Cover not available
Article published In:
Approaches to Variation in Creole Studies
Edited by Isabelle Léglise, Bettina Migge and Nicolas Quint
[Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 36:1] 2021
► pp. 109–174

Variable subject pronoun expression in Cabo-Verdean Creole

Some language-internal constraints

 | University at Buffalo (SUNY), USA
The Cabo-Verdean Creole (CVC) subject domain has clitic and tonic pronouns that often amalgamate in double subject pronoun constructions; the possibility of a zero-subject and the formal category underlying subject clitics are disputed (Baptista 1995, 2002; Pratas 2004). This article discusses five variable constraints that condition subject expression across three descriptive and inferential analyses of a corpus of speech collected from 33 speakers from Santiago and Maio. Double subject pronoun constructions and zero-subjects were promoted by a persistence effect, though for the former this applied across nonadjacent clauses since double subject pronoun constructions are switch reference and contrastive devices resembling the doubling of agreement suffixes by independent pronouns in languages traditionally classified as pro-drop. Zero-subjects were favored in third-person contexts as previously observed by Baptista and Bayer (2013), and when a semantically referentially deficient (Duarte & Soares da Silva 2016) DP antecedent was in an Intonational Unit that was prosodically and syntactically linked to the Intonational Unit containing the target anaphor (Torres Cacoullos & Travis 2019). Results support reclassification of CVC subject clitics as ambiguous person agreement markers (Siewierska 2004) and suggest that CVC is developing a split-paradigm for person marking and subject expression (Wratil 2009; Baptista & Bayer 2013).
Keywords: subject pronoun expression, anaphora resolution, clitic, person marker, zero anaphor, null subject, conominal, specificity, creole, Portuguese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Overt subject pronouns in Cabo-Verdean Creole
    • 2.1Two classifications of the subject pronominal paradigm in Cabo-Verdean Creole and some notes on their distribution
    • 2.2The debate over the formal and functional status of atonic person markers in CVC and cross-linguistically
      • 2.2.1The Phonological Clitic Hypothesis or bound-argument view
      • 2.2.2The Inflectional Affix Hypothesis or the virtual-agreement view
      • 2.2.3The dual-nature view and grammaticalization yielding ambiguous person agreement markers
      • 2.2.4The double-expression view
      • 2.2.5The split-paradigm view
  • 3.‘True’ zero-subjects in CVC and potential conditioning constraints suggested by evidence in variationist sociolinguistics and cognitive discourse analysis
    • 3.1Zero-subjects in CVC
    • 3.2Subject pronoun expression from the variationist sociolinguistic and cognitive discourse analysis perspectives
      • 3.2.1Persistence of morphosyntactic form
      • 3.2.2Referential accessibility and coherence
      • 3.2.3Language-specific exceptions to accessibility-based accounts and zero-subjects with less accessible referents
  • 4.Research questions and methods
    • 4.1Research questions
    • 4.2Materials and data collection
    • 4.3Transcription
    • 4.4Delimiting the envelope of variation
    • 4.5Coding the predictor variables
    • 4.6Statistical procedures
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Results for surface form of the antecedent
    • 5.2 linking between Intonational Units and person-number
    • 5.3Results for antecedent accessibility pattern
    • 5.4Results for conditions related to semantic referential deficiency
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1The status of subject clitics in Cabo-Verdean Creole
  • 7.Conclusions and future directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Glossary
  • References
Published online: 25 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.00071.rod
References (150)
References
Abreu, Laurel. 2012. Subject pronoun expression and priming effects among bilingual speakers of Puerto Rican Spanish. In Kimberly Geeslin and Manuel Díaz-Campos (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 14th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 1–8. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Adone, Dany. 1994. Creolization and language change in Mauritian Creole. In Dany Adone & Ingo Plag (eds.), Creolization and Language Change, 24–43. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akaike, Hirotogu. 1998. Information Theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Emanuel Parzen, Kunio Tanabe, & Genshiro Kitagawa (eds.), Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike, 199–213. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Abington, Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Ted J. M. Sanders, Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 29–87. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auger, Julie. 2003. Le redoublement des sujets en picard. Journal of French Language Studies 13(3). 381–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Brett J. & Nicholas Evans. 2002. How referential is agreement?: The interpretation of polysynthetic dis-agreement morphology in Ngalakgan. In Hans-Jürgen Sasse (ed.), Problems of Polysynthesis, 51–86. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Philip. 1972. Kreol: A Description of Mauritian Creole. London: C. Hurst.Google Scholar
Baptista, Marlyse. 1995. On the pro-drop parameter in Cape Verdean Creole. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 51. 3–17.Google Scholar
. 1999. On the nature of the morpheme e in Cape Verdean Creole: to be or not to be, In Klaus Zimmermann (ed.), Lenguas criollas de base lexical española y portuguesa, 25–47. Berlin-Madrid: Vervuert-Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
. 2002. The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole: The Sotavento Varieties. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baptista, Marlyse & Rachel Bayer. 2013. Licensing argument drop in Cape Verdean Creole. Presented at the Society of Pidgin and Creole Linguistics , Lisbon. June 19–21.
