2.1 Null subjects in Spec,CP

Subjects in Spec,CP are sometimes not realized overtly, as shown in (5). This is commonly taken to be an instance of topic drop, i.e. a topic is not pronounced in a context where the referent is highly accessible (Ross Reference Ross1982; Cardinaletti Reference Cardinaletti, Mascaró and Nespor1990; Mörnsjö Reference Mörnsjö2002; Rosenkvist Reference Rosenkvist2010; Sigurðsson & Maling Reference Sigurðsson2010; Sigurðsson Reference Sigurðsson2011).

1. (5)

   

Topic drop is not limited to subjects, see (6a), but, as is well known, it is limited to the initial position (6b).

1. (6)

   

Topic drop of an initial constituent, especially a first person pronoun, is quite common in spoken informal Swedish, as well as in blogs and SMS text messages, see (7a). Interestingly initial expletive subjects may also be dropped, as shown in the authentic examples from Mörnsjö (Reference Mörnsjö2002) in (7b, c).Footnote ⁴ In these cases it is less appropriate to talk about topic drop, if we assume that topics have to refer to something.

1. (7)

   

In (7a), the first person plural pronoun vi is left out in the third sentence. In (7b) the weather det is not pronounced and in (7c) the expletive in a cleft construction is missing.

Although the examples in (7) represent an informal register, and may be considered somewhat marked by certain speakers, there is a sharp contrast between examples with a missing initial expletive and examples with a missing expletive in Spec,TP. The latter are judged to be clearly ungrammatical, as shown below.

1. (8)

   

The non-referential subject det is also required in cleft constructions, (9), and presentational constructions, (10). It is also used when an infinitival or finite clause is extraposed, as shown in (11). Falk (Reference Falk1993:91ff.) refers to these as clause-anticipating det and I will adopt this term here.Footnote ⁵

1. (9)

   

2. (10)

   

3. (11)

   

2.2 Null subjects in [Spec,TP]?

Judging from the minimal pairs in (8)–(11) it looks like det is obligatory in Spec,TP. There is however one context where det is frequently left out, viz. when there is a locative adverbial in Spec,CP, as in (12a).

1. (12)

   

This type has been discussed by Sundman (Reference Sundman1980:115ff.), Falk (Reference Falk1993:282ff.) and others, and additional examples are given in Teleman et al. (Reference Teleman, Hellberg and Andersson1999/4:54). Most speakers accept examples like (12a) but find structurally similar examples with non-locative initial adverbials, as in (12b), less acceptable. In her 1993 book, Falk assumes that ‘the subject position [in Spec,TP] is empty and licensed by the topicalized phrase, but at the same time connected with the VP-internal argument’ (Falk Reference Falk1993:284). Her analysis is given in (13).

1. (13)

   

The subject position thus acts as a ‘link’ between the constituent in Spec,CP and an argument in the VP. This analysis, which involves double indexing, is presumably not available on current assumptions about syntactic structure.

Examples without expletive subjects like (12a) are used in written, often rather formal language, and hardly occur in spoken language. Younger speakers tend to think that they sound old-fashioned and prefer to use an overt expletive. We can summarize the situation in present-day Swedish as follows: All finite clauses require a subject, either a referential subject or the expletive det. Subjects in Spec,CP may be left out in informal speech, but neither referential nor expletive subjects in Spec,TP can be omitted.Footnote ⁶

3.1 Tough constructions with initial det

We have thus established that clause-anticipating expletive det _x may be left unrealized in Spec,TP under certain conditions. The crucial factor seems to be that there is a constituent in Spec,CP which is linked to an empty position in an embedded infinitival clause. As shown in (8)–(11), an expletive subject in Spec,TP is required in verb-initial clauses and in declaratives where Spec,CP is occupied by a connecting adverbial like därför ‘therefore’ or temporal adverbials like nu ‘now’. So far we have looked at examples where the initial constituent is either clearly a non-subject (dig) or does not act as a subject (lack of agreement). However, the overwhelming majority of authentic examples are introduced by det, which, as we have seen, can be either a referential anaphoric pronoun or an expletive. Sometimes the status of an initial det is unambiguous, as in (15), repeated here as (29), where it must be referential, or in (16), repeated here as (30), where it must be analysed as a clause-anticipating expletive det.

1. (29)

   

2. (30)

   

But what about examples like (31)?

1. (31)

   

(31) can be analysed in two ways. First, it can be analysed as in (32a), where the complex property ‘hard to say’ is predicated of the initial det _i, which consequently acts as the subject of the matrix clause, as shown by the coindexed e _i in Spec,TP. Alternatively, it can be analysed as in (32b), where the expected clause-anticipating det _x in Spec,TP is absent and marked by Ø_x, as in (21b).

1. (32)

   

Thus (31) displays a structural ambiguity. It is either an instance of a tough construction where the initial det acts as a subject of the tough adjective svårt, or it is a case of topicalization out of an extraposed infinitival clause, but without the expected overt clause-anticipating det _x in Spec,TP.Footnote ¹² Inserting such a det _x in (31) is possible, as shown in (33):

1. (33)

   

(31) and (33) have the same range of interpretations according to the native Swedish speakers I have consulted. Given the strong subject requirement in modern Swedish, one might expect (33) to be preferred, but in fact, this structure with an overt det _x is not very common.Footnote ¹³ Instead the pattern in (31) seems to be extending to other constructions.

4.1 Examples in context

In order to give the reader a better idea of how and when these constructions are used, I provide a few transcribed examples with more context. The sound files are available via Språkbanken.Footnote ¹⁶ The first two examples come from the popular radio program Språket (‘The Language’) where Lars-Gunnar Andersson, professor of Modern Swedish, answers questions from the listeners. In (41), the topic of the discussion is how come the use of double supine forms is more common in spoken language than in written. In spoken Swedish, det is normally pronounced without the final t.

1. (41)

   

First Andersson comments that it is normal to notice these double supines when you read through your text. The initial de in the bold segment refers to ‘to notice the double supines’ and Andersson continues; de e ju inte säkert att man gör när man pratar på eh ‘it is not certain that you do when you are busy talking’. In the next example, a listener has asked about the expression koka ner ‘boil down’, presumably a direct translation from the English expression. The program host Anna-Lena Ringarp first conveys what the listener has said and then Andersson makes a comment.

1. (42)

   

Here Andersson's initial de presumably refers back to the content of the previous utterance: think that it sounds strange. He continues and affirms that there are probably many who find this expression strange. Note that there is clearly a missing object after gör in (42), since Swedish does not allow the kind of VP deletion used in the English paraphrase, where the proverb do replaces the entire VP do this.

In (43) former journalist Barbro Hedvall features in the early morning program Tankar för dagen (‘Thoughts for the day’), talking about the role of clothes and hair styles in politics.

1. (43)

   

Hedvall here asks two rhetorical questions about Julia Timosjenko's choice of hair style and then delivers the answer herself at a quicker pace. Hedvall is presumably reading from a manuscript. The initial de in her reply refers back to ett budskap ‘a message’ in the preceding question and den refers back to frisyr ‘hair style’. Just like in the previous example, there is clearly a missing object after the verb har, a fact that is not conveyed by the English paraphrase.

Until now I have collected approximately 150 examples of det-initial utterances with missing expletive subjects from informal conversations and radio broadcasts. In the extracts from the radio which I have been able to analyse more closely, the relevant sequences were produced quickly, with a single intonation contour. I have not found any instances where the speaker interrupts the delivery and corrects him/herself by inserting an expletive subject. I have also not found any signals that the listener has difficulties understanding the utterance. I take this as evidence that the construction type is a normal feature of Modern Swedish.

4.2 Unexpressed det

In my collection of attested examples, the most common type is the one exemplified in (43) and in (35a), repeated here as (44a), where the utterance starts with det e klart ‘it is clear’. In addition, there are also a number of examples as in (44b).

1. (44)

   

As shown by the English paraphrases, both utterances convey an affirmative reaction, adequately rendered by the utterance-initial of course in English.Footnote ¹⁷ In (44a), the missing object after göra ‘do’ is co-indexed with the topicalized det. In (44b), there is no topicalized antecedent. However, it seems plausible that (44b) is the result of topic drop together with a left out copula. As we saw in Section 2.1, anaphoric elements in Spec,CP are often not realized phonetically, cf. (6)–(11). In evaluative utterances, both an initial det and the copula are often omitted in spoken Swedish, as pointed out in Teleman et al. (Reference Teleman, Hellberg and Andersson1999/4:966), from where the examples in (45) are taken.

1. (45)

   

Given the tendency to leave out utterance-initial det är/var ‘it is/was’ in spoken Swedish, I assume that (44b) has the structure shown in (46b) with a missing topicalized object and a missing finite verb. For perspicuity I have indexed the missing elements (cf. also (37)).

1. (46)

   

Evidence that (46) involves an empty referential element in Spec,CP and an empty expletive element in Spec,TP comes from data like the following. In (47a) the subject is missing and is conventionally interpreted as first person, as shown in (47b). In (48) the object of the embedded clause is missing, analyzed as an instance of topic drop.

1. (47)

   

2. (48)

   

Both (47) and (48) are common in ordinary conversation and contrast with (49), which is clearly ungrammatical. As shown in the analysis in (49b), this would involve two empty elements in Spec,CP, which would be unexpected in a V2 language.

1. (49)

   

4.3 Comparison with tough constructions

The data discussed in Section 4 show many similarities with the tough constructions discussed in Section 3. In both cases, an expletive subject in Spec,TP is not pronounced when there is a referential det (overt or silent) in Spec,CP linked to an empty position in an embedded clause. However, there are also some differences. In the case of tough constructions, we established that there is a structural ambiguity, shown in (32) and repeated here in (50). The initial det is either a subject of the complex predication är svårt att säga ‘is hard to say’ as shown in (50a), or it is the fronted object of att säga ‘to say’ as shown in (50b), in which case the expected expletive subject is missing.

1. (50)

   

The examples with fronting from finite clauses are not structurally ambiguous. In the proposed structure in (37), repeated here in (51), the initial det is analysed as the fronted object of att du sa ‘that you said’.

1. (51)

   

There is no alternative analysis corresponding to (50a) where the initial det also acts as the subject of the matrix predicate var dumt ‘was stupid’. Whereas it is semantically plausible to analyse tough constructions as composite predications (the property of being hard composes with the property of being an x such that it is hard for someone to say x), this is not an option for examples like (51). The finite complement clause ‘that you said x’ expresses a proposition (provided that x is given a value) and acts as an argument of the matrix predicate ‘was stupid’. It is not possible for an embedded object to raise and become a subject of the matrix clause. Consequently we expect to find grammatical examples where det is realized in the Spec,TP subject position in tough constructions, but not in the constructions involving finite clauses. This prediction is borne out, as shown in (52) and (53).

1. (52)

   

2. (53)

   

I have no attested examples like the ones in (53) and to my ears they sound ungrammatical.Footnote ¹⁸ Note that it is impossible to analyze these yes/no questions as involving topic drop or to assume that the object has been fronted to Spec,TP.

4.4 Comparison with clause-bounded examples

In Section 2.2, I brought up one type of example where expletive subjects are sometimes left out, viz. (12a), repeated here as (54a) together with an additional example.

1. (54)

   

In these examples there is a locative adverbial or a superlative predicative adjective in Spec,CP and there is often a temporal or modal auxiliary.Footnote ¹⁹ The initial locative is linked to an empty argument position in the VP, as shown in (55a), on the assumption that these locatives actually behave as arguments, in contrast with temporal modifiers (cf. (12b)). The fronted predicative adjective in (55b) is similarly linked to an empty argument position in the VP.

1. (55)

   

In addition there are examples with optional expletive subjects where the gap is inside a DP in the matrix clause as in (56a), brought to my attention by Lars-Olof Delsing (p.c. 2008), which presumably has the structure in (56b).

1. (56)

   

If we compare the structures in (55) and (56) with the ones proposed for tough constructions in (50) and the det-initial constructions with finite complements in (51), we see that they only differ in the position of the empty category that is linked to the constituent in Spec,CP. In (50b), the initial det is linked to an empty object in an infinitival complement clause and in (51) there is an empty object in a finite complement clause. In both cases the identification of the initial constituent must involve some non-local mechanism. The structures in (55) and (56) also involve an empty argument, though not an object but a locative, a predicative adjective phrase or a complement of a preposition. Since these examples are all mono-clausal, the interpretation of the initial item can be established locally, within the matrix clause.Footnote ²⁰ But what the structures in (50)–(51) and (55)–(56) have in common is that the expletive subject in Spec,TP can be left out precisely when there is a fronted constituent in Spec,CP. Before discussing possible analyses of these examples, we will look at which types of expletive subjects can be left out.

4.5 Expletives and quasi-arguments

So far I have referred to all instances of non-referential det as an expletive, disregarding the finer distinctions concerning different types of pleonastic items that have been proposed in the literature. Chomsky (Reference Chomsky1981:37) introduces the term quasi-argument for the it that is used with weather predicates since it behaves like an argument with respect to control. Following Hoekstra (Reference Hoekstra, Bennis and van Lessen Kloeke1983) and Bennis (Reference Bennis1986), Vikner (Reference Vikner1990, Reference Vikner1995:Chapter 6) restricts the term expletive to items like English there and Danish der, which are used in presentational constructions. English it and Danish det are assumed to be quasi-argumental in nature since they may be involved in theta marking chains.Footnote ²¹ In languages like Faroese, Icelandic and Swedish, which do not use a separate word corresponding to presentational there, the single item used (tað, það, det) is hence ambiguous between being a ‘real’ expletive and a quasi-argument. In her study of the development of non-referential subjects in Swedish, Falk (Reference Falk1993:Chapter 3) makes essentially the same distinction between true expletive det and quasi-argumental det and takes clause-anticipating det to be quasi-argumental.

The question now is whether this distinction between true expletive occurrences of det and non-argumental occurrences of det plays any role with respect to the possibility of omitting det. As we have seen, det in Spec,TP may be left out in clause-anticipating constructions, as in (51), and in cleft constructions, as in (38b, c), both of which involve a quasi-argumental det, according to Vikner and Falk. In addition, the real expletive det may be omitted in presentational constructions, as shown in (38a). Furthermore, in the southern region Skåne, where the expletive used in presentational constructions is där ‘there’ (cf. Danish der), examples like (57b) can be heard (L.-O. Delsing p.c. 2008).Footnote ²²

1. (57)

   

Given that both quasi-argumental det and true expletive det can can be omitted when there is a fronted referential det in Spec,CP, it does not seem that the factors that condition this optionality in Swedish are sensitive to the proposed distinction between true expletives and qusi-arguments.Footnote ²³ We return to this issue in Section 7.

5.1 Platzack's ‘Spurious Topic Drop’

Platzack (in press) argues that Chomsky's parallel movement can be used to account for the missing expletive subjects which are the topic of this article.Footnote ²⁷ As shown above, a subject moves in parallel from Spec,vP to Spec,TP and to Spec,CP, but only the subject in Spec,CP is pronounced. Platzack makes a further assumption concerning the CP domain in Swedish. In order to account for the common type of example illustrated in (60), he argues that we need to assume that there are two Spec,CPs in Swedish main clauses.

1. (60)

   

The initial constituent is normally accented whereas the second (den, så) is unaccented, as shown in (60). Examples like (60a), with a definite NP and a coreferent pronoun, are quite common. Andersson (Reference Andersson1982:34f.) treats them as left dislocation structures followed by what he calls topic movement of the pronominal copy. The reference grammar Teleman et al. (Reference Teleman, Hellberg and Andersson1999) assumes a förfält ‘prefield’, preceding the initial position, for dislocated constituents which are more loosely connected to the clause (Teleman et al. Reference Teleman, Hellberg and Andersson1999/4:6ff.).Footnote ²⁸ Platzack assumes that both positions are specifiers of C; ‘the high/first specifier contains a first merged usually stressed element, and the low/second specifier is a position for an internally merged unstressed element’ (Platzack in press:32, see also Platzack Reference Platzack, Brandtler, Håkansson, Huber and Klingvall2012b:412ff.). He then proposes that the unstressed element in the low Spec,CP may be dropped when the higher Spec,CP is pronounced and introduces the term spurious topic drop for this. A consequence of this spurious topic drop is that we may get examples without overt subjects. Platzack's analysis of such an example is given in (61) (cf. the tree in (15) in Platzack in press).

1. (61)

   

In this analysis, the initial det is first merged (i.e. directly generated) in the high Spec,CP position. An expletive det is first merged in Spec,vP and then moved in parallel to Spec,TP and the low Spec,CP. Det in Spec,TP is deleted because there is parallel movement (see above). Since det in the low Spec,CP is a weak, unstressed element, it can also be dropped, ‘giving the impression of a null subject’ (Platzack in press:36).

I think there are several problems with this analysis. First, it does not account for the object gap, which is present in all the examples with missing expletive subjects discussed in Sections 3 and 4. Note that the relation between the initial det in the high Spec,CP and the unrealized object of sa ‘said’, indicated by a double-headed non-dashed arrow in (61), is a semantic relation, not a syntactic one (Platzack in press:note 10).Footnote ²⁹ Since the initial det is directly generated (first merged) in the high Spec,CP position, there cannot be any syntactic dependency and the non-pronunciation of the downstairs object is left unexplained. In suggesting that the relation between an initial constituent and a gap inside the clause is semantic and not syntactic, Platzack parts company with most of the generative tradition which has seen wh-movement (later A-bar-movement) as one of the clearest examples of a syntactic dependency. In (60a), there is a syntactic dependency between the fronted element in the low Spec,CP position ₀den and a gap in the VP, but this is not the case in (61). Since there is no syntactic dependency between the high Spec,CP and either the low Spec,CP or the gap, we would also expect examples like (62a) to be grammatical, contrary to fact. Following Platzack, the analysis should be as in (63).

1. (62)

   

2. (63)

   

If a constituent, in this case the object of ställde ‘put’, can be freely deleted when there is a semantic relation between it and a first merged element in the high Spec,CP, then we would expect (62a) to be grammatical, but it is not. A left dislocation structure, as shown in (62b), would be well-formed, where both Spec,CP positions are filled and where there is an anaphoric pronoun in the VP, agreeing, as expected, with the initial constituent. This pronoun, however, cannot be deleted. It seems to me that Platzack's proposal blurs the distinction between topicalization and left dislocation.

A second problem with Platzack's proposal is the existence of examples like (64a).

1. (64)

   

At first glance, (64a) seems to fit very well with the double Spec,CP analysis proposed by Platzack. The accented lexical phrase vinho verde is first merged in the high Spec,CP and an unstressed pronoun det is moved to the low Spec,CP. But since this det is in fact pronounced, Platzack would have to assume yet another Spec,CP, acting as the landing site for parallel movement, in order for spurious topic drop to take place, as shown in (64b).

A third problem with Platzack's proposal is that it is unclear how it would extend to examples like (44b), repeated here as (65), where the initial det, the copula and the expletive subject are all missing.

1. (65)

   

According to Platzack, a weak element in low Spec,CP can be dropped by spurious topic drop provided that the element in the high Spec,CP is pronounced. But examples like (65) show that there is no need for an overt topic as long as there is an understood unrealized topicalized constituent (cf. (46b)). I think that Platzack's assumption that there need not be any syntactic dependency between an initial constituent and an empty position in the clause is on the wrong track. Instead I believe that it is precisely the fact that an initial constituent heads a non-local syntactic dependency that is crucial. Before turning to why this is so, I will make a few more comments on the EPP.

5.2 Where does the EPP apply?

The requirement for overt subjects has been assumed to apply to finite clauses given that infinitival clauses lack overt subjects in many languages, including the Scandinavian languages. However, the subject requirement in Swedish seems to be independent of finiteness, as shown by the examples in (66), which involve non-finite complements of perception verbs (cf. Teleman et al. Reference Teleman, Hellberg and Andersson1999/3:575f.) and where both the quasi-argument in (66a) and the real expletive subject in (66b) are obligatory.Footnote ³⁰ English counterparts tend to involve finite clauses or avoid the expletive.

1. (66)

   

Just like in matrix clauses, the expletive det in (66) cannot be stressed. Furthermore it cannot be fronted to initial position, as shown in (67a, b), whereas fronting of a referential argument from the same position is fine (67c).

1. (67)

   

The ungrammaticality of (67a, b) highlights a difference between local and non-local dependencies. Whereas fronting an expletive subject to its closest Spec,CP is unproblematic, as shown in Sections 1 and 2, fronting an expletive across clauses is impossible.

Another interesting observation concerning expletives in small clause structures is that although they cannot be fronted, they can be left unpronounced, as shown in (68) and (69).

1. (68)

   

2. (69)

   

In both these examples it is possible to have a clause-anticipating det in the small clause, as shown in (68b) and (69b). But they can also be left out if there is a fronted referential det. In the next section we will look closer at the ways an initial det may be interpreted before turning to an analysis.

6.1 The processing of det-initial clauses

The examples we discussed in Sections 3 and 4 all involve clauses beginning with det ‘it’ and many of them start with det är ‘it is’. According to Allwood (1999:Table 3:1) det är is the most common two-word collocation in both spoken and written Swedish, which is maybe not surprising given that det has so many functions.Footnote ³¹ In addition to referring to neuter antecedents, as shown in example (15), it is used to refer to properties, propositions and events, like it in English. A few examples are given in (70)–(71). In (70b, c) det refers back to baking bread, introduced in the question in (70a).

1. (70)

   

2. (71)

   

The answers in (70) and (71) illustrate a common pattern in Swedish, viz. to start off a reply, or a further comment, with an unaccented pronoun which refers back to a referent or event introduced in the preceding utterance (see Vallduví & Engdahl Reference Vallduví and Engdahl1996:500f.; Engdahl Reference Engdahl1997:72f.; Erteschik-Shir Reference Erteschik-Shir2007:7ff.). The grammatical function of the pronoun may be as a subject (70b), (71b), as a subject in an embedded clasue (70c), as an object in the matrix clause (71c) or as an object in an embedded clause (71d). All of these exeamples are perfectly natural replies, including (71d) which involves fronting from an embedded question. In the given context, the reference of the initial det can probably be established quickly, but its grammatical function in the utterance cannot be determined until more of it as been processed and a gap has been detected.

But det is also used as a quasi-argument or expletive, as discussed above in Section 4.5. Whether an initial det is used anaphorically or as a quasi-argument or expletive is of course determined by the syntactic construction. Very often this cannot be determined until most or all of the sentence has been processed. Consider the examples in (72). On the right I have indicated the function of det, using det _i for an anaphorically used referential det and det _x for det used as a clause-anticipating expletive.

1. (72)

   

In (72a), det must be interpreted as a referential det, but in (72b) the added infinitival clause att leva ‘to live’ forces an interpretation of det as an anticipating expletive. If the infinitival clause contains a gap, as in (72c), the initial det must be interpreted as referential and as providing the referent for the missing complement of säga ‘say’. Whether or not the infinitival clause contains a gap may of course not be determined until the whole clause has been processed. In (72d), there is no object gap and the initial det consequently must be resolved as an anticipating expletive. The examples with finite complement clauses display the same underdetermination when it comes to the function of the intial det.

1. (73)

   

In (73a), where the complement att du kom ‘that you came’ is a complete clause, the initial det must be interpreted as an anticipating expletive, but in (73b), where the object of sa ‘said’ is missing, the initial det can only be interpreted as referential and as providing the antecedent for the object gap. The initial det in (73c) must be understood as an expletive, introducing a presentational construction, but in (74d), the object of gör ‘do’ is missing in the relative clause and must be linked to the fronted referential det.

The examples in (72) and (73) illustrate how the function of det is determined as the sentence is processed. The examples are here presented out of context, but in actual use there are presumably clues in the context and in the delivery which help the listener/reader get the intended interpretation of an initial det. As we know, sentence interpretation takes place rapidly and incrementally and starts as soon as the first word is perceived (Marslen-Wilson Reference Marslen-Wilson1973, Reference Marslen-Wilson1975). Starting off with an assumption that an initial det is an expletive or quasi-argument is probably a good strategy given the frequency of impersonal constructions in the language,Footnote ³² but in many cases this interpretation will have to be changed during the processing, as shown in (72a, c) and (73b, d).Footnote ³³

6.2 Examples in context

An authentic example illustrating how this incremental processing might evolve is provided in (74). This is a transcription of an excerpt from an interview on Swedish Radio. (.) marks a short pause.

1. (74)

   

After the reporter's suggestion that increased accessibility of drugs might make it harder to give them up, B picks up on the topic of quitting, de där me att lägga av ‘this thing about quitting’ and adds a comment starting with de e ju ‘it is’. In his rather long utterance, there are two potential gap locations which I have marked and indexed in (75).

1. (75)

   

B's comment starts off as a presentational construction introducing an indefinite NP, which is interrupted, nån å-, and resumed by nån annan ‘someone else’. The relative clause som vill ‘that wants’ is incomplete; instead of an expressed complement to vill ‘wants’ there is a short pause during which the missing complement e ₁ may be identified as the initial de. After the short pause, B continues and produces a that-clause which then provides the missing complemement of vill. At the end of the finite clause, there is another pause after the verb göra ‘do’, which in Swedish requires a complement, as we have seen above. Again, the missing complement e ₂ must be linked to the initial de. During the interpretation of this utterance, a possible initial interpretation of de as an expletive must be revised around e ₁ where it is reinterpreted as a referential det. This interpretation must be rejected when B continues talking and then resumed again when the second gap e ₂ is identified. Despite this repeated reinterpretation of det, B's comment is not hard to process. There is no indication in this example, or in the previous ones, that the discovery of an object gap causes problems for the language user.

In this respect, the examples discussed here resemble certain parasitic gap (pg) constructions, as in (76) (cf. Engdahl Reference Engdahl1983).

1. (76)

   

Although the initial constituent köttfärs ‘mince’ in (76a) has been interpreted as the direct object of steka ‘fry’, it is still accessible and can be used to resolve the missing object of äter ‘eat’ in the adverbial clause. Similarly in (76b), the initial det, which referred back to a meeting just must mentioned by the speaker, is first interpreted as the complement of på ‘on’ in the matrix clause but also fills the missing complement of om ‘about’ in the following adverbial clause. This suggests that the activiation of a filler in an unbounded dependency remains after the gap has been located.

In addition to the examples in (72)–(73), we also find examples like (77a), where there is no subject gap in the matrix clause but where there are two embedded clauses, the first with a subject gap and the second with an object gap.Footnote ³⁴

1. (77)

   

When processing (77a), the listener presumably rapidly realizes that det is not a plausible subject of tycker ‘think’ but may consider it as a potential object, see e ₁ in (77b). However, the recognition of another finite verb var ‘was’ forces the listener to postulate an empty subject (e ₂) which may be identified with the initial det. This assignment has to be revised when the following that-clause is recognized. Finally when the empty object (e ₃) is recognized, it can be linked to the initial det and the whole utterance interpreted, as indicated in the English paraphrase. But what about the missing subject in e ₂? This turns out to be an instance of the type of empty expletive subjects (Ø_x) which we have encountered before. This expletive subject may be overtly realized, as shown in (78a), where it functions as an anticipating expletive for the extraposed clause. If there is no long-distance dependency, i.e. if there is no gap in the most deeply embedded clause, the expletive subject cannot be left out, see (78b). The only way to interpret this example would be with det as linked to the empty subject position e ₂, which must be an anticipating expletive subject, given the final extraposed clause att du sa det ‘that you said it’. But as we saw above in 5.2, expletive subjects cannot be fronted, cf. (67a, b).

1. (78)

   

If there is a pause before the that-clause, then a version without an object gap is possible as shown in (78c), but the that-clause att du sa det ‘that you said it’ is then interpreted as an afterthought and not as a syntactically integrated complement. The initial det is then interpreted as referential, as shown.

