Volume 36, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0920-9034
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9870
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 19952002Pratas 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 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 2009Baptista & Bayer 2013).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. 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]
  2. Adone, Dany
    1994 Creolization and language change in Mauritian Creole. In Dany Adone & Ingo Plag (eds.), Creolization and Language Change, 24–43. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111339801.23
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111339801.23 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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. 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑1694‑0_15
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_15 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ariel, Mira
    1990Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Abington, Oxon, UK: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 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. 10.1075/hcp.8.04ari
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.04ari [Google Scholar]
  6. Auger, Julie
    2003 Le redoublement des sujets en picard. Journal of French Language Studies13(3). 381–404. 10.1017/S0959269503001200
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269503001200 [Google Scholar]
  7. 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. 10.1524/9783050080956.51
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050080956.51 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker, Mark C.
    1996The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker, Philip
    1972Kreol: A Description of Mauritian Creole. London: C. Hurst.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Baptista, Marlyse
    1995 On the pro-drop parameter in Cape Verdean Creole. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics5. 3–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. 2002The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole: The Sotavento Varieties. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.54
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.54 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bartens, Ángela & Eeva Sippola
    2013 Subject null arguments in creole languages. Subject: cognitive, typological and functional approaches, University of Helsinki, September12.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bates, Douglas , Martin Mächler , Ben Bolker , & Steve Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1). 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  16. Belsley, David A.
    1991Conditioning diagnostics: Collinearity and weak data in regression. New York: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bouchard, Marie-Eve
    2018 Subject pronoun expression in Santomean Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics17: 5. 10.5334/jpl.191
    https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.191 [Google Scholar]
  18. 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, 15:111–142. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2540‑3_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3_4 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bresnan, Joan & Sam A. Mchombo
    1987 Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language63(4): 741. 10.2307/415717
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415717 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cameron, Richard & Nydia Flores-Ferrán
    2004 Perseveration of subject expression across regional dialects of Spanish. Spanish in Context1(1): 41–65. 10.1075/sic.1.1.05cam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.1.1.05cam [Google Scholar]
  21. 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. 10.1515/9783110804010.145
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804010.145 [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. Carvalho, Ana Maria , Rafael Orozco & Naomi Lapidus Shin
    (eds.) 2015Subject pronoun expression in Spanish: A cross-dialectal perspective. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 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. 10.1075/tsl.11.03cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.03cha [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. 1994Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chen, Ping
    1986 Referent introducing and tracking in Chinese narratives. University of California, Los Angelesdissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Claes, Jeroen
    2017 Probabilistic Grammar: The view from cognitive sociolinguistics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics2(1): 62. 10.5334/gjgl.298
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.298 [Google Scholar]
  29. Corbett, Greville
    2006Agreement. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Cornish, Francis
    1999Anaphora, discourse, and understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. 2013 Embedded null subjects in Capeverdean. Journal of Linguistics49(1): 33–53. 10.1017/S0022226712000217
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000217 [Google Scholar]
  33. Croft, William
    2001Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Culbertson, Jennifer
    2010 Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language86(1): 85–132. 10.1353/lan.0.0183
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0183 [Google Scholar]
  35. Culbertson, Jennifer & Simon Kirby
    2016 Simplicity and specificity in language: Domain-general biases have domain-specific effects. Frontiers in Psychology6. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964 [Google Scholar]
  36. De Cat, Cécile
    2005 French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua115(9): 1195–1219. 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2007French dislocation: Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 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. 10.1075/cll.11.10deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.11.10deg [Google Scholar]
  39. Déprez, Viviane
    1994 Haitian Creole: A pro-drop language?Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages9(1): 1–24. 10.1075/jpcl.9.1.02dep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.9.1.02dep [Google Scholar]
  40. Dione, Cheikh B.
    2013 Handling Wolof clitics in LFG. In Christine M. Salvesen & Hans P. Helland (eds.), Challenging Clitics, 206:87–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/la.206.04dio
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.206.04dio [Google Scholar]
  41. 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]
  42. 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. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190465889.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190465889.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Dunigan, Melynda B.
    1994 On the clausal structure of Wolof. University of North CarolinaatChapel Hilldissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Farrington, Charles Ryan
    2019Language variation and change: Regionality and African American Language. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Givón, Talmy
    1976 Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 151–88. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 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. 10.1075/tsl.2.06giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.2.06giv [Google Scholar]
  47. 1992 The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. In Norbert Dittmar (ed.), Topic: special issue of Linguistics, 30: 5–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2001Syntax: An introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.syns
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syns [Google Scholar]
  49. 2017The story of zero. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.204
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.204 [Google Scholar]
  50. Goldberg, Adele E.
    2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Gundel, Jeanette K. , Nancy Hedberg , & Ron Zacharski
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69(2): 274–307. 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  52. Harris, Alice C.
    2016Multiple exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190464356.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190464356.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. 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. 10.5334/labphon.187
    https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.187 [Google Scholar]
  54. 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. 10.1515/9783110331127.197
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110331127.197 [Google Scholar]
  55. 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. 10.1515/9781614514510‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514510-009 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2019 Indexing and flagging, and head and dependent marking. Te Reo: the Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand62: 62–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hinrichs, Lars , Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Axel Bohmann
    2015 Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language91(4): 806–36. 10.1353/lan.2015.0062
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0062 [Google Scholar]
  58. Holler, Anke & Katja Suckow
    (eds.) 2016Empirical Perspectives on Anaphora Resolution. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110464108
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110464108 [Google Scholar]
  59. 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. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2008.01154.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.01154.x [Google Scholar]
  60. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    1993GrammaticalizationCambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hothorn, Torsten & Brian S. Everitt
    2006A handbook of statistical analyses using R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 10.1201/9781420010657
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420010657 [Google Scholar]
  62. Hothorn, Torsten , Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis
    2006 Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics15(3): 651–74. 10.1198/106186006X133933
    https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X133933 [Google Scholar]
  63. Huang, C.-T. James
    1984 On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry15(4): 531–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Huang, Yan
    2000Anaphora: A cross-linguistic approach. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Ichinose, Atsushi
    1993 Evolução da expressão equacional no kriol da Guiné-Bissau. PAPIA – Revista Brasileira de Estudos do Contato Linguístico3(2): 23–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Jacobs, Bart
    2010 Upper Guinea Creole: Evidence in favor of a Santiago birth. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages25(2). 289–343. 10.1075/jpcl.25.2.04jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.25.2.04jac [Google Scholar]
  67. Jacobs, Bart & Nicolas Quint
    2016 On the relevance of Classical Portuguese features in four Atlantic creoles. InArmin Schwegler, John McWhorter & Liane Ströbel (eds.), The Iberian Challenge. Iberoamericana Vervuert. 10.31819/9783954878949‑005
    https://doi.org/10.31819/9783954878949-005 [Google Scholar]
  68. Jelinek, Eloise
    1984 Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural language & linguistic theory2(1): 39–76. 10.1007/BF00233713
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00233713 [Google Scholar]
  69. Kari, Ethelbert E.
    2017 On the status of subject markers in African languages. Studies in Linguistics, (44): 99–134. 10.17002/sil..44.201707.99
    https://doi.org/10.17002/sil..44.201707.99 [Google Scholar]
  70. Kassambara, Alboukadel
    2018Machine learning essentials: Practical guide in R. STHDA.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Kato, Mary A.
    1999 Strong and weak pronominals in the null subject parameter. Probus, 11(1): 1–38. 10.1515/prbs.1999.11.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1999.11.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  72. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Kayne, Richard S.
    1975French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Kibrik, Andrej A.
    2011Reference in Discourse. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  75. Kroch, Anthony
    1994 Morphosyntactic variation. InKatharine 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]
  76. Kouwenberg, Silvia
    1990 Complementizer PA, the finiteness of its complements and some remarks on empty categories in Papiamento. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages5(1): 39–51. 10.1075/jpcl.5.1.03kou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.5.1.03kou [Google Scholar]
  77. 1994A grammar of Berbice Dutch Creole. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110885705
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885705 [Google Scholar]
  78. Lang, Jürgen
    2012 A filiação dos pronomes pessoais do crioulo da ilha de Santiago (Cabo Verde). Journal of Ibero-Romance Creoles3: 16.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Lehmann, Christian
    1982 Universal and typological aspects of agreement. InSeiler, H. & Stachowiak, F.J. (eds.), Apprehension. Vol.II. Tübingen: Gunter Narr; 201–267.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 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]
  81. Lipski, John
    1999 Null subjects in (Romance-derived) creoles: routes of evolution. Presented at theSociety for Pidgin & Creole Languages, Los Angeles, California.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Lüdecke, Daniel
    2019 sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot.>
  83. Maurer, Philippe
    1988Les 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]
  84. Mayol, Laia
    2010 Contrastive pronouns in null-subject Romance languages. Lingua120(10): 2497–2514. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  85. McKaughan, Howard P.
