of the LFG99 Conference
Butt and Tracy Holloway (Editors)
As is well known, elements which function as personal
pronouns are not syntactically uniform, but may have a number of different
formal realizations. In a recent paper Bresnan (1998) presents a five-way
typology of the forms of personal pronouns based on their phonological and
morphological substance. The typology is shown in (1).
zero bound clitic weak pronoun
The pronominal forms in (1) are classified in terms of two parameters:
overt/non-overt and reduced/nonreduced. Zeros are the only non-overt forms,
and pronouns are the only nonreduced forms. The present paper is concerned
with the four reduced pronominals.
there appear to be no cross-linguistic restrictions on which grammatical
functions may be realized by nonreduced pronominals, such restrictions have
been postulated for various reduced pronominals. Bresnan in fact suggests that
there is a relationship between argument prominence and all four of the
reduced pronominals in (1). Her formulation of this relationship is presented
"reduced pronouns of all types are distributed according to a
hierarchy of argument prominence, being most common with subjects and
decreasing with the increasing obliqueness of arguments. (Bresnan 1998:19).
Given the LFG argument prominence hierarchy in (3), the statement in (2)
can be interpreted in at least four ways.
subject > object > object2 > oblique
The first three interpretations pertain to the cross-linguistic
distribution of the reduced forms. Interpretation one is that the reduced
pronominals as a group more frequently realize subjects than objects, and more
frequently realize objects than object2, and more frequently realize object2
than obliques. The second interpretation is that each of the reduced
pronominals in (1), zeros, bound forms, clitics and weak forms more frequently
realizes subjects than objects, and more frequently realizes objects than
obliques. The third interpretation is that there is a decrease in the
likelihood of each of the reduced pronominals in (1), going from left to
right, realizing subjects as opposed to objects, and objects as opposed to
obliques. Under this interpretation zeros are predicted as more strongly
favouring subjects over objects over object2 over obliques than bound forms,
and these more strongly favouring subjects over objects over obliques than
clitics etc. The fourth interpretation pertains to the language internal
distribution of the reduced pronominals. If thus interpreted (2) can be
understood as specifying that
Within every language no reduced pronominal in (1) will
be able to realize an argument higher on the argument prominence hierarchy
than any reduced pronominal to its left. Thus there should be no languages,
for example, with weak subject pronouns and clitic object pronouns or clitic
subject pronouns and bound object ones.
present paper seeks to determine which of the four interpretations of the
relationship between reduced pronominals and argument prominence expressed in
(2) is valid by examining the distribution of reduced pronominals in a
cross-linguistic sample of 284 languages.
The paper is organized as follows. Section two
presents in more detail Bresnan’s typology of reduced pronominals and
comments on certain aspects of my classification of pronominal forms with
reference to this typology. Section three considers, in turn, each of the four
interpretations of the relationship between reduced pronominals and argument
prominence with respect to the distribution of reduced pronominals in the
languages in the sample. Finally, section four summarizes the findings and
offers some generalizations in regard to the distribution of reduced
As far as I have been able to determine, the four reduced pronominals in
Bresnan’s typology are to be understood as follows. Zero designates
pronominals having a null structure with variable referentially as in the
Mandarin (4) and (5) where the zero form may stand for any of the persons
indicated, depending on the context.
|( 4 )||Xiaohong
Xiaohong MD young sister say like
`Xiaohong's younger sister says that (I/you/he/she/we/you/they) love(s) to play piano.
(Y. Huang (to appear p.84))
|( 5 )||Xiaoming
yiwei laoshi you
Xiaoming think teacher again will blame CRS
`Xiaoming thinks that the teacher will blame
(me/you/him/her/himself/herself/us/you/them) again. (Y.Huang (to appear:104))
It does not cover cases of pro-drop accompanying overt person inflection
as in the Polish (6b) or null forms which are open only to an arbitrary
interpretation as in the Italian (7) or sporadic instances of ellipsis of
topic pronouns, so-called pronoun-zap, as in the English (8).
|( 6 )||a.||
|`Basia bought a new car.'|
|`She bought a new car.'|
|( 7 )||Questa
this music renders happy
`This music renders (one) happy.'
(I) did't recognize that.'
Bound pronominals designate pronominal inflections expressed by affixal
structure on a head, as in the Polish (6b). Clitic pronominals embrace Zwicky’s
(1985) special clitics, i.e. elements that have a specialized syntactic
position and are phonologically bound to a host such as the enclitic ‘am
|( 9 )||a.||va-co-cos-'am
`The children are sleeping.'
one-3pl dur-wash art-cloth
`They are washing (out) a (piece of) cloth.' (Willet 1986: 67)
And finally weak pronominals are atonic free forms neither
phonologically nor morphologically bound to a constituent, differing from free
unaccented pronouns in form and syntactic distribution. As this last category
of pronominals is not yet firmly established in the literature, it is not
absolutely clear to me what type of pronominal forms it is intended to cover.
term weak pronoun is primarily associated with the clitic- like Germanic
pronouns such as the reduced subject and object forms in Dutch, e.g. ’k
(I) as opposed to Ik or me (me) as opposed to mij.
However, there is considerable disagreement in the literature on whether these
and other clitic-like pronouns in Germanic do in fact constitute a separate
class of pronouns or rather are simply the Germanic equivalents of clitics and
thus should be treated as such. Cardinaletti & Starke (1999), on the other
hand, extend the class of weak pronouns to cover “mildly deficient pronominals” forms that: cannot be
coordinated, necessarily refer to human referents; cannot be doubled by a full
NP, must occur at s-structure in special derived positions but in contrast to
clitics occupy positions which seem to be those of maximal projections. Under
their analysis, the class of weak pronouns includes some, though not all the
Germanic clitic-like pronouns, but also forms such as the Italian loro ‘them’ and egli
‘he’ ((10), and the French reduced subject pronouns such as il ‘he’ (11).
|( 10 )||a.||Non
mai loro tutto
no say:fut:1sg never them everything
‘No, I will never say everything to them.’
mangia della zuppa e
beve del vino
he eats of-the soup and drink of-the wine
‘He eats the soup and drinks the wine.’ (Cardinaletti & Starke 1999:166)
|( 11 )||Il
he me sees
‘He sees me.’
I have not
been in a position to determine to what extent Bresnan’s weak pronouns
correspond to those of Cardinaletti & Starke (1999). The existence in a
language of weak pronouns in their sense is rather difficult to establish
since it demands detail comparison of the distributional patterns of both
strong and clitic-like forms. Needless to say such detailed distributional
data is available only for a very small number of languages. Therefore though
in my investigation I have taken note of potential instances of weak pronouns,
I am not at all certain whether they do in fact qualify as such. And, due to
the unavailability of adequate data, I have undoubtedly failed to detect the
existence of weak pronouns in many a language that potentially does have them.
In sum, the distributional data on weak pronouns to be presented below cannot
be considered to be reliable.
for the first three categories of reduced pronominals, i.e. zeros, bound forms
and clitics, while the vast majority of the reduced pronominal forms occurring
in the languages in my sample fall transparently into one of these three
types, two potential exceptions need to be mentioned. The first of these are
person inflections attached not to a lexical head but to a catalyst particle
as in (11) from the Australian language Djaru.
|( 12 )||ngaju-ngku
I-erg CAT-1sg:nom-3sg:loc hat:abs take-past
`I took a hat from a child.'(Tsunoda 1981:58)
Such forms have been treated in the literature both as bound and as
clitics. I classified them as bound. The second problematic personal forms are
freestanding combinations of person forms fused with tense. I treated such
forms also as bound, however, provided that there were corresponding tenseless
pronominal forms in the language, which were nonreduced. If there were no such
forms, I treated the pronoun and tense combinations as simply free, nonreduced
pronouns. Such is the case in Iai, an Austronesian language spoken on the
Loyalty Islands, in which the subject pronouns occur with a tense suffix but
are not reduced relative to the independent object forms. Compare (13a,b) with
|( 13 )||a.||orin-e ano ke
3pl-pres make a noise
`They make a noise.'
`They must go.'
3sg-pres see them
‘He sees them.’(Tryon 1968:, 63, 49, 87)
A final point that
needs to be mentioned in regard to my classification of reduced pronominal
forms involves languages in which all the person forms within a paradigm are
not of the same type. Such languages are not very common. One case in point is
Nadeb in which all the subject and object forms are proclitcs with the
exception of the third person plural, which is a prefix. In classifying the
reduced pronominals in the languages in my sample, I ignored such differences
in realization and took into account only the dominant forms.
