Syntactic expletive

Last updated

A syntactic expletive (abbreviated EXPL) is a form of expletive: a word that in itself contributes nothing to the semantic meaning of a sentence, yet does perform a syntactic role. [1] Expletive subjects in the form of dummy pronouns are part of the grammar of many non-pro-drop languages such as English, whose clauses normally require overt provision of subject even when the subject can be pragmatically inferred. Since English is a no pro-drop language,[ citation needed ] meaning it does not allow for subjectless sentences, syntactic expletives are obligatory and require a phonologically expressed subject to be considered grammatical. [2]

Contents

Syntactic expletives are identified by their lack of semantic content but are crucial syntactically; they are expected to be used in all clauses which lack a referential subject. [3] English is a no pronoun-drop language, meaning pronouns cannot be omitted even when they are pragmatically or grammatically inferable. [4] This means that English does not allow subjectless sentences. Therefore, the existence of an expletive pronoun in extraposition construction is obligatory to be considered grammatical as they act as a placeholder in the subject position. [5]

There are three types of expletive subjects in English traditional grammar: [6]

Extraposition it

        It pleased the dog that the squirrels ran away from him.

The use of it is considered an expletive when it is non-referential. When it is used to refer to an already mentioned item or state of affairs, it is considered a referential pronoun, and not an extraposition it expletive. [7]

Weather it

        It is cold and wet.

However, Chomsky argues that the weather it is a quasi argument, as it can bind PRO in an adjunct which differs from the true expletive there. [8]

Impersonal there (distinct from locative there)

        There are no employees left.

The impersonal there is usually followed by some form of the verb to be compared to the locative there, which is used as a place adverb. [9]

(For an alternative theory considering expletives like there as a dummy predicate rather than a dummy subject based on the analysis of the copula see Moro 1997 [10] ). Consider (1).

 (1)"It is important that you work hard for the exam."

Following the eighteenth-century conception of pronoun, Bishop Robert Lowth objected that since "it" is a pronoun, it should have an antecedent. Since it cannot function without an antecedent in Latin, Lowth declared the usage to be incorrect in English.[ citation needed ] It is possible to rephrase such sentences omitting the syntactic expletive "it," which is shown in (2).

 (2)"That you work hard for the exam is important," or     "To work hard for the exam is important."

Since subject pronouns are not used in Latin except for emphasis, neither are expletive pronouns and the problem does not arise. For example, the Latin equivalent of it is necessary that you [do something], oportet tibi, translates to 'necessitates to you'.

Since English syntax and Latin syntax are not the same, the sentence was and is fully acceptable to native speakers of English and thus was and is widely considered to be proper grammar. It has no meaning here; it merely serves as a dummy subject. (It is sometimes called preparatory it or prep it, or a dummy pronoun .)

Bishop Lowth did not condemn sentences that use there as an expletive, for example in (3):

 (3)"There are ten desks here."

The nomenclature used for the constituents of sentences such as this is still a matter of some dispute,[ by whom? ] but there might be the subject, are the copula, and ten desks a predicate nominal.

Theoretical Development

There

One of Chomsky's early theoretical development for the expletive, there, is his 1981 analysis where the insertion of there is free in noun-phrase positions. [11] The ungrammatical sentences generated by such are eliminated based on other syntactical principles.

In contrast to this theory, Chomsky later proposed a widely accepted analysis called the Expletive Replacement Hypothesis. [12] In this analysis, the DP (there is coindexed with) substitutes it at the Logical Form (linguistics)(LF) because elements that are null semantically are not considered legitimate at LF. This hypothesis elicits three major outcomes. [13] The first consequence is that existential sentences undergo chain reactions when the associated DP substitutes there. These sentences are labelled as ungrammatical when locality is not followed at each chain reaction. The second outcome of the hypothesis is that when expletives are replaced by the associated DP, expletives act as an anaphor. This automatically solves the issue of there-insertion violating Condition C in Binding (linguistics) theory because instead of an antecedent c-commanding an R-expression, it is an anaphor. Thirdly, it is in support of the minimalist program because it demonstrates the Principle of Greed which states that all movements must be "greedy" and if they are not considered "greedy," they are not considered to be movements. [14] Thus, all movements of the associated DP to replace the expletive are "greedy."

In response to an issue William (1984) brought up that there could not be taken out at LF, [15] Chomsky proposed the solution to minimize replacing there with the associated DP and instead, follow the process of there-affixation. [16]

Extended Projection Principle

Syntacticians investigate the expletive position by looking at the Extended Projection Principle(EPP) features in their data such that it will satisfy the requirements that every clause must contain a subject. [17] Despite the lack of semantic content, There satisfies EPP in that it occupies the subject position which is the specifier TP position because EPP also requires for TP to contain a specifier. [18] Thus, it was coined the term "subject expletive". [19]

Examples

Swedish

In Swedish, the use of expletive subjects is a recent development. Research has found [20] that almost all sentences analyzed from Early Old Swedish lacked an expletive pronoun. In the Late Old Swedish, the use of expletive pronouns increased, mostly seen in religious texts, although it was still relatively uncommon. Today, the use of overt expletive pronouns continue to increase with several types of clauses in which expletives appear in. There is a general consensus among researchers [21] in that finite clauses in this language must have an overt subject present. This phenomenon is referred to as the subject requirement. When a clause has no subject present, the expletive subject det 'it' is used. However, under certain conditions, there are clauses in which det is omitted.

Occurences of Det in Swedish

Below is a list of the types of sentences in which det occurs in Swedish.

Topic Drop: Initial Expletives

In Swedish, there are some cases where the initial expletives go through topic drop (i.e. unpronounced topic in a clause where the referent is highly accessible). While this phenomenon occurs in other areas apart from a subject position, it is limited to the initial position as seen in (4). The first lexical item is omitted in the sentence below. 

 (4) ∅  Var   soligt   och   varmt.          was   sunny   and    hot.   ‘(It)  was   sunny   and    hot.’

Cleft Constructions

The Swedish word det ‘it’ is also used when forming cleft constructions as seen in (5A). This construction is more common than it is in English, especially when forming questions in Swedish (5B). [22] 

(5)A. (Det) var längesen jag såg dig.  [23] it   was long.ago I saw you.ACC    ‘It is a long time ago since I saw you.’
(5) B. Var *(det) längesen jag såg dig?  [24] was it long.ago I saw you?    'Is it a long time since I saw you?

See Syntactic Analysis of 'Det' for an explanation on the ungrammaticality (denoted by the asterisk) if det is omitted from the sentence.

Extraposed Clauses (Infinitival clauses or Finite clauses)

Extraposition occurs when a clause that acts as a subject is moved to the rightmost position of a sentence and replaced by the lexical item det it in the initial position. [25] In Swedish, det occurs in these types of clauses. In Falk's (1993) work, [26] this occurrence is known as the clause-anticipating det as shown in (6).

(6) (Det) var trevligt att träffa dig/ att du kunde komma.  [27] it was nice.NEUT to meet you that you could come     ‘It is nice to meet you/that you could come.’

See also

Related Research Articles

In linguistics, syntax is the study of how words and morphemes combine to form larger units such as phrases and sentences. Central concerns of syntax include word order, grammatical relations, hierarchical sentence structure (constituency), agreement, the nature of crosslinguistic variation, and the relationship between form and meaning. There are numerous approaches to syntax which differ in their central assumptions and goals.

A noun phrase, or nominal (phrase), is a phrase that has a noun or pronoun as its head or performs the same grammatical function as a noun. Noun phrases are very common cross-linguistically, and they may be the most frequently occurring phrase type.

A cleft sentence is a complex sentence that has a meaning that could be expressed by a simple sentence. Clefts typically put a particular constituent into focus. In spoken language, this focusing is often accompanied by a special intonation.

In linguistics, an impersonal verb is one that has no determinate subject. For example, in the sentence "It rains", rain is an impersonal verb and the pronoun it does not refer to anything. In many languages the verb takes a third person singular inflection and often appears with an expletive subject. In the active voice, impersonal verbs can be used to express operation of nature, mental distress, and acts with no reference to the do-er. Impersonal verbs are also called weather verbs because they frequently appear in the context of weather description. Also, indefinite pronouns may be called "impersonal", as they refer to an unknown person, like one or someone, and there is overlap between the use of the two.

A dummy pronoun is a deictic pronoun that fulfills a syntactical requirement without providing a contextually explicit meaning of its referent. As such, it is an example of exophora.

In linguistics, pied-piping is a phenomenon of syntax whereby a given focused expression brings along an encompassing phrase with it when it is moved.

In modern linguistics, an unaccusative verb is an intransitive verb whose grammatical subject is not a semantic agent. In other words, it does not actively initiate, or is not actively responsible for, the action of the verb.

Topicalization is a mechanism of syntax that establishes an expression as the sentence or clause topic by having it appear at the front of the sentence or clause. This involves a phrasal movement of determiners, prepositions, and verbs to sentence-initial position. Topicalization often results in a discontinuity and is thus one of a number of established discontinuity types, the other three being wh-fronting, scrambling, and extraposition. Topicalization is also used as a constituency test; an expression that can be topicalized is deemed a constituent. The topicalization of arguments in English is rare, whereas circumstantial adjuncts are often topicalized. Most languages allow topicalization, and in some languages, topicalization occurs much more frequently and/or in a much less marked manner than in English. Topicalization in English has also received attention in the pragmatics literature.

An existential clause is a clause that refers to the existence or presence of something, such as "There is a God" and "There are boys in the yard". The use of such clauses can be considered analogous to existential quantification in predicate logic, which is often expressed with the phrase "There exist(s)...".

In linguistics, raising constructions involve the movement of an argument from an embedded or subordinate clause to a matrix or main clause; in other words, a raising predicate/verb appears with a syntactic argument that is not its semantic argument, but is rather the semantic argument of an embedded predicate. For example, in they seem to be trying, the predicand of trying is the subject of seem. Although English has raising constructions, not all languages do.

A definite clause grammar (DCG) is a way of expressing grammar, either for natural or formal languages, in a logic programming language such as Prolog. It is closely related to the concept of attribute grammars / affix grammars from which Prolog was originally developed. DCGs are usually associated with Prolog, but similar languages such as Mercury also include DCGs. They are called definite clause grammars because they represent a grammar as a set of definite clauses in first-order logic.

The extended projection principle (EPP) is a linguistic hypothesis about subjects. It was proposed by Noam Chomsky as an addendum to the projection principle. The basic idea of the EPP is that clauses must contain a noun phrase or determiner phrase in the subject position.

Andrea Moro Italian linguist

Andrea Carlo Moro is an Italian linguist, neuroscientist and novelist.

Syntactic movement is the means by which some theories of syntax address discontinuities. Movement was first postulated by structuralist linguists who expressed it in terms of discontinuous constituents or displacement. Some constituents appear to have been displaced from the position in which they receive important features of interpretation. The concept of movement is controversial and is associated with so-called transformational or derivational theories of syntax. Representational theories, in contrast, reject the notion of movement and often instead address discontinuities with other mechanisms including graph reentrancies, feature passing, and type shifters.

Scrambling is a syntactic phenomenon wherein sentences can be formulated using a variety of different word orders without any change in meaning. Scrambling often results in a discontinuity since the scrambled expression can end up at a distance from its head. Scrambling does not occur in English, but it is frequent in languages with freer word order, such as German, Russian, Persian and Turkic languages. The term was coined by Haj Ross in his 1967 dissertation and is widely used in present work, particularly with the generative tradition.

A resumptive pronoun is a personal pronoun appearing in a relative clause, which restates the antecedent after a pause or interruption, as in This is the girli that whenever it rains shei cries.

