[Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop

[Omri Amiraz]

Dear Juergen and Mira,

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).

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.

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.

Many thanks again for the references!

Best,
Omri

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 4:59 AM Mira Ariel <mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il> wrote:

> Hi Omri,
>
>
>
>    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:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>    2. 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?
>
>
>
>    3. There is no reason to think that a single factor explains all
>    0/pronoun alternations in all languages.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Mira (Ariel)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 29, 2025 10:04 PM
> *To:* Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz at mail.huji.ac.il>;
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop
>
>
>
> 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 <jb77 at buffalo.edu>*
> Web: *http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
> <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/20251030/220b8371/attachment.htm>