Anton Zimmerling
Moscow state university of the humanities, MGGU/ Russian state
university of the humanities, RGGG
meinmat@yahoo.com
http://antonzimmerling.wordpress.com/
1
Basic facts
 The paper revises the Null-Subject-Parameter responsible for dropping
thematic pronominal subjects of a finite clause and offers a new
classification of Slavic languages in terms of pro-drop.
I am focusing on two non-trivial facts:
 A) Some languages including Vojvodina Rusinsky and Old Novgorod
developed a constraint blocking BE-auxiliaries in clauses with overt
subject pronouns. In this group inflected auxiliaries are licensed by T
only in clauses with pro. I refer to this group as ‘aggressive pro-drop’.
 B) Some other languages including Russian license pro-drop only in 1st-
2nd persons.
2
Claims: synchrony (1)
 I prove that 3rd person pro is licensed in Russian only if its
antecedent is D-linked.
 I refer to this option as ‘weak/non-pro-drop’ and argue that
it is different from ‘standard pro-drop’ (Polish, Czech).
 Existing accounts of pro-drop – the ‘morphological
uniformity’ criteria, the ‘impoverishment/ neutralization’
criteria, the ‘radical pro-drop’ conjecture, the conjecture on
the alleged N /D contrast in the system of personal
pronouns cannot predict the contrast of the supposed 1st2nd vs pro-drop vs 3rd person non-pro-drop in Russian.
3
Claims: synchrony (2)
 A typologically valid classification of pro-drop languages must be




based on the notion of argument pro-drop, not discourse pro-drop.
Slavic languages can be classified with 3 groups.
A. ‘standard pro-drop’ (Polish, Czech). 1st, 2nd & 3rd p. pro. Inflected
auxiliaries are licensed both in clauses with and without overt
pronouns. No zero auxiliaries or 3rd person zero auxiliaries only.
B. ‘Aggressive pro-drop’ (Rusinsky, Old Novgorod Russian). 1st, 2nd &
3rd p. pro. Inflected auxiliaries are licensed only in clauses with pro and
banned in clauses with overt pronouns.
C. ‘Weak/no pro-drop’ (Modern Russian). 1st & 2ndp. pro-drop only. No
inflected auxiliaries in verbal forms.o
4
Claims: diachrony
 Historically, aggressive pro-drop in Slavic results from a
combination of two features – 1) pro-drop licensing with
non-D-linked referents 2) licensing of zero
auxiliaries/copula dropping. Standard pro-drop languages
don’t license zero auxiliaries or restrict them to the 3rd
person. The weak/non-pro-drop option in the history of
Russian resulted from two processes – 1) loss of 3rd person
auxiliaries 2) licensing of 1st-2nd auxiliary dropping.
 Standard pro-drop languages kept the balance between
these two extremes by making overt auxiliaries obligatory.
5
MERGE & MOVE & SPELL-OUT
 Well-formed structures (sometimes) can be generated
and parsed even if some of their elements are not
expressed explicitly.
 Universal Grammar includes operations of three types
— merging of subtrees [of a tree structure] = Merge,
Movement of a subtree = Move and mapping of
subtrees and trees onto strings of some physical
elements/linearly ordered strings of physical elements
= Spell-Out.
6
Zeros in theoretic syntax
 Zero categories in syntax always result from the
mapping of two levels of representation, the higher
one (n + 1 level) interpreting the lower one (nth level).
 Adding zero categories helps to recognize and parse
well-formed structures.
 Zero categories are real if they share some features
with some non-zero categories.
 Conclusive proof has been provided only for the
existence of zero subject pronouns and zero
auxiliaries.
7
Zeros and Deletion
 Two possible types of zeros.
 A. Lieutenant Kije-type: big PRO (cf. Holmberg 2005).
‘the arrestant is incorporeal and has no body’.
A ban on non-zero manifestation. ‘Lieutenant Kije’ are
categories that does not spell-out at PF.
 B. Wastebasket-fly-type: pro, Mel’čuk’s zero lexemes etc.
The presence of such zero categories is due to Deletion
operation. Some compatible category (say, overt
pronominal) has been deleted and the ‘wastebasket flies’
fill the place.
8
pro and pro-drop
 pro = zero equivalent of pronominal subject of a finite
verb.
 pro is inherently unspecified for φ-feature values. Its
distribution is determined by the following two
conditions:

a.
pro must be licensed.

b.
pro must be identified.
 Pro-drop = subject pronominal dropped & replaced by
pro.
9
Some pro characteristics
 pro is inherently unspecified for φ-feature values.
 pro is restricted with subject position with finite verbs.
 pro is a definite zero pronoun.
 pro has the communicative status of a (zero) topic or
‘theme’.
 Pro does lacks role-specific features characteristic of
Agents, Patients, Experiencers etc.
10
Accounts of pro
 A. Morphologic uniformity (Jaeggli & Safir 1989).
Pro-drop only licensed in languages with morphologically uniform verbal
paradigms: either all persons are distincly inflected (cf. Italian) or none
(cf. Chinese).
 B. ‘Impoverishment’ (Műller 2005).
Pro cannot be licensed by T if T is subject to an impoverishment
operation that lead to a neutralization of φ-features.
 C. ‘Agglutinative hypothesis’ (Neeleman & Szendröi 2005).
Any pronoun can be dropped (radical pro-prop) if personal pronouns are
agglutinating for case, number or some other nominal feature.
 Holmberg’s hypothesis.
1st-2nd pronouns can be dropped since they are Ns while 3rd person
pronouns cannot since they are Ds.
11
Argument pro-drop
 Argument pro-drop language type. The deleted 3 p. pronoun is
unambiguously recoverable even it is *NOT* anaphoric and D-linked.
 Some argument pro-drop languages. Strict VSO languages (Arabic, Irish),
Romance and Balcanic SVO → VSO languages with verb movement and object
clitics
 Russian is not a standard pro-drop language. A sentence like pro пошел-Sg.
Past.M. на лекцию is most naturally interpreted as having the value of 1 Sg.
gets a more strained interpretation in the 2 p. , while аn interpretation in the
3rd person is excluded with the exception of contexts where the dropped
pronoun is anaphoric.
 On the contrary, in consistent argument pro-drop languages as Spanish andr
Modern Greek a 3rd interpretation = ≪NN went to the lecture≫ is the default
option: the antecedent of pro is not necessary recoverable in its narrow
syntactic environment.
12
Russian as a non-pro-drop
language
 Russian is not a standard pro-drop language.
 A sentence like pro пошел-Sg. Past.M. на лекцию is most naturally
interpreted as having the value of 1 Sg. =≪I (SPEAKER) went to the
lecture≫, gets a more strained interpretation in the 2 p. = ≪You=Sg
(HEARER) went to the lecture≫, while аn interpretation in the 3
person = ≪NN went to the lecture≫ is excluded with the exception of
contexts where the dropped pronoun is anaphoric.
 Anaphoric contexts.
Cf. a dialogue ≪<А. Где Ваняi?> В. proi пошел на лекцию ≫.
<А. Where is Vaniai?> В. proi went to the lecture>
 ‘Pro-testability’ hierarchy of persons in Russian:
1 > 2 // (> *3)
13
Zeros and constructions
 In applied syntax, zero categories always correlate with a
given set of constructions. Adding zeros to syntactic
representation shows that these constructions are
generated by some rules/principles that allow for
interpreting the absence of an overt category (e.g.
<grammatical subject> or <NP> or <personal pronoun in
the Nom. case≫ or <auxialiriary> etc) as a result of its
deletion from a string of overt sentence categories.
 The more zeros one adds, the more constructions one is
able to parse, ceteris paribus.
 Meanwhile, the set of postulated zeros cannot be expanded
ad libitum — otherwise turning to any new corpus of
texts/any new language one will get new types of syntactic
zeros.
14
pro as agreement controller
 Some consistent pro-drop languages exclude overt personal prounouns and auxiliary
clitics.
 Subject forms (including subject pronouns) are controllers of inflexed auxiliaries/
 Rusinsky (Vojvodina dialect: well-formed phrases as e.g. Добри=є, Вон добри, but
*Вон=є добри, which both has 3rd person Sg. Auxiliary clitic =є and overt subject
(nominative) pronoun 3rd person Sg. M вон. [Browne 2008], [Браун 2008].
 A meaning like ≪I am a member of some organization≫ can be expressed in Rusinsky
both with a phrase containing pro — pro член=сом, and with an overt pronoun — я
член, but the pleonasm *я=сом член is banned.
 A meaning like ≪I haven’t read this≫ can be expressed both with a phrase with an overt
subject pronoun — я нє читал and with a phrase with an auxiliary clitic — нє
читал=сом, but these two agreement markers cannot be combined in one and the same
phrase: *я нє читал=сом, *я=сом нє читал, *я нє=сом читал [Browne 2008].
 A-STATE-OF-ART OBSERVATION: in some pro-drop languages clitic auxiliaries agree
with grammatical subject only if the latter is not spelled-out.
15
Null subject and expletive
Faroese:
 (1) Far. Vit byrjuðu hesa greinina við at siga, [CP at taðExpl gongur-3Sg upp og niður í fiskivinnuniDatPrepSg]. ≪We began this article with an
statement, [CP that in fishery things are going up and
down≫ ], lit. ≪…[CP that it goes up and down≫].
 (2) Far. í fiskivinnuni-DatPrepSg ∅-gongur-3Sg alt í ð
upp og niður, ≪In fishery, ∅-goes always up and
down≫
 Hypothesis: zero subjects and expletive take the same
position – SpecCP.
16
Finnish
(3) Fin. а. pro Meni hullusti.
went wrong
≪(things) are in a bad way≫
б. Sitä meni hullusti.
EXPL went wrong
≪the same≫
в. *Meni nyt hullusti.
Went now wrong
 Hypothesis: the expletive is inserted (Expletive Merge) when the initial elemant is a ‘bad’
topic. Two possible scenarios – pro/Expletive Merge (3а-б) or inversion:
*Meni nyt hullusti → nyti meni ti hullusti.
 Unlike in Faroese, expletive sita and se are not deleted in the postposition to the
verb, as e.g. in general questions.
(4) Fin. Meni-ko sita taas hullusti?
Went-Q EXPL again awry
‘Are things in a bad way or something?
17
Expletive as a formal theme
 Fin. sitä, unlike Rus. это, cannot precede a topical subject if both elements are
preverbal (5aб) is grammatical because the pronominal subject е minä «I» is
the rheme or focus of contrast. Meanwhile, it is difficult to fine an appropriate
communicative reading for (5b) :
(5) Fin. a. Sitä olen
minä -kin käynyt Pariisissa.
EXPL have-1Sg I-too
visited Paris-INE
‘I have indeed been to Paris»’
б. Minä sitä olen käynyt Pariisissa.
‘I have been to Paris, too (fancy that)’ /’But I have been to Paris’.
в. *sitä minä olen käynyt Pariisissa.
 Hypothesis: Fin. sitä is not as much an expletive subject as an ‘expletive topic’.
18
Structures with subject-predicate
agreement
Pro Fin.
(Minä)
puhun englantia.
Rus. (Я) говорю
по-английски.
Pro II. Fin. (Sinä)
puhut englantia.
Rus.
(Ты)
говоришь
поанглийски.
*
III. Fin. (*Han)
puhuu englantia.
Rus. (*Он/она)
говорит
поанглийски.
Fin. (Me) puhumme
englantia.
Rus. (мы) говорим поанглийски.
II. Fin. (Te) puhutte
englantia.
Rus. (Вы) говорите поанглийски.
III. Фин. (*He) puhuvat
englantia.
Рус. (*Они) говорят
по-английски.
19
Coreferent deletion and zeros
Coreferent
I-III. Fin. Pekkai väittää [että Øi /häni puhuu englantia]. ‘P. thinks
deletion
in [CPthat (he) speaks English].’
embedded
Rus. I think/you think/Pjotri thinks [CP that ?(I) speak/, (you-Sg)
clausesNP1 = speak/ (hei) speaks English].
NP2
Structures with a zero/expletive element: non-agreeing predicates.
Ø3Sg ~ EXPL
Ø3S ~ EXPL
Markers of ‘impersonal’ predicates: Fin. Ø3Sg meni hullusti; Nyt Ø3Sg
/ se taas sataa ’Now it is raining again’.
Rus. Ø3Sg плохо подвигается; Ø3Sg (*оно) морозит, светает.
