In:Topicality and the Shaping of Grammar: New perspectives from lesser-studied languages
Edited by Enrique L. Palancar, Claudine Chamoreau and Anaïd Donabédian
[Typological Studies in Language 137] 2026
► pp. 101–131
Chapter 3Lexical, pronominal and zero argument encoding in Movima
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Past research on the cross-linguistic discourse conditions for the lexical and nonlexical
expressions of arguments has shown that semantic role and animacy both play an important role. Some less attention has
been paid so far to the choice between different nonlexical expressions, in particular, unstressed pronouns and zero.
This choice is possible in Movima (isolate, Bolivia), where the single argument of a basic intransitive clause and one
of the two arguments of a basic transitive clause can remain unexpressed. Based on data from spontaneous oral
discourse, the present study investigates the lexical, pronominal, and zero expression of S of the intransitive and P
of the ergative transitive clause and shows that S and P do not display the same behaviour in discourse: Overall, P is
less often expressed by a pronoun than S, and inanimate referents favour zero rather than pronominal expression. Only
an animate S is more often encoded as a pronoun than as zero. It is argued that this exceptional behaviour of animate
S arguments reflects their affinity with the A argument of the ergative transitive clause, which typically encodes an
animate and topical referent, is obligatorily overtly expressed, and typically expressed by a pronoun.
Article outline
- Introduction
- 2.Argument encoding in Movima
- 3.Lexical vs. nonlexical argument expressions
- 3.1Referential devices in Movima
- 3.2Grammatical relation determining lexical
vs. non-lexical argument expression - 3.3Animacy determining lexical vs. non-lexical encoding
- 4.Pronoun vs. zero
- 4.1Grammatical relation
- 4.2Animacy determining pronominal vs. zero encoding
- 4.3Referent tracking
- 4.4Comparing lexical, pronominal and zero argument encoding
- 5.Topicality shaping grammar in Movima
- 5.1Topicality as a basis for alignment
- 5.2Comparing S and Adr: Topicality dissociated from syntactic privileges
- 6.Conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes Abbreviations References
References (24)
Benveniste, Émile. 1946. Structure
des relations de personne dans le verbe. Bulletin de la Société de
linguistique de
Paris 43(1). 1–12.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Referential
density in discourse and syntactic
typology. Language 79(4). 708–736.
Breiman, Leo, Jerome Friedman, Charles J. Stone & Richard Olshen. 1984. Classification
and Regression Trees. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness,
contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of
view. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject
and topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.
. 1994. Discourse,
Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and
Writing. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Dahl, Östen & Kari Fraurud. 1996. Animacy
in grammar and discourse. In Thorstein Fretheim & Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.), Reference
and referent accessibility (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series
38), 47–64. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An
interpretation of split ergativity and related
patterns. Language 57(3). 626–657.
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic
continuity in discourse: an introduction. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic
continuity in discourse: a quantitative cross-linguistic
study, 1–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell. 2016. The
discourse basis of ergativity
revisited. Language 92(3). 591–618.
Haude, Katharina. 2006. A
Grammar of
Movima. Nijmegen: Radboud University Doctoral dissertation. [URL]
. 2014. Animacy
and inverse in Movima: a corpus study. Anthropological
Linguistics 56(3–4). 294–314.
. 2019a. Grammatical
relations in Movima: Alignment beyond semantic
roles. In Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Balthasar Bickel (eds.), Argument
Selectors: New Perspectives on Grammatical Relations (Typological Studies in Language
123), 213–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [URL].
. 2019b. On
discourse-semantic prominence, syntactic prominence, and prominence of expression: the case of
Movima. Journal of
Pragmatics 154. 22–38.
. In
press. Between symmetrical voice and ergativity: Inverse and antipassive in
Movima. International Journal of American Linguistics.
Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis. 2006. Unbiased
recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. Journal of
Computational and Graphical
Statistics 15(3). 651–674.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a
universal definition of “subject.” In Charles Li (ed.), Subject
and Topic, 247–301. New York: Academic Press.
Menn, Lise & Brian MacWhinney. 1984. The
Repeated Morph Constraint: Toward an
Explanation. Language 60(3). 519–541.
R Core Team. 2023. R: A
Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. [URL]
Schnell, Stefan & Danielle Barth. 2018. Discourse
motivations for pronominal and zero objects across registers in
Vera’a. Language Variation and
Change 30. 51–81.
Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax:
structure, meaning, and function (Cambridge Textbooks in
Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vollmer, Maria. 2024. Comparing
zero and referential choice in eight languages with a focus on Mandarin
Chinese. Studies in
Language 48(2): 351–389.