In the LFG argument prominence hierarchy presented earlier in (3) the object2 relation is associated with patients in ditransitive clauses which have undergone what is commonly referred to as dative-shift as in the English (14b).
|( 14 )||a.||Anne handed the book to Tony.|
|B.||Anne handed Tony the book.|
Since not all languages display such dative-shift
alternations, my investigation of the relationship between reduced pronominals
and argument prominence, will be conducted with reference to a somewhat
different argument prominence hierarchy, namely that in (15).
A > P > R > oblique
The A and P relations correspond to the LFG grammatical functions of
subject and object in transitive clauses. The R relation, by contrast, covers
the semantic recipient rather than the patient in ditransitive clauses. And
the oblique relation encompasses participants bearing semantic roles typically
associated with non-arguments, such as locatives, instrumentals and
clarified the nature of the argument prominence hierarchy that I have used in
the investigation, let us consider the relationship between reduced
pronominals and argument prominence defined by the languages in the sample.
The first interpretation of the relationship between reduced pronominals
and argument prominence expressed in (2) is that reduced pronominals as a
group more frequently realize As than Ps, and more frequently realize Ps than
Rs, etc. That this is indeed so
is depicted in Table 1.
1. Reduced pronominals (as a group) and argument prominence
The vast majority of languages have some form of
reduced pronominals for As, somewhat fewer for Ps, just over a third for Rs
and hardly any for obliques.
reduced pronominals as a group should exhibit such a distribution may be seen
as being functionally and cognitively motivated. The A relation typically
encodes highly accessible participants in the sense of Givon (1983) and Ariel
(1988, 1991), i.e. participants manifesting properties associated with the
left hand side of the hierarchies in (16) as opposed to those on the right.
|( 16 )||a.||Speaker > addressee > non-participant (3rd person)|
|b.||High physical salience > low physical salience|
|c.||Topic > nontopic|
|d.||Human > animate > inanimate|
|e.||Repeated reference > few previous references > first mention|
|f.||No intervenining/competing referents > many intervening/competing referents|
Accessibility in turn is viewed as having a direct bearing on formal
encoding, the more accessible the referent, the less coding required. This is
shown in the simplified version of Ariel’s accessibility marking scale in
The accessibility marking scale
zero < reflexives <
poor agreement markers < rich agreement markers <
reduced/cliticized pronouns < unstressed pronouns < stressed pronouns < NP
Thus given the association between As and high accessibility, the fact
that the overwhelming majority of languages have at their disposal some form
of reduced pronominals for As is hardly surprising. By the same token reduced
pronominals for oblique constituents which typically encode referents low in
accessibility should be rare. And as Table 1 suggests, this is indeed so.
encoding by reduced pronominals of constituents bearing semantic roles
characteristic of obliques is often found in applicative constructions, as is
the case in various Bantu languages and also in Yatzachi el bajo Zapotec.
Observe that whereas in (18a) a free pronoun is used for the third person, in
the applicative (18b) a reduced form is used which is bound to the verb.
Yatzachi el bajo Zapotec
|( 18 )||a.||o-i?-a||len||ile-bo?|
|‘I am sitting with him.’|
‘I am sitting with him.’ (Marlett 1985: 123)
Significantly, reduced pronominals are typically used to encode oblique
participants that are human as opposed to nonhuman in accordance with the
accessibility hierarchies in (16). Such is the case generally in Djaru, as
illustrated earlier in (12) where a bound locative pronoun cross-references a
human source and other Australian languages, for example,
|( 19 )||a.||Vincent-nga-nta
Vincent-nom-2sg:obl go-past you-all
`Vincent went to you.'
|`He/she got the meat from me.' (Glass & Hackett 1970:42)|
As for the use of reduced pronominals with Ps, the fact that reduced
pronominals are less frequently used for Ps than for As again correlates with
the relatively lower accessibility of the former as compared to the latter.
The same, does not, however, necessarily hold for Rs relative to Ps at least
in languages which treat Rs as core relations. The significant decrease in the
number of languages exhibiting reduced pronominals with Rs as opposed to Ps in
Table 1 suggests that most of the languages in the sample treat Rs on a par
with oblique constituents rather than like transitive objects.
