Andrej A. Kibrik (Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences) aakibrik@gmail.com

1. Andrej A. Kibrik(Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy ofSciences)aakibrik@gmail.com Basics of referential systems: Sorting things out DAARC2009 Conference Goa, India, 2009

2. Familiar facts: ‘he plays/played’

3. Relevant questions • What performs the discourse act of reference in each case? • What kinds of referential devices are found across languages? • What typological parameters are necessary and sufficient to account for the observed diversity? • How can one put languages’ referential systems on equal footing? • Is agreement really different from reference? • How many times can one referent be referred to in one clause? (in particular, when there is a full NP and a reduced (pronominal) device in the same clause) • What shall we do about differences between various clause participant positions?

4. How can one approach these questions? • There are many contradictory and partial accounts of referential phenomena (cf. notions such as “argument type parameter”, “pro-drop”, etc.), and there is a need for a general, integrated account • This observed mosaic picture calls for organization and systematization • One should always bear in mind that all referential devices only exist for actual reference in discourse, performed in real time

5. Plan of talk • This paper is a part of a typological study based on the material of 200 languages • I outline three main parameters of this typology • Then I provide characterization of some of the world’s major languages in terms of this typology • This is useful for cross-linguistic comparison, but it is also essential for understanding individual languages: one can appreciate the peculiarities of a given system only through knowing its position in a typological space

6. Parameter 1: Basic types of referential devices • Full vs. reduced • Three basic types of reduced referential devices (refs) • Free pronouns • Bound pronouns • Zero refs • This talk: mostly third person reference Overt refs

7. Zero refs • Yidiny (Australia; Dixon 1977: 514) • Ø gali:ɲ/ Ø wawa:liɲu/ bama ŋabi ɲinaɲunda/ go.past look.going.past person.abs many.abs sit.dat. subord<...> • ØØ wawa:liɲu/ look.going.past • bama:lØ wawa:l/ person.erg see.past ‘They went, went and saw lots of people sitting there <…> They went up and looked at them. The people saw them.’

8. Free pronouns • Lyélé (Burkina Faso; Showalter 1986: 211) • e zɛ̀ỹ e k’ e kwè e la he arise he again he take he leave • e vò e pyà gɔ lìbí jaa-esho he go he search bush people place • ‘He went back and looked for the place where the bush people lived’

9. Bound (affixal) pronouns • Abkhaz (South-Western Caucasus) • i-rə-l-tejt’ it-them-she-gave ‘She gave it to them’

10. Three basic refs • Bound pronouns are by far the most frequent ref cross-linguistically • Free pronouns are the least frequent ref • Some languages are firmly committed to one type of ref, while other are less consistent

11. WALS composer: Dryer and Siewierska • Consistent languages: free, bound, zero Abkhaz Gur Yidiny

12. Parameter 2: Tenacious vs. recessive pronouns • Abkhaz (South-Western Caucasus) • i-rə-l-tejt’ it-them-she-gave ‘She gave it to them’ • i-č’kº’əncºad-rə-pxyan his-sons he-them-called ‘He called his sons’

13. Tenacious vs. recessive pronouns • Recessive pronouns: a complementary distribution with coreferential NPs in the same clause • Example: English • Tenacious pronouns: cooccur with coreferential NPs in the same clause • Example: Abkhaz • Recessiveness correlates with freeness • Tenacity correlates with boundness • However…

14. Free tenacious pronouns • Spanish “clitic doubling” • Comajoan 2006:73 • y la chica pues le da-øle quita-ø and the girl then 3sg.dat hit-pres.3sg 3sg.dat seize-pres.3sg al chicoal niño el sombrero to.the boy to.the boythe hat ‘And the girl then takes the hat from the boy …’

15. Free tenacious pronouns • Bilua (a Papuan language of Solomon islands; Obata 2003:115, 30) • Omadeu taku sike tamaniake=beta e=ke. one time five brother&sister3pl.nom=cont stay-hist ‘Once upon a time, there were five brothers and sisters living. • Saivo=aziolo there 3sg.m.nom=ligdevil ke=papue=v=ejaritopi. 3pl.nom=sit=3sg.m.acc=rmpcopra.houseon.top ‘There, they sat the devil on the copra house.’

16. Bound recessive pronouns • Upper Kuskokwim (Alaska) • yi-ne-łŒanh 3.acc-pref-(3.nom)look ‘S/he is looking at it/him/her’ • gugaŒ ne-łŒanh baby pref-(3.nom)look ‘S/he is looking at the baby’

17. Both free tenacious and bound recessive pronouns • South Efate (Austronesian, Vanuatu; Thieberger 2006: 269, 113-114) • Ra=pitlak tesa nmatu iskei. 3du.real.nom=have child girl one ‘They had a daughter.’ I=skot-i-r to. 3sg.real.nom=be.with-trans-3pl.acc stay ‘She stayed with them.’ • Ale, ntuami=na i=to <…> then devil3sg.real.nom=want 3sg.real.nom=stay ‘Then the devil stayed <…>’

18. Boundness and tenacity • The parameters “free vs. bound” and “recessive vs. tenacious” are in fact independent • Frequency cline: • bound tenacious V • free recessive V • free tenacious V • bound recessive

19. Tenacity and argumenthood  • Kibrik 1988 • Mithun 2003 • Siewierska 2004 • Corbett 2006 • Distributed argumenthood • i-č’kº’əncºad-rə-pxyan his-sons he-them-called ‘He called his sons’ 

20. Parameter 3: Sensitivities • Consistent languages • Zero reference - Yidiny • Free recessive pronouns - Lyélé • Bound tenacious pronouns – Abkhaz • Inconsistencies/sensitivities: • Clause participant position • Construction type • Referent’s level of activation • Referent’s definiteness, specificity, etc. • various degrees of consistency in a language’s commitment to a certain referential device – some languages use a variety of devices whose heterogeneity may be very high

21. Sensitivity A: Clause participant position • Latin • Subject: bound tenacious pronouns • Object: free recessive pronouns • Gela (Oceanic Austronesian, Solomon Islands, Crowley 2002) • Subject: free tenacious • Object: bound tenacious • …most other combinations attested as well…

22. Latin “agreement” Bound tenacious pronouns (just as in Abkhaz), but only in the subject position Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Satires, Book 1, Chapter 5 c= Cicirrus, s= Sarmentus • rogaba-t denique cur umquam fugisse-t, ask.impf-3sg finally why sometime flee.plpf.conj-3sg • cui satis una farr-is libra fore-t, who.dat enough one grain-gen.sg pound be.impf.conj-3sg ‘Finally he (Cicirrus) asked why he (Sormentus)had ever fled, he to whomone pound of grain would have been enough ’

23. Abkhaz vs. Latin • How are the Abkhaz and the Latin patterns different? • Both use bound pronouns • The only difference is in sensitivity: • Abkhaz: all pronouns are bound and tenacious  pronouns are insensitive • Latin: pronouns are bound and tenacious only in the subject pronouns  there is an important sensitivity along the lines of clause participant position

24. Sensitivity B: Referent’s level of activation • In Mandarin, zero and free pronoun tā occur with comparable frequency • Interpreting available analyses (Hedberg 1996, Li and Thompson 1979, Giora 1996, Chu 1998, Pu 2001, inter alia) it appears that zero is used at the highest level of referent activation, while the third person pronouns at a somewhat lowered level.

25. What all this is good for? • For profiling individual languages’ referential systems • After profiles of a significant number of languages is available, for the construction of a fully-fledged typology of referential systems • For an individual language, details of its referential system must be assessed against the background of the basic characterization

26. Profiles of several of the world’s major languages

27. Focus on English • Primary ref: free pronoun • Free pronouns are recessive • Are agreement markers refs? • No • They are cross-linguistically highly exotic • They very rarely appear as the sole bearers of referents’ properties in a clause • They must be recognized as truly automatic, non-referential agreement affixes • Sensitivities

28. Clause participant position + construction type • English: • High degree of propensity to free pronouns • However, free pronouns yield to zero reference in some special contexts, in particular: • subject position of non-first coordinate clauses

29. English zero subject • Al Gore is truth. Think about it. He says what needs to be said without fear, without posturing. He leads. (paragraph) He succeeds in the worlds of politics, business, and diplomacy. He reads and Ø writes history. He has access to the smartest people on the planet.

30. Focus on Hindi • A highly complex system • All major types of refs are found: free pronouns, bound pronouns (agreement), and zero • Primary ref: free pronouns • Secondary ref: bound pronouns (agreement) operating on the ergative basis • Bound pronouns are tenacious: they cooccur with additional referential devices, either free pronouns or full NPs • Sensitivity: free pronouns yield to zero under certain discourse circumstances

31. Hindi free pronouns and agreement (= bound pronouns?) • vah jaa rahaahai 3Sg(Nom) go be.Prog.3SgM ‘He is going’ • us-ne kitaab paRhii 3Sg-Erg book(NomF) read.Perf.3SgF ‘She read the book’ (Prasad 2003: 75-76)

32. Hindi zero reference • fanTuush-ne aadmiyoN-kaa gussaa saaman-par utaaraa Fantush-Erg men-of anger furniture-on took.down ‘Fantush took out his anger with the men on the furniture’ • Ø vahaaN kii sab kursiyaaN toR daaliiN there of all chairs(NomF) break.Inf put.Perf.3PlF ‘He broke all the chairs there’ (Prasad 2003: 92)

33. Hindi sensitivity • Prasad (2003: 101) formulates the basis for the choice of zero over a third person pronoun in terms of Centering Theory, and her formulation can be reinterpreted as follows: • Zero is used under highest referent activation, third person pronoun is used under intermediate activation

34. On a sad note • In this domain – one of the worst misnomers in linguistics, • picked up by linguists of various theoretical views with a surprising ease • Pro-drop

35. Which languages are pro-drop? • Those that use zero reference, such as Yidiny or Japanese • Those that use insensitive bound pronouns, such as Abkhaz • Those that use bound pronouns, sensitive to clause participant position, such as Latin • Those that use sensitive free pronouns, such as Mandarin or Russian • In other words, all unEnglish languages

36. The parameter of Englishness • Siewierska and Bakker 2005 • A sample of 428 languages • 96.2% of languages are “pro-drop” • This “parameter” completely fails to account for the diversity of unEnglish languages • Plea: DROP PRO-DROP!

37. Conclusion: framework for a description of a language’s referential system • Preferred type of ref: zero vs. free pronoun vs. bound pronoun • Pronouns: recessive vs. tenacious • Sensitivities: • Whether the language is consistent or not • What bases for sensitivities are attested • What options are used depending on sensitivities