Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info

New from Oxford University Press!


Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology

Edited by Jacques Durand, Ulrike Gut, and Gjert Kristoffersen

Offers the first detailed examination of corpus phonology and serves as a practical guide for researchers interested in compiling or using phonological corpora

New from Cambridge University Press!


The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History

By Bernard Spolsky

A vivid commentary on Jewish survival and Jewish speech communities that will be enjoyed by the general reader, and is essential reading for students and researchers interested in the study of Middle Eastern languages, Jewish studies, and sociolinguistics.

New from Brill!


Indo-European Linguistics

New Open Access journal on Indo-European Linguistics is now available!

Summary Details

Query:   Pronoun Ellipsis
Author:  Sadao Ando
Submitter Email:  click here to access email
Linguistic LingField(s):   Syntax

Summary:   Many thanks to those who have kindly offered their opinions to my
question. Now I'm inclined to think this way:

(1) This problem is too abstract for Bill to solve.
(2) This problem is too abstract for Bill to solve it.

Lasnik and Fiengo(1974) say that (1) derives from (3) and (2) from

(3) To solve this problem is too abstract for[prep] Bill.
(4) For[Comp] Bill to solve this problem is too abstract.

And Jespersen(MEGIII: p.218)states that after 'too' it is allowable to
have and to omit 'it': that idea is too subtle for them to understand

The longer the construction, the more necessary it will be to add the
pronoun: this wood is too hard for for me to attempt to pierce it.

Despite their opinions, I still think sentences of the type (1)
are by far the more common, for empirically, out of over twenty
examples of this type retrieved from the BNC none are found with
object pronoun, and theoretically, since the subject in this type of
sentences acts as "implicit object"(as OED names it) of the
infinitive, it will be redundant to add a pronoun. In other words, AP
indirectly modifies the subjet(i.e. this problem is abstract). I will
admitt, however, that in conversational English the pronoun might well

On the other hand, sentences of the type (5) normally require a
pronoun, I assume:

(5) a. He ran too quickly for me to catch him. (Hornby, Patterns and
b. He was too near for me to avoid him. (Curme, Syntax p.308)

The reason is that these advPs(quickly and near) do not modify the
subject but the predicate verb; that is, they are manner adverbs
modifying the manner of motion and rest;in other words, the infinitive
can't retroactively refer to the subject, which can't act as "implicit
subject", hence the need for an object pronoun.

Sadao ANDO
Emeritus Professor of English Linguistics at Hiroshima University

LL Issue: 10.402
Date Posted: 16-Mar-1999
Original Query: Read original query


Sums main page