<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<span>Hi all,</span><span> </span>
<div><span>I’d like to add a developmental and interactional dimension from our work on Hebrew, which may complement the accounts raised so far.</span><span> </span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span><span></span><span>Our findings suggest that zero vs. pronominal subjects are best understood not as a single alternation, but as distinct form–function pairings that children learn as Discourse Profile Constructions (e.g., Dattner et al. 2019). These
constructions integrate morphological, syntactic, and discourse-pragmatic cues, which children acquire at different stages. Relatedly, zero and pronominal subjects serve different communicative functions, and children do not treat them as interchangeable options
(Dattner & Ravid 2024). This aligns with the idea that pro-drop is tied to usage-based patterns linked to communicative functions, rather than a uniform omission process.</span><span> </span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span><span></span><span>A further angle comes from our recent work (Dattner et al., preprint), showing that interactional context, specifically physical proximity between children in peer talk, affects referential explicitness. Children rely more on overt
subject forms when interlocutors are physically distant, and more on zero forms when co-present and aligned in joint attention (the picture for non-subject referential expressions is more complex). Importantly, the weight of proximity as a cue changes developmentally,
gradually giving way to discourse-structural cues.</span><span> </span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span><span></span><span>This suggests that, at least for children, the “conditions for droppability” are also embodied and multimodal, and that the integration of these cues develops over time.</span><span> </span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span><span></span><span>Best,<br>
Elitzur Dattner<br>
</span><span></span><span><br>
</span></div>
<div>References:<br>
Dattner, E., Kertes, L., Zwilling, R., & Ravid, D. (2019). Usage patterns in the development of Hebrew grammatical subjects.
<i>Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 4</i>(1), 129.<br>
Dattner, E., & Ravid, D. (2024). The development of Hebrew zero and pronominal subject realization in the context of first and second person.
<i>Journal of Child Language, 51</i>(4), 925–951.<br>
Dattner, E., Salmon, E., Smirnov, D., Ravid, D., & Dattner, I. (preprint). Developmental Dynamics of Multimodal Synchronization in Children's Peer Conversations: Integrating Motion and Language. PsyArXiv.
<a href="https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5kuf2_v1">https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5kuf2_v1</a></div>
<div><br>
<div>—<br>
Elitzur Dattner<br>
https://www.tau.ac.il/~elitzurd/ </div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 30 Oct 2025, at 11:58, lingtyp-request@listserv.linguistlist.org wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<div>Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>lingtyp-request@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>lingtyp-owner@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Partial pro-drop (Omri Amiraz)<br>
2. Re: Partial pro-drop (Hartmut Haberland)<br>
3. Re: Partial pro-drop (Hartmut Haberland)<br>
4. Re: Partial pro-drop (Mira Ariel)<br>
5. Re: Partial pro-drop (Anders Holmberg)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:23:52 +0100<br>
From: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il><br>
To: Mira Ariel <mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il>, Juergen Bohnemeyer<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><jb77@buffalo.edu><br>
Cc: "lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><CAEU1Zsqa1vJJvszjY_MOS32A5dKWNUejnmPDz_9uSyBJ9+XaYQ@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Dear Juergen and Mira,<br>
<br>
It is certainly true that SAPs tend to be more accessible. However, we?re<br>
approaching this from a variationist perspective, focusing on speakers?<br>
choices in contexts where the referent is already accessible, rather than<br>
across all clause types. In that sense, the alternation we?re interested in<br>
is essentially between independent pronouns and zero (possibly in<br>
combination with verbal subject marking).<br>
<br>
I?m not sure that information structure alone can account for the<br>
obligatory use of subject pronouns in these cases. For instance, in Hebrew<br>
past tense clauses, the independent pronoun does not add any information<br>
beyond what is already encoded by verbal agreement. So I don?t really<br>
understand why it is used, except in cases of focus or contrast, as Juergen<br>
mentioned.<br>
<br>
I also agree that ambiguity avoidance might not be the main factor, though<br>
it may play a role in particular contexts and perhaps motivate broader<br>
developments.<br>
<br>
Many thanks again for the references!<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Omri<br>
<br>
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 4:59?AM Mira Ariel <mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Omri,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1. I agree with Juergen. Since SAPs tend to be more accessible their<br>
coding is shorter (High accessibility > shorter referential forms). This is<br>
why they are more often either 0 marked or else their pronouns are<br>
cliticized, sometimes leading to the rise of agreement markers for 1st<br>
/2nd persons only on the verb. This explains the findings for Hebrew,<br>
I suggested. See:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1998. Three grammaticalization paths for the development of person verbal<br>
agreement in Hebrew. In: Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap, edited<br>
by J.-P. Koenig. CSLI Publications<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
2000. The development of person agreement markers: From pronouns to higher<br>
accessibility markers. In: Usage-based models of language, edited by M.<br>
Barlow and S. Kemmer<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
2. In my experience, avoiding ambiguity is not a very strong<br>