The second interpretation of the relationship between reduced
pronominals and argument prominence expressed in (2) is that each of the
reduced pronominals in (1), zeros, bound forms, clitics and weak forms more
frequently realizes As than Ps, and more frequently realizes Ps than Rs etc.
The distribution of each of the four types of reduced pronominals relative to
argument prominence among the languages in the sample is shown in Table 2.
2. The distribution of the four types of reduced pronominals relative to
We see that interpretation two does not hold. It holds
for bound forms and perhaps weak forms but not for zeros and clitics. Both of
the latter favour Ps over As rather than vice versa.
fact that zeros appear to be more common with Ps than with As runs counter to
the predictions of the accessibility account of grammatical encoding; as As
are more accessible than Ps, we would expect more languages to use the most
reduced type of encoding for As than for Ps. Yet this does not appear to be
the case among the languages in my sample, nor for the matter in the
100-language sample of Gilligan (1988).
slightly higher frequency of clitics with As as opposed to Ps, on the other
hand, is in line with the predictions of accessibility theory. Since clitics
constitute a less attenuated form of encoding than bound forms or zeros, they
should be more common with Ps, which tend to encode referents of lower
accessibility, than with As.
data in Table 2 also reveal that the third interpretation of the statement in
(2) is similarly not valid.
There is no decrease in the likelihood of each of the
reduced pronominals in (1), going from left to right, realizing As as opposed
to Ps, and Ps as opposed to Rs etc. All four grammatical relations, As, Ps, Rs
and obliques are more commonly realized by bound forms than by zeros. And
contrary to interpretation three, zeros and clitics favour Ps over As rather
than vice versa. Only the bound and weak forms more strongly favour As
relative to Ps and these relative to Rs and obliques.
The fourth interpretation of the statement in (2) relates to the
language internal distribution of reduced pronominals. According to this
interpretation, no reduced pronominal in (1) should be able to realize an
argument higher on the argument prominence hierarchy than any reduced
pronominal to its left.
are several languages in the sample, which counter this prediction. First of
all there are languages with zero objects but bound subjects. This is the case
in Kobon, Kewa, Finnish and Chamorro (20).
|( 20 )||in-bisita
(qui') q' espitatt
1pl-visit (him) loc hospital
`We visited (you, him, them) at the hospital.'(Chung 1984:120)
Secondly, there are languages, which have bound objects but no reduced
pronouns for subjects. Such languages include: Barai, Doyayo, Gilyak, Kera,
Panyjima (only one bound object form for 1sg) and Sema (only bound objects for
1sg & 2sg). This pattern is particularly frequent among the languages of
Micronesia. It is found in Gilbertese, Kusaiean, Ponapean, Pulo-Annian,
Puluwat, Trukese and Woleaian (21).
|( 21 )||a.||Sar||kelaa||re||sa||tangileng|
|`Those children over there cried.'|
`They kicked me.' (Sohn 1975: 93-94)
Thirdly, some languages have bound objects, but clitic subjects. Among
them are Kutenai, Southern Tepehuan and
|( 22 )||Samu
Samu birds-3sg look-3pl-pres:indic
`Samu is looking at the birds.' (Cook 1965:239)
The combination of bound object but weak subject is
also potentially attested, namely in Yapese. As shown in (23), the subject may
occur in a full form as in (23a) or a reduced form as in (23b). The object, on
the other hand, is bound to the verb.
|( 23 )||a.||Gamow
1:dl:excl fut see-2sg
`We will see you.'
perf 1:excl see-dual
``We saw it.'(Jansen 1977:268)
And finally, there is one language in the sample, namely Gude, which has
bound Rs but no bound As or Ps.
is also worth noting that not all of the distributions predicted by
interpretation four are attested. Most notably there appear to be no languages
which have zero subjects but bound or clitic objects.
the distribution of reduced pronominals does not directly reflect the
hierarchy of argument prominence in all languages, there is nonetheless a
strong cross-linguistic tendency for reduced pronominals to be distributed in
line with the argument prominence hierarchy. Of the 284 languages in my sample
only 27 (9%) utilize a more reduced pronominal for some argument lower in the
argument prominence hierarchy than for an argument higher on the hierarchy.
Thus though interpretation four does not hold as an absolute universal, it
does hold as a statistical one.
