Specified subject condition
Encyclopedia
The Specified Subject Condition (SSC) is a condition proposed in Chomsky
(1973) which restricts the application of certain syntactic transformational
rules. In many ways it is a counterpart to the Tensed-S Condition (TSC)
(proposed in the same paper), applying to non-finite clauses and complex DPs
which are not covered by the TSC. The rule was formalized as follows, where a "specified subject" is a lexical subject i.e. a subject with semantic content, like a proper noun
, a complex DP, or a pronominal
:
Specified Subject Condition (SSC)
“No rule can involve X, Y in the structure
... X ... [α... Z ... - WYV ...] ...
where Z is the specified subject of WYV in α.”
(Chomsky 1973: 239)
The SSC (along with the TSC) therefore had implications for the field which later became known as binding theory
. In conjunction with a simple rule of disjoint reference (which stipulated that any pronoun following an NP
antecedent
in the same sentence has disjoint reference with it, the rule applying anywhere unless it is blocked), co-reference is acceptable in the following sentences, because the SSC blocks application of this disjoint reference rule:
(1) The footballersi believe [the fans to love themi]
(2) The footballersi laughed at [the fan’s pictures of themi]
The TSC (which essentially blocks transformational and binding rules from applying across clause boundaries) would not block disjoint reference in (1) and (2), hence the need for the SSC. Replacing the pronouns in (1) and (2) with reciprocals shows how the SSC blocks the application of each movement, hence the impossibility of the reciprocals referring back to "The footballers" in (3) and (4):
(3) * The footballersi believe [the supermodel to love each otheri]
(4) * The footballersi laughed at [the supermodel’s pictures of each otheri]
Notice that when the DP-internal subject is removed, each movement is not blocked from applying:
(5) The footballersi laughed at the pictures of each otheri
An empirical problem for the SSC is the failure of disjoint reference to apply in a sentence like (6), where there is no specified subject blocking its application:
(6) The footballersi laughed at the pictures of themi
The SSC also made correct predictions for certain binding data with respect to control verbs. The notion of "specified subject" needs to be nuanced to include PRO
with respect to an antecedent which does not control it; however, PRO is not a specified subject with respect to an antecedent which does control it. In the case of an object control verb like "persuade" therefore, we predict the following pattern:
(7) *Wej persuaded Billi [PROi to kill each otherj]
(8) Billj persuaded usi [PROi to kill each otheri]
(9) Wej persuaded Billi [PROi to kill usj]
(10) *Billj persuaded themi [PROi to kill themi]
In (7) PRO is a specified subject with respect to "we" (as it is controlled by "Bill" not by "we"); the SSC therefore applies to this sentence and each movement from "we" to "other" is blocked. Similarly, in (9), PRO is a specified subject for "we", thus blocking disjoint reference, so that "we" can corefer with "us" in the non-finite clause. In (8), PRO is not a specified subject for "us", allowing each movement from "us" to "other"; similarly in (10), disjoint reference between "us" in the matrix clause and "us" in the non-finite clause is not blocked by a specified subject, because "us" in the matrix clause controls PRO.
Similar examples hold for subject control verbs like "persuade": *Theyi promised Billj [PROi to kill themi] vs Billj promised themi [PROj to kill themi], and subject raising verbs like "seem": *Theyi seem to Billj [ti to like themi] (where the trace
is not specified with respect to "we" thus disjoint reference applies) vs Wei seem to Billj [ti to like himj] (where the trace is specified with respect to "Bill" so that disjoint reference is blocked).
The way the SSC accounted for binding as well as movement phenomena (such as the each movement examples above), was influential for much subsequent research which tried to reduce binding and movement to the same set of principles (see Kayne
(2002) for a recent implementation). The subsequent binding conditions A and B of Chomsky (1981) essentially replaced the SSC (along with the TSC), and it is no longer a part of the toolkit of current researchers.
Noam Chomsky
Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, and activist. He is an Institute Professor and Professor in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years. Chomsky has been described as the "father of modern linguistics" and...
(1973) which restricts the application of certain syntactic transformational
Transformational grammar
In linguistics, a transformational grammar or transformational-generative grammar is a generative grammar, especially of a natural language, that has been developed in the Chomskyan tradition of phrase structure grammars...
rules. In many ways it is a counterpart to the Tensed-S Condition (TSC)
Tensed-S Condition
The Tensed-S condition is a condition proposed in Chomsky which essentially stipulates that certain classes of syntactic transformational rules cannot apply across clause boundaries. The condition is formalised as follows:...
(proposed in the same paper), applying to non-finite clauses and complex DPs
Determiner phrase
In linguistics, a determiner phrase is a syntactic category, a phrase headed by a determiner. The noun phrase is strictly speaking a determiner phrase, and NP designates a constituent of the noun phrase, taken to be the complement of the determiner. This is opposed to the traditional view that...
which are not covered by the TSC. The rule was formalized as follows, where a "specified subject" is a lexical subject i.e. a subject with semantic content, like a proper noun
Noun
In linguistics, a noun is a member of a large, open lexical category whose members can occur as the main word in the subject of a clause, the object of a verb, or the object of a preposition .Lexical categories are defined in terms of how their members combine with other kinds of...