Examples like (77a) show that expletive subjects can be left unrealized also in embedded clauses provided that there is a dependency between an initial det and a gap in the embedded clause.Footnote ³⁵ If there is no such dependency, as in (78b), the expletive subject cannot be left out. In all the examples discussed so far, there has been such a dependency between an initial det and a gap located in an embedded clause, finite or non-finite. I believe that this is the relevant condition for when expletive subject det may be left out and in the next section I will outline an analysis which capitalizes on this fact.Footnote ³⁶

6.3 Towards an analysis without movement

We saw in Section 6.1 that it is very often impossible to determine which role an initial det plays until most of the sentence has been processed. The contribution of det cannot be fully resolved until a gap – or the absence of an expected argument – is detected. This suggests that the initial constituent is available to the listener/reader while s/he processes the sentence. This is reflected in Gazdar's (Reference Gazdar1981) account of unbounded dependencies which instead of a movement transformation uses a feature called slash which takes a category as value. This feature indicates that there is a gap somewhere in the structure dominated by the node marked with this feature. When an initial filler, i.e. a constituent in an A-bar position like Spec,CP, is generated, its sister constituent must have a slash feature, taking the initial constituent as value. The feature is then instantiated on subsequent mother and daughter nodes until it bottoms out at an empty node.Footnote ³⁷ Using a slash feature to account for displaced constituents is an important aspect of HPSG (see Sag et al. Reference Sag2003). The tree in (79) gives a visualisation of how the dependency between an initial det and a missing object is represented in the structure.Footnote ³⁸

1. (79)

   

In (79) the information that there is an initial filler, with the phonological/ortographical form det, is present at each node on the path that connects the filler with the node dominating the empty object position in the lowest VP. Having recognized the finite verb var, the processor proceeds, trying to find a suitable empty argument that matches the filler. Once the transitive verb sa in the lowest VP is recognized, the dependency can be resolved. Note that the NP in the matrix subject position has a form feature which requires it to be det. This form feature is instantiated by the lexical rule that also introduces the extraposed S′. Given that in most cases, an initial det is fronted from the matrix subject position, it is not implausible that the processor routinely assumes that the initial det should be linked to this empty subject position. But as shown by examples like (72c), the processor presumably still keeps the option open to connect an initial det with a missing argument later in the sentence. Examples with parasitic gaps, as in (76), confirm that the filler is available for being identified with a subsequent empty argument, even when a match between a detected gap and the slash value has been found.

6.4 Other initial constituents

So far most of the examples discussed have been introduced either by an overt det or by an unexpressed det (see Section 4.2) and these are by far the most common type in the spoken data. In written Swedish, I have found examples where the missing expletive is in an embedded clause and where the dependency is introduced by the relative pronoun vilket. (80) is from a master's thesis, June 2012.

1. (80)

   

I have also come across a few examples where the dependency is introduced by phrases which cannot be anaysed as expletives, see the examples in (81).

1. (81)

   

(81a) was uttered by a woman on discovering a pair of trousers at the bottom of the laundry basket. The spoken Swedish form dom is used for both subject and object pronouns. The predicative adjective bra ‘good’ in (81b, c) is invariant and shows neither number nor gender agreement. (81c) is one of relatively few written attested examples and is taken from an e-mail message from my head of department. Detta is the nominative or accusative neuter singular demonstrative pronoun.Footnote ³⁹ The examples in (81) have in common that there is no formal feature of the initial constituent which signals whether it is to be interpreted as a subject or not. Furthermore, the predicative adjective used bra ‘good’, or the temporal adverbial längesen ‘long ago’ do not show any agreement which might resolve whether the initial constituent is a subject or not. If we change the examples slightly so that there is overt agreement between the initial constituent and a predicative adjective, the result is clearly ungrammatical, as shown in (82).

1. (82)

   

If we replace the invariant bra ‘good’ in (81c) with an adjective that shows agreement, using the neuter form as in (83a), the result is not as clearly ungrammatical as in (82) or as in (83b) with plural agreement. This is not surprising as many researchers have found that the neuter form often seems to indicate lack of agreement (cf. Josefsson Reference Josefsson2006, Reference Josefsson2009). I have, however, not noticed any spontaneous examples like (83a).

1. (83)

   

Turning the declaratives in (81) into yes/no questions, thereby forcing the initial constituent to appear in the Spec,TP subject position, also leads to ungrammaticality, cf. the ungrammatical examples in (53).

1. (84)

   

To conclude this section on processing considerations, we have found that expletive subjects may be left out in utterances where there is an initial det which can be interpreted as expletive or quasi-argument, although this interpretation has to be revised as more of the sentence is processed. We have also seen that this primarily happens when the initial constituent heads an unbounded dependency and is linked to a gap inside an embedded clause.Footnote ⁴⁰