Cover not available

In:The Ziggurat of Grammar: In honor of Ur Shlonsky
Edited by Lena Baunaz, Giuliano Bocci and Andrew Nevins
[Language Faculty and Beyond 20] 2025
► pp. 200–223

Get fulltext
PDF logo with download linkDownload Chapter PDF

Chapter 11
Sentential anaphors in French: An insight in the syntax of subject clauses

Ce que “ça” dit

 | Collège de France
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 13 November 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.20.11ber
Abstract
This article discusses the syntactic position of sentential subjects (SSs). It argues that they move from the thematic position directly to Subj, the highest subject position where “aboutness” is encoded (see Cardinaletti 2004 and Rizzi and Shlonsky 2007), skipping T and must therefore be inserted with a default case. The analysis is supported by agreement data and the distribution of pronouns which stand for sentential arguments in French. It further argues that SSs in small clauses are similarly forced to bear a default case. This blocks Exceptional Case Marking by the matrix predicate and explains why an accusative clitic cannot pronominalize SSs in French small clauses.
Article outline
  • 1.Sentences functioning as subjects: The empirical tests
  • 2.Sentential placeholders
  • 3.Towards an analysis of the derivation of SSs in French
  • 4.Some challenges for the proposal
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (54)
References
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Alrenga, Peter (2005). A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection. Syntax 8, 175–207.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Christina Sevdali. (2020). Two Modes of Genetive and Dative Case Assignment: Evidence from two Stages of Greek. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 38:987–1051Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowers, John. (1993). The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24:4, 591-656Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1994. Deficient pronouns: A view from Romance. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, UCLA/USC, Los Angeles.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Toward a cartography of subject positions. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, 115–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giuliana Giusti. 2017. Quantified expressions and quantitative clitics. In Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, Juan Uriagereka & David Michaels (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The syntax of adjectives: A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2011. Impersonal pronouns and coreference: Two case studies. Paper presented at Workshop on Impersonal Pronouns. [URL]
Davies, William & Stanley Dubinsky. 2009. On the existence (and distribution) of sentential subjects. In Donna B. Gerdts, John C. Moore & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, 111–128. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald. 1983. But sentential subjects do exist. Linguistic Analysis 12. 379–398.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph (1972). A reformulation of certain syntactic transformations. Peters, Stanley (ed.), Goals of Linguistic Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 21–62.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1976). A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franco, Ludovico. 2012. On case and clauses: Subordination and the spell-out of nonterminals. In Proceedings of the First Central European Conference in Linguistics for Postgraduate Students, 82–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friedemann, Marc-Ariel. 1997. Sujets syntaxiques. Positions, inversions et pro. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geach, Peter. 1962. Reference and generality. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice & André Goosse. (2008). Le Bon Usage, 14th edition. Bruxelles: De Boeck et Duclot.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Barbara Urögdi. 2011. Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account. Theoretical Linguistics 37(2–3). 111–152.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartman, Jeremy. 2012. Varieties of clausal complementation. PhD dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Content clauses and reported speech. In Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 947–1030. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huot, Hélène. 1981. Constructions infinitives du français: Le subordonnant DE. Genève: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don’t exist. In Samuel Jay Keyser (ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages, 53–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. Constraints on internal clauses and sentential subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 363–385.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. PhD dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Lohndal, Terje. 2014a. Sentential subjects: Topics or real subjects. In Proceedings of WCCFL 31, 315–324.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014b.« Sentential Subjects in English and Norwegian ». Syntaxe & Sémantique, 2014/1 N° 15, 81-113.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1997. Subjecthood and subject positions. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Philip H. 2001. Discourse constraints on (non)extraposition from subjects in English. Linguistics 39. 683–701. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 2009. Attitudinal objects. Paris: IHPST.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nouwen, Rick. 2021. E-type pronouns: Congressmen, sheep and paychecks. In Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cecile Meier, Hotze Rullmann & Thomas E. Zimmerman (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics, 1–28. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 1991. The syntax and processing of sentential subjects. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17(2). 149–180.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The higher functional field: Evidence from Northern Italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. (1998). Three Investigations of Extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pressm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2005. On some properties of subjects and topics. In Laura Brugè, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Walter Schweikert & Giuseppina Turano (eds.), Proceedings of the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, 203–224. Venezia: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. & Ur Shlonsky 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language?, 115–160. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth (1985). Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2011. A note on case-assignment to CP. Snippets 24. 19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1991. Quantifiers as functional heads: A study in quantifier float in Hebrew. Lingua 84(2–3). 159–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1995. French predicate clitics and clause structure. In Anna Cardinaletti & Maria Teresa Guasti (eds.), Syntax and semantics 28: Small clauses, 287–320. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2001. Move dissolves into merge: A theory of locality. PhD dissertation. University of Geneva.
. 1995. On the format for small clauses. In Anna Cardinaletti & Maria Teresa Guasti (eds.), Syntax and semantics 28: Small clauses, 231–260. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Takahashi, Shoichi. 2010. The hidden side of clausal complements. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. 343–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tanigawa, Shin-ichiro. 2018. Agreement, labelling and sentential subjects. English Linguistics 34(2). 302–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Villata, Sandra, Luigi Rizzi & Julie Franck. 2016. Intervention effects and relativized minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments. Lingua 179. 76–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zinchenko, Hanna. 2023. The inconsistency of sentential subjects’ analysis in English. Messenger of Kyiv. Series Philology 26(2). 73–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue