Hubbry Logo
search
logo

Pro-drop language

logo
Community Hub0 Subscribers
Read side by side
from Wikipedia

A pro-drop language (from "pronoun-dropping") is a language in which certain classes of pronouns may be omitted when they can be pragmatically or grammatically inferable. The precise conditions vary from language to language, and can be quite intricate. The phenomenon of "pronoun-dropping" is part of the larger topic of zero or null anaphora.[1] The connection between pro-drop languages and null anaphora relates to the fact that a dropped pronoun has referential properties, and so is crucially not a null dummy pronoun.

Pro-drop is a problem when translating to a non-pro-drop language such as English, which requires the pronoun to be added, especially noticeable in machine translation.[2] It can also contribute to transfer errors in language learning.[citation needed]

An areal feature of some European languages is that pronoun dropping is not, or seldom, possible (see Standard Average European); this is the case for English, French, German,[3] and Emilian, among others.[4] In contrast, Japanese,[5] Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese, Slavic languages,[6] Finno-Ugric languages, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Kra-Dai languages, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese[7] exhibit frequent pro-drop features. Some languages, such as Greek and Hindi[8] also exhibit pro-drop in any argument.

Usage of term

[edit]

In Noam Chomsky's "Lectures on Government and Binding", the term is used for a cluster of properties of which "null subject" was one (for the occurrence of pro as a predicate rather than a subject in sentences with the copula see Moro 1997).[citation needed]

Thus, a one-way correlation was suggested between inflectional agreement (AGR) and empty pronouns on the one hand and between no agreement and overt pronouns, on the other. In the classical version, languages which not only lack agreement morphology but also allow extensive dropping of pronouns—such as Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese—are not included, as is made clear in a footnote: "The principle suggested is fairly general, but does not apply to such languages as Japanese in which pronouns can be missing much more freely."[9] (Chomsky 1981:284, fn 47).

The term pro-drop is also used in other frameworks in generative grammar, such as in lexical functional grammar (LFG), but in a more general sense: "Pro-drop is a widespread linguistic phenomenon in which, under certain conditions, a structural NP may be unexpressed, giving rise to a pronominal interpretation."[10] (Bresnan 1982:384).

The empty category assumed (under government and binding theory) to be present in the vacant subject position left by pro-dropping is known as pro, or as "little pro" (to distinguish it from "big PRO", an empty category associated with non-finite verb phrases).[11]

Cross-linguistic variation

[edit]

It has been observed that pro-drop languages are those with either rich inflection for person and number (Persian, Polish, Czech, Portuguese, etc.) or no such inflection at all (Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc.), but languages that are intermediate (English, French) are non-pro-drop.

While the mechanism by which overt pronouns are more "useful" in English than in Japanese is obscure, and there are exceptions to this observation, it still seems to have considerable descriptive validity. As Huang puts it, "Pro-drop is licensed to occur either where a language has full agreement, or where a language has no agreement, but not where a language has impoverished partial agreement."[12]

In pro-drop languages with a highly inflected verbal morphology, the expression of the subject pronoun is considered unnecessary because the verbal inflection indicates the person and number of the subject, thus the referent of the null subject can be inferred from the grammatical inflection on the verb.[13]

Barbosa defines these typological patterns as null-subject languages (NSL), expressing that the term itself, pro-drop, can be subcategorized into categories such as: topic (discourse) pro-drop, partial NSL (partial pro-drop) and consistent NSL (full pro-drop).[14]

Topic pro-drop languages

[edit]

In everyday speech there are instances when who or what is being referred to — namely, the topic of the sentence — can be inferred from context. Languages which permit the pronoun to be inferred from contextual information are called topic-drop (also known as discourse pro-drop) languages: thus, topic pro-drop languages allow referential pronouns to be omitted, or be phonologically null. (In contrast, languages that lack topic pro-drop as a mechanism would still require the pronoun.) These dropped pronouns can be inferred from previous discourse, from the context of the conversation, or generally shared knowledge.[15] Among major languages, some which might be called topic pro-drop languages are Japanese,[5][16] Korean,[16] and Mandarin.[17] Topic prominent languages like Korean, Mandarin and Japanese have structures which focus more on topics and comments as opposed to English, a subject-prominent language.[18] It is this topic-first nature that enables the inference of omitted pronouns from discourse.

Korean

[edit]

The following example from Jung (2004:719) Korean shows the omission of both pronouns in the subject and object position.

Neo

you

이것

igeot

this

필요하니?

pilyohani?

need

너 이것 필요하니?

Neo igeot pilyohani?

you this need

Do you need this?

필요해

pilyohae

need

필요해

pilyohae

need

(I) need (it).[15]

Japanese

[edit]

Consider the following examples from Japanese:[2]

この

Kono

This

ケーキ

kēki

cake

wa

TOP

美味しい。

oishii.

tasty-PRS

Dare

Who

ga

SUBJ

焼いた

yaita

bake-PAST

の?

no?

Q

この ケーキ は 美味しい。 誰 が 焼いた の?

Kono kēki wa oishii. Dare ga yaita no?

This cake TOP tasty-PRS Who SUBJ bake-PAST Q

This cake is tasty. Who baked (it)?

知らない。

Shiranai.

know-NEG.

気に入った?

Ki ni itta?

like-PAST

知らない。 気に入った?

Shiranai. {Ki ni itta?}

know-NEG. like-PAST

(I) don't know. Did (you) like (it)?

The words in parentheses and boldface in the English translations (it in the first line; I, you, and it in the second) appear nowhere in the Japanese sentences but are understood from context. If nouns or pronouns were supplied, the resulting sentences would be grammatically correct but sound unnatural. Learners of Japanese as a second language, especially those whose first language is non-pro-drop like English or French, often supply personal pronouns where they are pragmatically inferable, an example of language transfer.

Mandarin

[edit]

The above-mentioned examples from Japanese are readily rendered into Mandarin:

Zhè

This

kuài

piece

蛋糕

dàngāo

cake

hěn

DEGREE

好吃。

hǎochī.

tasty.

Shéi

Who

kǎo

bake

的?

de?

MODIFY

这 块 蛋糕 很 好吃。 谁 烤 的?

Zhè kuài dàngāo hěn hǎochī. Shéi kǎo de?

This piece cake DEGREE tasty. Who bake MODIFY

This cake is tasty. Who baked (it)?

Not

知道。

zhīdào.

know.

喜欢

Xǐhuan

like

吗?

ma?

Q

不 知道。 喜欢 吗?

Bù zhīdào. Xǐhuan ma?

Not know. like Q

(I) don't know. Do (you) like (it)?

Unlike in Japanese, the inclusion of the dropped pronouns does not make the sentence sound unnatural.

Vietnamese

[edit]

Vietnamese can naturally omit subjects, especially in universally casual clauses, proverbs and idioms:

Nghe

Listening

kỹ

carefully

can

hiểu

understand

liền.

instantly

Nghe kỹ là hiểu liền.

Listening carefully can understand instantly

By listening carefully, one can understand instantly.

Ăn

To-eat

được

well,

ngủ

to-sleep

được

well

is-to-be

tiên.

Xian-(a-celestial-transcendent-being)

Ăn được ngủ được là tiên.

To-eat well, to-sleep well is-to-be Xian-(a-celestial-transcendent-being)

If one can eat and sleep well, they are Xian.

Partial pro-drop languages

[edit]

Languages with partial pro-drop have both agreement and referential null subjects that are restricted with respect to their distribution.[14] The partial null-subject languages include most Balto-Slavic languages, which allow for the deletion of the subject pronoun. Hungarian allows deletion of both the subject and object pronouns.

Slavic languages

[edit]

The following table provides examples of subject pro-drop in Slavic languages. In each of these examples, the 3rd person masculine singular pronoun 'he' in the second sentence is inferred from context.

Subject pro-drop in Slavic languages
Language '(I) see [him].' '(He) is coming.'
Belarusian Бачу [яго]. Baču [jaho]. Ідзе. Idze.
Bulgarian Виждам го. Vizhdam go. Идва. Idva.
Czech Vidím ho. Jde.
Macedonian Го гледам. Go gledam. Доаѓа. Doaǵa.
Polish Widzę go. Idzie.
Russian Вижу [его]. Vižu [ego]. Идёт. Idët.
Serbo-Croatian Vidim ga. Видим га. Dolazi. Долази.
Slovene Vidim ga. Prihaja.
Ukrainian Бачу [його]. Bachu [yogo]. Іде. Ide.

In the East Slavic languages, even the objective pronoun его can be omitted in the present and future tenses (both imperfect and perfective). In these languages, the missing pronoun is not inferred strictly from pragmatics, but partially indicated by the morphology of the verb (Russian вижу, Bulgarian виждам, Polish widzę, Czech vidím, etc.). However, the past tense of both imperfective and perfective in the modern East Slavic languages inflects by gender and number but not person because the present tense conjugations of the copula "to be" (Russian быть, Ukrainian бути, Belarusian быць) have practically fallen out of use. As such, the pronoun is often included in these tenses, especially in writing.

Finno-Ugric languages

[edit]

In Finnish, the verb inflection replaces first- and second-person pronouns (but not thirds, which remain obligatory) in simple sentences: menen "I go", menette "all of you go". Pronouns are typically left in place only when they need to be inflected, e.g. me "we", meiltä "from us". There are possessive pronouns but possessive suffixes, e.g. -ni as in kissani "my cat", are also used, as in Kissani söi kalan ("my cat ate a fish"). A peculiarity of Colloquial Finnish is that the pronoun me ("we") can be dropped if the verb is placed in the passive voice (e.g. haetaan, Standard "it is fetched", colloquial "we fetch"). Estonian, a close relative of Finnish, has a tendency that is less clear. Literary Estonian generally uses explicit personal pronouns in the literary language, but they are often omitted in colloquial Estonian.

Hungarian is also pro-drop, and subject pronouns are used only for emphasis: (Én) mentem "I went". Because of the definite conjugation, object pronouns can be often elided as well. For example, the question (Ti) látjátok a macskát? "Do (you pl.) see the cat?" can be answered with just látjuk "(We) see (it)" because the definite conjugation renders the object pronoun superfluous.

Hebrew

[edit]

Modern Hebrew, like Biblical Hebrew, is a "moderately" pro-drop language. In general, subject pronouns must be included in the present tense. Since Hebrew has no verb forms expressing the present tense, the present tense is formed by using the present participle (somewhat like English I am guarding). The Hebrew participle , as is the case with other adjectives, declines only in grammatical gender and number (like the past tense in Russian), thus:

I (m.) guard (ani shomer) = אני שומר
You (m.) guard (ata shomer) = אתה שומר
He guards (hu shomer) = הוא שומר
I (f.) guard (ani shomeret) = אני שומרת
We (m.) guard (anachnu shomrim) = אנחנו שומרים

Since the forms that are used for the present tense lack the distinction between grammatical persons, explicit pronouns must be added in most cases.

In contrast, the past tense and the future tense the verb form is inflected for person, number, and gender. Therefore, the verb form itself indicates sufficient information about the subject. The subject pronoun is therefore normally dropped, except in third-person.[19]

I (m./f.) guarded (shamarti) = שמרתי
You (m. pl.) guarded (sh'martem) = שמרתם
I (m./f.) will guard (eshmor) = אשמור
You (pl./m.) will guard (tishm'ru) = תשמרו

Many nouns can take suffixes to reflect the possessor in which case the personal pronoun is dropped. In daily usage, the inflection of Modern Hebrew nouns is common only for some nouns. In most cases, inflected possessive pronouns are used. In Hebrew, possessive pronouns are treated mostly like adjectives and follow the nouns which they modify. In Biblical Hebrew, inflection of more sophisticated nouns is more common than in modern usage.

Full pro-drop languages

[edit]

Full pro-drop languages, also known as consistent NSLs, are languages that are characterized by rich subject agreement morphology where subjects are freely dropped under the appropriate discourse conditions.[14] In some contexts, pro-drop in these languages is mandatory and also occurs in contexts in which pro-drop cannot happen for partial pro-drop languages.[14] The following languages exhibit full pro-drop in their own distinct ways.

Hindi

[edit]

South Asian languages such as Hindi, in general, have the ability to pro-drop any and all arguments.[8] Hindi is a split-ergative language and when the subject of the sentence is in the ergative case (also when the sentence involves the infinitive participle, which requires the subject to be in the dative case[20]), the verb of the sentence agrees in gender and number with the object of the sentence, hence making it possible to drop the object since it can be contextually inferred from the gender of the verb.

In the example below, the subject is in the ergative case and the verb agrees in number and gender with the direct object.

In the example below, the subject is in the dative case and the verb agrees in number and gender with the direct object.

In the example below, the subject is in the nominative case and the verb agrees in number, gender, and also in person with the subject.

Greek

[edit]

Subject pronouns are usually omitted in Greek, but the verb is inflected for the person and number of the subject. Example:

Βλέπεις

see.2sg

εκείνο

that

το

the

κούτσουρο;

log?

Θα

Would

ήταν

be.3sg

καλό

good

για

for

τη

the

φωτιά.

fire.

Είναι

be.pres.3sg

τελείως

completely

ξερό.

dried

Βλέπεις εκείνο το κούτσουρο; Θα ήταν καλό για τη φωτιά. Είναι τελείως ξερό.

see.2sg that the log? Would be.3sg good for the fire. be.pres.3sg completely dried

(You) see this log? (It) would be good for the fire. (It) has completely dried.

Romance languages

[edit]

Like their parent Latin, most Romance languages (with the notable exception of French) are categorised as pro-drop as well, though generally only in the case of subject pronouns. Unlike in Japanese, however, the missing subject pronoun is not inferred strictly from pragmatics, but partially indicated by the morphology of the verb, which inflects for person and number of the subject. Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Catalan and Occitan can elide subject pronouns only (Portuguese sometimes elides object pronouns as well), and they often do so even when the referent has not been mentioned. This is helped by person/number inflection on the verb. The 3rd person singular and plural subject pronouns are often kept to denote and differentiate male and female subjects/genders.

Spanish

[edit]

In Spanish, the verb is inflected for both person and number, thus expression of the pronoun is unnecessary because it is grammatically redundant.[13] In the following example, the inflection on the verb ver, 'see', signals informal 2nd person singular, thus the pronoun is dropped. Similarly, from both the context and verbal morphology, the listener can infer that the second two utterances are referring to the log, so the speaker omits the pronoun that would appear in English as "it."

¿Ves

See

este

this

tronco?

log?

Sería

Would be

bueno

good

para

for

la

the

fogata.

campfire.

Está

Is

completamente

completely

seco.

dry

¿Ves este tronco? Sería bueno para la fogata. Está completamente seco.

See this log? {Would be} good for the campfire. Is completely dry

(Do) (you) see this log? (It) would be good for the campfire. (It) is completely dry.

Although Spanish is a predominantly pro-drop language, not all grammatical contexts allow for a null pronoun. There are some environments that require an overt pronoun. In contrast, there are also grammatical environments that require a null pronoun. According to the Real Academia Española, the expression or elision of the subject pronoun is not random. Rather there are contexts in which an overt pronoun is abnormal, but in other cases, the overt pronoun is possible or even required.[21] Further, the examples below illustrate how overt pronouns in Spanish are not constrained by inflectional morphology. The pronoun nosotros can be either present or absent, depending on certain discourse conditions:[22]

Salimos

left

Salimos

left

“We left.”

Nosotros

We

salimos.

left

Nosotros salimos.

We left

“We left.”

The third person pronouns (él, ella, ellos, ellas) in most contexts can only refer to persons. Therefore, when referring to things (that are not people) an explicit pronoun is usually disallowed.[21]

Subject pronouns can be made explicit when used for a contrastive function or when the subject is the focus of the sentence. In the following example, the first person explicit pronoun is used to emphasize the subject. In the next sentence the explicit yo, stressed that the opinion is from the speaker and not from the second person or another person.

Yo

I

creo

think

que

that

eso

that

estuvo

was

mal.

wrong.

Yo creo que eso estuvo mal.

I think that that was wrong.

Subject pronouns can also be made explicit in order to clarify ambiguities that arise due to verb forms that are homophonous in the first person and third person. For example, in the past imperfect, conditional, and subjunctive, the verb forms are the same for first person singular and third person singular. In these situations, using the explicit pronoun yo (1st person singular) or él, ella (3rd person singular) clarifies who the subject is, since the verbal morphology is ambiguous.[21]

Italian

[edit]

Vedi

See

questo

this

tronchetto?

log?

Andrebbe

Would go

bene

well

per

for

il

the

fuoco.

campfire.

È

Is

completamente

completely

secco.

dry.

Vedi questo tronchetto? Andrebbe bene per il fuoco. È completamente secco.

See this log? {Would go} well for the campfire. Is completely dry.

Do (you) see this log? (It) would be fit for the campfire. (It) is completely dry.

Italian further demonstrates full pro-drop by allowing for the possibility of a salient, referential, definite subject of finite clauses. With respect to the Null subject parameter (NSP), this will be analyzed using the phrase 'S/he speaks Italian.'[23]

Italian has a [+] value:

Parla italiano. (Italian, +NSP)

A non pro-drop language, such as English, has a [-] value for NSP and thus does not allow for that possibility:

*Speaks Italian. (English, -NSP)

Portuguese

[edit]

Portuguese displays full pro-drop by allowing subjects of finite clauses to be phonetically null:[24]

Chegaram.

arrived-3PL

Chegaram.

arrived-3PL

‘They have arrived.’

Provided this example, it is important to note that variations of Portuguese can differ with respect to their pro-drop features. While European Portuguese (EP) is a full pro-drop language, Brazilian Portuguese (BP) exhibits partial pro-drop. The two are compared below, respectively:

Examples of omitted subject:

Estás

Are

a

to

ver

see

este

this

tronco?

log?

Seria

Would be

bom

good

para

for

a

the

fogueira.

campfire.

Secou

Dried

completamente.

completely

(European Portuguese)

 

Estás a ver este tronco? Seria bom para a fogueira. Secou completamente.

Are to see this log? {Would be} good for the campfire. Dried completely

(Do) (you) see this log? (It) would be good for the campfire. (It) has completely dried.

Está(s)

Are

vendo

seeing

esse

this

tronco?

log?

Seria

Would be

bom

good

pra

for-the

fogueira.

campfire.

Secou

Dried

completamente.

completely

(Brazilian Portuguese)

 

Está(s) vendo esse tronco? Seria bom pra fogueira. Secou completamente.

Are seeing this log? {Would be} good for-the campfire. Dried completely

(Do) (you) see this log? (It) would be good for the campfire. (It) has completely dried.

Omission of object pronouns is likewise possible when the referent is clear, especially in colloquial or informal language:

Acho

Think

que

that

ele

he

vai

goes

rejeitar

(to-)reject

a

the

proposta,

proposal,

mas

but

pode

may

aceitar.

accept.

Acho que ele vai rejeitar a proposta, mas pode aceitar.

Think that he goes (to-)reject the proposal, but may accept.

(I) think he is going to turn down the proposal, but (he) may accept (it).

Ainda

Still

tem

is there

macarrão?

pasta?

Não,

No,

papai

daddy

comeu.

ate.

Ainda tem macarrão? Não, papai comeu.

Still {is there} pasta? No, daddy ate.

Is there pasta left? No, daddy ate (it).

The use of the object pronoun in these examples (aceitá-la, comeu-o) is the default everywhere but Brazil.

Ela

She

me

me

procurou

sought

ontem

yesterday

e

and

não

not

achou.

found.

Ela me procurou ontem e não achou.

She me sought yesterday and not found.

She looked for me yesterday and didn't find (me).

Here não me achou would also be possible.

A:

A‍:

Eu

I

te

you

amo;

love;

você

you

também

too

me

me

ama?

love?

B:

B‍:

Amo,

Love-1sg,

sim.

yes.

A: Eu te amo; você também me ama? B: Amo, sim.

A‍: I you love; you too me love? B‍: Love-1sg, yes.

A: I love you; do you love me too? B: I do.

Omission of the object pronoun is possible even when its referent has not been explicitly mentioned, so long as it can be inferred. The next example might be heard at a store; the referent (a dress) is clear to the interlocutor. In both Brazilian and European Portuguese the pronoun is omitted.

Viu

Saw

que

how

bonito?

beautiful?

Não

Don't

gosta?

like?

Pode

Can

comprar?

buy?

(BP)

(using polite 2nd person) (BP)

Viu que bonito? Não gosta? Pode comprar?

Saw how beautiful? Don't like? Can buy?

Viste

Saw

que

how

bonito?

beautiful?

Não

Don't

gostas?

like?

Podes

Can

comprar?

buy?

(EP)

(using informal 2nd person) (EP)

Viste que bonito? Não gostas? Podes comprar?

Saw how beautiful? Don't like? Can buy?

Have you seen how beautiful it is? Do you like it? Can you buy it?

Pro-drop with locative and partitive

[edit]

Modern Spanish and Portuguese are also notable amongst Romance languages because they have no specific pronouns for circumstantial complements (arguments denoting circumstance, consequence, place or manner, modifying the verb but not directly involved in the action) or partitives (words or phrases denoting a quantity of something).[clarification needed] However, both languages had them during the Middle Ages: Portuguese hi and ende.

Compare the following examples in which Spanish, Portuguese, Galician, and Romanian have null pronouns for place and partitives, but Catalan, French, Occitan, and Italian have overt pronouns for place and partitive.

Pro-drop with locative and partitive: Romance
language locative partitive
Spanish ¡Voy! Tengo cuatro.
Portuguese Vou! Tenho quatro.
Galician Vou! Teño catro.
Romanian Mă duc! Am patru.
Catalan Hi vaig! En tinc quatre.
French J'y vais ! J'en ai quatre.
Occitan I vau! N' ai quatre.
Italian Ci vado! Ne ho quattro.
'I'm going [there]!' 'I have four (of them).'
Languages in Europe
  Non-pro-drop languages
  Pro-drop being displaced by a non-pro-drop language

Other examples

[edit]

Arabic

[edit]

Arabic is considered a null-subject language, as demonstrated by the following example:

ساعد غيرك، يساعدك

sāʻid

help.PRES.3SG you

ghayrak,

other,

yusāʻiduk.

help.PST.3SG you

sāʻid ghayrak, yusāʻiduk.

{help.PRES.3SG you} other, {help.PST.3SG you}

Help another, (he) helps you.

Turkish

[edit]

Sen-i

2SG-ACC

gör-dü-m

see-PAST-1SG

Sen-i gör-dü-m

2SG-ACC see-PAST-1SG

(I) saw you.

The subject "I" above is easily inferable as the verb gör-mek "to see" is conjugated in the first person simple past tense form. The object is indicated by the pronoun seni in this case. Strictly speaking, pronominal objects are generally explicitly indicated, although frequently possessive suffixes indicate the equivalent of an object in English, as in the following sentence.

Gel-diğ-im-i

come-NMLZ-POSS.1SG-ACC

gör-dü-n

see-PAST-2SG

mü?

Q

Gel-diğ-im-i gör-dü-n mü?

come-NMLZ-POSS.1SG-ACC see-PAST-2SG Q

Did you see me coming?

In this sentence, the object of the verb is actually the action of coming performed by the speaker (geldiğimi "my coming"), but the object in the English sentence, "me", is indicated here by the possessive suffix -im "my" on the nominalised verb. Both pronouns can be explicitly indicated in the sentence for purposes of emphasis, as follows:

Sen

2SG

ben-im

1SG-POSS

gel-diğ-im-i

come-"ing"-POSS.1SG-ACC

gör-dü-n

see-PAST-2SG

mü?

Q

Sen ben-im gel-diğ-im-i gör-dü-n mü?

2SG 1SG-POSS come-"ing"-POSS.1SG-ACC see-PAST-2SG Q

Did you see me coming?

Swahili

[edit]

In Swahili, both subject and object pronouns can be omitted as they are indicated by verbal prefixes.

Ni-ta-ku-saidia.

Ni-

SUBJ.1SG-

-ta-

-FUT-

-ku-

-OBJ.2SG-

-saidia.

-help

Ni- -ta- -ku- -saidia.

SUBJ.1SG- -FUT- -OBJ.2SG- -help

(I) will help (you).

English

[edit]

English is not a pro-drop language, but subject pronouns are almost always dropped in imperative sentences (e.g., Come here! Do tell! Eat your vegetables!), with the subject "you" understood or communicated non-verbally.[25]

In informal speech, the pronominal subject is sometimes dropped. The ellipsis has been called "conversational deletion" and "left-edge deletion",[26][27][28] and is common in informal spoken English as well as certain registers of written English, notably diaries.[29] Most commonly, it is the first person singular subject which is dropped.[30]

Some other words, especially copulas and auxiliaries, can also be dropped.

  • [Have you] ever been there?
  • [I'm] going shopping. [Do you] want to come?
  • [I] haven't been there yet. [I'm] going later.
  • Seen on signs: [I am/We are] out to lunch; [I/we shall be] back at 1:00 [P.M].
  • What do you think [of it]?I like [it]! (the latter only in some dialects and registers)
  • [Do you] want a piece of cake?
  • [You] are not![I] am too! This pattern is also common with other tenses (e.g., were, will) and verbs (e.g., do/did, have/had).

In speech, when pronouns are not dropped, they are more often reduced than other words in an utterance.

Relative pronouns, provided they are not the subject, are often dropped in short restrictive clauses: That's the man [whom] I saw.

The dropping of pronouns is generally restricted to very informal speech and certain fixed expressions, and the rules for their use are complex and vary among dialects and registers. A noted instance was the "lived the dream" section of George H. W. Bush's speech at the 1988 Republican National Convention.[31][32][33]

Those were exciting days. We lived in a little shotgun house, one room for the three of us. [I] Worked in the oil business and then started my own.

And in time, we had six children. [We] Moved from the shotgun to a duplex apartment to a house and lived the dream—high-school football on Friday night, Little League, neighborhood barbecue.[34]

German

[edit]

Colloquial and dialectal German, unlike the standard language, are also partially pro-drop and typically allow deletion of the subject pronoun only in main clauses without inversion. German has personal inflections of verbs, which makes pro-drop sentences easier to understand.

South Asia

[edit]

In the South Asian linguistic area, along with few specialized Indo-Aryan languages like Marathi, Kashmiri are pro-drop; many Tibeto-Burman languages and most Munda languages (except Korku) are generally pro-drop, since both subjects and objects of intransitive and transitive verbs are indexed into the verb itself.

Limbu (Kiranti, Sino-Tibetan):

sɛʔr-u-ŋ

kill-3SG.OBJ-1.SG.SUBJ.PST

nɛtt-u-ŋ

AUX-3SG.OBJ-1.SG.SUBJ.PST

sɛʔr-u-ŋ nɛtt-u-ŋ

kill-3SG.OBJ-1.SG.SUBJ.PST AUX-3SG.OBJ-1.SG.SUBJ.PST

'I was about to kill him'

Juang (South Munda, Austroasiatic):

mɛ-dʒɔ-ki-ɲ

2SG.SUBJ-see-PRES.TR-1SG.OBJ

mɛ-dʒɔ-ki-ɲ

2SG.SUBJ-see-PRES.TR-1SG.OBJ

'You see me'

Other language families and linguistic regions

[edit]

Among the Indo-European and Dravidian languages of India, pro-drop is the general rule though many Dravidian languages do not have overt verbal markers to indicate pronominal subjects. Mongolic languages are similar in this respect to Dravidian languages, and all Paleosiberian languages are rigidly pro-drop.

Outside of northern Europe, most Niger–Congo languages, Khoisan languages of Southern Africa and Austronesian languages of the Western Pacific, pro-drop is the usual pattern in almost all linguistic regions of the world. In many non-pro-drop Niger–Congo or Austronesian languages, like Igbo, Samoan and Fijian, however, subject pronouns do not occur in the same position as a nominal subject and are obligatory even when the latter occurs. In more easterly Austronesian languages, like Rapa Nui and Hawaiian, subject pronouns are often omitted even though no other subject morphemes exist. Pama–Nyungan languages of Australia also typically omit subject pronouns even when there is no explicit expression of the subject.

Many Pama–Nyungan languages, however, have clitics, which often attach to nonverbal hosts to express subjects. The other languages of Northwestern Australia are all pro-drop, for all classes of pronoun. Also, Papuan languages of New Guinea and Nilo-Saharan languages of East Africa are pro-drop.

Among the indigenous languages of the Americas, pro-drop is almost universal, as would be expected from the generally polysynthetic and head-marking character of the languages. That generally allows eliding of all object pronouns as well as subject ones. Indeed, most reports on Native American languages show that even the emphatic use of pronouns is exceptionally rare. Only a few Native American languages, mostly language isolates (Haida, Trumai, Wappo) and the Oto-Manguean family are known for normally using subject pronouns.

Yahgan, an extinct language isolate from Tierra del Fuego, had no pro-drop when it was still spoken widely in the late 19th century, when it was first described grammatically and had texts translated from English and other languages (three biblical New Testament texts: Luke, John, and Acts of the Apostles). In fact, emphatic pronouns and cross-reference pronouns on the verb commonly appeared together.

Pragmatic inference

[edit]

Classical Chinese exhibits extensive dropping not only of pronouns but also of any terms (subjects, verbs, objects, etc.) that are pragmatically inferable, which gives a very compact character to the language. Note, however, that Classical Chinese was a written language, and such word dropping is not necessarily representative of the spoken language or even of the same linguistic phenomenon.

See also

[edit]
  • Null morpheme – Morpheme with no phonetic form
  • Null-subject language – Class of language where a sentence subject is not required (NSL)
  • Null subject parameter – Parameter that determines whether the subject can be dropped from a sentence (NSP) – The parameter which determines if languages are pro-drop, marking them as either positive (+) or negative (-) NSP.[35]
  • Zero copula – Lacking or omission of a "to be" verb, common in some languages and stylistic in others; many languages such as Arabic and Hebrew lack a "to be" verb which is implicit in the subject.
  • Pronoun avoidance – Phenomenon in some spoken languages; the use of kinship terms, titles and other complex nominal expressions instead of personal pronouns

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
A pro-drop language, also known as a null-subject language, is a language in which the subject of a sentence may be omitted in finite clauses when it is pragmatically recoverable, often because the verb's morphological inflections specify the subject's person, number, and sometimes gender.[1] This phenomenon contrasts with non-pro-drop languages like English or French, where overt subject pronouns or nouns are generally required for grammaticality.[1] Pro-drop is a widespread feature, occurring in the majority of the world's languages, including many Indo-European (e.g., Spanish, Italian, Hindi), Semitic (e.g., Arabic, Hebrew), and non-Indo-European families (e.g., Japanese, Chinese).[2] The concept of pro-drop gained prominence in generative linguistics during the late 1970s and early 1980s, as part of Noam Chomsky's principles-and-parameters framework, where it was formalized as the "pro-drop parameter"—a binary setting in universal grammar that determines whether a language licenses phonologically null subjects (pro) licensed by agreement features on the verb.[3] Luigi Rizzi's 1982 analysis of Italian syntax further elaborated this, identifying a cluster of properties associated with pro-drop languages, such as free subject inversion, null expletive subjects (e.g., "Llueve" in Spanish meaning "It rains"), and long-distance reflexives.[1] These parameters explain typological variation: in pro-drop languages with rich verbal morphology, the null subject is identified via agreement, whereas in languages with poor morphology like English, overt subjects are obligatory to satisfy syntactic requirements.[4] Pro-drop languages are categorized into several subtypes based on the contexts and constraints for null subjects. Consistent or canonical pro-drop languages, such as those in the Romance family (Spanish, Italian, Portuguese), allow null referential subjects across persons and tenses, with the null subject behaving like an overt pronoun in syntax.[1] Partial pro-drop languages, including Finnish and modern Hebrew, permit null subjects only for certain persons (typically first and second) or in specific registers like diaries or imperatives.[5] Radical or discourse pro-drop languages, exemplified by Chinese and Korean, allow null subjects in a broader range of contexts due to topic-prominent structure rather than agreement, where pragmatic inference from discourse plays a primary role.[1] According to the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS), out of 711 sampled languages, 437 express pronominal subjects via verb affixes (a core morphological pro-drop pattern), 61 exhibit pronouns in subject position that are often omitted, and 32 show mixed systems allowing null subjects variably by person or clause type, underscoring the feature's prevalence in over 75% of the sample and its diversity.[2]

Definition and Terminology

Historical Usage of the Term

The term "pro-drop" was introduced by Noam Chomsky in his 1981 monograph Lectures on Government and Binding, where it described a cluster of syntactic properties permitting the omission of phonetically null subject pronouns (pro) in languages like Italian, provided they are recoverable from context or morphology. This parametric option was contrasted with non-pro-drop languages such as English, where overt subjects are required, and Chomsky linked the phenomenon to rich inflectional agreement on verbs that identifies the null subject's features. Luigi Rizzi expanded on the concept in his 1982 book Issues in Italian Syntax, analyzing null subjects in Italian within generative grammar and formalizing the null subject parameter as a licensing condition for pro under government by an agreeing inflectional head. Rizzi's work emphasized how morphological richness in verb agreement enables the identification of pro's person and number features, distinguishing it from topic-drop or other discourse-driven omissions. The terminology shifted from earlier references to "null subject languages" to "pro-drop" to highlight the pronominal status of the null element and its licensing via syntactic agreement, thereby avoiding conflation with null objects or expletives.[5] This refinement was further articulated in Rizzi's 1986 article, which extended the theory of pro to null objects in Italian while maintaining the core distinction for subjects.[6] In the 1980s and 1990s, linguists debated the universality of the pro-drop parameter, questioning whether its formulation—rooted in analyses of Romance and other Indo-European languages—adequately captured variations in non-European languages, with some critiques highlighting a potential Eurocentric bias in assuming uniform parametric triggers across typological diversity.[7]

Core Criteria for Identification

Pro-drop languages are identified primarily by the systematic omission of subject pronouns in finite declarative sentences, where the subject's interpretation remains recoverable from verbal morphology or context without ambiguity. This null subject phenomenon allows sentences like Italian Parla ("(S)he/it speaks") or Spanish Llueve ("It rains") to stand without an overt subject, contrasting with non-pro-drop languages like English, which require explicit subjects such as "He speaks" or "It rains."[8] Secondary syntactic and morphological tests further confirm pro-drop status. One key diagnostic is the licensing of null expletives in impersonal constructions, such as weather verbs or existentials, where non-pro-drop languages mandate overt dummies (e.g., Spanish Hay un problema vs. English "There is a problem," with null possible in some contexts). Another is free subject-verb inversion, permitting postverbal subjects without question intonation, as in Italian Viene Gianni ("Gianni is coming"), which maintains the same interpretability as preverbal orders. Additionally, the definiteness effect restricts null subjects in certain languages to generic or indefinite interpretations, disfavoring specific definite referents (e.g., in partial pro-drop systems like Finnish, null subjects often convey habitual generics like "(One) eats apples" rather than specific "He eats apples").[8][9] Pro-drop languages are distinguished as strong (consistent) or weak (partial) based on the frequency and contextual restrictions of null subjects. Strong pro-drop systems, such as those in Italian or Spanish, permit referential null subjects across persons, numbers, and tenses with rich verbal agreement ensuring identification. Weak pro-drop, seen in languages like Finnish or Modern Hebrew, limits omission to specific persons (e.g., first and second in Finnish) or discourse contexts, often requiring overt pronouns for third-person definites.[8][9] Borderline cases involve languages with optional pronoun omission influenced by discourse or stylistic factors, complicating strict classification. For instance, colloquial varieties of German or Dutch allow occasional null subjects in informal speech (e.g., German Geht gleich "Going right away" omitting "I"), but this is not systematic and depends on topic continuity rather than morphology. Similarly, Brazilian Portuguese exhibits partial optionality for third-person nulls in restricted embedded contexts, blending pro-drop traits with overt preferences. These cases highlight the gradient nature of pro-drop, where high frequency of omission in strong systems compared to lower frequency in weak systems serves as a quantitative diagnostic.[8][9]

Theoretical Explanations

Null Subject Parameter in Generative Grammar

In generative grammar, the null subject parameter is a binary option within Universal Grammar that determines whether a language permits phonetically null subjects, known as pro, in finite clauses. This parameter, formalized as [+/- null subject], accounts for systematic variation between pro-drop languages like Italian, where subjects can be omitted (e.g., Parla 'He/She speaks'), and non-pro-drop languages like English, which require overt subjects.[10] Proposed in the principles-and-parameters framework, it posits that children set this parameter based on input, leading to rapid acquisition of language-specific syntax.[11] Within the Government and Binding (GB) theory, the parameter interacts with principles of government and binding to license and identify null subjects.[12] Specifically, pro is governed by the inflectional head INFL (later AGR for agreement), which must be sufficiently rich in morphological features to identify the null subject's content, such as person and number.[13] Rizzi (1982) refined this by proposing sub-parameters: INFL can be [+pronominal], allowing a null pronominal subject, and such INFL can also be [+referential] when agreement morphology carries full phi-features, enabling definite interpretation without an antecedent.[10] This mechanism clusters with related properties, such as subject-verb inversion and that-trace effects, forming a parametric "cluster" in pro-drop languages.[14] Evidence for the parameter's role emerges from language acquisition studies, where children initially produce null subjects regardless of the target language, suggesting a default pro-drop setting in early grammars.[15] In non-pro-drop languages like English, children such as those studied by Hyams (1986) omit subjects in 70-80% of optional contexts during the two-word stage, gradually converging to overt subjects by age 3-4 as they reset the parameter based on morphological cues in the input. Conversely, children acquiring pro-drop languages like Spanish maintain high rates of null subjects (over 90% in early production), confirming the parameter's setting aligns with rich agreement triggers.[16] These patterns support the innateness of parametric options, as acquisition proceeds without explicit instruction.[17] Post-1980s developments have critiqued and revised the original parameter formulation, particularly in the Minimalist Program, which reduces parameters to micro-variations in functional heads rather than broad switches.[14] Chomsky (1995) argued that legacy parameters like null subjects should be reformulated in terms of feature strength or economy principles, eliminating the need for pro as a distinct empty category in favor of unpronounced copies or Agree relations. Critics, including Roberts (2010), noted that the parameter fails to capture partial null-subject languages (e.g., Finnish), leading to proposals for decomposed parameters tied to tense or discourse features, though the core GB insights on agreement identification persist.[14] These revisions emphasize hierarchical parametric variation over binary settings to better explain typological diversity.[11]

Role of Morphological Agreement

The rich agreement hypothesis posits that null subjects, or pro-drop, are licensed in languages where finite verbs exhibit morphologically rich inflectional paradigms that distinctly encode the person and number features of the subject, thereby allowing the recovery of the omitted subject's φ-features from the verbal affixes alone. This hypothesis, originally formulated within the framework of parametric variation, suggests that such distinct affixes serve as a morphological identifier for the null pronoun, obviating the need for an overt subject pronoun in syntactic structures. Assessments of morphological richness focus on whether the inflectional paradigms provide sufficient distinctiveness to identify the subject's features unambiguously. Despite its explanatory power, the hypothesis encounters counterexamples in languages possessing rich agreement paradigms yet disallowing systematic pro-drop, often due to independent syntactic constraints such as rigid subject-verb adjacency requirements or licensing conditions tied to case assignment. These cases highlight that morphological richness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for pro-drop, interacting with other parametric settings like the null subject parameter. Cross-family typological comparisons reveal a robust correlation between agreement richness and pro-drop prevalence, with languages featuring highly distinctive paradigms exhibiting higher rates of subject omission compared to those with sparser inflection, though the strength of this association varies by family due to areal influences and historical developments.[18] This pattern underscores the hypothesis's utility in accounting for typological distributions while acknowledging exceptions driven by non-morphological factors.

Typological Variations

Consistent Null Subjects

Consistent null subjects represent the strongest manifestation of the pro-drop phenomenon, where languages permit the omission of subject pronouns as the default in virtually all finite verbal contexts across persons and numbers. In these languages, referential null subjects are licensed without definiteness or person-based restrictions, allowing both definite and indefinite interpretations, and expletive subjects—such as those in weather or existential constructions—can also be null.[8] This contrasts with non-pro-drop languages, where overt subjects are obligatory, and even with partial null subject systems, where omission is more restricted. Representative examples include Italian, Spanish, Greek, and Arabic, where verbal inflection richly encodes subject features, enabling identification of the omitted argument.[19] These languages are typologically uncommon, predominantly occurring in those with highly inflected verb systems that morphologically mark person, number, and sometimes gender agreement on the verb itself. According to the Null Subject Parameter framework, this morphological richness allows the verb to license pro (the null pronominal element) by satisfying identification requirements, a property formalized in generative grammar as the pronominal nature of agreement. Jaeggli and Safir (1989) identify such consistent null subject languages as those where morphological uniformity in inflection across persons permits generalized null arguments, excluding languages with defective paradigms like English. This correlation with rich morphology explains their concentration in families like Romance, Slavic, and Semitic, though not all richly inflected languages exhibit this trait.[20] In language acquisition, children acquiring consistent null subject languages demonstrate early and robust mastery of null subjects, producing them at high rates from the initial stages of multiword speech without the overuse of overt pronouns seen in learners of non-pro-drop languages. Studies show that by age 2-3, Spanish- and Italian-speaking children align null subject production with adult patterns, reflecting innate parametric settings rather than gradual pragmatic learning.[1] This early convergence supports the view that the null subject parameter is set productively from the outset in these languages, with minimal errors in licensing or interpretation.[21] Corpus analyses of spoken and written data from consistent null subject languages reveal high frequencies of omission in unmarked, non-emphatic contexts, underscoring the obligatoriness of null realization. For instance, in Italian corpora, null subjects predominate in narrative and conversational texts, rising to near-total omission in coordinated clauses or when continuity with prior discourse is clear. Similar patterns hold in Spanish, where overt pronouns are reserved for contrast or focus.[22] These high frequencies highlight the grammatical default status of null subjects, with quantitative variation tied to genre rather than syntactic constraints.[23]

Partial Null Subjects

Partial null subject languages exhibit pro-drop behavior that is restricted to specific grammatical persons or contextual conditions, distinguishing them from more uniform systems. In such languages, subject pronouns are typically omitted for first- and second-person referents, where verbal morphology is rich and distinctive enough to identify the subject, but third-person subjects generally require overt pronouns due to syncretic or ambiguous inflectional endings.[24] For instance, in Finnish, first- and second-person subjects are routinely null in declarative sentences (e.g., Menen kauppaan 'I go to the store'), while third-person subjects must be expressed (e.g., Hän menee kauppaan 'He/she goes to the store').[24] Similarly, Modern Hebrew licenses null subjects for first and second persons but prohibits them for third-person referents in most finite clauses, reflecting a morphological asymmetry where non-third-person agreement suffixes are more contentful.[25] This pattern arises because the verbal agreement system provides sufficient phi-feature recovery for speech act participants but not for third persons, leading to obligatory overt pronouns in the latter case unless emphasis or contrast is needed.[26] In some partial null subject languages, omission is instead restricted primarily to third-person or non-specific referents, with first- and second-person subjects more likely to be overt, especially in emphatic contexts. Brazilian Portuguese exemplifies this variability, where third-person null subjects occur more frequently with non-specific or indefinite interpretations (e.g., Chove muito aqui 'It rains a lot here'), but specific third-person referents demand overt pronouns for clarity (e.g., Ele chove muito aqui is infelicitous without context).[27] Pronouns are invariably required for emphasis across persons, as in contrastive focus constructions, where null realization would obscure the intended referent.[27] This restriction highlights an intermediate stage of pro-drop, where full licensing is not universal but conditioned by person features or referential specificity. A key feature in these languages is the definiteness effect, whereby null subjects tend to encode generic or indefinite meanings, while definite or specific referents necessitate overt pronouns to avoid ambiguity. In Brazilian Portuguese and Marathi, for example, null third-person subjects are licensed for generic statements (e.g., BP: Falam que é verdade 'They say it's true', implying a general 'people'), but specific definite referents trigger overt forms (e.g., Eles falam que é verdade 'They say it's true', referring to particular individuals).[27] This effect stems from the partial recoverability of referential features through morphology and context, limiting null subjects to less specified interpretations.[27] Diachronically, partial null subject systems often evolve from consistent pro-drop grammars through morphological erosion, where the loss of distinct verbal endings progressively restricts null licensing to certain persons. In Brazilian Portuguese, for instance, the language shifted from the consistent pro-drop profile of 19th-century European Portuguese—characterized by rich agreement allowing null subjects across persons—to a partial system, driven by phonetic reduction and syncretism in verbal suffixes over the past 150 years.[28] This erosion first impacts third-person forms, which become less distinctive, blocking null subjects for that person while preserving them for first and second, as seen in the gradual decline of overall pro-drop productivity.[29] Such shifts illustrate how morphological changes can trigger parametric adjustments in subject realization without abolishing pro-drop entirely.[29] Corpus-based studies reveal omission rates in partial null subject languages varying by person, genre, and register, with higher rates for first- and second-person subjects in informal contexts and lower rates for third-person subjects. In spoken Finnish corpora, first- and second-person null subjects are frequent in informal narratives, while third-person omission is rare; in contrast, Brazilian Portuguese spoken data shows more frequent third-person omission in conversational genres for non-specific referents.[27] Hebrew corpora show high null rates for first and second persons in oral speech, with third-person omission limited to specific contexts.[25] These patterns underscore the conditioned nature of pro-drop in these languages, with higher omission in contexts favoring morphological identification or indefiniteness.[27]

Topic-Oriented Null Subjects

In topic-prominent languages, null subjects are licensed and interpreted through their association with a discourse topic, often recoverable from sentence-initial topics or ongoing context chains rather than verbal morphology alone.[30] This mechanism allows the omitted subject to be bound by a matrix topic or prior referent, forming an interpretive chain where the null element functions as a variable linked to the topic.[31] For instance, in narratives, zero anaphora enables chaining by referring back to an established topic without repetition, as seen in structures where the null subject resumes the role of a previously mentioned entity in a sequence of events.[32] Unlike subject-prominent languages, which rely heavily on explicit subjects and rich inflectional agreement for subject identification, topic-oriented null subjects depend less on morphological cues and more on pragmatic discourse structure.[30] In subject-prominent systems, null subjects are typically constrained by agreement features on the verb, but topic-prominent languages permit omission when the referent is salient as the aboutness topic of the utterance or clause.[31] This contrast highlights a typological divide, where topic chaining facilitates null subjects even in the absence of robust verbal agreement, emphasizing discourse continuity over syntactic licensing.[30] Theoretically, topic-oriented null subjects challenge morphology-based hypotheses of pro-drop phenomena, such as those positing a null subject parameter tied to rich agreement (e.g., Rizzi 1982), by demonstrating that pragmatic and discourse factors can independently license omission.[30] Instead, these cases support accounts favoring topic prominence as a core driver, where null subjects are interpreted via binding to a discourse topic, often involving a silent aboutness-shift topic that ensures recoverability and specificity.[32] This perspective integrates syntactic structure with pragmatic inference, suggesting that pro-drop variability arises from interactions between topic chains and contextual salience rather than uniform morphological properties.[31]

Examples in Indo-European Families

Romance Languages

Romance languages, derived from Latin—a prototypical pro-drop language with flexible subject omission—share a core trait of rich subject-verb agreement morphology that licenses null subjects across all grammatical persons and numbers. This morphological richness, inherited from Latin's distinct verbal inflections, allows the verb endings to encode sufficient phi-features (person, number, and sometimes gender) to identify the subject without an overt pronoun, facilitating pro-drop in declarative, interrogative, and imperative contexts. For instance, in both Spanish and Italian, sentences like Spanish habla ('s/he speaks') or Italian parla ('s/he speaks') rely on agreement to recover the subject referent.[33] Despite this shared heritage, variations in null subject omission frequency exist across Romance languages, primarily due to differences in the distinctiveness of verbal affixes. Spanish and Italian exhibit high omission rates, with null subjects appearing in 70-80% of eligible contexts in spoken discourse, classifying them as consistent null subject languages where omission is the default unless pragmatics demands an overt pronoun for emphasis or contrast. In contrast, French displays low omission rates—approaching zero in modern standard usage—effectively rendering it a non-pro-drop language, as syncretism in verbal endings (e.g., identical forms for first- and third-person singular in many tenses) reduces the agreement's identificational capacity, compelling overt subjects like je parle ('I speak'). These differences highlight how morphological erosion influences the null subject parameter's realization.[21][34] Syntactic tests further distinguish pro-drop behavior in Romance, particularly through null expletives in impersonal constructions. In Spanish, weather expressions like Llueve ('It rains') or existential statements like Hay gente ('There is people') feature null expletives, where no overt subject is needed because agreement and context suffice; Italian mirrors this with Piove ('It rains'). French, however, requires overt expletives, as in Il pleut ('It rains'), underscoring its non-pro-drop status and reliance on explicit subjects to satisfy syntactic requirements like the Extended Projection Principle. These patterns align with the null subject parameter's predictions for licensing empty categories via agreement.[33] Historically, all early Romance languages permitted null subjects akin to Latin, but a shift occurred from Medieval to Modern periods, driven by changes in pronoun usage and morphology. In Old French (9th-13th centuries), null subjects were common (approximately 40-50% in early prose texts), supported by distinct inflections, but by the 14th-16th centuries, increasing affix syncretism and the grammaticalization of subject pronouns as obligatory specifiers led to their near-total loss, marking French's divergence. Spanish and Italian, conversely, preserved richer agreement paradigms, maintaining high null subject rates into the modern era through less extensive morphological simplification. This evolution illustrates how diachronic changes in agreement morphology can reparameterize pro-drop properties.[34][35]

Slavic and Baltic Languages

Slavic and Baltic languages exhibit partial pro-drop properties, where subject pronouns can be omitted under specific conditions, primarily in third-person contexts, but overt pronouns are more common for first- and second-person referents to convey contrast or emphasis.[36] This contrasts with consistent pro-drop systems by restricting null subjects to non-argumental or non-contrastive environments, aligning with typological patterns of partial null subjects observed across Indo-European families. In Slavic languages, null subjects frequently appear in impersonal constructions, such as weather expressions or existential statements (e.g., Russian Idet dožd' 'It is raining'), and in narrative chains where continuity of reference is clear, particularly for third-person singular.[37] Overt pronouns dominate in first- and second-person contexts to signal focus or change in topic, as omission here risks ambiguity due to less distinctive verbal marking. The morphological basis lies in verbal agreement systems that distinguish person in the present tense but rely on gender agreement in the past tense across all persons, rendering null subjects less recoverable compared to the richer person-number paradigms in Romance languages.[38] Dialectal variations are evident within Slavic branches, with higher rates of subject omission in West Slavic languages like Polish compared to East Slavic languages like Russian, where overt pronouns are preferred even in continuative contexts.[39] Baltic languages, such as Lithuanian and Latvian, display similar partial pro-drop traits, supported by rich verbal morphology that encodes person and number, allowing null subjects in third-person impersonals and narrative progressions (e.g., Lithuanian Lyja 'It rains').[40] However, overt pronouns are obligatory or preferred for first- and second-person to avoid pragmatic ambiguity, mirroring Slavic restrictions but with additional influence from topic prominence in discourse.[41] Across both families, pragmatic constraints limit omission in questions, emphatic assertions, or contexts requiring explicit agentivity, where overt subjects enhance discourse coherence and speaker intent.[42]

Greek and Indo-Iranian Languages

Modern Greek exhibits consistent null subjects, a hallmark of pro-drop languages, where subjects can be omitted due to rich verbal inflection that encodes person, number, and gender agreement. This allows for flexible word order, including frequent postverbal subject positions, as in constructions like "Φάγαμε το φαγητό" (We ate the food), where the subject is null and the verb agrees with the omitted first-person plural. Clitic doubling is also prevalent, where pronominal clitics co-occur with full noun phrases to reinforce agreement, particularly in object positions. These features align Greek with consistent null subject typology, enabling referential null subjects across tenses and moods without pragmatic restrictions on first and second persons.[43][44] In Indo-Iranian languages such as Hindi, Urdu, and Persian, pro-drop is partial, permitting null subjects primarily in specific contexts tied to ergative case marking and aspectual distinctions. In perfective transitive constructions, third-person subjects are often null, with the verb showing default agreement in gender and number, as exemplified in "Kitaab parhii gayii" (The book was read, with null third-person feminine subject inferred from context). Ergative case on overt subjects in these perfective clauses (e.g., "Raam-ne kitaab parhii" – Ram-ERG read book-FEM) contrasts with absolutive alignment for intransitives and imperfectives, where null subjects are more readily licensed for non-third persons via person and number agreement. Gender effects influence agreement, particularly in participial forms, but null subjects remain constrained compared to fully consistent pro-drop systems.[45][46] Shared across Greek and Indo-Iranian languages is robust verb-subject agreement in person and number, which facilitates null subject licensing, though gender plays a more prominent role in Indo-Iranian perfectives and Greek overall morphology. In both families, this agreement morphology identifies null subjects without overt pronouns, but Greek extends this consistently across all persons, while Hindi/Urdu limits it to partial contexts influenced by case and aspect. Greek's pro-drop has been reinforced through contact within the Balkan sprachbund, where neighboring languages like Albanian, Romanian, and Bulgarian share null subject properties and postverbal subjects, promoting areal convergence in subject omission strategies.[47][48]

Examples in Non-Indo-European Families

East Asian Languages

East Asian languages, such as Japanese, Korean, and Mandarin Chinese, exemplify topic-prominent pro-drop systems where subjects are frequently omitted, relying on discourse context rather than morphological agreement for recovery. Unlike consistent null subject languages that use rich verbal inflection, these languages lack subject-verb agreement, making null subjects dependent on topical structure and pragmatic cues. This aligns with the broader typological category of topic-oriented null subjects, where the topic established in prior discourse serves as the anchor for interpretation. In Japanese and Korean, zero anaphora is prevalent, with subjects omitted in contexts where the referent is recoverable from the ongoing topic chain. Japanese employs the topic marker wa to highlight the salient entity, allowing subsequent clauses to drop the subject if it matches the topic; for example, "Watashi wa hon o yomu" (I topic book object read) can chain to a null-subject clause like "Yomimasu" (read) when the topic persists. Similarly, Korean uses the topic marker -un (or -nun), facilitating zero anaphora without verbal agreement, as the head-final syntax positions verbs at the end, enabling efficient topic continuity across sentences. These mechanisms underscore a discourse-driven approach, where omission is licensed by shared contextual knowledge rather than grammatical features.[49][50] Mandarin Chinese exhibits a high rate of null subjects, occurring in approximately 50% of clauses in both adult and child speech, with recoverability tied to discourse roles such as the continuing topic or agent from preceding context. For instance, in narrative discourse, a null subject in "Chī le" (eat perfective) refers back to the previously mentioned eater, inferred from the topical structure without need for pronouns. This radical pro-drop pattern is supported by the language's topic-comment organization, where the initial topic sets the frame for subsequent omissions. Quantitative analyses confirm that referential null subjects dominate, emphasizing their role in maintaining discourse coherence.[51][52] Mandarin Chinese is often described as a radical pro-drop or discourse pro-drop language, permitting frequent omission not only of subjects but also of objects when recoverable from the discourse context or topic chain. Unlike consistent pro-drop languages that rely on rich verbal agreement for licensing null subjects, Mandarin lacks such agreement morphology and instead depends on topic-prominence and pragmatic inference. Key examples: Null subjects:
  • 你吃饭了吗? (Nǐ chīfàn le ma?) 'Have you eaten?' 吃了。 (Chī le.) '[I] ate.' (null subject = 'I')
  • 下雨了。 (Xiàyǔ le.) '[It] is raining.' (null expletive subject)
  • 昨天 Ø 在外面吃了饭。 (Zuótiān Ø zài wàimiàn chī le fàn.) 'Yesterday [I] ate out.'
Null objects:
  • 你看见那本书了吗? (Nǐ kànjiàn nà běn shū le ma?) 'Did you see that book?' 看见 Ø 了。 (Kànjiàn Ø le.) '[I] saw [it].'
  • 张三看见这只熊了,李四也看见 Ø 了。 (Zhāngsān kànjiàn zhè zhī xióng le, Lìsì yě kànjiàn Ø le.) 'Zhangsan saw this bear. Lisi also saw [it].' (null object coreferring to the bear)
Subject-object asymmetry (Huang 1984): Null subjects in embedded clauses can refer to the matrix subject, whereas null objects are typically bound by higher discourse topics rather than local subjects.
  • 张三说 Ø 不认识李四。 (Zhāngsān shuō Ø bù rènshi Lìsì.) 'Zhangsan said [he (= Zhangsan)] doesn’t know Lisi.' (null subject coreferring to matrix subject possible)
  • 张三说李四不认识 Ø。 (Zhāngsān shuō Lìsì bù rènshi Ø.) 'Zhangsan said Lisi doesn’t know [him (= Zhangsan)].' (null object typically refers to discourse topic, not matrix subject)
These examples highlight how context and topic chains license null arguments in Mandarin Chinese, contributing to its high rate of null subjects (approximately 50% in clauses). A key typological feature aiding this pro-drop behavior is the head-final word order common to these languages, which facilitates chaining of topics and arguments without explicit pronouns by placing modifiers before the verb, allowing context to propagate forward. In Japanese and Korean, this SOV structure supports seamless transitions between clauses, reducing redundancy in subject expression. Regarding acquisition, children learning these languages omit subjects early, often from the two-word stage, due to reliance on contextual cues like shared attention and topic continuity; for example, Korean-speaking children produce subject drops at rates comparable to adults by age 3, mirroring the discourse-oriented input they receive. This early mastery highlights the primacy of pragmatic inference over morphological licensing in these systems.[53][54]

Semitic and Turkic Languages

Semitic languages, such as Arabic and Hebrew, exhibit pro-drop properties primarily through their rich verbal morphology, which encodes subject person, number, and gender via prefix and suffix conjugations, allowing consistent null subjects in many contexts.[55] In Standard Arabic, the verb's inflectional system, including prefixes for first and second person and suffixes for third person in perfective forms, licenses null subjects, particularly in verb-subject-object (VSO) or verb-object-subject (VOS) orders where the verb-initial position facilitates subject omission without loss of interpretability.[56] Similarly, Modern Hebrew permits null subjects when the verb's conjugation—such as the prefix-conjugation (yiqtol) for imperfective aspects or suffix-conjugation (qatal) for perfective—clearly indicates the subject's features, though it is classified as a partial pro-drop language due to restrictions in certain pragmatic contexts like emphatic or contrastive focus.[57] This morphological encoding distinguishes Semitic pro-drop from more pragmatically driven systems, as the verb's root-based derivations provide unambiguous recovery of the omitted subject. In Arabic, diglossia between Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and colloquial varieties influences pro-drop realization, with MSA exhibiting higher rates of subject omission owing to its fuller agreement paradigm compared to the often reduced inflections in spoken dialects.[58] Colloquial Arabic dialects maintain pro-drop status but show variability in null subject frequency, sometimes favoring overt pronouns in informal discourse to enhance clarity amid morphological simplification.[59] Turkic languages, exemplified by Turkish, demonstrate partial pro-drop characteristics through their agglutinative morphology, where subject agreement is realized via suffixes appended to the verb stem, enabling null subjects when the verbal complex fully specifies person and number.[60] In Turkish, first and second person subjects are frequently omitted because distinct suffixes (e.g., -m for first singular, -sIn for second singular) on the verb provide explicit identification, while third person singular null subjects are particularly common due to the zero morpheme for agreement in that category, relying on discourse context for resolution. This system aligns with partial null subject typology, as overt pronouns are preferred for emphasis or when agreement alone is insufficient, such as in non-finite clauses.[61] Both Semitic and Turkic languages share the feature of verb-centered morphology that licenses pro-drop, with agglutinative or root-derived structures encoding subject features directly on the verb, thereby reducing the need for overt pronouns in matrix clauses and promoting economical expression in discourse.[62]

African and Austronesian Languages

In Bantu languages such as Swahili, pro-drop is characterized by partial null subjects, where overt pronouns or noun phrases can be omitted in favor of subject agreement prefixes affixed to the verb, which encode person, number, and noun class features.[63] These prefixes, such as a- for third-person singular human subjects or wa- for third-person plural, provide sufficient morphological information to identify the referent, licensing null subjects (pro) in declarative clauses without loss of interpretability.[63] For example, the sentence a-na-zungumza Kiswahili ('he/she speaks Swahili') omits the subject while the prefix a- agrees with a class 1/2 noun like mtu ('person'), allowing recovery from context or prior discourse.[64] In varieties like Nairobi Swahili, subject agreement omission occurs in about 5% of indicative clauses, yet null subjects persist as null constants bound by topic operators in non-agreeing contexts, restricted primarily to first- and second-person referents for discourse salience.[64] Noun class agreement in Bantu extends beyond person to a system of 18 or more classes, influencing verb morphology and enabling unambiguous null subject interpretation even in complex sentences with multiple potential agents.[63] This rich agreement morphology aligns with macro-role hierarchies, where the subject prefix prioritizes the most salient actor or undergoer, reducing ambiguity in pro-drop constructions.[63] In non-agreeing clauses, such as imperatives or habituals (e.g., Ø-ta-ku-chapa 'he will hit you'), null subjects rely on anaphoric binding to a topical antecedent, distinguishing them from the pro in agreeing clauses.[64] Austronesian languages, exemplified by Tagalog, exhibit topic-prominent null subjects, particularly in actor-focus clauses where the actor (the most agent-like participant) aligns as the nominative pivot, facilitating omission when contextually recoverable.[65] In actor voice (AV) constructions, marked by affixes like mag- or infix -um-, the actor serves as the grammatical subject and can be null (pro) if antecedent-established, as in Bumili __ ng kotse ('__ bought a car'), where the null actor is inferred from prior mention.[65] This pro-drop is prevalent in coordinate structures and responses, with conjunction reduction deleting only nominative arguments to maintain topical continuity, and actors preferred as controllers due to their high topicality.[65] Macro-role alignment in Austronesian syntax further supports null subject omission by treating the pivot (often the actor in AV) as the primary term for syntactic operations like raising or control, ensuring interpretability without overt marking.[65] For instance, in equi constructions like Gusto ni Maria ng lutuin __ ang pagkain ('Maria wants to cook the food'), the null subject of the embedded clause is controlled by the matrix actor, avoiding ambiguity through voice alignment.[65] These features reflect a broader topic-oriented null subject pattern in Austronesian, where pragmatic salience governs recovery rather than solely morphological agreement.[65]

Discourse and Pragmatic Factors

Inference in Null Subject Contexts

In pro-drop languages, the recovery of omitted subjects relies heavily on pragmatic inference to ensure discourse coherence. Listeners or readers infer the referent from contextual cues, such as the prior mention of a topic in the discourse, the semantic properties of the verb (e.g., agentive verbs implying a continuing subject), or shared world knowledge that makes the referent highly predictable. For instance, in Mandarin Chinese, null subjects frequently resume a previously introduced topic, allowing efficient continuation without redundancy, as discourse continuity is maintained through these pragmatic links.[66] This process aligns with broader principles of relevance in communication, where omission signals that the referent is sufficiently salient to be retrieved without explicit marking.[67] Central to these inference mechanisms is the accessibility hierarchy proposed in accessibility theory, which posits that the form of referring expressions, including null subjects, reflects the cognitive accessibility of the antecedent in the addressee's mental representation. Highly accessible referents, such as those functioning as topics in ongoing discourse, are typically encoded as null subjects, while less accessible ones (e.g., foci introducing new information) favor overt pronouns. This hierarchy operates cross-linguistically in pro-drop systems like Italian and Spanish, where null subjects preferentially resolve to subject antecedents or maintained topics, signaling continuity and reducing processing load. In cases with multiple potential antecedents, null subjects cue topic maintenance, guiding interpreters toward the most accessible referent without ambiguity.[44][67] Cross-linguistic comparisons reveal that the core inference processes for resolving referents—whether null or overt—are mechanistically similar across pro-drop and non-pro-drop languages, relying on shared pragmatic strategies like predictability from context. However, in pro-drop languages, null subjects can show flexible resolution due to grammatical licensing. Psycholinguistic evidence from eye-tracking studies in pro-drop languages like Polish indicates that null pronouns accommodate both subject and object antecedents with no significant processing costs in mismatches, unlike overt pronouns which show longer fixation times and higher cognitive effort when mismatched, facilitating efficient anaphora resolution when contextually primed.[68]

Constraints on Omission

In pro-drop languages, subject pronoun omission is not unrestricted, as various syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors impose barriers to null subjects, ensuring interpretability and grammaticality. These constraints prevent ambiguity or violate licensing conditions, often requiring overt pronouns even in languages that generally permit pro-drop.[69][21] Syntactically, null subjects require licensing through rich verbal agreement or structural features like tense and person marking, but this fails in certain constructions. For instance, in coordinate clauses, null subjects are dispreferred or impossible if the conjoined elements involve distinct referents, as the shared agreement on the verb cannot resolve differing subjects without an overt pronoun for clarity (e.g., in Spanish, *Ø corro y María camina is ungrammatical, requiring Yo corro y María camina). Similarly, with modals or auxiliaries that lack sufficient phi-feature agreement, omission is limited, as seen in partial pro-drop languages like Finnish where null subjects are primarily allowed for 1st and 2nd persons in main clauses, with restrictions in modal or embedded contexts due to identification requirements. In Russian, defective past-tense agreement (syncretism in person) further restricts null subjects to embedded clauses with clear antecedents, prohibiting them in matrix clauses without overt marking.[69][70][70] Semantic barriers arise when null subjects would lead to ambiguity or non-referential interpretations. In coordinate structures with potentially ambiguous subjects, omission is blocked to avoid misresolution of who performs the action (e.g., in Italian, null subjects in conjoined verbs assume coreference, so Ø mangia e Ø beve implies the same eater and drinker, necessitating overt pronouns like lui mangia e lei beve for different agents). Non-referential contexts, such as expletive or generic subjects, often disallow nulls if the verb's agreement does not sufficiently identify the empty category. For example, in contrastive or focused contexts in Spanish, overt subjects are required (e.g., *Ø no salgo de fiesta in emphatic denial, requiring Yo no salgo de fiesta for semantic coherence). These limits ensure that the null subject can be identified via phi-features or discourse linking without referential vagueness.[69][21][70] Pragmatically, omission is constrained when the discourse demands emphasis, contrast, or introduction of new information, favoring overt pronouns to signal shifts. In Spanish and Italian, null subjects encode topic continuity and old information, but overt forms are obligatory for focus or contrast (e.g., Spanish YO lo hice, not Ø lo hice, to emphasize the speaker against expectations). New referents or breaks in continuity block nulls, as overt pronouns mark activation of less accessible antecedents, aligning with relevance theory where explicit marking maximizes discourse efficiency. Language-specific rules amplify these; for example, in Spanish main clauses with wh-questions, while nulls are generally possible, overt subjects are preferred in contrastive or focused responses to avoid pragmatic mismatch (e.g., ¿A dónde vas? Ø Voy a Barcelona is neutral, but Yo voy... signals emphasis). These pragmatic blocks interface with inference mechanisms, where successful recovery of nulls relies on contextual salience, but fails under emphasis, preventing omission.[69][21][69]

References

User Avatar
No comments yet.