Cover not available
Article published In:
Register Variation and Syntactic Theory
Edited by Diane Massam and Tim Stowell
[Linguistic Variation 17:2] 2017
► pp. 251–271

Subject drop in Swiss French text messages

| University of Zurich
| University of Zurich
In this paper, we present evidence in favour of a syntactic approach to subject drop in Swiss French text messages. Subject drop in our corpus follows patterns found in various so-called "written abbreviated registers" such as diaries, notes etc.: it occurs at the beginning of main sentences and after preposed adjuncts. Based on a corpus of 1100 text messages, collected in 2009/10 (www.sms4science.ch), we test predictions put forward by two approaches to argument drop in abbreviated registers, i.e. the "Avoid Weak Start" hypothesis by Weir (2012a) and the "Truncated CP hypothesis" by Haegeman (2013). While for our data the first approach cannot be excluded, our results more strongly support the syntactic one, despite the fact that some data, especially preposed strong subject moi without clitic resumption, challenge existing analyses. These data suggest that dropped referential subjects can be analysed as instances of familiar topic drop.
Keywords: text messages, (Swiss) French, subject drop, abbreviated registers, English, diary writing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction – text messages as an abbreviated register
  • 2.Register-specific subject drop – some explanatory proposals and questions to ask
    • 2.1Postsyntactic Left-edge deletion in spoken English: “Avoid weak start” (Weir 2012a)
    • 2.2Syntax; Reduction of grammatical complexity: “reduced CP” (cf. Haegeman 1997, 1999, 2013, Weir 2012b)
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1“Avoid weak start”?
    • 4.2‘Reduced CP hypothesis’
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 26 January 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.14020.sta
References (65)
Corpora
Lyon Corpus, CHILDES: [URL]
PFC (Phonologie du Français Contemporain): [URL]; see:
Durand, Jacques, Bernard Laks & Chantal Lyche. 2002. La phonologie du français contemporain: usages, variétés et structure. In C. Pusch & W. Raible (eds.): Romanistische Korpuslinguistik- Korpora und gesprochene Sprache/Romance Corpus Linguistics – Corpora and Spoken Language, 93–106. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2009. Le projet PFC: une source de données primaires structurées. In J. Durand, B. Laks & C. Lyche (eds.): Phonologie, variation et accents du français, 19–61. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
sms4science.ch Corpus: [URL]; see:
Stark, Elisabeth, Ruef, Beni & Simone Ueberwassser. 2009–2014. SMS Corpus. University of Zurich. [URL]
References
Androutsopoulos, Jannis & Gurly Schmidt. 2002. SMS-Kommunikation: Ethnografische Gattungsanalyse am Beispiel einer Kleingruppe. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 361. 49–79.Google Scholar
Anis, Jacques. 2007. Neography – Unconventional Spelling in French SMS Text Messages. In B. Danet & S. C. Herring (eds.), The Multilingual Internet – Language, Culture and Communication Online, 87–115. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béguelin, Marie-José. 2012. La variation graphique dans le corpus suisse de SMS en français. In S. Caddéo, et al. (eds.), Penser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste, 47–63. Aix-en-Provence: Presses de l’Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bieswanger, Markus. 2013. Micro-linguistic structural features of computer-mediated communication. In S. Herring, D. Stein & T. Virtanen (eds.), Handbook of the Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication, 463–485. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire, 2nd edn. 2000. Approches de la langue parlée en français. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Toward a cartography of subject positions. In L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 2, 115–165. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge & Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’-Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google 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
Dell, François. 1984. L’accentuation dans les phrases en français. In F. Dell, D. Hirst & J. -R. Vergnaud (eds.), Forme sonore du langage: Structure des représentations en phonologie, 65–122. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth. 1996. Phonological Phrasing and Accentuation in French. In M. Nespor & N. Smith (eds.), Dam Phonology, 1–38. La Haye: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich. 2013. First person pronouns in spoken French. A case study in cliticization. In K. Jeppesen Kragh & J. Lindschouw (eds.), Deixis and Pronouns in Romance Languages, 33–47. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairon, Cédrick, Jean René Klein & Sébastien Paumier. 2006. Le Langage SMS. Étude d’un corpus informatisé à partir de l’enquête « Faites don de vos SMS à la science ». Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1982. Simplified registers and linguistic theory. In L. K. Obler & L. Menn (eds.), Exceptional Language and Linguistics, 49–66. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Generalizations across languages, 87–116. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1997. Register variation, truncation and subject omission in English and in French. English Language and Linguistics 11. 233–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Adult null subjects in non pro-drop languages. In M. -A. Friedemann & L. Rizzi (eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax, 128–169. London: Addison, Wesley and Longman.Google Scholar
. 2004. Topicalization, CLLD and the Left Periphery. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 351. 157–192.Google Scholar
. 2013. The syntax of registers. Diary subject omission and the privilege of the root. Lingua 1301. 88–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (this issue). Unspeakable sentences. Subject omission in written registers: a cartographic analysis.
Haegeman, Liliane & Tabea Ihsane. 1999. Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English, English Language and Linguistics 31, 117–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Adult Null Subjects in the non-pro-drop Languages: Two Diary Dialects, Language Acquisition 91. 329–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 2007. A Faceted Classification Scheme for Computer-Mediated Discourse. Language@Internet 41, article 1, [URL]. (24 July, 2015.)
Hymes, Dell. 1971. Pidginization and creolization of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard J. 1985. Note-taking English as a simplified register. Discourse Processes 81. 437–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah & Fougeron, Cécile. 2000. A Phonological Model of French Intonation. In A. Botinis (ed.), Intonation: Analysis, Modeling and Technology, 209–242. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Léautaud, Pierre. 1989. Le Fléau. Journal particulier, 1917–1939. Paris: Mercure de France.Google Scholar
Little, Greta D. 1978. Subject deletion in English. Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States: LACUS forum 51. 289–297.Google Scholar
Mayol, Laia. 2010. Contrastive pronouns in null-subject Romance languages. Lingua 1201. 2497–2514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1982. Initial material deletion in English. Glossa 16(1). 85–111.Google Scholar
Nariyama, Shigeko. 2004. Subject ellipsis in English. Journal of Pragmatics 361. 237–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Discourse Coherence and Referent Identification of Subject Ellipsis in Japanese. In A. Włodarczyk & H. Włodarczyk (eds.): Meta-Informative Centering in Utterances: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, 167–181. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young. 2005. English zero anaphora as an interactional resource, 1, Research on Language and Social Interaction 381. 267–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. English zero anaphora as an interactional resource, 2, Discourse studies 81. 817–846. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oosterhof, Albert & Gudrun Rawoens. (this issue). Register variation and distributional patterns in article omission in Dutch headlines.
Panckhurst, Rachel. 2009. Short Message Service (SMS). Typologie et problématiques futures. In T. Arnavielle (ed.), Polyphonies, pour Michelle Lanvin, 33–52. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry Montpellier 3.Google Scholar
Plath, Silvia. 1983. The journals of Sylvia Plath. Ed. by T. Hughes & Fr. McCollough. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Reich, Ingo. (this issue). On the omission of articles and copulae in German.
Reust, Fabiola. 2015. L’ellipse de l’article dans les SMS suisses français. Zurich: University of Zurich MA thesis.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In H-M. Gärtner & U. Sauerland (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 115–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Robert-Tissot, Aurélia. Forthoming. Le sujet et son absence dans les SMS français. Une analyse syntaxique. Vincennes: Presses universitaires de Vincennes.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 2011. Conditions on Argument Drop. Linguistic Inquiry 42(2). 267–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stark, Elisabeth. 2014. Frequency, Form and Function of Cleft Constructions in the Swiss SMS Corpus. In A.-M. de Cesare (ed.), Frequency, Form and Function of cleft constructions, 325–344. Berlin, Munich & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stark, Elisabeth. 2015. ’De l’oral dans l’écrit’? – Le profil variationnel des SMS (textos) et leur valeur pour la recherche linguistique. In K. Jeppesen Kragh & J. Lindschouw (eds.), Les variations diasystématiques et leurs interdépendances dans les langues romanes. Actes du Colloque DIA II à Copenhague (19–21 nov. 2012), 395–405. Strasbourg: Editions de linguistique et de philologie.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1991. “Empty Heads in Abbreviated English,” GLOW Abstract, GLOW Newsletter #26, HAG.Google Scholar
. 2013. “The Syntax of Abbreviated English,” lecture given at the International Congress of Linguists, Geneva, July 22, 2013.
Teddiman, Laura. 2011. Subject ellipsis by text type: an investigation using ICE-GB. In J. Newman, H. Baayen & S. Rice (eds.): Corpus-based studies in language use, language learning, and language documentation, 71–88. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teddiman, Laura & John Newman. 2007. Subject Ellipsis in English: Construction of and Findings from a Diary Corpus, 26th conference on Lexis and Grammar, Bonifacio, 2–6 October 2007. Alberta: University of Alberta: Ms.Google Scholar
Thurlow, Crispin & Michèle Poff. 2013. Text Messaging. In S. C. Herring, D. Stein & T. Virtanen (eds.), Handbook of the Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication, 163–190. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walther, Joseph B. 1996. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research 231. 3–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weir, Andrew. 2009. Subject pronoun drop in informal English. Richard M. Hogg Prize winning essay. [URL]. (24 July, 2015.)
. 2012a. Left edge deletion in English and subject omission in diaries. English Language and Linguistics 16(1). 105–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Article drop in headlinese. Talk given at ECO5, 7th of April 2012. Ms.Google Scholar
. (this issue). Object drop and article drop in reduced written register.
Woolf, Virginia. 1985. The diary of Virginia Woolf. Vol. V1: 1936-1941. Ed. by A. O. Bell, assisted by A. McNeillie. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Zdorenko, Tatiana. 2010. Subject omission in Russian: a study of the Russian National Corpus. In St. Th. Gries, St. Wulff & M. Davies (eds.): Corpus-Linguistic Applications: Current Studies, New Directions, 119–133. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Dürscheid, Christa
2023. Koch/Oesterreicher und die (neuen) Medien. In Deutsch im Fokus [Sprachwissenschaft, 59], ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Ferreira de Carvalhaes Pinheiro, Andrei, Vera Paredes Silva & Christina Abreu Gomes
2023. Conhecimento linguístico e gêneros discursivos digitais: correlações possíveis a partir de fenômenos variáveis em interações por chat. Diacrítica 36:2 DOI logo
Samo, Giuseppe
2022. Criterial V2: ModP as a Locus of Microvariation in Swiss Romansh Varieties. Probus 34:1 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Robert-Tissot, Aurélia
2020. Le statut variationnel du sujet clitique dans deux corpus de la Suisse romande. Revue Romane. Langue et littérature. International Journal of Romance Languages and Literatures 55:1 ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo
Robert-Tissot, Aurélia & Etienne Morel
2017. The Role of Functional Heads in Code-Switching Evidence from Swiss Text Messages (sms4science.ch). Languages 2:3 ► pp. 10 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 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.