motivation for language change, because context does miracles. Maybe not in<br>
the case of I versus you versus 3rd person?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
3. There is no reason to think that a single factor explains all<br>
0/pronoun alternations in all languages.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Mira (Ariel)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> *On Behalf Of<br>
*Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp<br>
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 29, 2025 10:04 PM<br>
*To:* Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il>;<br>
lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
*Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Omri et al. ? I might look at this from a slightly different<br>
perspective. Suppose you change the question as follows:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
?Among indexes in pro-drop languages (i.e., languages in which co-nominals<br>
are syntactically optional), indexes of which person are more/less<br>
frequently accompanied by a co-nominal??<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If you put it like that, it seems rather obvious to me that the answer is<br>
that SAP indexes are less frequently accompanied by co-nominals. Why?<br>
Because SAPs are inherently maximally accessible, whereas non-SAPs may or<br>
may not be accessible - a significant percentage of them is even<br>
indefinite.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Plus, in many languages (or so it seems to me), there aren?t even great<br>
choices for nominals to accompany SAP indexes. One might use independent<br>
pronouns, but only in contexts in which this makes sense, such as for<br>
contrastive topics and under focus.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I can?t think of a good reference for this off the top of my head. Not too<br>
many authors have looked at argument realization in strictly head-marking<br>
languages, and those that have, like Bohnemeyer & Tilbe (2021), didn?t<br>
break down results by person. Sorry.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best ? Juergen<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Bohnemeyer, J. & T. J. Tilbe. (2021). Argument realization and discourse<br>
status in Yucatec, a purely head-marking language. *Amerindia* 43:<br>
249-289.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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: *jb77@buffalo.edu <jb77@buffalo.edu>*<br>
Web: *http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/<br>
<http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/>*<br>
<br>
Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585<br>
520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)<br>
<br>
There?s A Crack In Everything - That?s How The Light Gets In<br>
(Leonard Cohen)<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*From: *Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of<br>
Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
*Date: *Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 11:38<br>
*To: *lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
*Subject: *[Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
<br>
Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
We are conducting a study on the inverse correlation between the frequency<br>
of pro-drop (omission of the subject argument) and syncretism in verbal<br>
subject-marking paradigms.<br>
<br>
We are particularly interested in partial pro-drop languages, where<br>
subject omission is restricted to certain persons or other grammatical<br>
conditions. For example, in Hebrew, pro-drop is fairly common in the past<br>
tense for first and second person, but relatively rare for third person.<br>
This is puzzling, since the past-tense paradigm in Hebrew shows no<br>
syncretism, so it is unclear why the third-person pronoun cannot generally<br>
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,<br>
and Russian. This might point to an areal phenomenon, so examples from<br>
other areas would be especially valuable.<br>
<br>
2. In the languages you are familiar with, does third person indeed tend<br>
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<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251030/220b8371/attachment-0001.htm><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:29:17 +0000<br>
From: Hartmut Haberland <hartmut@ruc.dk><br>
To: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il>, Mira Ariel<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il>, Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77@buffalo.edu><br>
Cc: "lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
Message-ID: <464b5c3151304e6791f7285f2d6fde02@ruc.dk><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
There is a little studied, but admittedly marginal, phenomenon in German which could be considered pro-drop (but see a few remarks in Haberland and Heltoft 1992). Consider this question?answer pair:<br>
Was macht Claudia? ? isst eine Pizza.<br>
(literally: What is Claudia doing? ? is eating a pizza.)<br>
Now for me, this works perfectly also without a first person subject:<br>
Was machst du? ? esse eine Pizza.<br>
but not without a second person subject:<br>
Was mache ich? ? isst eine Pizza.<br>
Now one could say that this is because of the syncretism between 2nd and 3rd person present indicative singular forms of verbs with stems ending in [s], [z] or [?] (as essen (as well as mixen), lessen and mischen), which have -t rather than -st in the 2nd person
singular (for phonetic reasons).<br>
But even for verbs with stems not ending in sibilants [s], [z] or [?], an omitted 2nd person subject sounds at least doubtful to me:<br>
Wo bin ich? */?? bist in der K?che.<br>
(Where am I? Are in the kitchen.)<br>
Here there is no syncretism in the verb that could block the omission of the subject.<br>
Even in the plural:<br>
Wo sind wir? */? ? seid in der K?che.<br>
A possible explanation is that the reason could be the awkwardness of the question in the first place: people normally know where they are, what they are eating etc. and do not normally have to ask somebody else to tell them. So here the explanation would be
