next up previous
Next: International Yearbook of South Up: Articles in JournalsProceedings Previous: Articles in JournalsProceedings

Null Elements in Discourse Structure

To appear. Butt, M. and T.H. King, `Null Elements in Discourse Structure'. In K.V. Subbarao (Ed.), Papers from the NULLS Seminar, Moti Lal Banarasi Das (talk given in the NULLS Seminar at the University of Delhi, January 1997).

In this paper we address the role of null elements (pro-drop) in Urdu/Hindi as seen from a discourse structure point of view. In previous work, based on Gambhir's (1981) pioneering analyses (see also Kidwai 1997 for a more recent approach in line with our thinking), we proposed that topics be situated in SpecIP, (non-contrastive) focus be always immediately preverbal through an adjunction movement, backgrounded (de-emphasised in Gambhir's terms) information be right adjoined to IP, and that preverbal completive information simply stays in situ. This four way distinction adds an extra subdivision to Vallduvi's (1992) tripartite distinction in which focus vs. ground are distinguished, and the ground is then further subdivided into a link(=topic) and a tail(=background). Based on Urdu word order facts, we argue that in addition to two types of old information, two types of new information must be distinguished: that which is focused, and that which is merely present in order to give as complete information as possible.

In showing that Topic Dislocation (external topics) involves an NP forming a chain with a null element in the clause, Dwivedi (1994) observes that only referential NPs may be dropped. This observation is confirmed by an examination of a series of discourses taken from Hindi movies such as Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge or Silsilla. However, the dialogs show that not simply all referential NPs are dropped: only some referential NPs are null. Within our framework the generalization as to which NPs may be realized as null in discourse is made more precise in that only old information is predicted to be dropped. In fact, only continuing topics (Yokoyama 1986) and the background information that is related to a continuing topic may be dropped.

In contrast with pro-drop languages like Italian in which the licensing of null elements has been associated with the possibility of agreement markers acting as pronominals, no such explanation is possible for Urdu/Hindi, where ergative (non-agreeing) subjects may also be dropped. An analysis in terms of discourse structure as presented here, on the other hand, yields exactly the right results.


next up previous
Next: International Yearbook of South Up: Articles in JournalsProceedings Previous: Articles in JournalsProceedings

Rajesh Bhatt
Mon Mar 30 11:24:59 EST 1998