Anticipating expletive, correlative to CP:
Fin. Ø3Sg /Sei oli hauskaa [CPettä tulit käymään] i ‘(Iti) is nice [CPthat
you came to see him] i’ .
Rus. Ø3Sg /Этоi странно, что [[CPчто он опоздал]] i. (*Этоi) мне
странно, что [[CPчто он опоздал]] i.
20
Two types of zero agents in
Modern Icelandic
Inanimate Agent,
{-CONTROL}
Verbal-impersonal construction:
Btnum=DatSg 1-hvolfdi=3SgPret
“the boat was turned over", lit.“лодке
опрокинул(о)”.
*Btnum=DatSg 1-hvolfdi=3SgPret
viljandi lit. *«лодке опрокинул(о)
умышленно».
Animate agent
{ CONTROL}
Impersonal passive:
Btnum=DatSg 2-var=3SgPret
hvolft=Sup lit. «лодке
опрокинул(о)».
Btnum=DatSg 2-var hvolft=Sup
viljandi, lit. «лодку опрокинуто
умышленно».
21
Generic pronoun
2Sg
Ø
 Russian bans correlative clauses with 3rd p. с pro,cf. (1а) and
requires a non-zero pronoun in the left clause, cf. (1b); in
the right clause pro is possible(1c) though not obligatory.
(1) а. * [proi ищет] i, proi всегда найдет; *[proi что болит]
i, proi о том и говорит.
b. [Ктоi ищет] i, тотi всегда найдет. [У когоi чтоj
болит] i, тотi о томj и говорит.
c. [Ктоi ищет] i, proi всегда найдет. [У когоi чтоj
болит] i, proi о томj и говорит.
22
Ø2Generic
in correlative clauses
In the right clause Ø2Generic does not alternate with overt generic
2Sg pronoun ты, cf. ill-formed (2a) и (2b):
(2) a. [Ø2Generici Ищешь в чужом государстве], [Ø2Generici / proi
находишь в своем болоте].
b. *[Ø2Generici Ищешь в чужом государстве], [ тыi находишь
в своем болоте].
(3) a. [Ø2Generici как посеешь] i, [Ø2Generici/ proi так и пожнешь].
b. *[Ø2Generici как посеешь] i, [так тыi и пожнешь].
23
How many 2 person zeros are there
in Russian?
 From the one side, Ø2Generic in correlative clauses stands in
Nom.Sg., while in structures with secondary predication generic
2 Sg. Pronoun stands in the Accusative case but can assume the
forms of all genders and numbers.
 From the other side, postulation one zero generic 2 p. pronoun
taking either Nom. Or Acc in both genders, but not other case
forms seems a lesser evil than postulating zero pronouns
specified as objects.
 Structural uses of Acc. And Nom correlate and the accusative
argument in structures with secondary predications correlate.
This argument can be interpreted as subject of a *small clause*.
24
Agreement with Ø2Generic and with
generic ты
 One can prove for in configurations with secondary predication
one deals with Ø2Generic, and not with an NP-ellipsis (pro-form)
of an overt generic 2 p. ты,.
 Overt generic ты agrees in gender and natural gender[sex]
with the gender and natural gender of the referent: (3) with
a zero 2 p. pronoun is appropriate in a situation with a male
referent, while (4) in this situation is completely excluded.
(3) Пластический хирург не сделает Ø2Generic i {M/F; Sg}
красавицей i{F; Sg}.
(4) Пластический хирург не сделает тебя i {F; Sg} красавицей i
{F; Sg}.
25
Outlook
 Unifying all kinds of zero pronouns attested in finite clauses to one and the
same category pro is infelicitous. Discourse dropping of personal pronouns,
coreferent deletion of pronouns and constraints on spell-out of overt
pronominal subjects are three different mechanisms.
 A crucial disctinction for a ‘zero typology’ is the distinction of zero subjects
with role semantics of their own (cf. ‘Mel’čuk’s zeros’) vs role-indifferent zeros
(cf. Chomskyan pro). One should also distinguish zero pronouns linked with
given person forms vs person-indifferent pronouns.
 Some zero pronouns of 3rd person exhibit properties not characteristic of 1st-2nd
person zeros/ zero pronouns taking the forms of different persons.
 Zerp pronouns of 3rd person Sg. vs 3rd person Pl. can be involved in a semantic
contrast (as in Modern Russian), but the same semantic contrast can be
expressed by a different combination of syntactic zeros (cf. Modern Icelandic).
 Some zero pronouns may express Case and Gender: this seems to depend on
agreement morphology of particular languages rather than with semantics.
Zero pronouns with a role semantics of Agents may coexist with non-agentive
zero pronouns in different predicate classes: this typologically rare situation is
attested in Modern Icelandic.
26
References, I
 Alexiadou A. & E.Anagnastopoulou 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word Order, Vmovement and EPP-checking // Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
16:491-539.
 Babby L. 2002. Subjectlessness, External Subcaterization, and the Projection
Principle // Journal of Slavic Linguistics. 10: 341-88.
 Boeckx C. & N.Hornstein. 2004. Movement under Control // Linguistic Inquiry
34, 269-280.
 Browne 2008. Clitic Ordering in Vojvodina Rusinski // Slavic Linguistic Society
3, Ohio June 10-12, 2008.
 Chomsky N., Lasnik H. 1993. Syntax in generativen Grammatik // Syntax: An
International Handbook of Contemporary Research / J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow,
W.Stermfeld, T.Venneman, eds. Berlin & New York, Walter de Gryuter, 506569.
 Gilligan, Gary M. 1987. A cross-linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter.
Univ. of Southern California PhD.
27
References, II
 Havr nek B. 1962. K historickosrovn vac mu pozn n






syntaxe
slovansk ch jazyků // Ot zky slovansků syntaxe. Praha.
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish.
Linguistic Inquiry 36, 533–564.
Holmberg A. & C.Platzack. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian
Syntax. N.Y: Oxford UP.
Jaeggli O., Safir K. (eds.) 1989. The null subject parameter. 1989.
Dordrecht, Foris.
Lavine J. 2005. The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian –no/-to //
Journal of Slavic Linguistics 13: 75-117.
Mel’čuk I. 1979. Syntactic, or Lexical Zero in Natural Language
//Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.Berkeley: UCB, 224260.
Rizzi L. 1986. Null subjects in Italian and the Theory of pro. L. 501-557.
28
References, III
 Sigur sson Halld r




rmann. 2008. Conditions on
argument drop - in press.
Sigur sson Halld r rmann. 2008a. The Case of PRO //
Natural language and linguistic Theory - in press.
Stabler, E.P.1997. Derivational minimalism. In Christian
Retore, ed., Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics.
Springer, p. 68–95.
Zimmerling A. 2007. Zero Lexemes and Derived Sentence
Patterns. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sondetrband 69.
Zimmerling A. 2008. Dative Subjects and Semi-Expletive
Pronouns in Russian // Formal Description of the Slavic
Languages, FdSL 7 / U.Junghanns, L.Szucsic, G.Zybatow
(eds) – in press.
29
References, IV
 Zubáty J.1954. Studie a lnky, II. Praha.
 Мельчук И.А. 1995. Русский язык в модели Смысл
 Текст. Москва-Вена: Языки русской культуры.
(Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 39).
 Циммерлинг А.В. 2002.Типологический синтаксис
скандинавских языков. Москва. Циммерлинг А.В.
2008. Нулевые лексемы в синтаксисе: догматика и
типология. Acta linguistica Petropolitana IV, part 2.
Sankt-Petersburg, 2008, 226-244.
30
References, V
 Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax.




Oxford: OUP, 1995.
Lindseth, Martina. 1998. Null-subject properties of Slavic
languages: with special reference to Russian, Czech and
Sorbian. Vol. 361. Műnchen, Sagner.
Meyer, Roland. 2007. The history of pro drop in Russian.
SLS-2. Berlin. 25-27.08.2007.
Műller, G. 2005. Pro-drop and impoverishment. Ms.
University of Leipzig.
Zalizniak, Andrej A. 2008. Drevnerusskie enklitiki. Moscow
31
Acknowlegments
 Research is a part of the project “The typology of
syntactic constraints” funded by the Russian
Foundation for Humanities (RGNF 09-04-00297a)
whose support is gratefully acknowledged.
32