The inconsistency of sentential subjects’ analysis in English

H. Ye.  Zinchenko

doi:10.32589/2311-0821.2.2023.297674

Authors

H. Ye. Zinchenko Kyiv National Linguistic University, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4730-2933

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32589/2311-0821.2.2023.297674

Keywords:

sentential subject, canonical / non-canonical subject position, topic, syntactic blocker

Abstract

The article presents a critical analysis of approaches to defining sentential subjects as non-canonical syntactic units consisting of a finite or a non-finite clause. The major issue discussed is the position of the sentential subject in the tree structure debating whether it lands in subject position as a result of movement or it is base-generated in the subject position. Additionally, a claim is made that sentential subjects are not true subjects, but rather topics, suggesting that a different constituent occupies the canonical subject position. Therefore, sentential subjects appear to behave akin to both topics and regular subjects. They cannot generally occur in subject positions in embedded clauses, subject-auxiliary inversions and after topicalised units, yet they trigger subject-verb agreement. When considering these two alternatives, the author finds it important to distinguish between the pragmatic function and the syntactic position. Though subjects have been studied in various linguistic schools, a common consistent opinion on the sentential subject status has not been reached. The discrepancies in existing views are revealed in similar examples analyzed as grammatical or ungrammatical within different scientific frameworks. Distributional and transformational tests, along with the study of the information structure of the utterance aimed at proving the acceptability / unacceptability of sentential subjects show mixed results and sometimes contradictory analyses. The research suggests that ungrammatical sentential units are normally neutralised by alternative structures that function as syntactic blockers. To address the complexity in exploring sentential subject,
the author advocates for a multifactor approach, which takes into account structural, distributional, weight ratio, semantic, pragmatic and psycholinguistic characteristics of subjects in a variety of configurations to ensure understanding the degree of subjecthood of syntactic structures and their systemic arrangement from the core to the periphery. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to studying sentential subjects, acknowledging their multifaceted nature and aiming for a systemic understanding of subjecthood within linguistic frameworks.

References

Bakker, D., & Siewierska, A. (2007). Another take on the notion subject. In M. Hannay & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar: in Honour of Lachlan Mackenzie (pp. 141–158). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Barđdal, J., & Eythórsson, T. (2003). The change that never happened: the story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics, 39(3), 439–472. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cognola, F., & Casalicchio, J. (2018). On the null-subject phenomenon. In F. Cognola & J. Casalicchio (Eds.), Null Subjects In Generative Grammar: A Synchronic And

Diachronic Perspective (pp. 1–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

D’Alessandro, R. (2015). The null subject parameter. In A. Fábregas, J. Mateu, & M. Putnam (Eds.), Contemporary Linguistic Parameters (pp. 201–226). London: Bloomsbury Press.

Davies, W. D., & Dubinsky, S. (2009). On the existence (and distribution) of sentential subjects. In D.B. Gerdts, J.C. Moore, & M. Polinksy (Eds.), Hypothesis A / Hypothesis B: Linguistic Explorations In Honor Of David M. Perlmutter (pp. 111–128). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Downing, A., & Locke, Ph. (2006). English grammar: a university course, 2nd ed. London, New York: Routledge.

Emonds, J. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax: Root, structurepreserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.

Eythórsson, T., & Barđdal, J. (2005). Oblique subjects: a common Germanic inheritance. Language, 81(4), 824–881. Linguistic Society of America: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Faarlund, J. T. (2001). The notion of oblique subject and its status in the history of Icelandic. In J. T. Faarlund (Ed.), Grammatical Relations in Change (pp. 99–135). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Haegeman, L., & Gueron, J. (1999). English grammar: a generative perspective. Blackwell.

Huddleston, R. (2002). The clause: complements. In R. Huddleston, & G.K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (pp. 213–321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.K. (2007). A student’s introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge University Press.

Keenan, E.L. (1976). Towards a universal definition of subject. In Ch.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 303–333). New York: Academic Press.

Kinn, K., Rusten, K.A., & Walkden, G. (2016). Null subjects in early Icelandic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 28(1), 31–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542715000136

Koster, J. (1978). Why subject sentences don’t exist. In S.J. Keyser (Ed.), Recent Transformational Studies In European Languages (pp.53–64). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: a theory of topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Langacker, R.W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lohndal, T. (2014). Sentential subjects in English and Norwegian. In H.P. Helland (Ed.), Syntaxe & Sémantique, 15 (pp. 81–113). Presses Universitaires de Caen.

https://doi.org/10.3917/ss.015.0081

Los, B. (2009). The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English: information structure and syntax in interaction. English Language and Linguistics, 13(1), 97–125. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/S1360674308002876

McCloskey, J. (1997). Subjecthood and subject positions. In Haegeman, L. (Ed.), Elements of Grammar. Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics (pp. 197–235). Dordrecht: Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_57.

Möhlig-Falke, R. (2012). The early English impersonal construction: An analysis of verbal and constructional meaning (Oxford Studies in the History of English). New York: Oxford University Press.

Padgett, J. (1991). The syntax and processing of sentential subjects. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers In Linguistics, 17(2) (pp. 149–180).

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/umop/vol17/iss2/6

Rosenbaum, P. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. MIT Press.

Rosenkvist, H. (2009). Null referential subjects in Germanic languages – an overview. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 84 (pp. 151–180). Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.

Seuren, P.A.M. (2006). Factivity. In E.K. Brown, & A. Anderson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd ed.) (pp. 2927–2928). Boston: Elsevier.

Taverniers, M. (2005). Subjecthood and the notion of instantiation. Language Sciences, 27(6), 651–678. Elsevier.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANGSCI.2005.07.003

Van Valin Jr., R.D., & LaPolla, R.J. (1997). Syntax. Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799