DOCUMENT RESUME ED 284 440 FL 016 832 AUTHOR Heggie, Lorie TITLE The Range of Null Operators: Evidence from Clefting. PUB DATE Dec 86 NOTE 28p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America/American Association for Applied Linguistics (New York, NY, December 27-30, 1986). PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) -- Information Analyses (070) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS French; Grammar; Language Universals; *Language Variation; *Linguistic Theory; Phrase Structure; *Sentence Structure; *Structural Analysis (Linguistics); *Structural Linguistics; Surface Structure; *Syntax; Verbs ABSTRACT Grammatical theories that rely exclusively on the categorical nature of constituents to determine their syntactic behavior encounter problems when dealing with cleft construction. The ungrammaticality of such constructions is indeed syntactic in nature and can be shown to derive from a general principle of universal grammar (UG), restricting the range of null operators that partake in cleft construction. Theoretical assumptions underlying the clefting phenomena are reviewed, followed by a demonstration of the plausibility of a descriptive generalization concerning cleftability stated in terms of Theta Theory (Chomsky, 1981). Several apparent counterexamples to that generalization are considered whichare shown to fall out of other modules of the grammar developed within the Government Binding framework. The question of why such a generalization should hold is addressed through deeper insight into the characteristics of the null operator involved in the clefting construction. A constraint is formulated regarding therange of null operators. It is proposed that this Null Operator Generalization be extended to all base-generated empty categories, a hypothesis which is shown to rightly predict the distribution of predicate clitics in French. (CB) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best thatcan be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** THE RANGE OF NULL OPERATORS: EVIDENCEFROM CUTTING* Lode Heggie University of Southerti California 0. INTRODUCTION Grammatical theories which rely exclusivelyon the categorial nature of constituents to determine their syntacticbehavior encounter problems when dealing with the cleft construction.Emonds (1976) argues that only NPs and PPs can be clefted. Ascan easily be shown, however, this claim simply lacks empirical adequacy. Consider,for instance, the sentence in (1) where an AP fills the cleft position: (1) It's [drunk] that John soundsintelligent [e]. Delahunty (1982), in trying to solve thisproblem, suggests a different approach to clefts by which the restrictionson cleft sentences observed are claimed to be derivable from the limitationson the generation of PS rules standardized in W-syntax. Thus, whateverprevents PS rules from generating strings such as *VP---> V VP S and *VP ---> V S' S' is also assumed to rule out sentences like (2)and (3) respectively. (2) *It's [eaten the cake] that John has [e]. (3) *It was [that Marycame home early] that John was happy [e]. Because PS rules can generate strings of theform VP ---> V AP S',cleft sentences like (1) are rightly predicted to begrammatical. As Delahunty Paper presented at fhe Apuual Meeting of fhe LSA/AAAL/ADS(New York, NYDecember 27-30, 1986); AVAILABLE 2 BEST COPY himself recognizes, however, such an approach does notextend to cases like those in (4), whose ungrammaticality he takes to beunrelated to syntax) (4) a. *It's [clever] that John sounds [e] drunk. b. *It's [a great teacher] that Mary considersSuzan [e]. c. *It's [under the table] that they drank him [e]. In this paper I argue, contra Delahunty (1982),that the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (4) is indeed syntactic innature and can be shown to follow from a general principle of UG restricting therange of null operators which I assume, following Jaeggli (1982),partake in the cleft construction.2 This paper is organized as follows. Section 1lays out the theoretical assumptions underlying my discussion of cleftingphenomena. In section 2, I demonstrate the plausibility of a descriptivegeneralization concerning cleftability stated in terms of Theta Theory(Chomsky, 1981). In section 3, I consider a number of apparent counterexamplesto that generalization which are shown to fall out of-other modulesof the grammar developed within the Government Binding framework.I turn in section 4 to the question of why such a generalization shouldhold, seeking a deeper insight into the characteristics of the null operatorinvolved in the clefting construction. This leads me to formuVatea constraint on the range of null operators called the Null Operator Generalization (NOG).Finally in section 5, it is proposed that the NOG be extendedto all base-generated empty categories, a hypothesis which is shown torightly predict the distribution of predicate clitics in French. 2 1. THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS Chomsky (1977) argues that cisefting constructions involve the generation in the base of the cleft position. Because the "gap" present in the sentence which is predicated of the clefted phrase is illicit if it occurs in Island contexts, Chomsky assumes that it is the trace of syntactic Wh-movement, a movement known to be constrained by Subjacency. The operator moved, which Chomsky takes to be an overt Wh-operator ultimately deleted in PF, is argued in Jaeggli (1982) to be a null operator. In this paper, I will essentially assume Chomsky's (1977) structure f or clefts as amended by Jaeggli (1982). Such a structure appears in (5) below. (5) Is it [vp be Es. XPi Es. OPi [s [eh... In addition, it will be assumed, following Barss (1984),that (XP, OP, EC in (5) is an A'-chain, whichensures that the clefted element XP is assigned the Case and theta role received by the trace ofthe null operator. This assumption is consistent with the claim thatnull operators, as "weak operators", may paticipate in chain relationsas intermediate members only if they are locally "identified" bya lexically realized antecedent (Jaeggli, 1982; Stowell, 1985). The exact formulationof identification for null operators appears in (6): (6) The Identification Principle (Stowell,1985) A category A may identify another categoryB iff 3 4 (0 A is coindexed with B and (ii) the reference (or range) of thechain containing A is 1exically specified (internal to the chain) Finally, the structure in which this A'-chainis embedded is taken to bean adjoined structure based on Predication (Williams,1980), similar in that respect to the structure for small clausesargued for in Stowell (1964). 2. A THEMATIC CONSTRAINT ONCLEFTABILITY Putting aside for the moment the clefting ofadjectives of the type in (1) as well as that of clausal constituents (cf.3), a descriptive generalizationcan be seen to emerge from the set of datapresented below; namely, an element which has an external theta role toassign, be it primary or secondary,3 cannot be clefted. The elements designatedby this generalization as uncleftable include VP (cf. (7))4,AP (cf. (5))5,AdvP (cf. (9)), and predicates of small clauses (cf. (10)). (7) a. *It's [ip blown up that ship]that the French should not have [el. b. *It was [vp stealing my monegl thatshe caught him [e]. (8) a. *It's [Ap good] that Johnthinks that Mary is a [e] wife. b. *It's [Ap big] thatyou captured a [el bear. (9) a. *It's [Advp frequently]that we skinny-dip at thequarry [e]. 4 b. *Its [Adyp recenUgl that he came into a fortune[e]. (10) a. *It's [pp in the garden] that I believe the cat [e]. 13. *Ifs [Ap mellow] that Bill thinks Suzan [e]. c. *It's [Np a good shot] that I find him [e]. The generalization derived can thus be stated as follows: (11) If an element A has an external theta role to assign, then A is not cleftable. The constraint on cleftability described in (11) in effect restricts the class of cleftable elements to non-predicates. Sentences like (1) (repeated here for convenience), however, where an adjective understood as modifying a subject appears in the cleft position seem to be flagrant violations of (.11). (1) It's [drunk] that John soundsintelligent [e]. In order to understand what makes sentenceslike (1) possible, (11), which is stated in terms of what cannot beclefted, must be reformulated soas to state what are the necessary characteristicsfor an element to be cleftable. The generalization in (11) tellsus that cleftable elements are not theta role assigners. The class of cleftable elementstherefore includes any category which is a "complete functional complex"in the sense of Chomsky (1986e..b). A definition of "complete functionalcomplex" appears in (12): 5 (12) A category X is a complete functional complexif all the grammatical functions compatible with its head arerealized in it. (Adapted from Chomsky (1986b)) That the notion of complete functional complex makes the right predictions about cleftability can easily be shown. Consider, for example, the cleftability of prepositions. According to the definition in (12), a preposition with a nominal object is a complete functional complex but a prepositthn alone is not unless it is intransitive.It is therefore predicted that transitive prepositions should not be cleftable (cf.(13)), but transitive prepositions with an object (cf.(14)) as well as intransitive prepositions (cf.(15)) should. These predictions are borne out as the following paradigm illustrates: (13) a *It's lout] that John walked le]. b. *It's [down] that the baby carriage rolled [e]. (14) a.It's [out the door] that John walked [e]. b.It's [down the hill] that the baby carriage rolled le]. (15) a.It was [afterwards] that he realized his blunder [e]. b.It was [beforehand] that Mary had placed thegun in the top drawer le]. 6 7 Consider now the unclefted version of (1) given in (16). FollowingChomsky (1981) and Stowell (1981), I willassume that the outmost adjective is not a "bare" adjective but, rather, an adjectival adjunct small clause whose subject is PRO controlled bg the matrix subject John: (16) Johni sounds intelligent [PROi drunk].