    1954 Notes on Chabacano grammar. Journal of East Asiatic Studies3: 205–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. McKee, Rachel , Adam Schembri , David McKee , & Trevor Johnston
    2011 Variable “subject” presence in Australian Sign Language and New Zealand Sign Language. Language Variation and Change23(3): 375–98. 10.1017/S0954394511000123
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394511000123 [Google Scholar]
  87. Meyerhoff, Miriam
    2000Constraints on null subjects in Bislama (Vanuatu): social and linguistic factors. Canberra: The Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 2009 Replication, transfer, and calquing: Using variation as a tool in the study of language contact. Language Variation and Change21(3): 297–317. 10.1017/S0954394509990196
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394509990196 [Google Scholar]
  89. Mufwene, Salikoko S.
    1988 The small pro and inflectional morphology. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 13(1): 213–213. 10.1075/jpcl.13.1.22sal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.13.1.22sal [Google Scholar]
  90. 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. 10.1111/j.1600‑0587.2013.00205.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00205.x [Google Scholar]
  91. 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 linguistics11(1): 89–129. 10.1515/shll‑2018‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2018-0004 [Google Scholar]
  92. Otheguy, Ricardo & Ana Celia Zentella
    2012Spanish in New York: Language Contact, Dialectal Leveling, and Structural Continuity. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199737406.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199737406.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  93. Pickering, Martin J. & Ferreira, Victor S.
    2008 Structural Priming: A Critical Review. Psychological bulletin134(3): 427–59. 10.1037/0033‑2909.134.3.427
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 [Google Scholar]
  94. Poletto, Cecilia
    2000The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 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. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0047 [Google Scholar]
  96. Posio, Pekka
    2013 The expression of first-person-singular subjects in spoken Peninsular Spanish and European Portuguese: Semantic roles and formulaic sequences. Folia Linguistica47(1): 253–92. 10.1515/flin.2013.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2013.010 [Google Scholar]
  97. 2014 Subject expression in grammaticalizing constructions: The case of creo and acho “I think” in Spanish and Portuguese. Journal of Pragmatics63: 5–18. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  98. Powell, M. J. D.
    2009The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives. Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambirdge University.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Pratas, Fernanda
    2004O Sistema Pronominal Do Caboverdiano (Variante de Santiago): Questões de Gramática. Lisboa: Edições Colibri.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 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. 10.1075/tsl.35.08pu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.35.08pu [Google Scholar]
  101. Quint, Nicolas
    2000aGrammaire de la langue cap-verdienne: étude descriptive et compréhensive du créole afro-portugais des Iles du Cap-Vert. Paris: Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Quint, Nicolas
    2000bLe 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]
  103. Quint, Nicolas
    2004 Interacções morfológicas entre verbo e objecto no crioulo da ilha de Santiago (República de Cabo Verde), Papia, 71–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 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]
  105. 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]
  106. 2015Let’s Speak Capeverdean: Language and Culture. London: Battlebridge Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2019The R Project for Statistical Computing.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 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]
  109. 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. 10.1515/9783110878516‑025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110878516-025 [Google Scholar]
  110. Roberge, Yves
    1990Syntactic recoverability of null arguments. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Rodríguez-Riccelli, Adrián
    2019The Subject Domain in Cabo-Verdean Creole: Combining variationist sociolinguistics and formal approaches. The University of Texas at Austin dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Schröter, Verena
    2019Null Subjects in Englishes: A Comparison of British English and Asian Englishes. Null Subjects in Englishes. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110649260
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110649260 [Google Scholar]
  113. Shin, Naomi Lapidus
    2014 Grammatical complexification in Spanish in New York: 3sg pronoun expression and verbal ambiguity. Language variation and change26(3): 303–30. 10.1017/S095439451400012X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439451400012X [Google Scholar]
  114. Siewierska, Anna
    1999 From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don’t make it. Folia Linguistica, 33(1–2).
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 2001 On the argument status of cross-referencing forms: Some problems. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, (42): 215–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 2004Person. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511812729
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 [Google Scholar]
  117. 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. 10.1515/9783110920833.203
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110920833.203 [Google Scholar]
  118. 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]
  119. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 2017 Licenciamento de duplos sujeitos em variedades do português: pessoa, definitude e estrutura de traços. Letras Escreve7(2): 91. 10.18468/letras.2017v7n2.p91‑116
    https://doi.org/10.18468/letras.2017v7n2.p91-116 [Google Scholar]
  121. 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 literários57: 164–85. 10.9771/ell.v0i57.24295
    https://doi.org/10.9771/ell.v0i57.24295 [Google Scholar]
  122. 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. 10.1075/cll.6.06sil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.6.06sil [Google Scholar]
  123. Sippola, Eeva
    2011Una gramática descriptiva del chabacano de Ternate, University of Helsinki dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Strobl, Carolin , Anne-Laure Boulesteix , Thomas Kneib , Thomas Augustin , & Achim Zeileis
    2008 Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics9(1): 307. 10.1186/1471‑2105‑9‑307
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 [Google Scholar]
  125. Strobl, Carolin , Anne-Laure Boulesteix , Achim Zeileis , & Torsten Hothorn
    2007 Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics8(1): 25. 10.1186/1471‑2105‑8‑25
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 [Google Scholar]
  126. 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. 10.1075/cll.11.11sye
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.11.11sye [Google Scholar]
  127. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
    2005 Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory1(1). 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113 [Google Scholar]
  128. 2008Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Tavares, Bernadino
    2012The 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]
  130. Torrence, Harold
    2013The clause structure of Wolof: Insights into the left periphery. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.198
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.198 [Google Scholar]
  131. 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. 10.31819/9783865278692‑012
    https://doi.org/10.31819/9783865278692-012 [Google Scholar]
  132. 2011 Testing convergence via code-switching: priming and the structure of variable subject expression. International Journal of Bilingualism15(3): 241–67. 10.1177/1367006910371025
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006910371025 [Google Scholar]
  133. 2014 Prosody, priming and particular constructions: The patterning of English first-person singular subject expression in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 63: 19–34. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  134. 2019 Variationist typology: Shared probabilistic constraints across (non-)null subject languages. Linguistics57(3): 653–92. 10.1515/ling‑2019‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0011 [Google Scholar]
  135. Travis, Catherine E.
    2007 Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change19(2): 101–35. 10.1017/S0954394507070081
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394507070081 [Google Scholar]
  136. Travis, Catherine E. & Amy M. Lindstrom
    2016 Different registers, different grammars? Subject expression in English conversation and narrative. Language Variation and Change28(1): 103–28. 10.1017/S0954394515000174
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000174 [Google Scholar]
  137. Vainikka, Anne & Yonata Levy
    1999 Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory17(3): 613–71. 10.1023/A:1006225032592
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006225032592 [Google Scholar]
  138. Van Valin, Robert D.
    2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  139. Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla
    1997Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  140. Veiga, Manuel
    1996O crioulo de Cabo Verde: introdução à gramática. Instituto Caboverdeano do Livro e do Disco.
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 2002O caboverdiano em 45 lições: estudo sociolinguístico e gramatical. Praia, Cape Verde: INIC.
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Venables, W. N. & B. D. Ripley
    2002Modern applied statistics with S.. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑21706‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2 [Google Scholar]
  143. Wagner, Susanne
    2016 Never saw one – first-person null subjects in spoken English. English Language and Linguistics22(1): 1–34. 10.1017/S1360674316000216
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000216 [Google Scholar]
  144. Wickham, Hadley
    2016Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑24277‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 [Google Scholar]
  145. 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]
  146. 2011 Uncovered pro – On the development and identification of null subjects. InNull Pronouns, Melani Wratil & Peter Gallmann (eds). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110238716.99
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238716.99 [Google Scholar]
  147. Xia, Ting
    2018Visual processing of Chinese characters by foreign language learners. Ottawa, Ontario: Carleton University Masters’ thesis. 10.22215/etd/2018‑12954
    https://doi.org/10.22215/etd/2018-12954 [Google Scholar]
  148. Zribi-Hertz, Anne
    1994 La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs en français standard et en français avancé. Travaux de Linguistique et de Philologie, 32: 131–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Zribi-Hertz, Anne & Lamine Diagne
    2002 Clitic placement after syntax: Evidence from Wolof person and locative markers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 62.
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.
    1983 Cliticization vs. inflection: English N’T. Language59(3): 502. 10.2307/413900
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413900 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error