本文分析六種臺灣南島語的人稱代名詞詞彙結構，檢驗Neeleman & Szendröi (2007) 所主張「激進論元省略 (radical pro drop)」分析之合理性。結果顯示所檢測之阿美語、排 灣語、卑南語、布農語以及兩種泰雅語之論元省略，與Neeleman & Szendröi的預測互相 矛盾；我們主張利用Huang (1984a, 1984b, 1987, 1989) 以及Sato (2011) 之主題式語言類 型分析，來詮釋各種空論元屬性及其與主題之關係；據此我們提議，臺灣南島語的論元 省略，需要通過言談主題之認可。

This paper argues that Neeleman & Szendröi’s (2007) radical pro drop analysis in terms of pronominal morphology cannot completely capture the phenomenon of argument drop in six Formosan tongues, Amis, Paiwan, Puyuma, Bunun, and two Atayal dialects. We propose that the topic-oriented analyses of Huang (1984a, 1984b, 1987, 1989) and Sato (2011), which take discourse topic as a major licenser of argument drop, should be adopted to account for the missing arguments in these languages.