[Lingtyp] Definition of “personal pronoun"

Thu Jul 8 15:17:45 UTC 2021

you don't miss anything , dear Edith. I have written on many occasions that
a definition is neither true nor false : it is on the contrary useful  or
useless to  understand the manifold varietes we are faced with when dealing
with languages.Pronominal personal  foms may have very  different origins ,
such as  Port. voce ( e with circumflex) which can be  used  with the 3rd
and (  particularly in Bresil) also with the 2nd  verbal  form. In spite
of  its  etymology, it fits the randomly properties conventionally  chosen
for the category 'personal pronoun'. This fitting confirms that the  random
choice has proved as useful.  Of course, the same can apply  to the Kor.
word for "brother", unless it shows peculiarities that do not fit with the
'random definition' we have adopted starting from an onomasiological point
of view.
Best , Paolo

Il Mer 7 Lug 2021, 19:18 Edith A Moravcsik <edith at uwm.edu> ha scritto:

> Do we need to formulate a single definition for personal pronouns for any
> one language? And, similarly, should we decide on the single definition of
> the comparative concept of personal pronouns for comparing languages?
>
>
>
> The sole raison d’ẽtre of a category is its usefulness in facilitating
> generalizations. If it turns out that a particular definition of personal
> pronouns in, say, Korean is useful for that language since it represents a
> cluster of properties, we may use the label “personal pronoun” for that
> cluster – or we may of course choose any other label. Personal pronouns
> defined in this way may also have properties in common with other things
> such as nouns – e.g. in Korean, the noun  ‘brother’ can also be used as a
> pronoun; and in many languages the plural of the third person pronoun
> follows the nominal pattern. This does not mean that we have to discard the
> original definition used for that language: we simply state the properties
> shared by other things.
>
> The same way, a comparative concept – i.e. a tool for crosslinguistic
> comparison – will earn its status by leading to correlations: that is,
> whether the particular definitional property chosen implies or implied by
> other properties. Just as in describing a single language we can start out
> with any definitions, the same way we can try comparing languages in terms
> of any concepts. We do not know ahead of inquiry what will work - this is
> an empirical question. There may be alternative comparative concepts within
> the same semantic domain each allowing for some correlates but not others.
>
>
>
> All in all, whether for analyzing individual languages or for comparing
> languages, the definition of a category or concept can be quite randomly
> chosen to begin with. Whether the definition stands or falls will be an
> empirical issue determined by the existence or non-existence of property
> clusters emerging from that definition.
>
> Is this correct? Or am I missing something?
>
> Edith Moravcsik
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Martin Haspelmath
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 07, 2021 6:13 AM
> *To:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Definition of “personal pronoun"
>
>
>
> Here's a new version of the definition that addresses Ian's point about
> Korean:
>
> "A personal pronoun is a form that (i) denotes a speech role
> (speaker/producer and/or hearer/comprehender) OR that is an anaphoric form
> which does not contain a noun AND (ii) that can be used in a complement
> clause coreferentially with a matrix clause argument."
>
> By saying "anaphoric form *that does not contain a noun*", we exclude the
> Korean case where 'brother' can be used coreferentially. Maybe one should
> add "ordinary noun" or "a noun that can be used indefinitely", because
> someone might claim, for example, that Spanish "usted" is still a noun
> (e.g. because it has the noun-like plural "usted-es").
>
> Guillaume Segerer remarked that "pronoun" implies that it is not a noun,
> but my proposed definition of "personal pronoun" does not say that a
> personal pronoun is "a kind of pronoun", because I don't know how to define
> "pronoun" (with such traditional terms, an extensional definition is often
> all we can give, e.g. "*pronoun* is a cover term for *personal pronoun*, *interrogative
> pronoun*, ...")
>
> Re Mira's point about deictic uses of 3rd-person personal pronouns: I
> would say that this is not definitional – if a 3rd-person form cannot be
> used anaphorically, it will not be called "personal pronoun". But of
> course, personal pronouns often have other uses as well in particular
> languages. Comparative concepts rarely map perfectly onto
> language-particular categories.
>
> Guillaume also mentions person indexes (which are often included in
> personal pronoun charts), and this led me to look again at what I said in
> my 2013 paper about person indexes: I distinguish between cross-indexes,
> gramm-indexes, and pro-indexes, and the latter are actually included in
> "pronoun" (contrasting with "free pronouns"). So I now say that "a personal
> pronoun is a form that..." (not "a personal pronoun is a free form
> that...").
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
>
> Am 06.07.21 um 20:48 schrieb Mira Ariel:
>
> But what about (not so common, but attested) deictic references
> (first-mention) to 3rd person using "personal pronouns"?
>
>
>
> Mira
>
>
>
> *From:* Lingtyp [mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>] *On Behalf Of *Martin
> Haspelmath
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 6, 2021 1:48 AM
> *To:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Definition of “personal pronoun"
>
>
>
> Maybe the following will work:
>
> "A personal pronoun is a free form that (i) denotes a speech role
> (speaker/producer and/or hearer/comprehender) OR that is used as an
> anaphoric form AND (ii) that can be used in a complement clause
> coreferentially with a matrix clause argument."
>
> This is a disjunctive definition that brings together locuphoric forms
> ('I', 'we', 'you') and 3rd-person anaphoric (or "endophoric") forms,
> following the Western tradition (but not following any kind of compelling
> logic).
>
> It seems that personal pronouns need to be delimited from three types of
> somewhat doubtful forms:
>
> – person indexes (I do not include bound forms under "personal pronoun"
> here, following my 2013 paper on person indexes:
> https://zenodo.org/record/1294059
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fzenodo.org%2Frecord%2F1294059&data=04%7C01%7Cedith%40uwm.edu%7Cfcf0475684e1463b39ba08d941382d63%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637612532579177572%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=RbFRPnwDeMNZBZ6rSsbcgAFVtnzCtCLFLvJhSRf2Meg%3D&reserved=0>
> )
> – demonstratives
> – titles like "Your Majesty"
>
> I think that if a language has a form like "that-one" or "your-majesty"
> that can be used coreferentially in a complement clause, one will regard it
> as a personal pronoun:
>
> (a) "My sister(i) thinks that that-one(i) has an answer."
> (b) "Does your-majesty(i) think that your-majesty(i) has an answer?"
>
> In German, the polite second-person pronoun "Sie" (which has Third-Person
> syntax) can be used in (b), but the demonstrative "die" can hardly be used
> in (a), so it would not count as a personal pronoun (yet). However, in
> Hindi-Urdu and Mongolian, as mentioned by Ian, the demonstrative can be
> used in this way (I think), so it would count as a personal pronoun.
>
> I don't think we need the general notion of "person" to define "personal
> pronoun". Wikipedia's current definition is therefore quite confusing (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_pronoun
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPersonal_pronoun&data=04%7C01%7Cedith%40uwm.edu%7Cfcf0475684e1463b39ba08d941382d63%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637612532579187566%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=dD%2BshVMYknV2PzXdBgWrIIAYTUuUtpRdjQcgGctDfco%3D&reserved=0>
> ).
>
> Thanks for this interesting challenge, Ian! It seems to me that quite a
> few of our traditional terms CAN be defined, but their definitions are not
> obvious at all (and the textbooks don't usually give the definitions).
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> Am 06.07.21 um 06:53 schrieb JOO, Ian [Student]:
>
> Dear typologists,
>
> I’m having a hard time trying to find a definition of a “personal pronoun”.
> One definition is that a personal pronoun refers to a literal person, a
> human being. But then again, non-human pronouns like English *it* are
> also frequently included as a personal pronoun.
> Another definition seems to be that “personal” refers to a grammatical
> person and not a literal person. Thus, *it* refers to the (non-human) 3rd
> person, therefore it is a personal pronoun.
> But then again, demonstratives, interrogative, and indefinite pronouns
> also refer to the 3rd person. (This *is* a book, who *is *that man,
> anything *is *possible) Then are they also personal pronouns?
> What’s the clearest definition of a personal pronoun, if any?
>
>
> From Hong Kong,
>
> Ian
>
>
> *Disclaimer:*
>
> *This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
> information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not
> the intended recipient, you should delete this message and notify the
> sender and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (the University)
> immediately. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or
> the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful.*
>
> *The University specifically denies any responsibility for the accuracy or
> quality of information obtained through University E-mail Facilities. Any
> views and opinions expressed are only those of the author(s) and do not
> necessarily represent those of the University and the University accepts no
> liability whatsoever for any losses or damages incurred or caused to any
> party as a result of the use of such information.*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Lingtyp mailing list
>
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=04%7C01%7Cedith%40uwm.edu%7Cfcf0475684e1463b39ba08d941382d63%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637612532579187566%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=H8oB0zqDHmOTOetiBLJTbR0QZV3i%2F6R5KvhC5MI8BYk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Martin Haspelmath
>
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
>
> Deutscher Platz 6
>
> D-04103 Leipzig
>
> https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522 <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.shh.mpg.de%2Femployees%2F42385%2F25522&data=04%7C01%7Cedith%40uwm.edu%7Cfcf0475684e1463b39ba08d941382d63%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637612532579197560%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=TK90tJ3oOqHQGUVMtDY7ylGIOPpqeFAjpPEkwfyb%2FKM%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Martin Haspelmath
>
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
>
> Deutscher Platz 6
>
> D-04103 Leipzig
>
> https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522 <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.shh.mpg.de%2Femployees%2F42385%2F25522&data=04%7C01%7Cedith%40uwm.edu%7Cfcf0475684e1463b39ba08d941382d63%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637612532579207553%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=XzWfv5vruYrbbr0%2FsD%2BDZE3dDmU3SQ4SLHkCg3FgyJA%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210708/c8560d7e/attachment.htm>