[Lingtyp] FW: Definition of “personal pronoun"

Fri Jul 9 07:01:26 UTC 2021

I wonder how often linguists (or worse, non-linguists) think that because a
term is used the term actually stands for something motivated (i.e. with
better than chance correlations between logically distinct properties). I
thought Spike's article
<https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingty-2020-2061/html>
critiquing Haspelmath adopted an interesting assumption in this regard.
Spike's emphasis on gradient categories being useful because they make
"reliable inferences" seems to assume that because linguists use a concept,
it is thereby theoretically meaningful and motivated. But I thought this
was missing the point of a lot of discussions/criticisms in linguistics by
Haspelmath *inter alia*, because we often wonder why we continue to use
terminology despite the fact that they seem to *increase *misunderstanding
(I think this is at least true of the term "phonological word", and I could
name quite a few others).

It seems that linguists continue to use a lot of traditional
terminology *despite
*the fact that no useful inferences can be made and *only *because they are
traditional or canonized (which is why these discussions seem necessary).
Or maybe the issue is that they are useful in very local contexts (specific
to a given language or language families), but outside that context the
clarity of the term becomes more and more tenuous.

best,

Adam

On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 1:57 AM Edith A Moravcsik <edith at uwm.edu> wrote:

>
>
> Dear All,
>
> I agree with Martin: in addition to serving as essential tools in
> individual grammars and in crosslinguistic comparisons, category labels
> also have a social function simply facilitating understanding in informal
> discussions. In such cases, it is useful if categories have definitions but
> these definitions do not have to be based on property clusters.
> Retrodefinitions simply need to fit in with historical tradition and
> general use.
>
>
> However, when categories are used in grammars and crosslinguistic studies,
> they do need to stand for clusters of properties to justify their use.
>
> Best,
>
> Edith Moravcsik
>
>
>
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Martin Haspelmath
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 08, 2021 11:10 AM
> *To:* list, typology <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Definition of “personal pronoun"
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> It is true that each language has its own categories (so we'll have
> different definitions for different languages), and that categories are
> generally set up in order to facilitate generalizations.
>
> But I don't think that that is their "sole raison d'être" – some
> comparative concepts exist because there are well-known terms that everyone
> uses. For example, everyone talks about "planets", so it's useful to have a
> precise astronomical definition (which was recently changed, so that it no
> longer includes Pluto). And everyone talks about "mountains", so some
> organizations have official definitions of what a mountain is (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain#Definition
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMountain%23Definition&data=04%7C01%7Cedith%40uwm.edu%7C64836daea2484f9038ba08d9422c9b05%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637613581647553799%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=4oPA2JOIJriu1f2OKi43Lbp3w1yjU65y8j0zJoYj0aA%3D&reserved=0>
> ).
>
> I would say that "personal pronoun" is similar – we use this term (as a
> general/comparative concept) all the time and hope that others understand
> us, and since linguistics is a technical context, it's not unreasonable to
> expect a precise definition of a term. There's no strong reason to think
> that "personal pronoun" corresponds to anything natural in the world, but
> it's still useful to have a clear definition (if only to make us aware that
> it's not a very natural concept).
>
> So I no longer think that a comparative concept *must* earn its status by
> leading to correlations. Some comparative concepts exist because we have
> well-known terms, and for these terms, the task is to provide
> *retro-definitions* that fit with as many of previous usages as possible (I
> talked about this in more detail in this paper:
> https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005489
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fling.auf.net%2Flingbuzz%2F005489&data=04%7C01%7Cedith%40uwm.edu%7C64836daea2484f9038ba08d9422c9b05%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637613581647563790%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=az1CQmc2rshhpzLz1%2B1pKb%2F2VLm2U1RtX4Nmfsv0iBk%3D&reserved=0>
> ).
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> Am 08.07.21 um 17:43 schrieb Edith A Moravcsik:
>
> Dear Paolo,
>
> Many thanks for your comments! It is reassuring for me to know that you
> agree with me.
>
> All the best,
>
> edith
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Paolo Ramat <paoram at unipv.it> <paoram at unipv.it>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 08, 2021 10:18 AM
> *To:* Edith A Moravcsik <edith at uwm.edu> <edith at uwm.edu>
> *Cc:* Martin Haspelmath <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>
> <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>; list, typology
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Definition of “personal pronoun"
>
>
>
> 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%7C64836daea2484f9038ba08d9422c9b05%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637613581647573786%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=r4o5ne9PsrRTMIx39QbCOPiJZl3gKySyQeW3GbO6%2FBQ%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%7C64836daea2484f9038ba08d9422c9b05%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637613581647573786%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=mNhxslgw%2Fuz1S69HrkBr1lUU0qK%2BJIdFuwfri%2B8kMOM%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%7C64836daea2484f9038ba08d9422c9b05%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637613581647583775%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=yqPnY%2BPrZsq%2BJVDjkU8hV%2F2bpzJMPShfJ6YVHHyyGDE%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%7C64836daea2484f9038ba08d9422c9b05%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637613581647593767%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=HfsWQE6Ewt8IHnFGxEEU4lIxL%2BOqKTQZ4Y73wROr6JM%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%7C64836daea2484f9038ba08d9422c9b05%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637613581647593767%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=HfsWQE6Ewt8IHnFGxEEU4lIxL%2BOqKTQZ4Y73wROr6JM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7C64836daea2484f9038ba08d9422c9b05%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637613581647603767%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=STSelATb4M2dEmwASafUGnGfhjun1J%2FA7OmrprtJbT8%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%7C64836daea2484f9038ba08d9422c9b05%7C0bca7ac3fcb64efd89eb6de97603cf21%7C0%7C0%7C637613581647613760%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=MQrmyRWQTxVT27PuxMlcrVl%2BcI3HzPQJpcMRBM6n2OM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>

-- 
Adam J.R. Tallman
Post-doctoral Researcher
Friedrich Schiller Universität
Department of English Studies
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210709/187704cc/attachment.htm>