Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part 1 Prosody and Phonology
- Part 2 Inflectional and Derivational Morphology
- Part 3 Syntax
- 13 Agreement
- 14 Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
- 15 Coordination and Subordination in Slavic Languages
- 16 Numerals and Quantity Expressions
- 17 Placement and Ordering of the (En)clitics
- 18 Secondary Predication
- 19 Negation and Polarity
- 20 Null Subjects
- 21 Voice
- 22 Morphosyntactic Reflexes of Information Structure
- Part 4 Lexicon
- Part 5 Sociolinguistic and Geographical Approaches
- Part 6 Experimental and Quantitative Approaches
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
20 - Null Subjects
from Part 3 - Syntax
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 May 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part 1 Prosody and Phonology
- Part 2 Inflectional and Derivational Morphology
- Part 3 Syntax
- 13 Agreement
- 14 Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
- 15 Coordination and Subordination in Slavic Languages
- 16 Numerals and Quantity Expressions
- 17 Placement and Ordering of the (En)clitics
- 18 Secondary Predication
- 19 Negation and Polarity
- 20 Null Subjects
- 21 Voice
- 22 Morphosyntactic Reflexes of Information Structure
- Part 4 Lexicon
- Part 5 Sociolinguistic and Geographical Approaches
- Part 6 Experimental and Quantitative Approaches
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
This chapter discusses null-subject clauses, those that do not have the subject in the nominative case. Viewing Slavic languages in their totality, there is a range of null subjects from grammatically obligatory to optional (the presence of the subject signifies emphasis or juxtaposition) to pragmatically motivated. If we view the pro-drop feature as a continuum, as suggested by Pešková, from pro-drop in West Slavic and South Slavic to partially pro-drop in East Slavic (more so in Ukrainian, less so in Russian), then we could correlate a construction of the type (i) Uk. Hru-ACC zakinčeno-ppl ‘Game over (finished)’ with the pro-drop languages, and a construction of the type (d) Rus.-Uk. Udarilo-pastNEU gromom-INSTR ‘Hit by lightning (thunder)’ with partially pro-drop languages. In addition, Russian has a propensity to form infinitive constructions that are absent in other languages.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics , pp. 430 - 446Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Bunčić, D. (2018). Impersonal constructions in Slavic languages and the agentivity of the verb. In Kempgen, S., Wingender, M., & Franz, N., eds., Deutsche Beiträge zum 16. Internationalen Slavistenkongress, Belgrad, Wiesbaden, pp. 101–110.Google Scholar
Christensen, J. L. (1993). Polish impersonal constructions in się. In Yokoyama, O. T., ed., Harvard Studies in Slavic Linguistics, Vol II, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Djurkovic, M. (2004). Passive and impersonal in English and Serbian. In Hendriks, H., ed., Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 10, Cambridge: Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics, pp. 49–101.Google Scholar
Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. (2007). Constructing grammatical meaning: Isomorphism and polysemy in Czech reflexivization. Studies in Language, 31(4), 721–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, V. A. (1993). Macedonian. In Comrie, B. & Corbett, G. G., eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 249–305.Google Scholar
Fužeron, I. [Fougeron] & Brejar, Ž. (2001). KOGDA Ja NUŽNO? Izvestiia RAN. Seriia literatury i iazyka, 2001, 53–57.Google Scholar
Israeli, A. (2013). Dative-infinitive constructions in Russian. Taxonomy and semantics. In Kor Chahine, I., ed., Current Studies in Slavic Linguistics, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israeli, A. (2014). Dative-infinitive BY constructions in Russian. Taxonomy and semantics. In Witkoś, J. & Jaworsky, S., eds., New Insights into Slavic Linguistics, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 141–159.Google Scholar
Israeli, A. (2016). Dative-infinitive constructions with the particle ŽE in Russian. Taxonomy and semantics. Slavic and East European Journal, 2(60), 307–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, E. J. (2016). Bezličnye predloženija s objazatelʹnym mestoimennym vyraženiem èksperiencera v bolgarskom jazyke. In Zimmerling, A. V. & Ljutikova, E. A., eds., Arhitektura klauzy v parametričeskih modeljah, Moscow: JaSK, pp. 332–370.Google Scholar
Krzek, M. (2014). The structure of null subject DPs and agreement in Polish impersonal constructions. In Bondaruk, A. et al., eds., Advances in the Syntax of DPs: Structure, Agreement, and Case, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 129–163.Google Scholar
Malicka-Kleparska, A. Reflexive impersonals in Polish. www.researchgate.net/publication/322137864_Reflexive_impersonals_in_Polish (accessed August 29, 2023).Google Scholar
Milićević, J., (2013). Impersonal constructions in Serbian. A description within a meaning-text linguistic model. In Kor Chahine, I., ed., Current Studies in Slavic Linguistics, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padučeva, E. V. (2012). Neopredelenno-ličnoe predloženie i ego podrazumevaemyj sub‘’ekt. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1, 27–41.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. & Moore, J. (2002). Language-internal explanation: The distribution of Russian impersonals. Language, 78(4), 619–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pešková, A. (2019). Slavic and Romance pro-drop in contrast. Evidence from Czech and Spanish. Languages in Contrast, 19(2), 310–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivero, M. L. & Sheppard, M. M. (2003). Indefinite reflexive clitics in Slavic: Polish and Slovenian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(1), 89–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K. (2012). Pragmatically motivated null subjects in English: A relevance theory perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 53, 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerling, A. V. (2012). Nekanoničeskie podležaščie v russkom jazyke. In Voejkova, M. D., ed., Ot značenija k forme, ot formy k značeniju: Sbornik statej v čest’ 80-letija Aleksandra Vladimiroviča Bondarenko, Moscow: Jazyki, pp. 568–590.Google Scholar