"pronoun" is semantic or distributional?

[ECOLING at aol.com]

Another way of seeing why our long discussions
have been at cross purposes is the following.

Pat Ryan, in attempting to conform to the terminology
being used by Larry Trask, wrote the following:

>[PR]
>Perhaps the discussion could be foreshortened. 'My' could perhaps be termed
>a "pronominal determiner".

This is a perfectly reasonable position, *GIVEN* that Pat is using
the word "pronoun", here in the form "pronominal",
as a semantic-functional term (referring to persons etc.).
I believe that is an accurate statement, even if Pat's explanations
have not said so explicitly.

Trask is however using "pronoun" as a distributional class.
For Trask, "pronominal" and "determiner" are a contradiction
because both refer to distributional classes, distinct classes,
one standing for a full noun phrase, the other as a modifying
element part of a noun phrase (loosely put).

Back to Pat Ryan's terminology:
"possessive pronoun" is perfectly reasonable when both terms
are taken in their semantic-functional senses.
But Trask does not use "pronoun" that way.
(Nor do I, when I am dealing with distributional classes.)

Pat Ryan seems not to understand that
"she" does not substitute for "woman" with "the" mysteriously
not manifest.
Rather, "she" stands for the entire noun phrase
"the woman", normally with all modifying semantics also
included, so that "she who came yesterday" is at the margins
in modern English, a rather unusual construction,
even if perfectly grammatical.  As Trask points out,
"the she who came yesterday" is not grammatical.

On the other hand, Pat Ryan could also point out that in
"her book", the "her" stands also (in Trask's analysis I think also)
for the entire noun phrase modifying book in
(the woman who came yesterday's book),
and thus may be regarded as the genitive or possessive form
of the pronoun "she", in the contrast "she" vs. "her book",
just as "the woman who came yesterday's" is the genitive
form of the noun phrase "the woman who came yesterday".

That is all consistent in the standard analysis, I believe?

My point, as it has been for some time, is that
despite whatever Pat Ryan may or may not understand
of the type of distributional analysis represented by many of us,
his terminology was quite consistent and sensible,
and used an older tradition in the meaning of "pronoun",
a semantic-functional one.
He should not be beaten upon for that.
Even Trask's distributional usage might be criticized by a purist,
in that for him a "pronoun" does not stand for a "noun"
but rather for a noun phrase.  So we should all give up the term
"pronoun"?  I certainly don't advocate that, despite how
misleading it may be to some.

Larry Trask was kind enough to take the time to distinguish
semantic-functional senses from distributional senses,
but I think had not acknowledged that much of the discussion
was motivated not by a lack of knowledge on Pat Ryan's part,
but rather by Pat Ryan using "pronoun" in a semantic-functional
sense.  With different definitions, the discussion was bound
to be unfruitful.

So can we please stop trying to prove each other wrong,
and get back to discovering interesting things about the real world?

Lloyd Anderson
Ecological Linguistics

***

The following is a refinement, dealing with a more difficult
"edge" case.

Paul Postal (I think it was) many years ago argued that in
expressions like "we linguists" the "we" was the head of
the construction and the "linguists" was something like
an appositive (I don't remember the details just now).
I don't think this kind of construction is usefully laid
up against "those linguists", arguing the reverse of Postal's
position that "we" can be a determiner, because it is
understood as "we, who are linguists" (non-restrictive),
more than as a restrictive "those linguists who are we"
in the manner of "the house which is here" ~=~ "this house".

***