Element contents
Series: Elements in Construction Grammar
Unrealized Arguments and the Grammar of Context
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2025
Summary
In null instantiation (NI) an optionally unexpressed argument receives either anaphoric or existential interpretation. One cannot accurately predict a predicator's NI potential based either on semantic factors (e.g., Aktionsart class of the verb) or pragmatic factors (e.g., relative discourse prominence of arguments), but NI potential, while highly constrained, is not simply lexical idiosyncrasy. It is instead the product of both lexical and constructional licensing. In the latter case, a construction can endow a verb with NI potential that it would not otherwise have. Using representational tools of sign based construction grammar, this Element offers a lexical treatment of English null instantiation that covers both distinct patterns of construal of null-instantiated arguments and the difference between listeme-based and contextually licensed, thus construction-based, null complementation.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Construction GrammarOnline ISBN: 9781009663786Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 04 September 2025
References
Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In Sanders, T., Schilperoord, J., & Spooren, W. (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (Vol. 8, pp. 29–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, D. (1992). The kinematics of presupposition. In Dekker, P. & Stokhof, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: Institute of Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
Bender, E. (1999). Constituting context: Null objects in English recipes revisited. In Alexander, J., Han, N.- R., & Fox, M. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Vol. 6, pp. 53–68). Retrieved from www.ling.upenn.edu/papers/pwpl/v6.1/bender.ps.Google Scholar
Bender, E., & Kathol, A. (2001). Constructional effects of just because ... doesn’t mean ... In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, (27) 1.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R., & Pancheva, R. (2006). Implicit arguments. In The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, second edition (pp. 558–588). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (1998). A minimalist view of the passive. In MIT working papers in linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boneh, N. (2019). Dispositions and characterizing sentences. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 130.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Zaenen, A. (1990). Deep unaccusativity in LFG. In Dziwirek, K., Farrell, P., & Mejías-Bikandi, E. (Eds.), Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective (pp. 45–57). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Brisson, C. (1994). The licensing of unexpressed objects in English verbs. In Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 30, pp. 90–102). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1975). Bridging. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing (pp. 169–174). Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, C., & Gawron, J. M. (1996). The context-dependency of implicit arguments. In Kanazawa, M., Piñón, C., & de Swart, H. E. (Eds.), Quantifiers, deduction and context (pp. 1–32). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2015). Definiteness and determinacy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38(5), 377–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F. (2007). Implicit internal arguments, event structure, predication and anaphoric reference. In Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (Eds.), The grammar–pragmatics interface: Essays in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel (pp. 189–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, O. A. (2016). Metaphor in the grammar of argument realization (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Davis, A., Koenig, J.- P., & Wechsler, S. (2021). Argument structure and linking. In Müller, S., Abeillé, A., Borsley, R. D., & Koenig, J.- P. (Eds.), Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 336–390). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1985). On recent analyses of the semantics of control. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8(3), 291–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erkü, F., & Gundel, J. K. (1987). The pragmatics of indirect anaphors. In Verschueren, J. & Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference (pp. 533–545). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, D. F., & de Swart, H. E. (2003). The semantics of incorporation: From argument structure to discourse transparency. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1969). Types of lexical information. In Ferenc, K. (Ed.), Studies in syntax and semantics (Vol. 12, pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1986). Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 12, pp. 95–107). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of “construction grammar.” In Annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 14, pp. 35–55). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In Hoffman, T. & Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 111–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. (2003). Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flickinger, D. P. (1987). Lexical rules in the hierarchical lexicon (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., & Fodor, J. D. (1980). Functional structure, quantifiers, and meaning postulates. Linguistic Inquiry, 11(4), 759–770.Google Scholar
Gillon, B. (2012). Implicit complements: A dilemma for model theoretic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35(4), 313–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. A. (2000). Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogative constructions. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Glass, L. (2021). English verbs can omit their objects when they describe routines. English Language and Linguistics, 26(1): 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gregory, M. L., & Michaelis, L. A. (2001). Topicalization and left dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1665–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(1), 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L., & Ihsane, T. (2001). Adult null subjects in the non-pro-drop languages: Two diary dialects. Language Acquisition, 9(4), 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Heider, P. M. (2005). The semantics of optionality (PhD dissertation). University at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and r-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. D., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iordăchioaia, G., & Richter, F. (2015). Negative concord with polyadic quantifiers: The case of Romanian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33(2), 607–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 369–411.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: An introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and DRT. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & van Eijck, J. (1997). Representing discourse in context. In van Benthem, J. & ter Meulen, A. (Eds.), Handbook of logic, language and information (pp. 243–258). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Kathol, A. (2001). Non-existence of parasitic gaps in German. In Culicover, P. W. & Postal, P. M. (Eds.), In parasitic gaps (pp. 315–338). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2002). English subjectless tagged sentences. Language, 78(3), 453–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (2004). Null complementation constructions. (Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley).Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s x doing y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.- P., & Davis, A. (2003). Semantically transparent linking in HPSG. In Müller, S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG-2003 conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing (pp. 222–235). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.- P., & Davis, A. (2006). The key to lexical semantic representations. Journal of Linguistics, 42, 71–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, J.- P., & Mauner, G. (1999). A-definites and the discourse status of implicit arguments. Journal of Semantics, 16(3), 207–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K., & Lemoine, K. (2005). Definite null objects in (spoken) French: A construction grammar account. In Boas, H. C. & Fried, M. (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 157–199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2010). The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(3), 357–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1988). Lexical subordination. In Proceedings of the general session at the 24th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (Vol. 24–1, pp. 275–289).Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, L. S. (1985). Operations on lexical forms: unaccusative rules in germanic languages (PhD thesis). MIT.Google Scholar
Levine, R. D., & Hukari, T. E. (2006). The unity of unbounded dependency constructions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lyngfeld, B. (2012). Re-thinking FNI: On null instantiation and control in construction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 4(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauner, G., & Koenig, J.- P. (2000). Linguistic vs. conceptual sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(1), 110–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1968). The role of semantics in a grammar. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (Eds.), Universals of linguistic theory (pp. 124–169). New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2003). Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In Francis, E. J. & Michaelis, L. A. (Eds.), Mismatch: Form–function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp. 259–310). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2012). Making the case for construction grammar. In Boas, H. & Sag, I. A. (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 31–69). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Michelioudakis, D. (2021). Rethinking implicit agents: Syntax cares but not always. In Bárány, A., Biberauer, T., Douglas, J., & Vikner, S. (Eds.), Syntactic architecture and its consequences III: Inside syntax (pp. 287–311). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Miller, P. H., & Monachesi, P. (2003). Les pronoms clitiques dans les langues romanes. In Godard, D. (Ed.), Les langues romanes, problèmes de la phrase simple (pp. 53–106). Paris: Editions du CNRS. (Translated into English: Clitic pronouns in the Romance langagues. In Godard, D. (Ed.), The Romance languages, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications).Google Scholar
Mittwoch, A. (2005). Unspecified arguments in episodic and habitual sentences. In Erteschik-Shir, N. & Rapoport, T. (Eds.), The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation (pp. 237–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S. (2008). Depictive secondary predicates in German and English. In Schroeder, C., Hentschel, G., & Boeder, W. (Eds.), Secondary predicates in Eastern European languages and beyond (pp. 255–273). Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag. Retrieved from https://hpsg.hu-berlin.de/stefan/Pub/depiktiv-2006.html.Google Scholar
O’Gorman, T. J. (2019). Bringing together computational and linguistic models of implicit role interpretation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981a). Topicalization, focus-movement, and Yiddish-movement: A pragmatic differentiation. In The proceedings of the seventh annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 249–264). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981b). Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–255). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In Butt, M. & Geuder, W. (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 97–134). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Reape, M. (1996). Getting things in order. In Bunt, H. & van Horck, A. (Eds.), Discontinuous constituency (pp. 209–253). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinöhl, U., & Ellison, T. M. (2024). Metaphor forces argument overtness. Linguistics, 62(2), 795–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, P. (1993). Selection and information: A class-based approach to lexical relationships (PhD dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Resnik, P. (1996). Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition, 61(1–2), 127–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, S. (1988). Unlikely lexical entries. In Annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 14, pp. 202–212). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(3), 501–557.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (1987). Modal subordination, anaphora and distributivity. PhD. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J. (2004). The interaction of valence and information structure (PhD thesis). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., & Michaelis, L. A. (2010). A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. In Constructions and frames (Vol. 2, pp. 158–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., & Michaelis, L. A. (2014). Frames and the interpretation of omitted arguments in English. In Bourns, S. K. & Myers, L. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on structure and context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht (pp. 57–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A. (1997). English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 431–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2010). English filler-gap constructions. Language, 86(3), 486–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, H. & Sag, I. A. (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 69–202). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., Chaves, R. P., Abeillé, A., Estigarribia, B., Flickinger, D., Kay, P., … Wasow, T. (2020). Lessons from the English auxiliary system. Journal of Linguistics, 56(1), p. 69.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. M. (2003). Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. 2nd edition. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Shopen, T. (1973). Ellipsis as grammatical indeterminacy. Foundations of Language, 10, 65–77.Google Scholar
Stine, R. L. (undated). Camp Fear Ghouls. New York: Simon & Schuster [pages unnumbered].Google Scholar
Wechsler, S., & Zlatic, L. (2003). The many faces of agreement: Morphology, syntax, semantics, and discourse factors in Serbo-Croatian agreement. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this Element is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
Supplementary materials for this Element are available here.
Video Abstract: Elements in Construction Grammar: Unrealized Arguments and the Grammar of Context: Rui P. Chaves, Paul Kay and Laura A. Michaelis
Video Abstract: Elements in Construction Grammar: Unrealized Arguments and the Grammar of Context: Rui P. Chaves, Paul Kay and Laura A. Michaelis