My investigation of the four interpretations of the
relationship between reduced pronominals and arguments prominence expressed in
(2) has revealed that the first interpretation definitely holds. Reduced
pronominals as a group are distributed according to a hierarchy of argument
prominence, being most common with As and decreasing with the increasing
obliqueness of arguments. By contrast interpretations two and three do not. It
is not the case that each reduced pronominal more frequently realizes
arguments higher on the argument prominence hierarchy than those lower on the
hierarchy (interpretation two). Nor is there a systematic decrease in zeros,
bound forms and weak forms, going from left to right, realizing As as opposed
to Ps, and Ps as opposed to Rs etc. (Interpretation three). Finally,
interpretation four, though not valid for all languages, is reflected in the
overwhelming majority. Languages do display a strong tendency to use more
reduced forms of pronominals for arguments higher on the argument prominence
hierarchy than those for lower on the hierarchy. Virtually the only exceptions
to this involve As and Ps. In a relatively small number of languages more
reduced forms of pronominal encoding are available to Ps than to As, either
zeros as opposed to bound forms, or bound forms as opposed to clitic, weak
forms or independent pronouns. I have no real explanation to offer why this
should be so.
the light of the above investigation, a number of additional points in regard
to the distribution of reduced pronominals can be made. First of all, not all
the reduced pronominals appear to be open to all the positions on the argument
prominence hierarchy. I have come across no language with zero Rs or obliques.
And the only cases of weak pronominal obliques that I
know of are in Italian and Dutch. According
to Cardinaletti (1999:66-67) the objects of the prepositions, esso in (24) and
‘r and ze in (25) are weak pronouns.
|( 24 )||Di
esso abbiamo parlatto
about it have:1pll talked long a lungo
‘We have talked long about it.’
|( 25 )||Ik
I look at her/them
‘I look at her/them.
Secondly, and not very suprisingly, each position on the argument
prominence hierarchy tends to be realized by only one reduced pronominal. Thus
if a language has bound As it tends not to have also clitic or weak ones. And
if a language has clitic Ps it is unlikely to also have bound ones. There are
exceptions to this. Thus the Uto-Aztecan languages Cora and Northern Tepehuan
as well as the Northern Italian dialects Fiorentino and Trentino and also
arguably Polish have both bound A pronouns and A clitics. The Omotic language
Gimira has weak A pronouns and for the third person feminine and second and
third person plural also bound forms. And Dutch, Italian and Slovak have both
clitic and weak object pronouns, at least under some analyses. And thirdly, no
language in the sample has all four of the reduced pronominals and only
Italian has three, bound subjects and clitic and weak objects.
Languages in the sample (N=284) according to macro-area and genetic
classification based on Ruhlen (1987)
Africa: Afro-Asiatic: Beja; Berber (Tamazight); Biu-Mandara (Gude); Egyptian
(Coptic); Chadic (Hausa, Kera);
Cushitic (Bilin, Mupun, Oromo); Omotic (Dizi, Hamar) Semitic (Amharic, Chacha,
Geez, Hebrew,); Khoisan (Nama,
Adamawa-Ubangi (Doyayo, Koh, Mumuye, Sango, Zande); Bantoid (Babungo, Ndonga,
Swahili); Benue- Congo (Mambila); Defoid (Yoruba); Dogon; Gur (Dagare, Koma,
Koromfe); Igboid (Igbo); Ijoid (Kolokuma Ijo); Kordofanian (Katla, Krongo);
Kru (Grebo); Kwa (Ewe, Nupe); Mande (Bambara, Mende); Northern-Atlantic (Diola-Fogny,
Fula, Kisi); Nilo-Saharan
