[Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop

[Matthew Dryer]

Omri,

My WALS chapter on Expression of Pronominal Subjects contains 32 languages of a mixed type, some though not all of which seem to fit what you are looking for. From my WALS chapter (https://wals.info/chapter/101):

The final value shown on the map is for languages which involve a mixture of the first five types. This includes languages in which certain types of simple clauses require a pronoun in subject position, while other types of simple clauses do not. For example, in Jakaltek<https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_jak> (Mayan<https://wals.info/languoid/family/mayan>; Guatemala<https://wals.info/country/GT>), third person pronouns (which code noun class) are normally obligatory, while first and second person pronouns are normally absent (Craig 1977<https://wals.info/refdb/record/Craig-1977>). Kenga<https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_ken> (Central Sudanic; Chad<https://wals.info/country/TD>) and Finnish<https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_fin> are similar to Jakaltek<https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_jak> (Vandame 1968<https://wals.info/refdb/record/Vandame-1968>: 35; Sulkala and Karjalainen 1992<https://wals.info/refdb/record/Sulkala-and-Karjalainen-1992>: 120, 272). Dinka<https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_din> (Nilotic<https://wals.info/family/nilosaharan#nilotic>; Sudan<https://wals.info/country/SD>) and Lamani<https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_lmn> (Indic<https://wals.info/family/indoeuropean#indic>) appear to be the opposite of these languages: third person pronouns can be left out, but first and second person pronouns are normally employed (Nebel 1948<https://wals.info/refdb/record/Nebel-1948>: 53; Trail 1970<https://wals.info/refdb/record/Trail-1970>). In Nias<https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_nia> (Austronesian<https://wals.info/languoid/family/austronesian>; western Indonesia<https://wals.info/country/ID>), obligatoriness depends on whether the clause is transitive and on mood. In intransitive realis clauses, independent pronouns are normally required in subject position unless the subject is third person inanimate; in transitive clauses and in all irrealis clauses, pronouns are not required (Brown 2001<https://wals.info/refdb/record/Brown-2001>). This distribution is clearly related to the fact that the language has pronominal prefixes on the verb for transitive subjects in realis clauses and for all subjects in irrealis clauses.

Matthew

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 12:38 PM
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/20251031/1ef607d2/attachment.htm>