Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:39:50.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Never saw one – first-person null subjects in spoken English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

SUSANNE WAGNER
SUSANNE WAGNER*
Affiliation:
English Linguistics I, Department of English & Linguistics, FB05 – Philosophie & Philologie, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Jakob-Welder-Weg 18, 55128 Mainz, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While null subjects are a well-researched phenomenon in pro-drop languages like Italian or Spanish, they have not received much attention in non-pro-drop languages such as English, where they are traditionally associated with particular (written) genres such as diaries or are discussed under a broader umbrella term such as situational ellipsis. However, examples such as the one in the title – while certainly not frequent – are commonly encountered in colloquial speech, with first-person singular tokens outnumbering any other person.

This article investigates the linguistic and non-linguistic factors influencing the (non-) realisation of first-person singular subjects in a corpus of colloquial English. The variables found to contribute to the observed variation are drawn from a variety of linguistic domains and follow up on research conducted in such different fields as first language acquisition (FLA), cognitive linguistics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics and language variation and change. Of particular interest is the finding regarding the link between null subjects and complexity of the verb phrase, which patterns in a clearly linear fashion: the more complex the verb phrase, the more likely is a null realisation. Not discussed in this form before, this finding, given its high significance and its robustness in light of alternative coding, may prove to be an important candidate for inclusion in future studies on (English) null subjects.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 1 - 34
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This article has profited from reviewer's comments, and their suggestions and contributions are gratefully acknowledged. Parts of the research presented here were supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG grants Wa 2342/1-1,2).

References

Adams, Marianne. 1987. From old French to the theory of pro-drop. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5 (1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte & Wagner, Susanne. 2007. The Freiburg English Dialect corpus (FRED): Applying corpus-linguistic research tools to the analysis of dialect data. In Beal, Joan, Corrigan, Karen & Moisl, Herman (eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora, vol. I: Synchronic corpora, 35–53. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Modeling count data with R: Random forests and mixed models. Paper presented at NWAV (New Ways of Analyzing Variation) 38, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, 22–25 October.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Davidson, Doug J. & Bates, Douglas M.. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59 (4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar P. 2009. Two kinds of subject pro. Studia Linguistica 63 (1), 2–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, Robert. 2013a. The quantitative paradigm. In Chambers, Jack K. & Schilling, Natalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 2nd edn, 85–107. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bayley, Robert. 2013b. Variationist sociolinguistics. In Bayley, Robert, Cameron, Richard & Lucas, Ceil (eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics, 11–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, Robert, Greer, Kristen & Holland, Cory. 2013. Lexical frequency and syntactic variation: A test of a linguistic hypothesis. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19 (2), 21–30.Google Scholar
Bergsma, Wicher P., Croon, Marcel A. & Hagenaars, Jacques A.. 2009. Marginal models: For dependent, clustered, and longitudinal categorical data. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, Roberts, Ian & Sheehan, Michelle. 2010. Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois M. 1970. Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, Paul. 1990. Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 21 (4), 491–504.Google Scholar
Bolker, Ben. 2013. Response to ‘How to plot random intercept and slope in a mixed model with multiple predictors?’ http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17641512/how-to-plot-random-intercept-and-slope-in-a-mixed-model-with-multiple-predictors (accessed 22 May 2014).Google Scholar
Brandi, Luciana & Cordin, Patrizia. 1989. Two Italian dialects and the Null Subject Parameter. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Kenneth J. (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, 111–42. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cal Varela, Mario. 1998. Sum: GoldVarb (addendum). LINGUIST List 9.1461. http://linguistlist.org/issues/9/9-1461.html (accessed 25 July 2009).Google Scholar
Camargo Rabelo, Poliana. 2010. (Controlled) null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese (BP). Paper presented at Going Romance 24, Leiden, Netherlands, 9–11 November.Google Scholar