, a complex DP, or a pronominal
Pronominal
Pronominal can be used either to describe something related to a pronoun or to mean a phrase that acts as a pronoun in the context of nominal. An example of the second case is, "I want that kind". The phrase "that kind" stands in for a noun phrase, or nominal, that can be deduced from context, and...
:
Specified Subject Condition (SSC)
“No rule can involve X, Y in the structure
... X ... [α... Z ... - WYV ...] ...
where Z is the specified subject of WYV in α.”
(Chomsky 1973: 239)
The SSC (along with the TSC) therefore had implications for the field which later became known as binding theory
Binding (linguistics)
In linguistics, binding theory is any of a broad class of theories dealing with the distribution of pronominal and anaphoric elements. The idea that there should be a specialised, coherent theory dealing with this particular set of phenomena originated in work in transformational grammar in the 1970s...
. In conjunction with a simple rule of disjoint reference (which stipulated that any pronoun following an NP
Noun phrase
In grammar, a noun phrase, nominal phrase, or nominal group is a phrase based on a noun, pronoun, or other noun-like word optionally accompanied by modifiers such as adjectives....
antecedent
Antecedent (grammar)
In grammar, an antecedent is a noun, noun phrase, or clause to which an anaphor refers in a coreference. For example, in the passage "I did not see John because he wasn't there", "John" is the antecedent of the anaphor "he"; together "John" and "he" are called a coreference because they both refer...
in the same sentence has disjoint reference with it, the rule applying anywhere unless it is blocked), co-reference is acceptable in the following sentences, because the SSC blocks application of this disjoint reference rule:
(1) The footballersi believe [the fans to love themi]
(2) The footballersi laughed at [the fan’s pictures of themi]
The TSC (which essentially blocks transformational and binding rules from applying across clause boundaries) would not block disjoint reference in (1) and (2), hence the need for the SSC. Replacing the pronouns in (1) and (2) with reciprocals shows how the SSC blocks the application of each movement, hence the impossibility of the reciprocals referring back to "The footballers" in (3) and (4):
(3) * The footballersi believe [the supermodel to love each otheri]
(4) * The footballersi laughed at [the supermodel’s pictures of each otheri]
Notice that when the DP-internal subject is removed, each movement is not blocked from applying:
(5) The footballersi laughed at the pictures of each otheri
An empirical problem for the SSC is the failure of disjoint reference to apply in a sentence like (6), where there is no specified subject blocking its application:
(6) The footballersi laughed at the pictures of themi
The SSC also made correct predictions for certain binding data with respect to control verbs. The notion of "specified subject" needs to be nuanced to include PRO
PRO (linguistics)
PRO is an empty category whose existence is postulated in classical Government and Binding Theory. There are two independent pieces of evidence for its existence: the Extended Projection Principle and theta criterion :*I persuaded John [PRO to read Al Gore's latest...
with respect to an antecedent which does not control it; however, PRO is not a specified subject with respect to an antecedent which does control it. In the case of an object control verb like "persuade" therefore, we predict the following pattern:
(7) *Wej persuaded Billi [PROi to kill each otherj]
(8) Billj persuaded usi [PROi to kill each otheri]
(9) Wej persuaded Billi [PROi to kill usj]
(10) *Billj persuaded themi [PROi to kill themi]
In (7) PRO is a specified subject with respect to "we" (as it is controlled by "Bill" not by "we"); the SSC therefore applies to this sentence and each movement from "we" to "other" is blocked. Similarly, in (9), PRO is a specified subject for "we", thus blocking disjoint reference, so that "we" can corefer with "us" in the non-finite clause. In (8), PRO is not a specified subject for "us", allowing each movement from "us" to "other"; similarly in (10), disjoint reference between "us" in the matrix clause and "us" in the non-finite clause is not blocked by a specified subject, because "us" in the matrix clause controls PRO.
Similar examples hold for subject control verbs like "persuade": *Theyi promised Billj [PROi to kill themi] vs Billj promised themi [PROj to kill themi], and subject raising verbs like "seem": *Theyi seem to Billj [ti to like themi] (where the trace
Trace (linguistics)
In transformational grammar, a trace is an empty category that occupies a position in the syntactic structure. In some theories of syntax, traces are used in the account of constructions such as wh-movement and passive....
is not specified with respect to "we" thus disjoint reference applies) vs Wei seem to Billj [ti to like himj] (where the trace is specified with respect to "Bill" so that disjoint reference is blocked).
The way the SSC accounted for binding as well as movement phenomena (such as the each movement examples above), was influential for much subsequent research which tried to reduce binding and movement to the same set of principles (see Kayne
Richard Kayne
Richard Stanley Kayne is Professor of Linguistics in the Linguistics Department at New York University.After receiving an A.B. in mathematics from Columbia College, New York in 1964, he studied linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, receiving his Ph.D. in 1969...
(2002) for a recent implementation). The subsequent binding conditions A and B of Chomsky (1981) essentially replaced the SSC (along with the TSC), and it is no longer a part of the toolkit of current researchers.