Abstract
In such a case subject seems to be defined on purely semantic grounds. Chomsky (Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1965) showed that grammatical functions, such as subject, can be best expressed indirectly by the rewriting rules of the base phrase marker which provide the deep structure of sentences, so that subject is a syntactic function defined as [NP,S] (NP under S). If we adhere to Chomsky's definition of subject, then it is easy to show that se is not a subject, because it does not behave syntactically like one. Some evidence to this effect is provided by Negative Particle Placement which in Spanish places the negative particle directly in front of the verb and its clitics (if any are present). One such example is: 2. Juan no habla mucho. John doesn't talk a lot. 3. *Se no habla mucho. 4. No se habla mucho. One doesn't talk a lot.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
