<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:#0A2F41;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1958414697;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1965697190 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41">Hi Omri,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:#0A2F41;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I agree with Juergen. Since SAPs tend to be more accessible their coding is shorter (High accessibility > shorter referential forms). This is why they are more often either 0 marked or else their pronouns are
cliticized, sometimes leading to the rise of agreement markers for 1<sup>st</sup>/2<sup>nd</sup> persons only on the verb. This explains the findings for Hebrew, I suggested. See:
<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41">1998. Three grammaticalization paths for the development of person verbal agreement in Hebrew. In: Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap, edited by J.-P. Koenig. CSLI Publications
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41">2000. The development of person agreement markers: >From pronouns to higher accessibility markers. In: Usage-based models of language, edited by M. Barlow and S. Kemmer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:#0A2F41;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">In my experience, avoiding ambiguity is not a very strong motivation for language change, because context does miracles. Maybe not in the case of I versus you versus 3rd person?
<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:#0A2F41;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">There is no reason to think that a single factor explains all 0/pronoun alternations in all languages.
<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41">Mira (Ariel)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0A2F41"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 29, 2025 10:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il>; lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear Omri et al. — I might look at this from a slightly different perspective. Suppose you change the question as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">‘Among indexes in pro-drop languages (i.e., languages in which co-nominals are syntactically optional), indexes of which person are more/less frequently accompanied by a co-nominal?’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">If you put it like that, it seems rather obvious to me that the answer is that SAP indexes are less frequently accompanied by co-nominals. Why? Because SAPs are inherently maximally accessible, whereas non-SAPs
may or may not be accessible - a significant percentage of them is even indefinite. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Plus, in many languages (or so it seems to me), there aren’t even great choices for nominals to accompany SAP indexes. One might use independent pronouns, but only in contexts in which this makes sense, such as
for contrastive topics and under focus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I can’t think of a good reference for this off the top of my head. Not too many authors have looked at argument realization in strictly head-marking languages, and those that have, like Bohnemeyer & Tilbe (2021),
didn’t break down results by person. Sorry.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best — Juergen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Bohnemeyer, J. & T. J. Tilbe. (2021). Argument realization and discourse status in Yucatec, a purely head-marking language.
<i>Amerindia</i> 43: 249-289.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)<br>
Professor, Department of Linguistics<br>
University at Buffalo <br>
<br>
Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus<br>
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 <br>
Phone: (716) 645 0127 <br>
Fax: (716) 645 3825<br>
Email: </span><u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#0078D4"><a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" title="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu"><span style="color:#0078D4">jb77@buffalo.edu</span></a></span></u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
Web: </span><u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"><a href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/" title="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/"><span style="color:#0563C1">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/</span></a></span></u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"> <br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh) </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
<br>
There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In <br>
(Leonard Cohen) </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="color:black">Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>> on behalf of Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 11:38<br>
<b>To: </b><a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a> <<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
We are conducting a study on the inverse correlation between the frequency of pro-drop (omission of the subject argument) and syncretism in verbal subject-marking paradigms.<br>
<br>
We are particularly interested in partial pro-drop languages, where subject omission is restricted to certain persons or other grammatical conditions. For example, in Hebrew, pro-drop is fairly common in the past tense for first and second person, but relatively
rare for third person. This is puzzling, since the past-tense paradigm in Hebrew shows no syncretism, so it is unclear why the third-person pronoun cannot generally be omitted as well.<br>
<br>
We would greatly appreciate your input on the following points:<br>
<br>
1. Are you aware of other languages that exhibit partial pro-drop?<br>
We are currently aware of Hebrew, Finnish, Yiddish, Brazilian Portuguese, and Russian. This might point to an areal phenomenon, so examples from other areas would be especially valuable.<br>
<br>
2. In the languages you are familiar with, does third person indeed tend to be the least likely to allow pro-drop?<br>
If so, are you aware of any proposed explanations for this asymmetry?<br>
<br>
Many thanks in advance for your insights,<br>
Yiming and Omri<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>