i.e. elements moved to non-argumental
positions, like Spec-CP), they should be identified by a c-commanding element. BUT if there is nothing to
their left, then identification is impossible.

So… as soon as the CP is needed to host another element, the non-overt subject is excluded, because then
it COULD be identified and it WOULDN’T, since there is no appropriate antecedent to it on its left.

ROOT QUESTIONS [Spec-CP]

If a FINITE construction requires any of its
(Split-)CP positions to be filled by an overt EMBEDDED CLAUSES [C° or Spec-CP]

element, then it won't allow a NULL TOPICALISATION [Spec-TopP]

SUBJECT (at Spec-TP) in any register. FOCALISATION [Spec-FocP]
Empty Categories:
pro
Compare these examples….
SUBJECT pro in FINITE CLAUSES: (pro-drop parameter)
pro Caminaron toda la tarde.
They walked the afternoon away. / They roamed around all evening.

OBJECT pro in OBJECT-CONTROL constructions:

La oficina de Migraciones no permite pro PRO cruzar la frontera a esta hora.
The Migration office does not allow passengers to cross the border at this time of day.

EXPLETIVE SUBJECT pro in ECM SMALL CLAUSES:

Encuentro pro deplorable que tus parientes actúen de esa manera.
I consider it preposterous that your relatives should behave like that.
I find it objectionable that your relatives should act like that.
cf. Considero sus modales totalmente condenables.
cf. I consider their ways totally objectionable.
cf. Lo considero terrible. / I consider it terrible.
 How is the non-overt pro subject of matrix
sentences in Spanish identified and hence
interpreted at LF?
By the STRONG AGR features of T, manifested as rich morphological
inflection on the lexical verb (cf. AFFIX HOPPING versus VERB
MOVEMENT to T°)

PRO-DROP PARAMETER
 BUT…
Identification of other pro elements in Spanish involves a
different process in each case.

According to Haegeman & Guéron (1999), in Romance

languages like Spanish or Italian, “... the availability of object
pro (with Object-Control verbs) cannot be reduced to the
positive setting of the pro-drop parameter, which between the
availability of subject pro allows pro-subjects in root
clauses. There is no direct correlation between subject pro and
that of object pro.”
 Object Pro – English - INERT
a)The agreement allowed one to work better.
b)*The agreement allowed to work better
c)The agreement leads to a better future.

In c), the internal argument is implicit and has an arbitrary reading,

“people in general”- But in b) the internal argument of allow cannot
remain implicit when it controls the subject of an infinitival clause. In
English, we conclude that an understood object argument is
syntactically INERT. Eventhough it may sometimes be understood b)
an implicit object cannot interact with the overt constituents of the
sentence.
 Object pro. Spanish - ACTIVE
a)El acuerdo permitió trabajar mejor.
b)El acuerdo permitió un mejor desempeño.
c)El acuerdo nos permitió trabajar mejor.

In Spanish, the three sentences are correct. Again the direct

object DP controls the non-overt subject of the infinitive.
However, in Spanish the implicit direct object is also
syntactically ACTIVE. It controls the non-overt subject of the
infinitival clause.
 Hence, how is the non-overt pro object in object-
control constructions in Romance languages
identified and hence interpreted at LF?

By the capability of the Spanish TrP (i.e. AGR-oP) features to

trigger OBJECT SHIFT of pronominal objects, which will
value ARB features with Tr°.
 Expletive pro – small clauses
• I consider it likely that he will come
• *I consider likely that he will come

The subject position of a small clause is occupied by it, an

expletive pronoun in construction with an extraposed
clause, that he will come. Recall that subjects positions are
always projected and than English lacks the option of
having a non-overt pronoun. The expletive subject must
therefore be overt.
 Expletive pro- small clauses
1. Considero probable que venga

2.Lo considero probable

3. *Lo considero probable que venga.

In Spanish the situation is different: the overt expletive is

ungrammatical. We assume that a non-overt expletive pro occupied the
subject position of the small clause in 1).
BUT, the availability of the non-overt EXPLETIVE subject pro in ECM
Small clauses cannot be reduced to the positive setting of the pro-drop
parameter, which allows pro-subjects in root clauses. Moreover, the
non-overt subject of small clauses is not identical to a non-overt
subject pronoun, nor can it be equated to a non-overt object.
Hence, how is the non-overt EXPLETIVE
subject pro in ECM Small clauses in
Romance languages identified and hence
interpreted at LF?

By the STRONG AGR features of Adjective,

manifested as rich morphological
inflection (GENDER AND NUMBER).
Complementizer
According to Haegeman & Guéron (1999), a Complementiser can be non-
overt only if it can be duly identified and hence interpreted at LF.
Why is null C possible in (a-c) but unacceptable in (d-e)?

a) Pat believes (that) her cousin will betray her sooner or later.
b) The idea (that) she put into my mind is driving me mad.
c) Thebelief (that) Pat shared with her cousin became her
obsession in the end.
d) *The idea (that) he won’t travel with us is driving her mad.
e)*The belief (that) her cousin would betray her became Pat’s
obsession in the end.
Identification of empty categories is a local (head–
complement or head–specifier) operation, which
may involve head-adjunction of the empty category
to a head capable of identifying it.
The null complementiser must be identified via
adjunction to a proper host: only transitive verbs
can identify a null C heading its complement.
If identification does not take place, the Empty
Category Principle is violated and the sentence is
ungrammatical.
Null C is possible in the English sentence (b)
because the CP is not the complement noun clause
to the N “idea”, but a restrictive relative clause,
adjunct to the NP “idea”, in which the null C, not
carrying declarative features, can be covert thanks to
the obligatory presence of a (null or overt) operator
on its left (Spec-CP).

(b) The idea (that) she put into my mind is driving

me mad.

.
Conversely, in the English sentence (d), null C
is not possible because the CP is the
complement noun clause to the N “idea”,
and, since nouns, being intransitive, are not a
proper host to null C, this null C remains
unidentified and therefore uninterpretable.

(d) *The idea (that) he won’t travel with us is

driving her mad
Dequeísmo
In connection with the previous issue, explain the
problem of ‘DEQUEISMO’ in Spanish:

a) Nos comentó su idea de que debíamos cruzar la

frontera al amanecer.
b) Le transmití mi sospecha de que Patricia pasaría por
acá el sábado.
c) *Sugerí de que debíamos cruzar la frontera al
amanecer.
d) *Les dijo de que Patricia pasaría por acá el sábado.
In Spanish, C is generally overt, unless there is an overt
operator in Spec-CP. However, in equivalents to those
English cases in which null C is ungrammatical due to the
absence of an appropriate identifying host, Spanish adds
the dummy preposition “de” for checking purposes. The
identification of English null C is directly connected
with Transitivity.
N and A are intransitive and cannot identify null C,
therefore null C does not adjoin to them (at a complex
head) for identification purposes. In Spanish the
intransitivity of NOUNS and ADJECTIVES is manifested in
the insertion of the dummy preposition “de” for case
checking purposes.
Conversely, in those instances where a CP is complement
to a transitive V, capable of checking accusative case
features, the presence of the dummy preposition “de” is
superfluous.
Wrong insertion of the dummy preposition in these cases
is known as “dequeísmo”.