Avalency refers to the property of a predicate, often a verb, taking no arguments. Valency refers to how many and what kinds of arguments a predicate licenses—i.e. what arguments the predicate selects grammatically. Avalent verbs are verbs which have no valency, meaning that they have no logical arguments, such as subject or object. Languages known as pro-drop or null-subject languages do not require clauses to have an overt subject when the subject is easily inferred, meaning that a verb can appear alone. However, non-null-subject languages such as English require a pronounced subject in order for a sentence to be grammatical. This means that the avalency of a verb is not readily apparent, because, despite the fact that avalent verbs lack arguments, the verb nevertheless has a subject. According to some, avalent verbs may have an inserted subject, which is syntactically required, yet semantically meaningless, making no reference to anything that exists in the real world. An inserted subject is referred to as a pleonastic, or expletive it. Because it is semantically meaningless, pleonastic it is not considered a true argument, meaning that a verb with this it as the subject is truly avalent. However, others believe that it represents a quasi-argument, having no real-world referent, but retaining certain syntactic abilities. Still others consider it to be a true argument, meaning that it is referential, and not merely a syntactic placeholder. There is no general consensus on how it should be analyzed under such circumstances, but determining the status of it as a non-argument, a quasi-argument, or a true argument, will help linguists to understand what verbs, if any, are truly avalent. A common example of such verbs in many languages is the set of verbs describing weather. In providing examples for the avalent verbs below, this article must assume the analysis of pleonastic it, but will delve into the other two analyses following the examples.

The term equative is used in linguistics to refer to constructions where two entities are equated with each other. For example, the sentence Susan is our president, equates two entities "Susan" and "our president". In English, equatives are typically expressed using a copular verb such as "be", although this is not the only use of this verb. Equatives can be contrasted with predicative constructions where one entity is identified as a member of a set, such as Susan is a president. This view has been contrasted by Otto Jespersen in the first part of the XX century and by Giuseppe Longobardi and Andrea Moro in the second. In particular, Andrea Moro in 1988 proved that either DP must be non referential in the sense of Geach (1962) by exploiting arguments based on binding theory. The idea is that when a DP plays the role of predicate it enlarges its binding domain: for example, in John met his cook the pronoun can refer to the subject John but in John is his cook it cannot. The key-step was to admit that the DP following the copula can be referential whereas the one preceding must not, in other words the key-step was to admit that there can be inverse copular sentences, namely those where the subject, which is referential, follows the predicate. For a discussion starting from Moro's data see Heycock (2012). For a historical view of the development of the analysis of the copula see Moro

Logophoricity is a phenomenon of binding relation that may employ a morphologically different set of anaphoric forms, in the context where the referent is an entity whose speech, thoughts, or feelings are being reported. This entity may or may not be distant from the discourse, but the referent must reside in a clause external to the one in which the logophor resides. The specially-formed anaphors that are morphologically distinct from the typical pronouns of a language are known as logophoric pronouns, originally coined by the linguist Claude Hagège. The linguistic importance of logophoricity is its capability to do away with ambiguity as to who is being referred to. A crucial element of logophoricity is the logophoric context, defined as the environment where use of logophoric pronouns is possible. Several syntactic and semantic accounts have been suggested. While some languages may not be purely logophoric, logophoric context may still be found in those languages; in those cases, it is common to find that in the place where logophoric pronouns would typically occur, non-clause-bounded reflexive pronouns appear instead.

References

Notes

  1. ↑ "Expletive | Define Expletive at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 2013-10-15.
  2. ↑ Pekelis, Olga E. (2018). "Expletives, referential pronouns and pro-drop: The russian extraposition pronoun èto in light of the english it and the german es". Lingua. 203: 66–101. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2017.10.007.
  3. ↑ Pekelis, Olga E. (2018). "Expletives, referential pronouns and pro-drop: The russian extraposition pronoun èto in light of the english it and the german es". Lingua. 203: 66–101. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2017.10.007.
  4. ↑ Pekelis, Olga E. (2018). "Expletives, referential pronouns and pro-drop: The russian extraposition pronoun èto in light of the english it and the german es". Lingua. 203: 66–101. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2017.10.007.
  5. ↑ Pekelis, Olga E. (2018). "2018". Lingua. 203: 66–101. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2017.10.007.
  6. ↑ Svenonius, Peter (2002). "Subjects, expletives, and the epp". Oxford University Press.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  7. ↑ Engdahl, Elisabet (2012). "Optional expletive subjects in swedish". Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 35 (2): 99–144. doi:10.1017/S0332586512000169.
  8. ↑ Pekelis, Olga E. (2018). "Expletives, referential pronouns and pro-drop: The russian extraposition pronoun èto in light of the english it and the german es". Lingua. 203: 66–101. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2017.10.007.
  9. ↑ Meyeroff, Miriam; Walker, James A. (2013). "An existential problem: The sociolinguistic monitor and variation in existential constructions on bequia (st. vincent and the grenadines)". Language in Society. 42 (4): 407–428. doi:10.1017/S0047404513000456.
  10. ↑ Moro, A. 1997 The Raising of Predicates. Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 80, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  11. ↑ Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
  12. ↑ Chomsky, Noam (1986b). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
  13. ↑ Everaert, Martin; Riemsdijk, Henk van (2006). "Existential Sentences and Expletive There". Companions to Linguistics: The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 1: 216–226. Retrieved 19 December 2021.
  14. ↑ "The Minimalist Program" (PDF). Blackwellpublishing.com. Retrieved 20 December 2021.
  15. ↑ Williams, Edwin (1984). There-Insertion. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 131–153.
  16. ↑ Everaert, Martin; Riemsdijk, Henk van (2006). "Existential Sentences and Expletive There". Companions to Linguistics: The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 1: 216–226. Retrieved 19 December 2021.
  17. ↑ Everaert, Martin; Riemsdijk, Henk van (2006). "Existential Sentences and Expletive There". Companions to Linguistics: The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 1: 216–226. Retrieved 19 December 2021.
  18. ↑ Deal, Amy Rose. "The Origin and Content of Expletives: Evidence from "Selection"". Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard. Retrieved 15 December 2021.
  19. ↑ Everaert, Martin; Riemsdijk, Henk van (2006). "Existential Sentences and Expletive There". Companions to Linguistics: The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 1: 216–226. Retrieved 19 December 2021.
  20. ↑ Håkansson, David (2017). "Transitive expletive constructions in Swedish". Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 40 (3): 255–285. doi:10.1017/S0332586517000208 . Retrieved 13 December 2021.
  21. ↑ Engdahl, Elisabet (2012). "Optional expletive subjects in Swedish". Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 35 (2): 99–144. doi:10.1017/S0332586512000169 . Retrieved 13 December 2021.
  22. ↑ Holmes, Hinchcliffe, Philip, Ian (2013). Swedish: A Comprehensive Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. p. 744. ISBN   9780203381670 . Retrieved 13 December 2021.
  23. ↑ Engdahl, Elisabet (2012). "Optional expletive subjects in Swedish". Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 35 (2): 99–144. doi:10.1017/S0332586512000169 . Retrieved 13 December 2021.
  24. ↑ Engdahl, Elisabet (2012). "Optional expletive subjects in Swedish". Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 35 (2): 99–144. doi:10.1017/S0332586512000169 . Retrieved 13 December 2021.
  25. ↑ Nordquist, Richard. "Extraposition in Grammar". Thought Co. Retrieved 13 December 2021.
  26. ↑ Falk, Cecilia (1993). "Non-referential subjects and agreements in Swedish". Lingua. 89 (2): 143–180. doi:10.1016/0024-3841(93)90051-W . Retrieved 13 December 2021.
  27. ↑ Engdahl, Elisabet (2012). "Optional expletive subjects in Swedish". Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 35 (2): 99–144. doi:10.1017/S0332586512000169 . Retrieved 13 December 2021.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.