Cameron, Richard. 1994. Switch reference, verb class, and priming in a variable syntax. In Beals, Katharine, Denton, Jeannette & Knippen, Robert (eds.), Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2: The parasession on variation in linguistic theory, 27–45. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Cameron, Richard & Flores-Ferrán, Nydia. 2004. Perseveration of subject expression across regional dialects of Spanish. Spanish in Context 1 (1), 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chociej, Joanna. 2011. Context over form: Factors affecting null subject use by Heritage Polish speakers in Toronto. Generals paper, Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1986. Verb inflections in German child language: Acquisition of agreement markings and the functions they encode. Linguistics 24 (1), 79–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Sandra. 2004. Newfoundland English: Morphology and syntax. In Kortmann, Bernd & Schneider, Edgar (eds.), A Handbook of varieties of English, vol. 2: Morphology and syntax, 303–18. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cooper, Kathrin. 1995. Null subjects and clitics in Zurich German. In Penner, Ziv (ed.), Topics in Swiss German syntax, 59–72. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cote, Sharon Ann. 1996. Grammatical and discourse properties of null arguments in English. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Cukor-Avila, Patricia & Bailey, Guy. 2001. The effects of the race of the interviewer on sociolinguistic fieldwork. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (2), 252–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004-. BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus. http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc (accessed 10 January 2014).Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008-. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990-present. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ (accessed 10 January 2014).Google Scholar
Downing, Angela & Locke, Philip. 2002. A university course in English grammar. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Edwards, Lloyd J., Muller, Keith E., Wolfinger, Russell D., Qaqish, Bahjat F. & Schabenberger, Oliver. 2008. An R2 statistic for fixed effects in the linear mixed model. Statistics in Medicine 27 (29), 6137–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erker, Daniel & Guy, Gregory R.. 2012. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic variability: Variable subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish. Language 88 (3), 526–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, Nydia. 2002. Subject personal pronouns in Spanish narratives of Puerto Ricans in New York City: A sociolinguistic perspective. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, Nydia. 2004. Spanish subject personal pronoun use in New York City Puerto Ricans: Can we rest the case of English contact? Language Variation and Change 16 (1), 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2009. An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics 1 (2), 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, LouAnn. 1991. The metrical basis for children's subjectless sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 30 (4), 431–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, Kyle & Johnson, Daniel E.. 2013. Quantitative analysis. In Bayley, Robert, Cameron, Richard & Lucas, Ceil (eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics, 214–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore A. 2001. Conceptual reference points, pronouns and conversational structure in Russian. Glossos 1, 1–15.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guesser, Simone. 2008. Embedded null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. In Dejima, Mayumi, Fuji, Chisato & Haraguchi, Tomoko (eds.), Nanzan linguistics: Special issue 5. Papers from the consortium workshops on linguistic theory, 55–78. Nagoya: Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1990. Understood subjects in English diaries: On the relevance of theoretical syntax for the study of register variation. Multilingua 9 (2), 157–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Ihsane, Tabea. 1999. Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 3 (1), 117–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, Cornelia & Plunkett, Kim. 1998. Subjectless sentences in child Danish. Cognition 69 (1), 35–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrell, Frank E. 2001. Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York and London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvie, Dawn. 1998. Null subject in English: Wonder if it exists? Cahiers Linguistique d'Ottawa 26, 15–25.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Drager, Katie. 2009. Exploiting random intercepts: Two case studies in socio-phonetics. Paper presented at NWAV (New Ways of Analyzing Variation) 38, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, 22–25 October.Google Scholar
Hollett, Meghan. 2011. Null subject variation in Heritage Russian in Toronto. MA thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, Nayudu, Aarti & Sheehan, Michelle. 2009. Three partial null-subject languages: A comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish & Marathi. Studia Linguistica 63 (1), 59–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 1995. On null subjects and null objects in generative grammar. Linguistics 33 (6), 1081–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, Nina. 1989. The Null Subject Parameter in language acquisition. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Kenneth J. (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, 215–38. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2008. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59 (4), 434–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Kenneth J.. 1989. The Null Subject Parameter and parametric theory. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Kenneth J. (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, 1–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Daniel E. 2009a. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (1), 359–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Daniel E. 2009b. Mixed models and why sociolinguists should use them. Paper presented at NWAV (New Ways of Analyzing Variation) 38, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, 22–25 October.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel E. 2009c. Rbrul manual. www.danielezrajohnson.com/Rbrul_manual.html (accessed 11 December 2013).Google Scholar
Kaiser, Georg A. 2009. Losing the null subject: A contrastive study of (Brazilian) Portuguese and (Medieval) French. In Kaiser, Georg A. & Remberger, Eva-Maria (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop ‘Null-subjects, expletives, and locatives in Romance’ (Arbeitspapier 123), 131–56, Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Georg & Meisel, Jürgen. 1991. Subjekte und Null-Subjekte im Französischen. In Olsen, Susan & Fanselow, Gisbert (eds.), DET, COMP und INFL: Zur Syntax funktionaler Kategorien und grammatischer Funktionen, 110–36. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2008. Prosody and function of English comment clauses. Folia Linguistica 42 (1–2), 83–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2013. The development of comment clauses. In Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey & Wallis, Sean (eds.), The English verb phrase: Investigating recent change with corpora, 286–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2012. Towards a de-ranged study of variation. Paper presented at GURT (Georgetown University Round Table) 2012. Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 8–11 March.Google Scholar
Kramer, Matthew. 2005. R2 Statistics for mixed models. Proceedings of the Conference on Applied Statistics in Agriculture, 17, 148–60. www.ars.usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/ad_hoc/12000000SpatialWorkshop/19KramerSupplRsq.pdf (accessed 2 May 2014).Google Scholar
Lefcheck, Jon & Casallas, Juan Sebastian. 2013/2014. R-squared for generalized linear mixed-effects models. https://github.com/jslefche/rsquared.glmer (accessed 3 May 2014).Google Scholar
Leroux, Martine & Jarmasz, Lidia-Gabriela. 2006. A study about nothing: Null subjects as a diagnostic of convergence between English and French. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 12 (2), 1–14.Google Scholar
Levy, Yonata & Vainikka, Anne. 2000. The development of a mixed null subject system: A cross-linguistic perspective with data on the acquisition of Hebrew. Language Acquisition 8 (4), 363–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopes, Célia, Cavalcante, Silvia & Marcotulio, Leonardo. 2011. Variation and change of 2nd person pronouns in Brazilian Portuguese: The convergence of social and syntactic factors. Paper presented at NWAV (New Ways of Analyzing Variation) 40, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 27–30 October.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Laurel. 2013. Variation in English auxiliary realization: A new take on contraction. Language Variation and Change 25 (1), 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Nally, Ralph. 2000. Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: The distinction between – and reconciliation of – ‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models. Biodiversity & Conservation 9 (5), 655–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, Isobel. 2011. Imposition and identity in null subject usage: Contact effects among speakers of Chinese, Italian and Anglo background in Toronto. MA thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
McKee, Rachel, Schembri, Adam, McKee, David & Johnston, Trevor. 2011. Variable ‘subject’ presence in Australian Sign Language and New Zealand Sign Language. Language Variation and Change 23 (3), 375–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, Silvina, Dias, Rejane & Thomé-Williams, Ana. 2009. Subject expression in the non-native acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese. In Pires, Acrisio & Rothman, Jaso (eds.), Minimalist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition case studies across Portuguese, 301–26. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, Naomi. 2011. Heritage Language variation and change in Toronto. Project website: http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/ngn/HLVC/0_0_home.php (accessed 7 December 2013).Google Scholar
