Cover not available
Part of
Current Issues in Syntactic Cartography: A crosslinguistic perspective
Edited by Fuzhen Si and Luigi Rizzi
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 267] 2021
► pp. 127–138

Chapter 6
Subject drop in how come questions in English

 | Kanda University of International Studies
In this paper, I will discuss a novel phenomenon which has not previously been discussed in the literature on how come questions – namely the fact that they can exhibit subject drop in diary-style English. I will first introduce Haegeman’s (1990) analysis of diary English with special attention to subject drop. I will next show some facts that how come questions can exhibit subject drop in diary-style English and suggest a mechanism responsible for subject drop in diary English. It will be shown that the same mechanism is used to license the null subject in Old English. I will further deal with a related but distinct question about the mechanism licensing an argumental element in the lower topic position in Old English, as opposed to Late Middle English. I will finally show that the same mechanism responsible for subject drop is used in licensing null Case in Japanese.
Keywords: subject drop, how come questions, diary-style English, Old English, Late Middle English, Japanese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Subject drop in how come questions in diary English
  • 3.Null Case particle in Japanese
  • 4.Summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 12 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.267.06end
References (38)
References
Belletti, Adriana. 2001. “Inversion” as focalization. In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke C. J. Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 60–90, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 16–51. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2014. The fine structure of force: On the interaction of modal particles with illocutionary force and clause type. In On Peripheries: Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions, Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque & Yoshio Endo (eds), 103–140. Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco & Zegrean, Iulia. 2012. Splitting up force. Evidence from discourse particles. In Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachael Nye (eds), 229–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter. 1991. Topicalization, inversion and complementizers in English. In Going Romance and Beyond, Denis Delfitto, Martin Everaert, Arnold Evers & Frits Stuurman (eds), 1–45. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Dohi, Atsushi. 2020. CP-internal discourse particles and the split ForceP hypothesis. Lingua 233. 68–87.Google Scholar
Endo, Yoshio. 2007. Locality and Information Structure. A Cartographic Approach to Japanese [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 116]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Illocutionary force and modal particles in the syntax of Japanese. In Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 405–424. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Two ReasonPs. In Beyond Functional Sequence, Ur Shlonsky (ed.), 220–231. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Inter-speaker variation and subject drop in how come questions in English. The Syntax-Morphology Interface in Generative Grammar: Proceedings of the 19th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, 99–114. Seoul: The Korean Generative Grammar Circle.Google Scholar
. 2018. Variation in wh-expressions asking for a reason. Special issue on Complementizers: Lexical vs. Functional Variation of Linguistic Variation 18(2): 299–314.Google Scholar
. 2020. Information structure, null case particle and sentence final discourse particle. In Discourse Particles and Information Structure [Studies in Language Companion Series 213], Olivier Duplâtre & Pierre-Yves Modicom (eds), 224–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endo, Yoshio & Haegeman, Liliane. 2014. Adverbial concord merging adverbial clauses. In Proceedings of FAJL 7: Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 73], Shigeto Kawahara & Mika Igarashi (eds), 25–44. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
. 2019. Adverbial clauses and adverbial concord. In special collection on the Syntax of Adverbial Clauses of Glossa 4(1): 48, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Justin. 2005. The whys and how comes of presupposition and NPI licensing in questions. In John Alderete, Chung-hye Han & Alexei Kochetov (eds), Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 138–145. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2004. A medial topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte 198: 153–190.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1990. Understood subjects in English diaries: On the relevance of theoretical syntax for the study of register variation. Multilingua 9: 157–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena and the Left Periphery. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The syntax of registers: Diary subject omission and the privilege of the root. Lingua 130: 88–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Unspeakable sentences. Subject omission in written registers: A cartographic analysis. Special issue on Register Variation and Syntactic Theory, Diane Massam & Tim Stowell (eds), of Linguistic Variation 17(2): 229–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Stark, Elisabeth. 2021. Register-specific subject omission in English and French and the syntax of coordination. In Germanic and Romance: Continuity and Variation, Sam Wolfe & Christine Mecklenborg Salvesen (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Foris, Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1995. Introduction. In Discourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 3–27. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfed. 2017. Assertions and judgements, epistemics and evidentials. Paper presented at the Workshop Speech Acts: Meanings, Uses, Syntactic and Prosodic Realizations, Leibniz-ZAS Berlin, 29–31 May. <[URL]> (26 January 2021).
Masunaga, Kiyoko. 1988. Case deletion and discourse context. In Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, William Poser (ed.), 145–156. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse Configurational Languages, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2017. Agreement Beyond Phi. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nawata, Hiroyuki. 2009. Clausal architecture and inflectional paradigm: The case of V2 in the history of English. English Linguistics 26: 247–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2018. Colloquial English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. On the position of ‘int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds), 267–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and Beyond, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 223–251. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-Movement. Moving On, Lisa Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97–133. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. Some consequences of criterial freezing: Asymmetries, anti-adjacency and extraction from cleft sentences. In Functional Structure from Top to Toe, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 19–54. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1985. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Tomoyuki. 2017. Eigosi-niokeru Kinoohantyuu-no Syutugen to Syoositu (The emergence and loss of functional categories in the history of English). Paper presented at the symposium of the English Literary Society of Japan held at Shizuoka University, Japan.