- The authors:
Evgeniya V. Budennaya - Pages: 366-373
- Section: LANGUAGE, TEACHING, INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATION
- URL: http://conferences-ifl.rudn.ru/2686-8199-2020-7-366-373/
- DOI: 10.22363/2686-8199-2020-7-366-373
The paper examines the causes of the striking popularity of the term ‘pro-drop’ among linguists of today. ‘Pro-drop’ refers to languages where pronominal subject is usually zero if unmarked: Ø pro parlo italiano ‘I speak Italian’ (it.) Being of generative origin, ‘pro-drop’ quickly gained popularity among linguists of various theoretical approaches and eventually replaced other alternatives (“referential agreement”, “bound pronoun”, etc.). Nevertheless, the application of the term ‘pro-drop’ is often criticized by typologists who blame it for an English bias and for the assumption of an overt pronoun that used to exist but somehow was dropped, which is senseless for languages like Chinese and Japanese. Albeit true, ‘pro-drop’ as a term dominates in literature on the subject. The search for the causes of that phenomenon and syntactic-semantic analysis reveal three main factors contributing to ‘pro-drop’ popularity.
First, alternative terms describing pronominal subject expression are of two and more words, thus less preferable in comparison with one-word concepts from the language principle of economy and least effort (Zipf, 1949; Piantadosi, et al., 2011). Second, according to the Principle of Compositionality (the meaning of a complex language unit is a function of the meanings of the parts and of the way they are syntactically combined), the closer the lexeme “language” and the semantically related referential term stand to each other, the more heuristics the addressee will have for correct and quick interpretation. Due to their compound character, terminological units like “strict agreement” or “bound forms” allow much lesser number of contexts for use. Their adjectival use (? “bound forms language”) is very restricted, whereas a single short ‘pro-drop’ cluster is commonly used in this kind of contexts (ok “pro-drop language”). In addition, sometimes obvious semantics of typological terms also narrows down the number of possible contexts for their use in discourse (*The Italian language is referential agreement), while the “pro-drop / non-pro-drop” clusters, due to their artificial nature and lack of well-established linguistic connotations, are licensed in a larger number of contexts (ok The Italian language is pro-drop). The latter apparently gives more opportunities for the speaker to express the idea.
Keywords: pro-drop, terminology, pronoun, reference
Evgeniya V. Budennaya
People’s Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University) Moscow, Russia
e-mail: jane.sdrv@gmail.com ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1502-2750
Cardinaletti, A., Starke, M. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In: H. van Riemsdijk (ed.). Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin — New-York, pp. 145–233.
Dryer, M.S. 2013. Expression of Pronominal Subjects. In: M.S. Dryer, M. Haspelmath (eds.). World Atlas of Language Structures. The Interactive Reference Tool. Chapter 101. Max Planck Digital Library, Munich. URL: http://wals.info/ feature/101A [Accessed November 08, 2020].
Franks, S. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 432 p.
Frascarelli, M. 2007. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro: an interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 691–734.
Frege, G. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.
Givon, T. 2017. The Story of Zero. John Benjamins, Amsterdam Philadelphia, 414 p.
Haspelmath, M. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In: M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, W. Raible (eds.). Language typology and language universals: An international handbook. Vol. 2. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 1492–1510.
Haspelmath, M. 2013. Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntax of bound person forms. In: D. Bakker, M. Haspelmath M. (eds.). Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 197–226.
Holmberg, A. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36 (4): 533–564.
Huang, C.-T. J. 1984. On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574.
Kibrik, Andrej. A. 2011. Reference in discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 651 p.
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2013. Peculiarities and origins of the Russian referential system. In: D. Bakker, M. Haspelmath (eds.) Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 227–263.
Lindseth, M. 1998. Null-subject properties of Slavic languages: with special reference to Russian, Czech and Sorbian. Sagner, München, 207 p.
Neeleman, Ad, Szendrői, K. 2007. Radical Pro Drop and the Morphology of Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (4): 671–714.
Partee, B.H. 1995. Lexical semantics and compositionality. In: I. R. Gleitma, M. Liberman (eds.). An invitation to cognitive science. Vol. 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 311–360.
Piantadosi, S., Tily, H., Gibson, E. 2011. Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (9): 3526–3529.
Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Foris Publications, Dordrecht Holland — Cinnaminson, 202 p.
Ross, J.R. 1982. Pronoun deleting processes in German. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. San Diego, California, 12 p.
Seržant, I., Kulikov, L. (eds). 2013. The diachronic typology of noncanonical subjects. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 364 p.
Siewierska, A. 2004. Person. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 348 p.
Siewierska, A., Bakker, D. 2005. The agreement cross-reference continuum: person marking in functional grammar. In: K. Hengeveld, C. de Groot. (eds.), Morphosyntactic expression in functional grammar. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 203–248.
Zimmerling, A.V. 2009. Sintaksičeskie nuli v teorii grammatiki. Komp’juternaja lingvistika I Intellektual’nye Technologii 8 (15): 518–529.
Zipf, G. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. AddisonWesley, New York, 588 p.