pragmatics, not phonetics.<br>
Hartmut Haberland<br>
<br>
Hartmut Haberland and Lars Heltoft 1992. Universals, explanations and pragmatics. In: Michel Kefer and Johan van der Auwera, eds. Grammar and meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 17-26<br>
<br>
<br>
Fra: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> P? vegne af Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp<br>
Sendt: 30. oktober 2025 09:24<br>
Til: Mira Ariel <mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il>; Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77@buffalo.edu><br>
Cc: lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
Emne: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Juergen and Mira,<br>
<br>
It is certainly true that SAPs tend to be more accessible. However, we?re approaching this from a variationist perspective, focusing on speakers? choices in contexts where the referent is already accessible, rather than across all clause types. In that sense,
the alternation we?re interested in is essentially between independent pronouns and zero (possibly in combination with verbal subject marking).<br>
<br>
I?m not sure that information structure alone can account for the obligatory use of subject pronouns in these cases. For instance, in Hebrew past tense clauses, the independent pronoun does not add any information beyond what is already encoded by verbal agreement.
So I don?t really understand why it is used, except in cases of focus or contrast, as Juergen mentioned.<br>
<br>
I also agree that ambiguity avoidance might not be the main factor, though it may play a role in particular contexts and perhaps motivate broader developments.<br>
<br>
Many thanks again for the references!<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Omri<br>
<br>
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 4:59?AM Mira Ariel <mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il<mailto:mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il>> wrote:<br>
Hi Omri,<br>
<br>
<br>
1. 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 1st/2nd persons only on the verb. This explains the findings for Hebrew, I suggested. See:<br>
<br>
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<br>
<br>
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<br>
<br>
<br>
1. 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?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1. There is no reason to think that a single factor explains all 0/pronoun alternations in all languages.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Mira (Ariel)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org>> On Behalf Of Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp<br>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 10:04 PM<br>
To: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il<mailto:Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il>>; lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
<br>
Dear Omri et al. ? I might look at this from a slightly different perspective. Suppose you change the question as follows:<br>
<br>
?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??<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best ? Juergen<br>
<br>
Bohnemeyer, J. & T. J. Tilbe. (2021). Argument realization and discourse status in Yucatec, a purely head-marking language. Amerindia 43: 249-289.<br>
<br>
<br>
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: jb77@buffalo.edu<mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu><br>
Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/<br>
<br>
Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)<br>
<br>
There?s A Crack In Everything - That?s How The Light Gets In<br>
(Leonard Cohen)<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org>> on behalf of Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org>><br>
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 11:38<br>
To: lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org> <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org>><br>
Subject: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
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<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251030/13582b61/attachment-0001.htm><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:49:38 +0000<br>
From: Hartmut Haberland <hartmut@ruc.dk><br>
To: Hartmut Haberland <hartmut@ruc.dk><br>
Cc: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il>, Mira Ariel<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il>, Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77@buffalo.edu>,<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>"lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
Message-ID: <A0CD0607-6EB4-453B-BB11-CD88088E949E@ruc.dk><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Of course:<br>
lesen, not lessen<br>
<br>
Den 30. okt. 2025 kl. 10.34 skrev Hartmut Haberland via Lingtyp <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org>:<br>
<br>
?<br>
There is a little studied, but admittedly marginal, phenomenon in German which could be considered pro-drop (but see a few remarks in Haberland and Heltoft 1992). Consider this question?answer pair:<br>
Was macht Claudia? ? isst eine Pizza.<br>
(literally: What is Claudia doing? ? is eating a pizza.)<br>
Now for me, this works perfectly also without a first person subject:<br>
Was machst du? ? esse eine Pizza.<br>
but not without a second person subject:<br>
Was mache ich? ? isst eine Pizza.<br>
Now one could say that this is because of the syncretism between 2nd and 3rd person present indicative singular forms of verbs with stems ending in [s], [z] or [?] (as essen (as well as mixen), lessen and mischen), which have -t rather than -st in the 2nd person
singular (for phonetic reasons).<br>
But even for verbs with stems not ending in sibilants [s], [z] or [?], an omitted 2nd person subject sounds at least doubtful to me:<br>
Wo bin ich? */?? bist in der K?che.<br>
(Where am I? Are in the kitchen.)<br>
Here there is no syncretism in the verb that could block the omission of the subject.<br>
Even in the plural:<br>
Wo sind wir? */? ? seid in der K?che.<br>
A possible explanation is that the reason could be the awkwardness of the question in the first place: people normally know where they are, what they are eating etc. and do not normally have to ask somebody else to tell them. So here the explanation would be
pragmatics, not phonetics.<br>
Hartmut Haberland<br>
<br>
Hartmut Haberland and Lars Heltoft 1992. Universals, explanations and pragmatics. In: Michel Kefer and Johan van der Auwera, eds. Grammar and meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 17-26<br>
<br>
<br>
Fra: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> P? vegne af Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp<br>
Sendt: 30. oktober 2025 09:24<br>
Til: Mira Ariel <mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il>; Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77@buffalo.edu><br>
Cc: lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
Emne: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Juergen and Mira,<br>
<br>
It is certainly true that SAPs tend to be more accessible. However, we?re approaching this from a variationist perspective, focusing on speakers? choices in contexts where the referent is already accessible, rather than across all clause types. In that sense,
the alternation we?re interested in is essentially between independent pronouns and zero (possibly in combination with verbal subject marking).<br>
<br>
I?m not sure that information structure alone can account for the obligatory use of subject pronouns in these cases. For instance, in Hebrew past tense clauses, the independent pronoun does not add any information beyond what is already encoded by verbal agreement.
So I don?t really understand why it is used, except in cases of focus or contrast, as Juergen mentioned.<br>
<br>
I also agree that ambiguity avoidance might not be the main factor, though it may play a role in particular contexts and perhaps motivate broader developments.<br>
<br>
Many thanks again for the references!<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Omri<br>
<br>
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 4:59?AM Mira Ariel <mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il<mailto:mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il>> wrote:<br>
Hi Omri,<br>
<br>
<br>
1. 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 1st/2nd persons only on the verb. This explains the findings for Hebrew, I suggested. See:<br>
<br>
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<br>
<br>
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<br>
<br>
<br>
1. 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?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1. There is no reason to think that a single factor explains all 0/pronoun alternations in all languages.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Mira (Ariel)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org>> On Behalf Of Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp<br>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 10:04 PM<br>
To: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il<mailto:Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il>>; lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
<br>
Dear Omri et al. ? I might look at this from a slightly different perspective. Suppose you change the question as follows:<br>
<br>
?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??<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best ? Juergen<br>
<br>
Bohnemeyer, J. & T. J. Tilbe. (2021). Argument realization and discourse status in Yucatec, a purely head-marking language. Amerindia 43: 249-289.<br>
<br>
<br>
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: jb77@buffalo.edu<mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu><br>
Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/<br>
<br>
Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)<br>
<br>
There?s A Crack In Everything - That?s How The Light Gets In<br>
(Leonard Cohen)<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org>> on behalf of Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org>><br>
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 11:38<br>
To: lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org> <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org>><br>
Subject: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
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<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251030/c36d64d0/attachment-0001.htm><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:52:26 +0000<br>
From: Mira Ariel <mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il><br>
To: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il>, Juergen Bohnemeyer<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><jb77@buffalo.edu><br>
Cc: "lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><AS2PR02MB1010360BD9964EE8A954C9801D0FBA@AS2PR02MB10103.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com><br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il><br>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 10:24 AM<br>
To: Mira Ariel <mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il>; Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77@buffalo.edu><br>
Cc: lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Juergen and Mira,<br>
<br>
It is certainly true that SAPs tend to be more accessible. However, we?re approaching this from a variationist perspective, focusing on speakers? choices in contexts where the referent is already accessible, rather than across all clause types.<br>
<br>
Accessibility of mental representations is not + or -. It comes in many degrees. Even SAPs can be more or less accessible in different cases. I have a paper on that too.<br>
<br>
In that sense, the alternation we?re interested in is essentially between independent pronouns and zero (possibly in combination with verbal subject marking).<br>
<br>
It can be 0 or unstressed (or stressed) pronoun, and it can be a shortened pronoun (I often found that for SAPs in Hebrew future tense).<br>
<br>
I?m not sure that information structure alone can account for the obligatory use of subject pronouns in these cases. For instance, in Hebrew past tense clauses, the independent pronoun does not add any information beyond what is already encoded by verbal agreement.
So I don?t really understand why it is used, except in cases of focus or contrast, as Juergen mentioned.<br>
<br>
Mental accessibility does not depend (only) on content. Lower accessibility can trigger a pronoun even when the verb has person agreement. The difference between past and future tense in Hebrew is NOT that past tense is more informative about which person is
intended. It?s that the referential element in future verbal forms is so opaque that it doesn?t count as referential. In the past tense it?s transparent, basically a shortened pronoun, hence still referentially viable.<br>
<br>
I also agree that ambiguity avoidance might not be the main factor, though it may play a role in particular contexts and perhaps motivate broader developments.<br>
<br>
Many thanks again for the references!<br>
<br>
You?re welcome!<br>
<br>
Mira<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Omri<br>
<br>
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 4:59?AM Mira Ariel <mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il<mailto:mariel@tauex.tau.ac.il>> wrote:<br>
Hi Omri,<br>
<br>
<br>
1. 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 1st/2nd persons only on the verb. This explains the findings for Hebrew, I suggested. See:<br>
<br>
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<br>
<br>
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<br>
<br>
<br>
1. 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?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1. There is no reason to think that a single factor explains all 0/pronoun alternations in all languages.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Mira (Ariel)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org>> On Behalf Of Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp<br>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 10:04 PM<br>
To: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il<mailto:Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il>>; lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
<br>
Dear Omri et al. ? I might look at this from a slightly different perspective. Suppose you change the question as follows:<br>
<br>
?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??<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best ? Juergen<br>
<br>
Bohnemeyer, J. & T. J. Tilbe. (2021). Argument realization and discourse status in Yucatec, a purely head-marking language. Amerindia 43: 249-289.<br>
<br>
<br>
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: jb77@buffalo.edu<mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu><br>
Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/<br>
<br>
Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)<br>
<br>
There?s A Crack In Everything - That?s How The Light Gets In<br>
(Leonard Cohen)<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org>> on behalf of Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org>><br>
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 11:38<br>
To: lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org> <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org>><br>
Subject: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
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<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251030/c68d9f07/attachment-0001.htm><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:56:13 +0000<br>
From: Anders Holmberg <anders.holmberg@newcastle.ac.uk><br>
To: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz@mail.huji.ac.il>,<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>"lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><LO0P302MB0241D3DE0D4E87B277178D8DA3FBA@LO0P302MB0241.GBRP302.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM><br>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Dear Yiming and Omri,<br>
You may already be familiar with the work on partial pro-drop by me and my co-authors (for example in Biberauer, T. et al. 2010. Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. CUP.) but still, here is a thought on the question why 3rd person is the
one that is not null, in many of the partial pro-drop lnguages: A property that many of the partial pro-drop languages share is that they have a null generic 3rd person pronoun, like English ?one?, which the consistent pro-drop languages don?t have. In those,
the generic pronominal subject has to be overtly expressed, somehow. A way to understand this is that the subject agreement morpheme in consistent pro-drop languages, including 3rd person, is referential. It can function as a referential subject, so no pronoun
is required (that?s pro-drop). But then, because it?s referential, it can?t be used as a generic pronoun. In partial pro-drop languages the agreement morpheme isn?t referential, it?s just agreement, so if the subject<br>
is referential, a pronoun is required, either an overt one, or one that has an overt antecedent in a higher clause ? which is the typical situation. The first and second person pronouns can be null because they always have a ?contextual antecedent?, the speaker
and the addressee, the 3rd person can if it has an overt linguistic antecedent or if it?s generic.<br>
BTW, a least some Indo-Aryan languages have partial pro-drop, of the same type as Hebrew, Finnish, etc. (Marathi, Assamese, ?)<br>
For your research on partial pro-drop, can I also recommend that you take a look at Holmberg, A. 2017. ?Linguistic Typology?. In Roberts, Ian (ed.) 2017. Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar, 355-376, the section on pro-drop. There is a word of caution
there regarding relying on descriptive grammars when it comes to explicit claims about pro-drop in the language. Since most or probably all languages use some ?pro-drop? it can be hard for a grammarian to say what kind of pro-drop the language uses. What
you can do instead, though, is look at example sentences in the grammar that are not intended to exemplify pro-drop, and see how pronouns are used in those examples.<br>
<br>
Good luck with your research!<br>
<br>
Anders<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> On Behalf Of Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp<br>
Sent: 29 October 2025 15:39<br>
To: lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
Subject: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop<br>
<br>
<br>
? External sender. Take care when opening links or attachments. Do not provide your login details.<br>
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<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251030/e9eb66d4/attachment.htm><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 133, Issue 33<br>
****************************************<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>