Berta; Fur; Kunama; Maban (Mesalit); Nilotic (Nandi, Pari, Turkana); Saharan (Bagirmi,
Kanuri, Ngiti); Surma (Murle); Songhai; Pidgins
& Creoles (Kreol)
Southeast Asia & Oceania:
Sinitic (Mandarin); Karen (Eastern Kayah Li, Sgaw); Burmic (Burmese, Rawang,
Sema); Tibetic (Byangsi, Chepang, Limbu, Lushai, Newari) ?Austric
Miao Yao (Miao); Mon-Khmer (Khasi, Khmer, Minor Mlabri, Sre, Temiar,
Vietnamese); Daic (Thai); Atayalic (Atayal); Paiwanic (Paiwan); Tsouic (Tsous);
Philippine Austronesian (Chamorro, Kapampangan, Konjo, Malagasy, Muna, Palauan,
Tagalog, Uma, Yapese); Sundic (Achinese, Indonesian, Sundanese); Central
Eastern Malayo-Polynesian (Anejom, Dehu, Fijian, Kaliali-Kove, Kilivila,
Larike, Mono Alu, Maisin, Maori, Samoan, Savu, Tinrin, Tolai)
Eurasia: Altaic Mongolian (Dagur); Tungus (Evenki, Ju-Chen); Turkic (Crimean
Tatar, Turkish); Japanese, Korean; Kartvelian
Georgian; Nakh-Dagestanian Archi; Northwest
Caucasian Abxaz; Chukchi‑Kamchatkan
Dravidian (Kannada); Elamite; ?Austric Austroasiatic
Albanian; Anatolian (Hittite); Armenian; Celtic (Welsh); Germanic (Dutch);
Greek; Indic (Hindi, Kashmiri); Iranian (Kurdi, Ossetic); Romance (Italian);
Slavic (Polish); Language Isolates
(Ainu, Basque, Burushaski, Gilyak, Hurrian, Ket, Nahali, Sumerian) Uralic-Yukaghir
Finnic (Finnish); Ugric (Hungarian); Yukaghir
Australia & New Guinea:
Australian Garawan (Garawa);
Gunwinyguan (Ngalakan); Daly (Malak‑Malak, Ngankikurungkurr);
Mangarayi; Maran (Alawa); Nyulnyulan (Nyulnyul); Pama-Nyungan (Arabana,
Bandjalang, Gugu Yimidhirr, Kalkatungu, Kayardild, Ngiyambaa, Panyjima, Uradhi,
Yidin, Yukulta); Tiwi; West Barkly (Djingili); Wororan (Ungarijn); Yiwaidjan (Maung);
Pidgins & Creoles (Cape York
Trans New Guinea (Amele, Barai, Daga, Grand Valley Dani, Imonda, Hua,
Kewa, Kobon, Salt-Yui, Sentani, Selepet, Tauya, Wambon, Waskia, Usan); West
Papuan (Sahu, Tehit, West Makian); Geelvink Bay (Yava); Sko (Vanimo);
Torricelli (Au, Mountain Arapesh); Gapun; Sepik (Alamblak, Awtuw, Yessan Mayo,
Yimas); East Papuan (Anem, Nasioii, Yele)
Athapascan (Navajo, Umpqua); Haida; Tlingit) ?Amerind
Kutenai; Yurok; Algonquian (Plains Cree); Chimakuan (Quileute); Salishan (Comox);
Wakashan (Nootka); Keresan (Acoma); Yuchi; Siouan (Dakota); Caddoan (Wichita);
Iroquoian (Tuscarora); Tsimshian (Coast Tsimshian), Chinookian (Upper‑Chinook);
Takelma; Coos (Hanis Coos); Siuslawan (Lower Umpqua); Sahaptin (Nez‑Perce);
Wintun; Maiduan (Mountain‑Maidu); Yokuts (Valley‑Yokuts); Miwok
(Southern Sierra Miwok); Zuni; Tunica; Atakapa; Yuki-Wappo (Wappo); Muskogean
(Choctaw, Koasati); Huave; Mixe-Zoquian (Copainala-Zoque, Sierra Popoluca);
Mayan (Jacaltec, Tzutujil); Karok; Palaihnihan (Achumawi); Pomo (Southeastern
Pomo); Washo; Seri; Salinan; Yuman (Mohave); Tonkawa; Tarascan; Tanoan
(Kiowa); Takic (Luiseno); Pimic (Northern Tepehuan); Aztecan (Pipil); Coric
(Cora); Mixtecan (Copala Trique); Zapotecan (Valley Zapotec); Popolocan (Choco);
?Amerind Yanoman (Sanuma);
Misumalpan (Miskito); Rama; Aruak (Ica); Guaymi; Warao; Mura (Pirahã); Choco
(Epena Pedee); Waorani; Zaparoan (Iquito); Quechuan (Imbabura Quechua);
Aymaran (Aymara); Mapudungu; Tucanoan (Retuarã, Southern Barasano, Tuyuca);
Nambiquaran (Nambiquara); Cayuvava; Candoshi; Tupi-Guarani (Guarani); Arawan (Paumari);
Maipuran (Amuesha, Arawak, Ashaninca, Warekena, Waura); Peba-Yaguan (Yagua);
Carib (Makushi, Hishkaryana); Panoan (Capanahua, Chacobo); Tacanan (Cavinena);
Bororoan (Bororo); Ge-Kaingang (Canela-Kraho, Xokleng); Nadeb; Pidgins
and Creoles (Saramaccan)
1. Bresnan (1998) does not elaborate on the statement
in (2) since it is made only in passing, her article being concerned with the
unmarked nature of independent pronouns.
2. The composition of the sample, which was established
according to the sampling methodology outlined in Rijkhoff et al. (1993) is
presented in the Appendix.
3. My information on reduced pronominals is essentially
based on descriptive grammars which differ widely with respect to the range of
phenomena that they cover and the details they provide. On the whole, the
formal realizations of subject and object pronominals in transitive clauses
are well discussed. That of patients and recipients in ditransitive clauses
and of obliques considerably less so. Accordingly I have no data for 24 of the
languages with respect to the pronominal forms of recipients. My data for
obliques is even more sketchy. Therefore the data in Table 1 and also table 2
to be presented below with respect to recipients and particularly of obliques
must be viewed with some caution.
4. It is not the case that the languages in question
are morphologically or syntactically ergative and thus adhere to an argument
prominence hierarchy where the P is higher than the A.
5. Colloquial Sinhala is reported to display zero
recipients. But I have not been able to substantiate this.
6. I am aware of the fact that some of the phyla
recogized by Ruhlen (1987) are highly controversial. I have indicated these
with a question mark.
Mira. 1991. The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal
of Pragmatics. 16: 141-161.
Joan. 1998 The emergence of the unmarked pronoun. Ms. Stanford University.
Anna. 1999. Pronouns in Germanic and Romance Languages: An Overview. In Henk
van Riemsdijk (ed.), 33-81.
Anna & Michael Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In
Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 145-233.
W.A. 1965. A Descriptive Analysis of Mundari. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown
Gilligan, Gary M. 1988. A Cross-Linguistic Approach to the Pro-Drop Parameter. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern California.
Talmy 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A & D. Hackett. 1970. Pitjantjara
Grammar. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Yan. (to appear) Anaphora: A
Crosslinguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stephen A. 1985. Some aspects of Zapotecan clausal syntax. Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North
Dakota 29: 81-154.
Henk van. (ed.), Clitics in the
Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jan, Dik Bakker, Kess Hengeveld & Peter Kahrel. 1993. A method of language
sampling. Studies in Language 17.1,
Merrit. 1987. A Guide to the World's
Languages. Vol 1. Stanford (California): Stanford University Press.
Ho-min. 1975. Woleaian Reference Grammar.
Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Tasaku 1981. Interaction of phonological, grammatical, and semantic factors:
an Australian example. Oceanic
D. T. 1968. Iai Grammar. (Pacific
Linguistics Series B. No.8). Canberra: Australian National University.
Thomas L. 1986. Advancements to direct object in Southeastern Tepehuan. Work
Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota
(1998) does not elaborate on the statement in (2) since it is made only in
passing, her article being concerend with the unmarked nature of independent
composition of the sample, which was established according to the sampling
methodology outlined in Rijkhoff et al. (1993) is presented in the Appendix.
information on reduced pronominals is essentially based on descriptive
grammars which differ widely with respect to the range of phenomena that
they cover and the details they provide. On the whole, the formal
realizations of subject and object pronominals in transitive clauses is well
discussed. That of patients and recipients in ditransitive clauses and of
obliques considerably less so. Accordingly I have no data for 24 of the
languages with respect to the pronominal forms of recipients. My data for
obliques is even more sketchy. Therfore the data in Table 1 and also the
other tables to be presented below with respect to recipients and
particularly of obliques must be viewed with some caution.
. It is not
the case that the languages in question are morphologically or syntactically
ergative and thus adhere to an argument promience hierarchy where the P is
higher than the A.
Sinhala is reported to display zero recipients. But I have not been able to
. I am aware
of the fact that some of the phyla recogized by Ruhlen (1987) are highly
controversial. I have indicated these with a question mark.