[Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop

Fri Oct 31 15:44:58 UTC 2025

Dear all — (i) I love this thread! (ii) My hypothesis regarding the confrontational effect is that it might be first and foremost register-based. I think these sentences with elided addressee pronouns are super colloquial. Colloquial can mean blunt (due to the nexus b/w formality and respect), and thus confrontational, but can also index intimacy, as in Volker’s examples.

(iii) Also worth considering: In Japanese, Korean, and many languages of the SEA area, SAP pronouns are (as is well-known) conventionally avoided for politeness reasons. So we seem to get the inverse distribution of what we’ve been talking about in German. This, however, seems to be a function of the very act of address creating a greater danger of face loss (for both interlocutors) in these cultures than it does in German culture.

(iv) Sebastian’s examples made me think of a superficially similar construction in English, a type of tag question in which an addressee pronoun is omitted from the main clause but is included in the tag. I’m not quite sure whether the main verb should be finite, as in (1), or non-finite, as in (2) - I think both forms are possible?

  1.
Went to the library, did you?
  2.
Go to the library, did you?

Tags are of course also often used confrontationally, although in (1)-(2), the effect may be merely a mild sense of skepticism on the part of the speaker.

Best — Juergen

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 Volker Gast via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Date: Friday, October 31, 2025 at 10:28
To: Sebastian Nordhoff <sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de>, Cat Butz <Cat.Butz at hhu.de>
Cc: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop

Hi both,

There's some literature on "Vorfeldellipse", "pronoun zapping" etc. in German,  e.g. by N. Fries, P. Auer and A. Wöllstein. I don't think that they go into the pragmatic or sociolinguistic details though.

The "disrespect hypothesis" can't be quite right, as it's quite common and even conventional to say things like

"Bist'n Schatz" 'You're a treasure'

or

"Bist doch mein bester Freund." 'You're my best friend after all.'

I rather suspect a frequency effect. That could be material for an interesting corpus study. (P. Auer notices that pronoun ellipsis seems to be ruled out with plural pronouns of the 1st or 2nd person.)

Best,
Volker

Sent from MailDroid<https://goo.gl/ODgwBb>

-----Original Message-----
From: Cat Butz via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
To: Sebastian Nordhoff <sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de>
Cc: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 12:38
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop

I think this is getting a lot closer to the core now. Dropping a 2nd
person pronoun probably carries disrespectful semantics, which is why
it's associated with confrontation. One more example that came to my
mind is "Kannst gehen.", which doesn't necessarily express
confrontation, but certainly not respect either. Same for dropping the
honorific "Sie" (even though this is morphosyntactically 3rd person, it
just keeps getting more interesting), with some kind of laconic army
general saying something like "Können abtreten." to dismiss a
low-ranking soldier.

---
Cat Butz (she)
HHU Düsseldorf
General Linguistics

Am 30/10/2025 17:06<tel:06>, schrieb Sebastian Nordhoff via Lingtyp:
> On 10/30/25 15:30<tel:30>, Cat Butz via Lingtyp wrote:
>> I was just doing some German introspection and first had similar
>> thoughts about pro-drop only being acceptable in the 1st and 3rd
>> person, but then remembered a scene from like 15<tel:15> years ago where we
>> were once harassed by two young dudes and someone in our group
>> unfortunately let herself get dragged into an argument with them. (CW:
>> antisemitism) At one point one of them then attempted to insult her
>> with the phrase "Bist ne Jüdin, Mann".
>>
>> Also, for some reason, 2nd person pro-drop in German seems to be
>> acceptable in presumptive contexts and when followed by an
>> interrogative interjection (?): "Hast wohl Angst, hä?", "Wart gestern
>> anscheinend zu lange weg, was?" etc. etc.
>
> Dear all,
> I think there is some confrontational subtext if the second person
> pronoun is dropped, which I cannot fully pin down. It also works
> without presumption and interrogation
>
> (1) Kommst   zu  spät und willst   dann noch Kaffee!
>     come.2PL too late and want.2SG then still coffee
> 'You arrive late and then you (even dare) want coffee!'
>
> This could also explain the encounter you mention above. Funnily
> enough, the second clause has to be present, without it the utterance
> makes no sense.
>
> Best
> Sebastian
>
>>
>> Pretty interesting actually. Let me know if you need glossing for the
>> examples.
>>
>> Warmest,
>> ---
>> Cat Butz (she)
>> HHU Düsseldorf
>> General Linguistics
>>
>>
>> Am 30/10/2025 10:29<tel:29>, schrieb Hartmut Haberland via Lingtyp:
>>> 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<tel:1992>). Consider this question–answer pair:
>>>
>>> Was macht Claudia? Ø isst eine Pizza.
>>>
>>> (literally: What is Claudia doing? Ø is eating a pizza.)
>>>
>>> Now for me, this works perfectly also without a first person subject:
>>>
>>> Was machst du? Ø esse eine Pizza.
>>>
>>> but not without a second person subject:
>>>
>>> Was mache ich? Ø isst eine Pizza.
>>>
>>> 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 [ʃ] (as _essen_ (as well as _mixen_), _lessen_
>>> and _mischen_), which have _-t_ rather than _-st_ in the 2nd person
>>> singular (for phonetic reasons).
>>>
>>> But even for verbs with stems not ending in sibilants [s], [z] or
>>> [ʃ], an omitted 2nd person subject sounds at least doubtful to me:
>>>
>>> Wo bin ich? */?Ø bist in der Küche.
>>>
>>> (Where am I? Are in the kitchen.)
>>>
>>> Here there is no syncretism in the verb that could block the omission
>>> of the subject.
>>>
>>> Even in the plural:
>>>
>>> Wo sind wir? */? Ø seid in der Küche.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Hartmut Haberland
>>>
>>> Hartmut Haberland and Lars Heltoft 1992<tel:1992>. Universals, explanations and
>>> pragmatics. In: Michel Kefer and Johan van der Auwera, eds. _Grammar
>>> and meaning._ Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 17-26<tel:1726>
>>>
>>> Fra: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> På vegne af
>>> Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp
>>> Sendt: 30<tel:30>. oktober 2025 09<tel:202509>:24<tel:24>
>>> Til: Mira Ariel <mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il<mailto:mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il>>; Juergen Bohnemeyer
>>> <jb77 at buffalo.edu<mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>>
>>> Cc: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>> Emne: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop
>>>
>>> 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<tel:30>, 2025<tel:2025> at 4:59<tel:59> AM Mira Ariel <mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il<mailto:mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Omri,
>>>>
>>>> * 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<tel: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<tel: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
>>>>
>>>> * 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?
>>>>
>>>> * 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<mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> On Behalf
>>>> Of Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 29<tel:29>, 2025 10<tel:202510>:04<tel:04> PM
>>>> To: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz at mail.huji.ac.il<mailto:Omri.Amiraz at mail.huji.ac.il>>;
>>>> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto: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<tel:2021>), didn’t break down results by person. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>> Best — Juergen
>>>>
>>>> Bohnemeyer, J. & T. J. Tilbe. (2021<tel:2021>). Argument realization and
>>>> discourse status in Yucatec, a purely head-marking language.
>>>> _Amerindia_ 43<tel:43>: 249-289<tel:249289>.
>>>>
>>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
>>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>>> University at Buffalo
>>>>
>>>> Office: 642<tel:642> Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
>>>> Mailing address: 609<tel:609> Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260<tel:14260>
>>>> Phone: (716) 645 0127<tel:7166450127>
>>>> Fax: (716) 645 3825<tel:7166453825>
>>>> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu<mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>
>>>> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/ [1]
>>>>
>>>> Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4<tel:304>:30<tel:30>pm in 642<tel:642> Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID
>>>> 585 520 2411<tel:5855202411>; 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<mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> on
>>>> behalf
>>>> of Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
>>>> Date: Wednesday, October 29<tel:29>, 2025<tel:2025> at 11<tel:11>:38<tel:38>
>>>> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto: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
>>>
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1] http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251031/44ca65b1/attachment.htm>