[Lingtyp] Lingtyp Digest, Vol 133, Issue 33
Elitzur Dattner
elitzurd at tauex.tau.ac.il
Thu Oct 30 15:01:05 UTC 2025
Hi all,
I’d like to add a developmental and interactional dimension from our work on Hebrew, which may complement the accounts raised so far.
Our findings suggest that zero vs. pronominal subjects are best understood not as a single alternation, but as distinct form–function pairings that children learn as Discourse Profile Constructions (e.g., Dattner et al. 2019). These constructions integrate morphological, syntactic, and discourse-pragmatic cues, which children acquire at different stages. Relatedly, zero and pronominal subjects serve different communicative functions, and children do not treat them as interchangeable options (Dattner & Ravid 2024). This aligns with the idea that pro-drop is tied to usage-based patterns linked to communicative functions, rather than a uniform omission process.
A further angle comes from our recent work (Dattner et al., preprint), showing that interactional context, specifically physical proximity between children in peer talk, affects referential explicitness. Children rely more on overt subject forms when interlocutors are physically distant, and more on zero forms when co-present and aligned in joint attention (the picture for non-subject referential expressions is more complex). Importantly, the weight of proximity as a cue changes developmentally, gradually giving way to discourse-structural cues.
This suggests that, at least for children, the “conditions for droppability” are also embodied and multimodal, and that the integration of these cues develops over time.
Best,
Elitzur Dattner
References:
Dattner, E., Kertes, L., Zwilling, R., & Ravid, D. (2019). Usage patterns in the development of Hebrew grammatical subjects. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 4(1), 129.
Dattner, E., & Ravid, D. (2024). The development of Hebrew zero and pronominal subject realization in the context of first and second person. Journal of Child Language, 51(4), 925–951.
Dattner, E., Salmon, E., Smirnov, D., Ravid, D., & Dattner, I. (preprint). Developmental Dynamics of Multimodal Synchronization in Children's Peer Conversations: Integrating Motion and Language. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5kuf2_v1
—
Elitzur Dattner
https://www.tau.ac.il/~elitzurd/
On 30 Oct 2025, at 11:58, lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org wrote:
Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Partial pro-drop (Omri Amiraz)
2. Re: Partial pro-drop (Hartmut Haberland)
3. Re: Partial pro-drop (Hartmut Haberland)
4. Re: Partial pro-drop (Mira Ariel)
5. Re: Partial pro-drop (Anders Holmberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:23:52 +0100
From: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz at mail.huji.ac.il>
To: Mira Ariel <mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il>, Juergen Bohnemeyer
<jb77 at buffalo.edu>
Cc: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
<lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop
Message-ID:
<CAEU1Zsqa1vJJvszjY_MOS32A5dKWNUejnmPDz_9uSyBJ9+XaYQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:29:17 +0000
From: Hartmut Haberland <hartmut at ruc.dk>
To: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz at mail.huji.ac.il>, Mira Ariel
<mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il>, Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
Cc: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
<lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop
Message-ID: <464b5c3151304e6791f7285f2d6fde02 at ruc.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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). Consider this question?answer pair:
Was macht Claudia? ? isst eine Pizza.
(literally: What is Claudia doing? ? is eating a pizza.)
Now for me, this works perfectly also without a first person subject:
Was machst du? ? esse eine Pizza.
but not without a second person subject:
Was mache ich? ? 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 [?] (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 [?], an omitted 2nd person subject sounds at least doubtful to me:
Wo bin ich? */?? bist in der K?che.
(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? */? ? seid in der K?che.
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. Universals, explanations and pragmatics. In: Michel Kefer and Johan van der Auwera, eds. Grammar and meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 17-26
Fra: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> P? vegne af Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp
Sendt: 30. oktober 2025 09:24
Til: Mira Ariel <mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il>; Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
Cc: 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, 2025 at 4:59?AM Mira Ariel <mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il<mailto: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
1. 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?
1. 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, 2025 10:04 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), 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<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, 2025 at 11:38
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251030/13582b61/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:49:38 +0000
From: Hartmut Haberland <hartmut at ruc.dk>
To: Hartmut Haberland <hartmut at ruc.dk>
Cc: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz at mail.huji.ac.il>, Mira Ariel
<mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il>, Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu>,
"lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
<lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop
Message-ID: <A0CD0607-6EB4-453B-BB11-CD88088E949E at ruc.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Of course:
lesen, not lessen
Den 30. okt. 2025 kl. 10.34 skrev Hartmut Haberland via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>:
?
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). Consider this question?answer pair:
Was macht Claudia? ? isst eine Pizza.
(literally: What is Claudia doing? ? is eating a pizza.)
Now for me, this works perfectly also without a first person subject:
Was machst du? ? esse eine Pizza.
but not without a second person subject:
Was mache ich? ? 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 [?] (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 [?], an omitted 2nd person subject sounds at least doubtful to me:
Wo bin ich? */?? bist in der K?che.
(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? */? ? seid in der K?che.
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. Universals, explanations and pragmatics. In: Michel Kefer and Johan van der Auwera, eds. Grammar and meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 17-26
Fra: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> P? vegne af Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp
Sendt: 30. oktober 2025 09:24
Til: Mira Ariel <mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il>; Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
Cc: 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, 2025 at 4:59?AM Mira Ariel <mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il<mailto: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
1. 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?
1. 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, 2025 10:04 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), 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<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, 2025 at 11:38
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
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
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/20251030/c36d64d0/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:52:26 +0000
From: Mira Ariel <mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il>
To: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz at mail.huji.ac.il>, Juergen Bohnemeyer
<jb77 at buffalo.edu>
Cc: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
<lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop
Message-ID:
<AS2PR02MB1010360BD9964EE8A954C9801D0FBA at AS2PR02MB10103.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz at mail.huji.ac.il>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 10:24 AM
To: Mira Ariel <mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il>; Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
Cc: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Subject: 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.
Accessibility of mental representations is not + or -. It comes in many degrees. Even SAPs can be more or less accessible in different cases. I have a paper on that too.
In that sense, the alternation we?re interested in is essentially between independent pronouns and zero (possibly in combination with verbal subject marking).
It can be 0 or unstressed (or stressed) pronoun, and it can be a shortened pronoun (I often found that for SAPs in Hebrew future tense).
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.
Mental accessibility does not depend (only) on content. Lower accessibility can trigger a pronoun even when the verb has person agreement. The difference between past and future tense in Hebrew is NOT that past tense is more informative about which person is intended. It?s that the referential element in future verbal forms is so opaque that it doesn?t count as referential. In the past tense it?s transparent, basically a shortened pronoun, hence still referentially viable.
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!
You?re welcome!
Mira
Best,
Omri
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 4:59?AM Mira Ariel <mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il<mailto: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
1. 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?
1. 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, 2025 10:04 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), 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<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, 2025 at 11:38
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251030/c68d9f07/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:56:13 +0000
From: Anders Holmberg <anders.holmberg at newcastle.ac.uk>
To: Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz at mail.huji.ac.il>,
"lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
<lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop
Message-ID:
<LO0P302MB0241D3DE0D4E87B277178D8DA3FBA at LO0P302MB0241.GBRP302.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear Yiming and Omri,
You may already be familiar with the work on partial pro-drop by me and my co-authors (for example in Biberauer, T. et al. 2010. Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. CUP.) but still, here is a thought on the question why 3rd person is the one that is not null, in many of the partial pro-drop lnguages: A property that many of the partial pro-drop languages share is that they have a null generic 3rd person pronoun, like English ?one?, which the consistent pro-drop languages don?t have. In those, the generic pronominal subject has to be overtly expressed, somehow. A way to understand this is that the subject agreement morpheme in consistent pro-drop languages, including 3rd person, is referential. It can function as a referential subject, so no pronoun is required (that?s pro-drop). But then, because it?s referential, it can?t be used as a generic pronoun. In partial pro-drop languages the agreement morpheme isn?t referential, it?s just agreement, so if the subject
is referential, a pronoun is required, either an overt one, or one that has an overt antecedent in a higher clause ? which is the typical situation. The first and second person pronouns can be null because they always have a ?contextual antecedent?, the speaker and the addressee, the 3rd person can if it has an overt linguistic antecedent or if it?s generic.
BTW, a least some Indo-Aryan languages have partial pro-drop, of the same type as Hebrew, Finnish, etc. (Marathi, Assamese, ?)
For your research on partial pro-drop, can I also recommend that you take a look at Holmberg, A. 2017. ?Linguistic Typology?. In Roberts, Ian (ed.) 2017. Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar, 355-376, the section on pro-drop. There is a word of caution there regarding relying on descriptive grammars when it comes to explicit claims about pro-drop in the language. Since most or probably all languages use some ?pro-drop? it can be hard for a grammarian to say what kind of pro-drop the language uses. What you can do instead, though, is look at example sentences in the grammar that are not intended to exemplify pro-drop, and see how pronouns are used in those examples.
Good luck with your research!
Anders
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> On Behalf Of Omri Amiraz via Lingtyp
Sent: 29 October 2025 15:39
To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Subject: [Lingtyp] Partial pro-drop
? External sender. Take care when opening links or attachments. Do not provide your login details.
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/e9eb66d4/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
------------------------------
End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 133, Issue 33
****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251030/eee14e8b/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list