Cover not available
Part of
Advances in the Syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case
Edited by Anna Bondaruk, Gréte Dalmi and Alexander Grosu
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 217] 2014
► pp. 129–163

The structure of null subject DPs and agreement in Polish impersonal constructions

This paper is concerned with the function of the SIĘ particle in the impersonal construction and with the internal structure of impersonal pronouns in Polish. It is proposed that SIĘ is a functional element heading its own projection, dubbed SIĘP, taking pro as its complement. This makes the SIĘP similar to canonical DPs. As for pronouns, it is argued that they enter the derivation as bundles of features that get bound by operators and logophoric categories in the course of the syntactic derivation. Differences in the interpretation of the null impersonal subject pronoun will depend on the kind of elements its sub-features will be bound by.
Published online: 14 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.217.06krz
References (58)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bellert, Irena. 1977. On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2): 337–351.Google Scholar
Benvieniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry, J. 2001. Case. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bondaruk, Anna & Charzyńska-Wójcik, Magdalena. 2003. Expletive pro in impersonals passives in Irish, Polish and Old English. Linguistische Berichte 195: 325–362.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2005b. Structuring Sense, Vol. 2: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia. 2006. ‘Arbitrary’ pro and the theory of pro-drop. In Agreement and Arguments, Peter Ackema, Patrick Brandt, Maaike Schoorlemmer & Fred Weerman, 230–258. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1993. On the internal structure of DPs. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 3(2): 1–20. Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995a. Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In The Generic Book, Gregory Carlson, Norman & Francis J. Pelletier (eds), 176–223, Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. 1995b. The variability of impersonal subjects. In Quantification in Natural Language, Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara Partee (eds), 107–143. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, Jaehoon. 2012. The locus of person feature, agreement, and DP/CP parallelism. Presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of North East Linguistic Society (NELS). October 19–21, City University of New York.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–132. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of Arb . Linguistic Inquiry 19(4): 521–581.Google Scholar
Dalmi, Gréte. 2013. All-in-one: Generic inclusive null subjects in Hungarian. In Proceedings of WCCFL 31 : 115–123, Robert LaBarge (ed.). Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2004. Impersonal si Constructions: Agreement and Interpretation. PhD dissertation. University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
. 2008. Impersonal ‘si’ constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta & Alexiadou, Artemis. 2003. Inclusive and exclusive impersonal pronouns: A feature geometrical analysis. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 27: 31–44.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Kaplan, Ronald, M. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76: 759–798. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly.1992. Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2001. Adverbs of quantification and genericity. In Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 4, Claire Beyssade, Olivier Bonami, Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr & Francis Corblin, 27–44. Paris: Sorbonne University Press.Google Scholar
Dotlačil, Jakub & Šimik, Radek. 2012. Peeling, structural case, and Czech retroactive infinitives. Retrieved from [URL] on 7 August, 2012.
Dziwirek, Katarzyna. 1994. Polish Subjects. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Egerland, Verner. 2003. Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71: 75–101.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1971/1997 Lectures on Deixis. Stanford CA: CSLI. (originally distributed as Fillmore [1975/1971], Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis by the Indiana University Linguistics Club).Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. Subjects, topics, and the interpretation of referential pro . Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 691–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Susanne Winkler & Kerstin Schwabe (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Jay S. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2010a. Null subject parameters. In Null Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 88–125. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2010b. The null generic subject pronoun in Finnish: A case of incorporation in T. In Null Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 200–231. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans.1981. A theory of truth and discourse representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds), 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives. In Themes from Kaplan, Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds), 483–540. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kibort, Anna. 2004. Passive and passive-like constructions in English and Polish. Ms, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
. 2008. Impersonals in Polish: An LFG perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society 106(2): 246–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–138. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krzek, Małgorzata. 2013. The Syntax of Impersonal Constructions in Polish. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Lavine, James, E. 2005. The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian –NO/–TO. Journal of Slavic
Linguistics 13(1): 75–117.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2001. On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 9: 191–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec,1991. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) , 234–253. Columbus OH: Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology Interface. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
. 2006. German inherent datives and argument structure. In Datives and Other Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure [Studies in Language Companion Series 75], Daniel Hole, André Meinunger & Werner Abraham (eds),47–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 2008. Clitic impersonal constructions in Romance: Syntactic features and semantic interpretation.Transactions of Philological Society 106 (2): 290–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 2006. Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Natural Language Semantics 14: 257–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagórko, Alicja. 1997. Zarys gramatyki polskiej (Polish Grammar. An Outline), 2nd edn. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2004. The syntax of valuation and interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), 262–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998. Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics 34(1): 165–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. A deletion analysis of null subjects. In Null Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 58–88. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Holmberg, Anders. 2010. Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. In Null Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 1–58. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2008. Introduction: impersonalization from a subject-centred vs. agent-centred perspective. Transactions of Philological Society 106(2): 115–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2003. Case: abstract vs. morphological. In New Perspectives on Case Theory, Ellen Brandner & Heike Zinsmeister (eds), 223–268. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2004. The syntax of person, tense and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219–251. Special issue edited by Valentina Bianchi & Kenneth Safir.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór, Ármann. 2009. Remarks on features. In Exploration of Phase Theory: Features and Arguments, Kleanthes Grohmann (ed.), 21–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, Anne. 1989. Deriving Syntactic Representations in Finnish. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1976. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar