A Probe-Goal Analysis of Null Arguments
Nobu Goto
Tohoku Gakuin University[Intro] This paper proposes an account of a null subject phenomenon in terms of theprobe-goal system under Chomsky's (2008) feature-inheritance system (hereupon, FIS),
and gives a unified account for Italian pro-drop and German topic-drop phenomena.
[FIS] The FIS assumes that a phase head C has two probe features, an edge-feature (EF)and Agree (!)-features, that T inherits !-features from C as in (1) (C-to-T-inheritance;
henceforth, CTI) (p.148), and that !-probe is subject to minimal search (p.142), but EFprobe is not (p.151). On the CTI, Richards (2007) argues that it is operative at thedomain where the edge and nonedge (complement) of a phase are transferred separately.
Hence, it is predicted that the CTI becomes inoperative at the domain where the edge
and nonedge of a phase are transferred at once. Given that such an at-once-Transfer isthe most appropriate manner of Transfer in verb second (V2) environments (Goto 2010
and Obata 2010), we can expect (2) as a natural consequence of Richards' argument.
[Proposal] I propose that in addition to EF and !-features, C can enter a derivation withan E(llipsis)-feature, which makes it possible for an element to be deleted at PF (see(3)), and an element assigned an E-feature can be deleted at PF through an E-featureassignment which is implemented in terms of EF-probing by C or !-probing by T.
[Prediction] The present system makes the prediction under (2) that while an E-feature
is inherited from C to T with !-features in a non-V2 language such as Italian, it is notinherited to T but stays on C in a V2 language such as German, as shown in (4) and (5).
Thus, E-feature assignment is implemented by !-probe in (4) and by EF-probe in (5).
[Analysis] Given (4) in Italian, the null subject sentence (6) (where [e] indicates theempty subject corresponding to a third person pronoun egli 'he/she') is derived as in (7).
As soon as C with !-features and an E-feature are introduced into the derivation ((7a)),both features are inherited by T from C ((7b)) and !-features on T enter into a probegoal relation with egli, which is in the minimal search domain of T ((7c)). Given that theprobe-goal relation makes it possible not only to value uninterpretable features on T andegli but also to assign an E-feature to the agreeing element, egli can delete at PF ((7d)).
Under the present analysis, the impossibility of the null object sentence (8) is explained
as follows: since !-probe is subject to minimal search, it is impossible to assign an Efeature to the downstairs object beyond the intervening subject; hence the object cannot
be null at PF. Unlike Italian, given (5) in German, it is expected that not only a subject
but also an object can be freely null: since EF-probe can seek any goal in its domain
without involving minimal search, it can freely assign an E-feature to an element in its
domain. This prediction is in fact borne out by (9). Specifically, this analysis can also
explain the ungrammaticality of (10) as follows: since an EF on C is satisfied by jetzt,1EF-probe is deactivated, so that it is impossible to assign an E-feature to the arguments
in its domain; hence neither the subject nor the object can be null at PF.
[Consequences] The mechanism of PF-deletion developed so far not only gets rid ofpro but also unifies the pro-drop phenomenon and the topic-drop phenomenon under theFIS.
(1)

C[EF] … T[!]

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

C-to-T feature-inheritance does not take place in the V2 environment.
C[EF][!][E] … T
C ... T[!][E]
C[EF][E] … T[e] parla. 'He/She is speaking.'a.
[C[!][E] [T [v*P egli parla]]]b.
[C [T[!][E] [v*P egli parla]]]c.
[C [T[!][E] [v*P egli parla]]](Agree)d.
[C [T[!] [v*P egli[E] parla]]] (Strike-through indicates deletion)(8) ?*Alla fine della vacanza il bel tempo ha invogliatio [e] a restare.
at.the end of.the vacation the nice weather has induced
to stay‘At the end of the vacation the nice weather has induced one to stay.’(9) a.
(Ich) habe es gestern gekauft.
(I)
have it yeserday boughtb.
(Dass) habe ich gestern gekauft.
(that) have I yesterday bought(10) a.
Jetzt kenne*(ich) dass nicht.
now recognize (I)that notb.
Jetzt kenne'ich *(dass) nicht.
now recognize (that) notSelected References
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essaysin Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freiden, Carlos Peregin Otero
and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Obata, Miki (2010) Root, Successive-Cyclic and Feature-Splitting Internal Merge:
Implications for Feature-Inheritance and Transfer, Doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan.
Richards, Marc (2007) “On Feature Inheritance: An Argument from the Phase
Impenetrability Condition,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 563-572.
2