[Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop

[Juergen Bohnemeyer]

Dear Omri et al. — I might look at this from a slightly different perspective. Suppose you change the question as follows:

‘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?’

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.

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.

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.

Best — Juergen

Bohnemeyer, J. & T. J. Tilbe. (2021). Argument realization and discourse status in Yucatec, a purely head-marking language. Amerindia 43: 249-289.


Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
Professor, Department of Linguistics
University at Buffalo

Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
Phone: (716) 645 0127
Fax: (716) 645 3825
Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu<mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>
Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/

Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)

There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
(Leonard Cohen)

--



From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 11:38
To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop

Dear colleagues,

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.

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.

We would greatly appreciate your input on the following points:

1. Are you aware of other languages that exhibit partial pro-drop?
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.

2. In the languages you are familiar with, does third person indeed tend to be the least likely to allow pro-drop?
If so, are you aware of any proposed explanations for this asymmetry?

Many thanks in advance for your insights,
Yiming and Omri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251029/9bde5511/attachment.htm>