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

Open access


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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Cole, Melvyn D. 2010. Thematic null subjects and accessibility. Studia Linguistica 64: 271-320.

Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kachru, Yamuna. 2006. Hindi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Journal Information


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 97 97 20
PDF Downloads 25 25 9