Empty category

Null DPs

While the classical theory recognizes four types of null DPs (DP-trace, WH-trace, PRO, and pro), recent research has found evidence for null DPs that don't appear to fit the classical model such as the distinction of null subjects and null objects.

The classical theory

In the classical theory model, empty (or null) DPs can be broken down into four main types: DP-trace, WH-trace, PRO, and pro. Each appears in a specific environment, and is further differentiated by two binding features: the anaphoric feature [a] and the pronominal feature [p]. The four possible interactions of plus or minus values for these features yield the four types of null DPs.

In the table, [+a] means that the particular element must be bound within its governing category. [+p] means that the empty category is taking the place of an overt pronoun. Having a negative value for a specific feature indicates that a particular type of null DP is not subject to the requirements of the feature.

Not all empty categories enter the derivation of a sentence at the same point. Both DP-trace and WH-trace, as well as all the null heads, are only generated as the result of movement operations. "-trace" refers to the position in the sentence that holds syntactic content in the deep structure, but that has undergone movement so that it is not present at the surface structure. Conversely, both "PRO" and "pro" are not the result of movement and must be generated in the deep structure. In both the government and binding and minimalism frameworks, the only method of base-generation is lexical insertion. This means that both "PRO" and "pro" are held to be entries in the mental lexicon, whereas DP-trace and Wh-trace, and null heads are not categories in the lexicon.

PRO (Big Pro)

The empty category subclass called PRO, referred to orally as "big pro", is a DP which appears in a caseless position. PRO is a universal lexical element, it is said to be able to occur in every language, in an environment with a non-finite embedded clause. However, its occurrence is limited: PRO must occupy the specifier position of the embedded, non-finite clause, such as in the example below:

This example does not use PRO, but instead, uses an overt pronoun ("you") in the specifier position of the embedded non-finite clause:

1a) <i id="mwgw">He<sub id="mwhA">i</sub> would like you<sub id="mwhQ">j</sub> to stay.</i>

This example does use PRO, because instead of an overt pronoun, there is an empty category which is co-referenced with "He", appearing in the specifier position of the non-finite embedded clause:

1b) <i id="mwiQ">He<sub id="mwig">i</sub> would like PRO<sub id="mwiw">i</sub> to stay.</i>

The example tree to the right is the tree structure for this sentence, [He_i would like PRO_i to stay], and shows PRO surfacing in the specifier position of the TP in the embedded clause, and co-referenced to (referring to the same being as) the subject of the matrix clause. We can interpret this as the DP subject [He] having control over PRO. In other words, the meaning of PRO is determined by the meaning of DP [He], as they are co-referenced. This is an example of a subject control construction, where the pronominal subject [He] is selected for by both the main verb [like] and the embedded infinitive verb [stay], thus forcing the introduction of an unpronounced lexical item (PRO) at the subject of the embedded clause, in order to fulfil the selectional requirements of both verbs. Alternatively, we see object control constructions when the object of the sentence controls the meaning of PRO.

However, while the meaning of PRO can be determined by its controller (here, the subject of the matrix clause), it does not have to be. PRO can either be controlled ("obligatory control") or uncontrolled ("optional control"). The realization that PRO does not behave exactly like an R-Expression, an anaphor, or a pronoun (it is in fact, simultaneously an anaphor and a pronoun) led to the conclusion that it must be a category in and of itself. It can sometimes be bound, is sometimes co-referenced in the sentence, and does not fit into binding theory.

Note that in modern theories, embedded clauses that introduce PRO as a subject are CPs.

pro (little pro)

"Little pro" occurs in a subject position of a finite clause and has case. The DP is ‘dropped’ from a sentence if its reference can be recovered from the context; "pro" is the silent counterpart of an overt pronoun. Spanish is an example of a language with rich subject-verb morphology that can allow null subjects. The agreement-marking on the verb in Spanish allows the subject to be identified even if the subject is absent from the spoken form of the sentence. This does not happen in English because the agreement-markings in English are not sufficient for a listener to be able to deduce the meaning of a missing referent.

Chinese is an example of a pro-drop language, where both subjects and objects can be dropped from the pronounced part of finite sentences, and their meaning remains clear from the context. In pro-drop languages, the covert "pro" is allowed to replace all overt pronouns, resulting in the grammaticality of sentences that do not have a subject nor object that is overtly pronounced:

This example illustrates how a Chinese question might be asked with "Zhangsan" as the subject and "Lisi" as the object:

3a)

Zhangsan

Zhangsan

kanjian

see

Lisi

Lisi

le

ASP

ma?

Q?

‘Did Zhangsan see Lisi?’

Below is an example of a response to the question above. Both subject and object are optionally pronounced categories. The meaning of the sentence can be easily recovered, even though the pronouns are dropped. (Round brackets indicate an optional element.)

3b)

(ta)

(He)

kanjian

saw

(ta)

(him)

le.

PRF.

The same point can be made with overt pronouns in English, as in the sentence “John said I saw him”, where the chance of picking [John] as the antecedent for [him] is clearly greater than that of picking any other person.

In example 4), the null object must be referring to the matrix clause subject [Zhangsan] but not the embedded subject [Lisi], since condition C of the Binding Theory states that it must be free. (Square brackets indicate that an element is covert (not pronounced), as in the second English translation.)

4)

Zhangsan

Zhangsan

shuo

say

Lisi

Lisi

hen

very

xihuan.

like.

'Zhangsan said that Lisi liked [him].'

DP-trace (tDP)

In certain syntactic environments (e.g. specifier VP and the specifier position of a TP which introduces a non-finite verb), case features are unable to be “checked”, and a determiner phrase must move throughout the phrase structure in order to check the case features. When this happens, a movement rule is initiated, and the structure is altered so that we hear the DP overtly pronounced in the position of the sentence which it has been moved to; a DP-trace is an empty category that appears at the original spot (the underlying position) of the DP, and stands for the syntactic space in the tree that the DP previously occupied. DP-trace is found in complementary distribution to PRO.

Underlying word order in the sentence "Cheri seems to like Tony."

2a) <i id="mw_g">[ ] seems Cheri to like Tony.</i>

Spoken form of the sentence "Cheri seems to like Tony."

2b) <i id="mwAQE">Cheri seems [ t<sub id="mwAQI">DP</sub> ] to like Tony.</i>

_{*Square brackets throughout example 2 indicate an empty DP category}

This English example shows that DP [Cheri] is originally introduced in the specifier position of the embedded infinitive clause, before moving to the specifier position of the matrix clause. This movement happens in order to check the features of the raising verb [seem], and leaves behind a DP-trace (tDP) in the original position of the DP. You can use the position of the DP-trace to identify where the DP is introduced in the underlying structure.

WH-trace (tWH)

DPs can move for another reason: in the case of Wh-questions. In English, these are questions that begin with <wh> (e.g. who/whom, what, when, where, why, which, and how); words that serve the same function in other languages do not necessarily begin with <wh>, but are still treated as “Wh-items” under this framework. The responses to these questions cannot be yes or no; they must be answered using informative phrases. Wh-items undergo Wh-movement to the specifier of CP, leaving a Wh-trace (tWH) in its original position. Just like for DP-movement, this movement is the result of feature checking, this time, to check the [+WH] feature in C.

To form a Wh-question in the example below, the DP [who] moves to the specifier of the CP position, leaving a Wh-trace in its original position. Due to the extended projection principle, there is DP movement to the specifier of TP position. There is also T to C movement, with the addition of Do-support. These additional movement operations are not shown in the given example, for simplicity.

Example 5: Underlying order of words in the sentence “Who did Lucy see?” (Square brackets throughout example 5 indicate an empty category.)

5a) <i id="mwASE">[ ] did Lucy see who</i>

Spoken form of the sentence "Who did Lucy see?"

5b) <i id="mwASQ">Who did Lucy see [ t<sub id="mwASU">WH</sub> ]?</i>

_{*Square brackets throughout example 5 indicate an empty category.}

_{*You can see where "Who" was in the initial word order by where the WH-Trace appears in the spoken form.}

The tree to the right illustrates this example of WH-trace. Initially, the sentence is "[CP] did Lucy see who,” which has an empty specifier position of CP, as indicated by square brackets. After the Wh-item [who] is relocated to the specifier position of CP, the empty position is left at the end, in the original position of [who]. What is left in its place is the WH-trace.

A special relationship holds between the WH-item and the complementizer of a sentence:

6a) <i id="mwAS0">[<sub id="mwAS4">DP</sub> The person [<sub id="mwAS8">CP</sub> who Ø<sub id="mwATA">C</sub> [<sub id="mwATE">TP</sub>likes Max]]] is here.</i> 6b) <i id="mwATI">[<sub id="mwATM">DP</sub> The person [<sub id="mwATQ">CP</sub> t<sub id="mwATU">WH</sub> that [<sub id="mwATY">TP</sub>likes Max]]] is here.</i> 6c) <i id="mwATc">* [<sub id="mwATg">DP</sub> The person [<sub id="mwATk">CP</sub> t<sub id="mwATo">WH</sub> Ø<sub id="mwATs">C</sub> [<sub id="mwATw">TP</sub>likes Max]]] is here.</i>

In this example, the complementizer or the WH-item can have null categories, and one or the other may show up as null. However, they cannot both be null when the WH-item is the subject.

An important note to remember is that DP-trace and WH-trace are the result of movement operations, while "pro" and "PRO" must be base generated.

Null subjects

Null-subject languages, such as Chinese and Italian, allow the omission of an explicit subject in an independent clause by replacing it with a null subject. This is unlike languages like English or French which require an explicit subject in this sentence. This phenomenon is similar, but not identical, to that of pro-drop languages, which may omit subject, object or both pronouns. While all pro-drop languages are null-subject languages, not all null-subject languages are pro-drop.

For example, in Italian the subject "she" can be either explicit or implicit:

7a)

Maria

Maria

non

not

vuole

wants

mangiare.

[to-]eat

"Maria does not want to eat."

7b)

Subject

Non

not

vuole

wants

mangiare.

[to-]eat

"[(S)he] does not want to eat."

Null object constructions

Many languages such as Portuguese freely allow for the omission of the object of a transitive verb and use a variable empty category in its place. Unlike pro (little pro), variable empty objects are R-expressions and must respect Principle C of Binding Theory.

The following is an example of a null variable object construction in Portuguese:

8)

a

the

Joana

Joana

viu

saw

∅

him/her/it

na

on the

TV

TV‍

ontem.

yesterday

'Joana saw him/her/it on TV yesterday.'