Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

ICAME Journal

1 Issue per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1502-5462
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Pronoun omission and agreement: An analysis based on ICE Singapore and ICE India

Iván Tamaredo / Teresa Fanego
Published Online: 2016-04-14 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2016-0007

Abstract

This article deals with pronoun omission in subject position and its connection with subject-verb agreement in Indian English and Singapore English. Agreement morphology has been found to be a predictor and facilitator of pronoun omission cross-linguistically in that it aids in the identification and retrieval of the referents of omitted pronouns. The results of a corpus study partly confirm this trend, since they show that agreement morphology does have a weak facilitating effect in both varieties examined; that is, pronoun omission increases when the subject and the verb agree in person and number. However, this is only true for lexical verbs; non-modal auxiliaries (i.e., be, have, do), on the contrary, show a low percentage of omitted pronouns and no facilitating effect of agreement morphology. To account for this finding, the possible inhibiting effect on pronoun omission of the frequency of co-occurrence of pronouns and non-modal auxiliaries was also explored.

References

  • Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65-87.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Ariel, Mira. 1994. Interpreting anaphoric expressions: A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics 30: 3-42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schliperoord and W. Spooren (eds.). Text representation, 29-87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bao, Zhiming. 2001. The origins of empty categories in Singapore English. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 16: 275-319.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barlow, Michael and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

  • Bhatt, Rakesh M. 2004. Indian English: Syntax. In B. Kortmann and E. Schneider et al. (eds.). A handbook of varieties of English, 1116-1130. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 1998. The emergent lexicon. In M. C. Gruber, D. Higgins, K. S. Olson and T. Wysocki (eds.). CLS 34: The panels, 421-435. University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Frequency effects on French liaison. In J. L. Bybee and P. J. Hopper (eds.). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 337-359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14: 261-290.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82: 711-733.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. and Paul J. Hopper (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. and Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in American English. Linguistics 37: 575-596.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. In M. Juge and J. Moxley (eds.). Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 14-17, 1997: General session and parasession on pragmatics and grammatical structure, 378-388. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Cole, Melvyn D. 2009. Null subjects: A reanalysis of the data. Linguistics 47: 559-587.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cole, Melvyn D. 2010. Thematic null subjects and accessibility. Studia Linguistica 64: 271-320.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In W. Pagliuca (ed.). Perspectives on grammaticalization, 3-28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531-574.Google Scholar

  • Huang, Yan. 1992. Against Chomsky’s typology of empty categories. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 1-29.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A cross-linguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth J. Safir (eds.). 1989. The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Kachru, Yamuna. 2006. Hindi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Krug, Manfed. 1998. String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics 26: 286-320.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lange, Claudia. 2012. The syntax of spoken Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Leimgruber, Jakob R. E. 2013. Singapore English: Structure, variation, and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • MacWhinney, Brian. 2001. Emergentist approaches to language. In J. L. Bybee and P. J. Hopper (eds.). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 449-470. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Moag, Rodney F. and Robert Poletto. 1991. Discourse level evidence for South Asia as a linguistic area. Language Sciences 3: 229-254.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2007. Steady states in the evolution of New Englishes: Present-day Indian English as an equilibrium. Journal of English Linguistics 35: 157-187.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Neeleman, Ad and Kriszta Szendrői. 2007. Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 671-716.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501-558.Google Scholar

  • Ruppenhofer, Josef and Laura A. Michaelis. 2010. A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2: 158-184.Google Scholar

  • Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don't in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 105-124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Speas, Margaret. 1994. Null arguments in a theory of economy of projection. In E. Benedicto and J. T. Runner (eds.). University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: Functional projections, 179-208. Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

  • Speas, Margaret. 2006. Economy, agreement and the representation of null arguments. In P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Shoorlemmer and F. Weerman (eds.). Arguments and agreement, 35-75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Taraldsen, Knut T. 1980. On the nominative island condition, vacuous application, and the that-trace filter. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

  • Wee, Lionel. 2004. Singapore English: Morphology and syntax. In B. Kortmann and E. Schneider et al. (eds.). A handbook of varieties of English, 1116-1130. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-04-14

Published in Print: 2016-03-01


Citation Information: ICAME Journal, ISSN (Online) 1502-5462, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2016-0007.

Export Citation

© 2016. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in