Nagy, Naomi. 2015. A sociolinguistic view of null subjects and VOT in Toronto Heritage Languages. Lingua 164, 309–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, Naomi G., Aghdasi, Nina, Denis, Derek & Motut, Alexandra. 2011. Null subjects in Heritage Languages: Contact effects in a cross-linguistic context. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17 (2), 135–44.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Shinichi & Schielzeth, Holger. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4 (2), 133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, John & Teddiman, Laura. 2010. First person pronouns in online diary writing. In Taiwo, Rotimi (ed.), Handbook of research on discourse behavior and digital communication: Language structures and social interaction, vol. I, 281–95. Hershey, PA, and New York: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2004. Against a parameter-setting approach to typological variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4 (1), 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2006. A rejoinder to ‘On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: a reply to Newmeyer’ by Ian Roberts & Anders Holmberg. Manuscript. http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/mtb23/NSP/Rejoinder%20to%20R&H.pdf (accessed 5 May 2009).Google Scholar
Osawa, Fuyo. 1996. Missing arguments in earlier English clause structures. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 1–22.Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo, Zentella, Ana Celia & Livert, David. 2007. Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Towards the formation of a speech community. Language 83 (4), 770–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Jonathan, Dodsworth, Robin & Kohn, Mary. 2013. Subject expression and discourse embeddedness in Emirati Arabic. Language Variation and Change 25 (3), 255–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolillo, John C. 2002. Analyzing linguistic variation. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Silva, Paredes, Vera, L. 1993. Subject omission and functional compensation: Evidence from written Brazilian Portuguese. Language Variation and Change 5 (1), 35–49.Google Scholar
Parkinson, Dilworth B. 1987. Constraints on the presence/absence of ‘optional’ subject pronouns in Egyptian Arabic. In Denning, Keith M., Inkelas, Sharon, McNair-Knox, Faye C. & Rickford, John R. (eds.), Variation in language. NWAV-XV at Stanford. Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation, 348–60. Stanford: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Pereira Scherre, Maria M. & Naro, Anthony J.. 1991. Marking in discourse: ‘Birds of a feather’. Language Variation and Change 3 (1), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pocius, Gerald. 1974. MUNFLA transcript of Tape 75–236/C2815. Memorial University of Newfoundland Folklore and Language Archive.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Core Team, R. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Rickford, John R. & McNair-Knox, Faye C.. 1994. Addressee- and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 235–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17 (3), 501–57.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1993. Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition 3 (4), 371–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2000a. Early null subjects and root null subjects. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), Comparative syntax and language acquisition, 299–319. London and New York: Routledge (an earlier version of this paper was published in 1994).Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2000b. Remarks on early null subjects. In Friedemann, Marc-Ariel & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), The acquisition of syntax: Studies in comparative developmental linguistics, 269–92. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian (ed.) 2007. Comparative grammar: Critical concepts in linguistics, vol. II: The Null Subject Parameter. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Holmberg, Anders. 2010. Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. In Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, Roberts, Ian & Sheehan, Michelle (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 1–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roy, Joseph. 2009. Inter-dependency in linguistic data from one speaker assessing competing statistical models. Poster presented at NWAV (New Ways of Analyzing Variation) 38, Ottawa, ON, 22–25 October.Google Scholar
Roy, Joseph. 2011. Sociolinguistic statistics: The intersection between statistical models, empirical data and sociolinguistic theory. Paper presented at Methods in Dialectology XIV, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, 2–6 August. http://aix1.uottawa.ca/jroy042/papers/socio.stats.a.pdf (accessed 21 February 2012).Google Scholar
Serratrice, Ludovica. 2007. Null and overt subjects at the syntax-discourse interface: Evidence from monolingual and bilingual acquisition. In Baauw, Sergio, van Kampen, Jacqueline & Pinto, Manuela (eds.), The acquisition of Romance languages: Selected papers from The Romance Turn II, 181–200. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis. In Hornberger, Nancy H. & McKay, Sandra Lee (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education, 498–527. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sigley, Robert. 1998. Sum: Addendum to GoldVarb Summary. http://linguistlist.org/issues/9/9-1476.html (accessed 25 July 2009).Google Scholar
Sigley, Robert. 2003. The importance of interaction effects. Language Variation and Change 15 (2), 227–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-linguistic analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1 (1), 113–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, Lesley & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Deixis and Anaphora. In Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 1449–564. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Harald Baayen, R.. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24 (2), 135–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarallo, Fernando. 1991. Major sociolinguistic patterns in Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 89 (1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarallo, Fernando. 1996. Turning different at the turn of the century: 19th century Brazilian Portuguese. In Guy, Gregory R., Feagin, Crawford, Schiffrin, Deborah & Baugh, John (eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov, vol. 1: Variation and change in language and society, 199–220. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teddiman, Laura & Newman, John. 2007. Subject ellipsis in English: Construction of and findings from a diary corpus. In Camugli, Catherine, Constant, Matthieu & Dister, Anne (eds.), Proceedings from the 26th conference on Lexis and Grammar, Bonifacio, 2–6 October 2007. http://infolingu.univ-mlv.fr/english/Colloques/Bonifacio/proceedings.html.Google Scholar
Thrasher, Randolph H. 1974. Shouldn't ignore these strings: A study of conversational deletion. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Tocque, Philip. 1878. Newfoundland: As it was, and as it is in 1877. Toronto: Magurn.Google Scholar
Toribio, Almeida J. 2000a. Language variation and the linguistic enactment of identity among Dominicans. Linguistics 38 (6), 1133–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toribio, Almeida J. 2000b. Setting parametric limits on dialectal variation in Spanish. Lingua 110 (5), 315–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Travis, Catherine E.. 2014. Prosody, priming and particular constructions: The patterning of English first-person singular subject expression in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 63, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, Anne & Levy, Yonata. 1999. Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17 (3), 613–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanelli, Laura, Renzi, Lorenzo & Benincá, Paola. 2007. A typology of Romance subject pronouns. In Roberts, Ian (ed.), Comparative grammar: Critical concepts in linguistics, vol. II: The Null Subject Parameter, 234–45. London and New York: Routledge (originally published in 1986).Google Scholar
Vasconcellos Lopes, Ruth E. 2003. The production of subject and object in Brazilian Portuguese by a young child. Probus 15 (1), 123–46.Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan & Farrell, Simon. 2004. AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11 (1), 192–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, Susanne. 2006–7. The Tocque Formula and Newfoundland English. Special issue of Linguistica Atlantica 27–28 – Papers from Methods XII, Moncton, 1–5 August 2005, 141–6.Google Scholar
Wagner, Susanne. 2012. Null subjects in English: Variable rules, variable language? Postdoctoral dissertation (Habilitationsschrift), Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Chemnitz University of Technology.Google Scholar
Wagner, Susanne. Forthcoming a. Frequency effects in English null subjects.Google Scholar
Wagner, Susanne. Forthcoming b. Null subjects in English: The role of persistence. Draft based on Wagner (2012). Available from https://uni-mainz.academia.edu/SusanneWagner.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. Null subjects in Old English. Language Variation and Change 25 (2), 155–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, James A. 2010. Variation in linguistic systems. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weir, Andrew. 2012. Left-edge deletion in English and subject omission in diaries. English Language and Linguistics 16 (1), 105–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissenborn, Jürgen. 1992. Null subjects in early grammars: Implications for parameter-setting theories. In Weissenborn, Jürgen, Goodluck, Helen & Roeper, Thomas (eds.), Theoretical issues in language acquisition: Continuity and change in development, 269–99. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wratil, Melani. 2011. Uncovered pro: On the development and identification of null subjects. In Wratil, Melani & Gallmann, Peter (eds.), Null pronouns, 99–139. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Ronghui. 2003. Measuring explained variation in linear mixed effects models. Statistics in Medicine 22 (22), 3527–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed