so-called "pro-drop" languages

[David Gil]

For me it is a question not of what is less or more interesting (a
matter of personal taste) but of what needs to be distinguished from
what (a matter of conceptual clarity).  Much of the preceding discussion
seems to me to have conflated several parameters of variation which are
at least partially independent from each other:

(a) morphological expression of "subject" participant:  is it
impossible, optional, or obligatory?

(b) for languages in which the morphological expression of "subject"
participant is either impossible or optional:  in those cases when it is
absent, is there a relevant "empty position" in the morphological structure?

(c) lexical expression of "subject" participant:  is it impossible (I'm
not sure whether there are any real cases of this), optional, or obligatory?

(d) for languages in which the lexical expression of "subject"
participant is either impossible or optional: in those cases when it is
absent, is there a relevant "empty position" in the syntactic structure?

Whereas (a) and (c) are superficially and readily observable properties
of individual languages, (b) and (d) can only be examined through
abstract and theory-dependent argumentation.


G.Lazard wrote:

>  La distinction entre langues "pro-drop" et "non pro-drop" n'a pas
> grand interet: les enonces 'they come' et 'veni-unt' comportent l'un
> et l'autre deux elements. Une distinction beaucoup plus importante
> existe entre ces enonces à deux termes et les enonces effectivement
>  "sans sujet" des langues d'Asie orientale, ex. japonais atsui "j'ai
> chaud / il fait chaud / c'est chaud", etc.


--
David Gil

[currently in Indonesia]

Department of Linguistics
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany

Telephone: 49-341-3550321
Fax: 49-341-3550119
Email: gil at eva.mpg.de
Webpage:  http://monolith.eva.mpg.de/~gil/