[Lingtyp] Definition of “personal pronoun"
Don Killian
donald.killian at helsinki.fi
Fri Jul 9 15:09:56 UTC 2021
Dear Riccardo,
I'm not entirely sure either, but that's also the term Bhat uses in his book "Pronouns", which also devotes a fair amount of text on answering a lot of the questions people have been bringing up here.
It's not a perfect book, but what is? I personally found it very good at highlighting the differences between personal pronouns and proforms for instance, amongst others, delving into cross-linguistic semantic and morphosyntactic variation.
I highly recommend it to those who haven't read it or are unaware of its existence, as it might answer some of the questions brought up. Bhat does an excellent job trying to answer the question of "What is a pronoun?" and it's a shame the book didn't get more recognition.
Best,
Don
On July 9, 2021 4:55:40 PM GMT+03:00, Riccardo Giomi <rgiomi at campus.ul.pt> wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>This is my first ever post in this discussion list, so first of all, hi
>everyone!
>
>Just a quick reaction to Martin's note that
>
>*(iv) “Pronouns” are often taken to be “noun-like” (because of the
>etymology of “pro-noun”), but I include interrogative adverbs like
>“when”
>and demonstrative adverbs like “there” (following widespread usage,
>also in
>my 1997 book “Indefinite pronouns”).*
>
>
>In Functional Discourse Grammar (a typologically-based model of grammar
>developed by Kees Hengeveld and Lachlan Mackenzie), the general term
>*proform* is used which encompasses pronouns as well as (i)
>"pro-adverbs"
>(in their interrogative, demonstrative or relative uses) like
>*here/there/where
>*for places*, when/then* for time intervals, *how/so* for manners,
>etc.,
>(ii) "pro-adjectives" like English *such* or Romance *tal/tel/tale* and
>(iii) "pro-verbs" like *do *and *do so*. I am not sure how new the term
>proform actually is, but as far as I can tell it is not very common
>outside
>this specific framework; however, I think it can indeed be very useful
>as a
>typologically neutral, functional "super-category" -- whose members of
>course have further subdistinctions which vary across languages, as has
>been mentioned before for personal pronouns.
>
>
>Best,
>
>Riccardo
>
>
>
>
>Martin Haspelmath <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de> escreveu no dia sexta,
>9/07/2021 à(s) 14:59:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> It’s actually very tricky to (retro-)define “pronoun” and related
>terms in
>> such a way that the definition corresponds to a large extent to the
>legacy
>> uses. Below I propose some definitions of ten terms that are widely
>taken
>> for granted. Can they be improved on? Four possible issues:
>>
>>
>>
>> (i) There is no definition of the general term “pronoun” – I wouldn’t
>know
>> how to define it, other than by saying that the class comprises
>personal,
>> demonstrative, interrogative and indefinite pronouns.
>>
>>
>>
>> (ii) Sebastian is right that people often use “pronoun” elliptically
>to
>> mean “personal pronoun”, but I find this usage confusing.
>>
>>
>>
>> (iii) Possessive pronouns are sometimes taken to be on a par with
>personal
>> pronouns (especially in the well-known Indo-European languages), but
>I
>> think they are best thought of as a special subtype of personal
>pronouns.
>>
>>
>>
>> (iv) “Pronouns” are often taken to be “noun-like” (because of the
>> etymology of “pro-noun”), but I include interrogative adverbs like
>“when”
>> and demonstrative adverbs like “there” (following widespread usage,
>also in
>> my 1997 book “Indefinite pronouns”).
>>
>> Best,
>> Martin
>>
>> Am 09.07.21 um 11:29 schrieb Sebastian Nordhoff:
>>
>> Dear all,
>> I think it is useful to have a look at the context in which "personal
>> pronoun" is used. There is an opposition to "possessive pronoun",
>> "reflexive pronoun" etc. So "personal pronoun" is the kind of pronoun
>> which is not possessive, which is not reflexive and so on.
>>
>> If only "pronoun" is used, without further qualification, normally
>> "personal pronoun" is intended. If someone says "The pronouns of
>> language X and language Y are similar", the standard interpretation
>> would be that this refers to personal pronouns, rather than to
>reflexive
>> pronouns or the like.
>>
>> Sometimes it is important to clearly state that you are not
>interested
>> in possessive/reflexive/interrogative pronouns. In those cases
>"personal
>> pronoun" is used. I see this as a shorthand for "subject/object
>pronoun".
>>
>> Obviously, there are languages with very neat 2x3 paradigms, and
>there
>> are languages where the paradigms are fuzzy at the edges and you get
>kin
>> terms for reference and various politeness effects.
>>
>> If one sees "personal pronoun" as "subject/object pronoun", the
>question
>> of whether a given form (eg in Korean) is actually third person
>becomes
>> moot.
>>
>> So, the fact that we call a certain set of items "personal pronouns"
>is
>> probably due to a) opposition to other categories and b) tradition.
>It
>> should not be taken to imply that the category of "person" plays any
>> role in there. (After all, possessive pronouns also encode person,
>but
>> AFAICS they are normally not considered personal pronouns).
>> Best wishes
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>> *11 proposed definitions*
>>
>>
>>
>> A *possessive pronoun *(or adpossessive pronoun) is a personal
>pronoun
>> that is used in adnominal possessive function.
>>
>>
>>
>> A *personal pronoun* is (i) a locuphoric form or (ii) an anaphoric
>form
>> that is not a noun and that can be used in a complement clause
>> coreferentially with a matrix argument.
>>
>>
>>
>> A locuphoric form (= a locuphor) is a form that denotes the
>> speaker/producer or the hearer/comprehender speech role.
>>
>>
>>
>> An *anaphoric form *(or anaphoric pronoun) is a form that is
>primarily
>> used for anaphoric reference.
>>
>>
>>
>> A *demonstrative (form)* is a form that can be used to direct the
>> interlocutors’ joint focus of attention to entities in the discourse
>> situation.
>>
>>
>>
>> A *demonstrative determiner* is a demonstrative that fulfills its
>> function by occurring next to a noun in a nominal expression.
>>
>>
>>
>> A *demonstrative pronoun* is a demonstrative that forms a nominal or
>> adverbial expression by itself without a noun.
>>
>>
>>
>> An *interrogative (form)* is a form that can be used to specify the
>open
>> parameter in a constituent question.
>>
>>
>>
>> An *interrogative determiner* is an interrogative that fulfills its
>> function by occurring next to a noun in a nominal expression.
>>
>>
>>
>> An *interrogative pronoun *is an interrogative that forms a nominal
>or
>> adverbial expression by itself without a noun.
>>
>>
>>
>> A *reflexive pronoun *is an anaphoric form that signals coreference
>with
>> an antecedent in the same clause and that forms a nominal by itself
>(cf.
>> Haspelmath 2021).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> *From:*Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> <mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>
><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
>> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
><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 3^rd person using "personal pronouns"?____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> Mira____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> *From:*Lingtyp
>[mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org
><lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> <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
>> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
><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>
><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>
><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
><mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
><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>
><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>
><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>
><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
>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
><Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
><http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing
>listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing
>listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin Haspelmath
>> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
>> Deutscher Platz 6
>> D-04103 Leipzighttps://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>
>
>--
>Riccardo Giomi, Ph.D.
>Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa (FLUL)
>Departamento de Linguística Geral e Românica (DLGR)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210709/5cec8994/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list