Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:03:38.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Null objects and non-thematic subjects[*]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Diane Massam
Diane Massam
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of TorontoToronto, Ontario,M5S 1A1, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article analyses middle constructions in English, accounting for their key syntactic and semantic properties. The analysis rests on the observation that there are certain similarities between middle, tough and recipe-context null-object constructions, such as in (1a–c). (1) (a) This bread cuts—easily. (b) This bread is easy to cut—. (c) Take bread. Cut—carefully (and arrange—nicely).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 115 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Authier, J.-M. (1989). Arbitrary null objects and unselective binding. In Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. (eds) The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 55–68.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Johnson, K. & Roberts, I. (1986). Passive arguments raised. LIn 20. 219–252.Google Scholar
Beukema, F. & Coopmans, P. (1989). A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English. JL 25. 417–436.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1986). I-subjects. LIn 17. 375–416.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. (1989). Null objects and the theory of empty categories. In Kirschner, C. & Decesaris, J. (eds) Studies in Romance linguistics: selected papers from the XVIIth linguistic symposium on Romance languages at Rutgers University. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, M. (1987). Null operator constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L. (1988). Transitivity alternations in Mandarin Chinese. MS, MIT, Cambridge, MA (presented at the Ohio State University Conference on Chinese Linguistics, May 1988).Google Scholar
Cheng, L. & Ritter, E. (1988). A small clause analysis of inalienable possession in Mandarin and French. In Blevins, J. & Carter, J. (eds) NELS 18. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 65–78.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: its nature, origins and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (1989). On the notion null anaphor in Chamorro. In Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K., (eds) The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 143–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condoravdi, C. (1989). The middle: where semantics and morphology meet. To appear in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics II.Google Scholar
Fagan, S. (1988). The English middle. LIn 19. 181–205.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (1985). Adverbs in agentless actives and passives. In Eilfort, W., Kroeber, P. & Peters, K. (eds) CLS 21, Part 2: Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago. 21–31.Google Scholar
Guéron, J. (1984). Inalienable possession, PRO inclusion and lexical chains. In Guéron, J., Obenauer, H.-G. & Pollock, J.-Y. (eds) Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris. 43–86.Google Scholar
Guerssel, M., Hale, K., Laughren, M., Levin, B. & White Eagle, J. (1985). A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. In Eilfort, W., Kroeber, P. & Peterson, K. (eds) CLS 21, Part 2: Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. University of Chicago. 48–63.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1987). Register variation in English: some theoretical observations. Journal of English Linguistics 20. 230–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1989). Understood subjects in English diaries: on the relevance of theoretical syntax for the study of register variation. Ms, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1986). Some transitivity alternations in English. Lexicon Project Working Papers 7. Centre for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1987). A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers, 10. Centre for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1988). Explaining and constraining the English middle. In Tenny, C. (ed.) Studies in generative approaches to aspect: MIT Lexicon Project Working Papers, 24. Centre for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA. 41–58.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (1984). Transitivity: grammatical relations in Government Binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D.. (1987). Predication and PRO. Lg 63. 23–52.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaekendoff, Ray S. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. (1986). Passive. LIn 17. 587–622.Google Scholar
Jake, J. & Odden, D. (1979). Raising in Kipsigis. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 9. 131–155.Google Scholar
Jones, M. (1983). Getting tough with wh-movement. JL 19. 129–159.Google Scholar
Jones, C. (1988). Empty operators and parasitic gaps. In Blevins, J. & Carter, J. (eds) NELS 18. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 254–270.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. (1984). Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. & Roeper, T. (1984). On the middle and ergative constructions in English. LIn 15. 381–416.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1977). Lingusitic gestalts. In Beach, W., Fox, S. & Philosoph, S. (eds) CLS 13: Papers from the Regional Meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago. 236–287.Google Scholar
Levin, J. & Massam, D. (1984). Surface ergativity: case/theta relations re-examined. In Berman, S. et al. , (eds) NELS 15. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 286–301.Google Scholar
Massam, D. (1985). Case theory and the projection principle. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Massam, D. (1989). Transitivity alternations in Haitian Creole. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 18. 95–129.Google Scholar
Massam, D. & Roberge, Y. (1989). Recipe context null objects. LIn 20. 134–139.Google Scholar
van Oosten, J. (1977). Subjects and agenthood in English. In Beach, W., Fox, S. & Philosoph, S. (eds) CLS 13: Papers from the Regional Meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago. 459–471.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P. (1984). The I-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In Perlmutter, D. M. & Rosen, C. (eds) Studies in relational grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 81–125.Google Scholar
Rappaport, M. & Levin, B. (1988). What to do with theta roles. In Wilkins, W. (ed.) Syntax and semantics, vol. 21: Thematic relations. New York: Academic Press. 7–36.Google Scholar
Rappaport, M., Laughren, M. & Levin, B. (1988). Niveaux de representation lexicale. Lexique 7. 13–32. (English translation appears in Lexicon Project Working Papers 20, Centre for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. LIn 17. 501–558.Google Scholar
Roberge, Y. (1991). The recoverability of null objects. In Wanner, D. & Kibbee, D. A. (eds) New analyses in Romance linguistics: selected papers from the XVIIIth linguistic symposium on Romance languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (1985). The representation of implicit and de-thematized subjects. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (1987). The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (1983). The syntactic forms of predication. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Seiter, W. (1980). Studies in Niuean syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Tellier, C. (1988). Universal licensing: implications for parasitic gap constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.Google Scholar
Travis, L. (1988). The syntax of adverbs. In Fekete, D. & Laubitz, Z. (eds) McGill working papers in linguistics: Proceedings of the IVth workshop on comparative Germanic syntax. McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. 280–310.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1986). The Italian null objects. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Wu, Y. (1989). Transitivity alternations in Mandarin Chinese. Ms, University of Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A., & Fellbaum, C. (1988). The middle construction in French and English: a comparative study of its syntax and semantics. Ms, Princeton University and Université de Paris 8. (English translation of ‘La construction moyenne en français et en anglais: étude comparative syntaxique et sémantique’, to appear in Guéron, J. (ed.) Recherches linguistiques à Vincennes.)Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M.-L. (1987). On the relation of the lexicon to syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar