TECH: Linguistics and x1/Subject ellipsis

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

The following is from Linguist List:
>Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 16:30:48 EST
>From: John.M.Lawler@um.cc.umich.edu
>Subject: Null-Space Subjects
>
>In Linguist 4-118, Yehuda N. Falk <HCUFY%HUJIVM1@tamvm1.tamu.edu>
>writes:
> > By the way, there is always the problem of the non-overt subject
> > of imperatives, even in English, which is the paradigm case of a
> > non-null-subject language.
>
>Well, folks, there are always a few other problems, too.  In particular,
>here are some dandies that I've harvested from a dissertation that I had
>the honor of directing:
>
>
>                    "Shouldn't Ignore These Strings:
>                  A Study of Conversational Deletion"
>                      by Randolph H. Thrasher Jr.
>            (Ph.D. 1974, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor)
>
>which suggests that perhaps English is not quite such a paradigm paragon
>as it might seem.
>
>Here are some examples from Chapter 1:
>       [p.5; numbering as in original, with chapter prefix]
>  (1.16) Gotta go now.
>  (1.17) See you next Tuesday.
>  (1.18) Too bad about old Charlie.
>  (1.19) No need to get upset about it.
>  (1.20) Been in Ann Arbor long?
>  (1.21) Ever get a chance to use your Dogrib?
>  (1.22) Ever get to Japan, look me up.
>  (1.23) Good thing we didn't run into anybody we know.
>  (1.24) Last person I expected to meet was John.
>  (1.25) Wife wants to go to the mountains this year.
>
>The phenomenon can be viewed as erosion of the beginning of sentences,
>deleting (some, but not all) articles, dummies, auxiliaries,
>possessives, conditional 'if', and - most relevantly for this discussion
>- subject pronouns.  But it only erodes up to a point, and only in some
>cases.
>
>   "Whatever is exposed (in sentence initial position) can be swept
>    away.  If erosion of the first element exposes another vulnerable
>    element, this too may be eroded.  The process continues until a
>    hard (non-vulnerable) element is encountered." [p.9]
>
>Schmerling first noted this phenomenon in a paper in CLS 9, and gave the
>following example [her (36); cited p.58 in Thrasher]:
>
>  (3.1) Cut {myself/yourself/himself/ourselves/yourselves/themselves}
>        again?
>
>Thrasher adds another example, lest this be taken as a reflexive
>phenomenon [p.59]:
>
>  (3.2) Can't do it, can {I/you/he/she/they/we}?
>
>He proposes that any exposed pronoun is vulnerable if it is recoverable
>from later in the sentence.  But there are other cases, as well.  In
>general, exposed first-person subjects are vulnerable in statements, and
>second-person in questions.  Thus, (3.12) means (3.13), but *not* the
>equally plausible (3.14) [p.61]:
>
>  (3.12) Need a haircut?
>  (3.13) Do you need a haircut?
>  (3.14) Do I need a haircut?
>
>even though (3.12) *without* interrogative intonation *is* equivalent to
>(3.14).
>
>There are apparent exceptions to this; (3.25) [p.63]
>
>  (3.25) (You) Should talk that over with Bill.
>
>contrasts with the equally good (3.28).
>
>  (3.28) (I) Should talk that over with Bill.
>
>As well as [p.64]:
>
>
>  (3.33) Ought to watch out for pedestrians.
>  (3.34) Can't smoke in here.
>
>Thrasher's explanation of these is that in utterances intended to count
>as imperatives or requests (he uses Georgia Green's term "impositives"),
>second-person is vulnerable, just as in interrogatives, and for the
>same reasons.  This puts us in the same ballpark with "the non-overt
>subject of imperatives" mentioned above, though it now appears we are
>playing a much more complex ball game here; clearly, more is involved
>than syntax.
>
>And there are of course the inevitable problems with modals [pp.75,77]:
>
> (3.91) (I/You) Must have left it at home.
> (3.94) (I/You) Probably dropped it on the way.
> (3.101) (I/You) May/Might win the jackpot.  Who knows?
>
>Enough to keep us busy, I imagine.  Enjoy.
>
> -John Lawler    (jlawler@umich.edu)
>  Linguistics, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

It seems like this discussion has something to do with the question of
ellipsis, especially of the x1 place, of course, and perhaps in
particular being relevant to Lojban in the realm of knowing when you can
and/or should drop x1 in an abstraction clause like:

  mi djica lenu klama le zarci
  I want the event of going to the store.

Our official policy has been that ellipsis implies the most "plausible"
value, but I've wondered whether "plausible" is going to be culturally
neutral.  The existence of subject-dropping in many languages suggests
that most langauge have some sort of ellipsis mechanism.  I am wondering
if it can be analyzed usefully for the benefit of Lojban, and the above
posting suggests that it might have been.

I realize that jimc has proposed an analysis of omitted places involving
"auto-replication", which I have never really understood.  I would be
much more interested in something that was based on studies of what is
actually done in natural language.  Would anyone be interested in
checking out the above reference, or at least discussing this topic on
the list?

There has been a long threadon Linguist List on the topic of "pro-drop"
which seems to be the generalization of the issue, so I gather that this
is a significant topic of discussion in linguistic literature.  I am not
sufficiently knowledgeable to analyze this kind of literature
efficiently, so this is one to leave for others to tackle.

lojbab