Bartens, Ángela & Eeva Sippola. 2013. Subject null arguments in creole languages. Subject: cognitive, typological and functional approaches, University of Helsinki, September 12.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belsley, David A. 1991. Conditioning diagnostics: Collinearity and weak data in regression. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Marie-Eve. 2018. Subject pronoun expression in Santomean Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 171: 5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandi, Luciana & Patrizia Cordin. 1989. Two Italian dialects and the Null Subject Parameter. In Osvaldo A. Jaeggli & Kenneth J. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, 151:111–142. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Sam A. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63(4): 741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Richard & Nydia Flores-Ferrán. 2004. Perseveration of subject expression across regional dialects of Spanish. Spanish in Context 1(1): 41–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Eurotyp, 145–234. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, Ana Maria & Michael Child. 2011. Subject pronoun expression in a variety of Spanish in contact with Portuguese, In Jim Michnowicz & Robin Dodsworth (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, 14–25. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Carvalho, Ana Maria, Rafael Orozco & Naomi Lapidus Shin (eds.). 2015. Subject pronoun expression in Spanish: A cross-dialectal perspective. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russel S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, 21–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Prosodic and functional units of language. In Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Ping. 1986. Referent introducing and tracking in Chinese narratives. University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Claes, Jeroen. 2017. Probabilistic Grammar: The view from cognitive sociolinguistics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1): 62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 1999. Anaphora, discourse, and understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Costa, João & Fernanda Pratas. 2008. Licenciar pro não significa ser uma língua pro-drop: evidência do caboverdiano. In Sónia Frota & Ana Lúcia Santos (eds.), XXIII Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 157–66. Lisbon: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística.Google Scholar
. 2013. Embedded null subjects in Capeverdean. Journal of Linguistics 49(1): 33–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer. 2010. Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 86(1): 85–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer & Simon Kirby. 2016. Simplicity and specificity in language: Domain-general biases have domain-specific effects. Frontiers in Psychology 61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cat, Cécile. 2005. French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua 115(9): 1195–1219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. French dislocation: Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 1993. Is Haitian Creole a pro-drop language? In Francis Byrne & John Holm (eds.), Creole Language Library, 11:71. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déprez, Viviane. 1994. Haitian Creole: A pro-drop language? Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 9(1): 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dione, Cheikh B. 2013. Handling Wolof clitics in LFG. In Christine M. Salvesen & Hans P. Helland (eds.), Challenging Clitics, 2061:87–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming, & Danae Paolino. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Duarte, Maria Eugênia L. & Humberto Soares da Silva. 2016. Microparametric variation in Spanish and Portuguese. In Mary A. Kato & Francisco Ordoñez (eds.), The Morphosyntax of Portuguese and Spanish in Latin America, 1–26. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunigan, Melynda B. 1994. On the clausal structure of Wolof. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill dissertation.Google Scholar
Farrington, Charles Ryan. 2019. Language variation and change: Regionality and African American Language. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon dissertation.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 151–88. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: The functional domain of switch-reference. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch reference and Universal Grammar: Proceedings of a symposium on switch reference and universal grammar, Winnipeg, May 1981, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. In Norbert Dittmar (ed.), Topic: special issue of Linguistics, 301: 5–56.Google Scholar
. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. The story of zero. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2016. Multiple exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hashimoto, Daiki. 2019. Sociolinguistic effects on loanword phonology: Topic in speech and cultural image. Laboratory phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, 10(1): 11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Argument indexing: a conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Defining vs. diagnosing linguistic categories: A case study of clitic phenomena. In Joanna Blaszczak, Dorota Klimek-Jankowska & Krzysztof Migdalski (eds.), How categorical are categories? Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Indexing and flagging, and head and dependent marking. Te Reo: the Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand 621: 62–93.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Axel Bohmann. 2015. Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language 91(4): 806–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holler, Anke & Katja Suckow (eds.). 2016. Empirical Perspectives on Anaphora Resolution. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, Aarti Nayudu, & Michelle Sheehan. 2009. Three partial null-subject languages: A comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Marathi. Studia Linguistica, 63(1): 59–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten & Brian S. Everitt. 2006. A handbook of statistical analyses using R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3): 651–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15(4): 531–74.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A cross-linguistic approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ichinose, Atsushi. 1993. Evolução da expressão equacional no kriol da Guiné-Bissau. PAPIA – Revista Brasileira de Estudos do Contato Linguístico 3(2): 23–31.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Bart. 2010. Upper Guinea Creole: Evidence in favor of a Santiago birth. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 25(2). 289–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Bart & Nicolas Quint. 2016. On the relevance of Classical Portuguese features in four Atlantic creoles. In Armin Schwegler, John McWhorter & Liane Ströbel (eds.), The Iberian Challenge. Iberoamericana Vervuert. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural language & linguistic theory 2(1): 39–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kari, Ethelbert E. 2017. On the status of subject markers in African languages. Studies in Linguistics, (44): 99–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kassambara, Alboukadel. 2018. Machine learning essentials: Practical guide in R. STHDA.Google Scholar
Kato, Mary A. 1999. Strong and weak pronominals in the null subject parameter. Probus, 11(1): 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kato, Mary A. & Maria Eugênia L. Duarte. 2005. (Micro)parametric variation between European Portuguese (EP) and Brazilian Portuguese (BP): Similarities and Differences Related to Ongoing Changes in Latin American Spanish. Presented at the Asociación de linguística y filología de América Latina . Monterrey, MX.
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. Reference in Discourse. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Katharine Beals, (ed.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory, 180–201. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, Silvia. 1990. Complementizer PA, the finiteness of its complements and some remarks on empty categories in Papiamento. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 5(1): 39–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. A grammar of Berbice Dutch Creole. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lang, Jürgen. 2012. A filiação dos pronomes pessoais do crioulo da ilha de Santiago (Cabo Verde). Journal of Ibero-Romance Creoles 3: 16.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Universal and typological aspects of agreement. In Seiler, H. & Stachowiak, F.J. (eds.), Apprehension. Vol. II1. Tübingen: Gunter Narr; 201–267.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–89. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lipski, John. 1999. Null subjects in (Romance-derived) creoles: routes of evolution. Presented at the Society for Pidgin & Creole Languages, Los Angeles, California.
Lüdecke, Daniel. 2019. sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science, <[URL].>
Maurer, Philippe. 1988. Les modifications temporelles et modales du verbe dans le papiamento de Curaçao (Antilles néerlandaises): avec une anthologie et un vocabulaire papiamento-français. Hamburg: H. Buske.Google Scholar
Mayol, Laia. 2010. Contrastive pronouns in null-subject Romance languages. Lingua 120(10): 2497–2514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKaughan, Howard P. 1954. Notes on Chabacano grammar. Journal of East Asiatic Studies 31: 205–26.Google Scholar
McKee, Rachel, Adam Schembri, David McKee, & Trevor Johnston. 2011. Variable “subject” presence in Australian Sign Language and New Zealand Sign Language. Language Variation and Change 23(3): 375–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2000. Constraints on null subjects in Bislama (Vanuatu): social and linguistic factors. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
. 2009. Replication, transfer, and calquing: Using variation as a tool in the study of language contact. Language Variation and Change 21(3): 297–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1988. The small pro and inflectional morphology. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 13(1): 213–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naimi, Babak, Nicholas A. S. Hamm, Thomas A. Groen, Andrew K. Skidmore, & Albertus G. Toxopeus. 2014. Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling? Ecography, 37(2): 191–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orozco, Rafael. 2018. El castellano del Caribe colombiano en la ciudad de Nueva York: El uso variable de sujetos pronominales. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics 11(1): 89–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo & Ana Celia Zentella. 2012. Spanish in New York: Language Contact, Dialectal Leveling, and Structural Continuity. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Ferreira, Victor S. 2008. Structural Priming: A Critical Review. Psychological bulletin 134(3): 427–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Christina Tortora. 2016. Subject clitics: syntax. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, 772–85. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Posio, Pekka. 2013. The expression of first-person-singular subjects in spoken Peninsular Spanish and European Portuguese: Semantic roles and formulaic sequences. Folia Linguistica 47(1): 253–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Subject expression in grammaticalizing constructions: The case of creo and acho “I think” in Spanish and Portuguese. Journal of Pragmatics 631: 5–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Powell, M. J. D. 2009. The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives. Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambirdge University.Google Scholar
Pratas, Fernanda. 2004. O Sistema Pronominal Do Caboverdiano (Variante de Santiago): Questões de Gramática. Lisboa: Edições Colibri.Google Scholar
Pu, Ming-Ming. 1997. Zero anaphora and grammatical relations in Mandarin. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Grammatical Relations: a functionalist perspective, 281–321. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quint, Nicolas. 2000a. Grammaire de la langue cap-verdienne: étude descriptive et compréhensive du créole afro-portugais des Iles du Cap-Vert. Paris: Harmattan.Google Scholar
. 2000b. Le cap-verdien: origines et devenir d’une langue métisse: étude des relations de la langue cap-verdienne avec les langues africaines, créoles et portugaise. Paris, France: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
. 2004. Interacções morfológicas entre verbo e objecto no crioulo da ilha de Santiago (República de Cabo Verde), Papia, 71–83.Google Scholar
. 2011. Le devenir du -/r/ de l’infinitif portugais en capverdien santiagais moderne, In Ariane Despote and Gilbert Fabre (eds.), Aspects actuels de la linguistique ibéro-romane – Actes du XIe Colloque international de Linguistique ibéro-romane, Paris 13 – Villetaneuse (5–7 octobre 2006), 191–200. Limoges, France: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar
. 2012. Les influences du portugais contemporain sur le système verbal du capverdien santiagais. In Claudine Chamoreau & Laurence Goury (eds.), Changement linguistique et langues en contact: approches plurielles du domaine prédicatif, 155–178. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
. 2015. Let’s Speak Capeverdean: Language and Culture. London: Battlebridge Publications.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. The R Project for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo & Laura Vanelli. 1983. I pronomi soggetto in alcune varietà romanze. In Piaza Piacini (ed.), Scritti Linguistici in onore di G.B. Pellegrini, 121–45.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. On the status of subject clitics in Romance. In Osvaldo A. Jaeggli & Carmen Silva-Corvalán (eds.) Studies in Romance linguistics. Dordrecht, ND: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Yves. 1990. Syntactic recoverability of null arguments. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Riccelli, Adrián. 2019. The Subject Domain in Cabo-Verdean Creole: Combining variationist sociolinguistics and formal approaches. The University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Schröter, Verena. 2019. Null Subjects in Englishes: A Comparison of British English and Asian Englishes. Null Subjects in Englishes. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, Naomi Lapidus. 2014. Grammatical complexification in Spanish in New York: 3sg pronoun expression and verbal ambiguity. Language variation and change 26(3): 303–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1999. From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don’t make it. Folia Linguistica, 33(1–2).Google Scholar
. 2001. On the argument status of cross-referencing forms: Some problems. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, (42): 215–36.Google Scholar
. 2004. Person. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Dik Bakker. 2005. The agreement cross-reference continuum: Person marking in FG. In Kees Hengeveld & Casper de Groot (eds.), Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva, Claudia R. T. 2013. Comportamento e natureza dos sujeitos duplicados no crioulo caboverdiano e no português falado em comunidades quilombolas. In M. D. D. Moura & M. A. Silbado (eds.), Para a história do português brasileiro: Sintaxe comparativa entre o português brasileiro e línguas crioulas de base lexical portuguesa, 167–206. Maceió: EDUFAL.Google Scholar
Silva, Claudia R. T., Danniel Carvalho, & Fernanda M. Ziober. 2016. Traços de pessoa e duplos sujeitos no português. Presented at XXXI Econtro nacional da ANPOLL GT– Teoria da Gramática . Campinas, São Paolo.
. 2017. Licenciamento de duplos sujeitos em variedades do português: pessoa, definitude e estrutura de traços. Letras Escreve 7(2): 91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva, Claudia R. T. & Fernanda M. Ziober. 2017. Sobre os sujeitos pré-verbais duplicados: uma análise contrastiva entre o português vernacular brasileiro, o caboverdiano e o santomé. Estudos linguísticos e literários 571: 164–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva, Izione Santos. 1990. Tense and aspect in Capeverdean Crioulo. In John Victor Singler (ed.), Pidgin and Creole Tense/Mood/Aspect Systems, 143–168. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sippola, Eeva. 2011. Una gramática descriptiva del chabacano de Ternate, University of Helsinki dissertation.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Thomas Kneib, Thomas Augustin, & Achim Zeileis. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9(1): 307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Achim Zeileis, & Torsten Hothorn. 2007. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8(1): 25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Syea, Anand. 1993. Null subject in Mauritian Creole and the Pro-Drop Parameter. In Francis Byrne & John Holm (eds.), Atlantic Meets Pacific: A global view of pidginization and creolization, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tavares, Bernadino. 2012. The verbal system of the Cape Verdean Creole of Tarrafal, Santiago: A semantic analysis of the tense, mood and aspect markers. Universidade de Coimbra dissertation.Google Scholar
Torrence, Harold. 2013. The clause structure of Wolof: Insights into the left periphery. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Catherine E. Travis. 2010. Variable Yo expression in New Mexico: English influence? In Susana Rivera-Mills & Daniel Villa Crésap (eds.), Spanish of the U.S. southwest: A language in transition, 189–210. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana Vervuert. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Testing convergence via code-switching: priming and the structure of variable subject expression. International Journal of Bilingualism 15(3): 241–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Prosody, priming and particular constructions: The patterning of English first-person singular subject expression in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 631: 19–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Variationist typology: Shared probabilistic constraints across (non-)null subject languages. Linguistics 57(3): 653–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. 2007. Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change 19(2): 101–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. & Amy M. Lindstrom. 2016. Different registers, different grammars? Subject expression in English conversation and narrative. Language Variation and Change 28(1): 103–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, Anne & Yonata Levy. 1999. Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17(3): 613–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veiga, Manuel. 1996. O crioulo de Cabo Verde: introdução à gramática. Instituto Caboverdeano do Livro e do Disco.Google Scholar
. 2002. O caboverdiano em 45 lições: estudo sociolinguístico e gramatical. Praia, Cape Verde: INIC.Google Scholar
Venables, W. N. & B. D. Ripley. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Susanne. 2016. Never saw one – first-person null subjects in spoken English. English Language and Linguistics 22(1): 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, Hadley. 2016. Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wratil, Melani. 2009. Null arguments and homonymy flight in the development of Creole pronoun systems, In Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond, Monik Charette, David Nathan, & Peter Sells (eds.), Language Documentation & Linguistic Theory (2). 301–312. London: SOAS.Google Scholar
. 2011. Uncovered pro – On the development and identification of null subjects. In Null Pronouns, Melani Wratil & Peter Gallmann (eds). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xia, Ting. 2018. Visual processing of Chinese characters by foreign language learners. Ottawa, Ontario: Carleton University Masters’ thesis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1994. La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs en français standard et en français avancé. Travaux de Linguistique et de Philologie, 321: 131–48.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne & Lamine Diagne. 2002. Clitic placement after syntax: Evidence from Wolof person and locative markers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 621.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English N’T. Language 59(3): 502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

de Santana Silva, Larissa & Alan Norman Baxter
2024. Null subject pronouns in Papiá Kristang (Malacca Creole Portuguese). Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 23:1 DOI logo
Padilla, Lillie
2024. Spanish subject pronoun expression among Bube speakers in Equatorial Guinea. International Journal of Bilingualism 28:2 ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.