Contrast and the (Non-) Occurrence of Subject Pronouns

One of the main communicative functions of subject personal pronouns (SPPs) in Spanish and European Portuguese (as well as other “pro”-drop languages) is to mark “contrast”. This function is recognized by nearly all grammars of these languages (e.g. Alarcos Llorach 1994; Butt & Benjamin 2000; Gili Gaya 1943; Cunha & Cintra 1987), and has been succinctly summarized recently by Lujan: “[E]l uso explicito de un pronombre personal tonico en posiciones donde su omision es normal obedece a razones de contraste o enfasis” (1999: 1277). However, neither these works nor more specialized studies tend to be explicit about the OBLIGATORINESS OR OPTIONALITY of SPPs in contrastive contexts. Must SPPs appear in contrastive contexts or are they merely a POTENTIAL feature of such contexts? As a result of this inexplicitness, there is no consensus on the issue, and several different positions regarding the (non-) occurrence of contrastive SPPs can be found in the literature. On the one hand, there exists a number of studies where contrastive contexts (or a subset thereof) are considered to be obligatory contexts for subject pronouns. Examples of this approach in the study of Spanish can be found in Silva-Corvalan (1982, 1994, 2001, 2003), Cameron (1992, 1995, 1997), Bayley & Pease-Alvarez (1997), and Solomon (1999). The common bond that unites these studies is that they are all carried out within a variationist (socio)linguistic framework in the Labovian tradition (cf. Labov 1972). In this tradition, an important methodological step that serves as a necessary precursor to quantitative analysis is the identification of the so-called “envelope of variation”, i.e. all and only those contexts in which a given instance of variation could be possible (as determined by the researcher). Those contexts in which no variation is possible, e.g., where a subject pronoun is either obligatorily present or absent, are left out of the envelope of variation—and therefore out of the analysis. Contrastive contexts (to be defined below) are one context that, in this strand of variationist work, is to be left outside the envelope of variation. Somewhat surprising to us, however, is the fact that there also exists a substantial number of studies where contrastive contexts (or a subset thereof) are NOT considered to be obligatory contexts for subject pronouns. As a result, the analysis of SPP expression/omission includes contrastive contexts with others. Among these studies we have found, for Spanish, Bentivoglio (1987[1980]), Enriquez (1984), Montes (1986), and, for written Brazilian Portuguese, Paredes Silva (1993). Finally, it is also possible to find a few other studies where the status of contrastive contexts vis-a-vis subject realization is left undetermined (e.g. Morales 1986, 1997), i.e. where no explicit statement about the inclusion or exclusion of contrastive contexts in the (quantitative) analysis of SPP usage has been made. As a whole, we take these radically different approaches to contrastive contexts to reflect the fact that there is actually no clear consensus regarding the obligatoriness and/or optionality of SPPs in such contexts. Clearly, however, in the Anglo-American variationist tradition represented by a series of