Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 111–134

The interpretation of null subjects in Romanian

An information-structure approach for comparative analysis

| Università degli Studi Roma Tre
This chapter explores the ‘acceptability’ and ‘interpretation’ of referential null subjects in Romanian in different syntactic conditions and distinct clause types (matrix clauses, embedded under bridge verbs, embedded under factive verbs and adverbial clauses). Based on the results of an original online survey (carried out by almost 80 respondents), it is shown that Romanian is a consistent pro-drop language, in which no partial pro-drop properties can be found. Furthermore, the results emerged from the analysis provide significant support to the validity of an information-structure approach to the interpretation of null subjects, in which the Topic Criterion (Frascarelli 2007), the formation of Topic chains and the existence of silent Topics play a crucial role.
Keywords: null subjects, consistent/partial pro-drop, Topic Criterion, Topic Chain, A-Topic, G-Topic, silent Topic, locality
Article outline
  • 1.The Null Subject Parameter and the interpretation of null subjects from an IS-perspective
    • 1.1A short overview
    • 1.2The Topic Criterion and the formation of Topic chains
  • 2.The experiment: Structure and methodology
    • 2.1Objective and working hypothesis
    • 2.2Structure and informants
  • 3.Data analysis: Results and discussion
    • 3.1NS in the complement of a bridge verb
    • 3.2NS in the complement of a factive verb
    • 3.3NS in adverbial clauses
      • 3.3.1Conditional clauses
      • 3.3.2Temporal clauses
    • 3.4Embedded DP as an intended antecedent
    • 3.5NS embedded in clauses without an overt Topic in the matrix C-domain
  • 4.The Topic Criterion as a macro-parameter for NS languages: Conclusions and paths for future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.06fra
References (41)
References
Bianchi, Valentina & Mara Frascarelli. 2010. Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia 2. 43–88.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan. eds. 2010. Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cognola, Federica & Jan Casalicchio. eds. 2018. Null subjects in generative grammar: A synchronic and diachronic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 2004. Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In David Adger, Cécile de Cat & Georges Tsoulas (eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects, 75–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert, Caroline Fery, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ralf Vogel (eds.). 2006. Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filiaci, Francesca, Antonella Sorace & Manuel Carreiras. 2014. Anaphoric biases and null overt subjects in Italian and Spanish: A cross-linguistic comparison. Language and Cognitive Processes 29(7). 825–843.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25. 691–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Dislocations and Framings. In Elisabeth Stark & Andreas Dufter (eds.), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, 472–501. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The interpretation of pro in consistent and partial ns languages: A comparative interface analysis. In Federica Cognola & Jan Casalicchio (eds.), Null subjects in generative grammar: A synchronic and diachronic perspective, 211–239. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2019. Topics, conversational dynamics and the root/non-root distinction: Adverbial clauses at the discourse-syntax interface. In Valéria Molnár, Verner Egerland & Susanne Winkler (eds.), Architecture of topics, 139–170. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Marco Casentini. 2019. The interpretation of null subjects in a radical pro-drop language: Topic chains and discourse semantic requirements in Chinese. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 40. 1. Online. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Roland Hinterhölzl. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Angel Jiménez-Fernández. 2019. Understanding partiality in pro-drop languages: An information-structure approach. Syntax 22. 162–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2001. Are there V2 relative clauses in German?. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3. 97–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2002. Anchoring to speaker, adverbial clauses and the structure of CP. Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 2. 117–180.Google Scholar
. 2004. The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalization. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 107. 61–90.Google Scholar
. 2012. Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and the composition of the left periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2006. Embedded root phenomena. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, Volume 2, 174–209. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 535–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, Aarti Nayudu & Michelle Sheehan. 2009. Three partial null-subject languages: A comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Marathi. Studia Linguistica 63(1). 59–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Ken Safir (eds.). 1989. The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel & Shigeru Miyagawa. 2014. A feature-inheritance approach to root phenomena and parametric variation. Lingua 145. 275–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1974. Fact. In Danny D. Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, 345–370. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9. 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Caroline Féry & Manfred Krifka (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure, 13–55. Potsdam: Universitätverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. [Reprinted, New York: Garland Press. 1979].Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita. 1992. Locality: A theory and some of its empirical consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2004. Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring (potential) of sentences. In Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds.), The syntax and semantics of the left periphery, 313–341. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. 53–94.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro . Linguistic Inquiry 17. 501–558.Google Scholar
. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 287–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 1996. Constraints on subjects: An optimality theoretic analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Villata, Sandra, Luigi Rizzi & Julie Franck. 2016. Intervention effects and relativized minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments. Lingua 179. 76–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar