[Lingtyp] Definition of “personal pronoun"

[Chao Li]

So this discussion once again shows that different researchers use the same
linguistic term to mean different things. I personally see this as a
hindrance to linguistic progress. If we have to spend so much time and
energy and expend so many words and pages (and so much ink) to define the
terms used in the paper or book to avoid misunderstanding, it tells us that
something is missing or even wrong. For the linguistics science to advance
more quickly and rigorously, for better communication and collaboration
among linguists, and for better crosslinguistic and typological studies, I
personally think that Martin's suggestion of a terminology committee in
earlier communications is important and definitely worth more
sufficient consideration by the linguistic community. As a committee,
obviously any definition of a linguistic term requires discussion, debate,
and some consensus. As a committee, it can be very inclusive and have
members from different subfields and from different areas.

Back to pronouns and personal pronouns, I'm not sure about other
colleagues' judgments but I feel that most publications use pronouns to
mean a class of words and to refer to words (and free forms) only and I
certainly welcome corrections.

Best regards,
Chao

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 8:20 AM Daniel W. Hieber <dwhieb at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Ian,
>
> I think it would be worthwhile to also consider the definition of pronouns
> advanced in Andrej Kibrik's excellent *Reference in discourse*. Some
> relevant quotes are below. Note that Kibrik is here using *pronoun* to
> mean primarily *personal pronoun* (p. 121).
>
> "[...] the term 'pronoun' implies only three things. First, a pronoun is a
> referential device, directly coding referents. Second, it is a reduced
> referential device, that is, it does not have lexical content. Third,
> pronouns are *overt* devices, and so are opposed to zero reference." (p.
> 121; empahsis in the original)
>
> Kibrik also notes that there are other types of items which sometimes
> share the function of personal pronouns, but should not themselves be
> considered personal pronouns:
>
> Linguistic elements that can be characterized as overt reduced referential
> devices most typically coincide with what are traditionally known as
> personal pronouns. In the context of referential choice between full and
> reduced referential devices, most often these are third person pronouns.
> English is a typical example of a language that uses third person pronouns
> when a reduced referential device is needed. However, in this kind of
> language other reduced devices may be used, such as demonstratives.
> Furthermore, not all languages have dedicated third person pronouns: some
> languages employ overt reduced referential devices that fall out of the
> scope of what traditionally counts as third person pronouns. Several kinds
> of linguistic elements that belong to other pronoun types or even different
> lexico-grammatical classes may effectively function in discourse as
> *analogues* of third person pronouns. Such analogues can be thought of as
> marginal overt reduced referential devices.
>
> Among these, the most salient ones are: demonstratives, classifiers, and
> social status nouns. All of these devices are distinct from personal
> pronouns, in particular because they do not contain the category of person.
> [...] However, in certain languages that lack genuine third person pronouns
> these devices play the pronominal role. (p. 124; emphasis in the original)
>
> Kibrik also helpfully distinguishes between *strong* vs. *weak* pronouns,
> where strong pronouns are prosodically and pragmatically marked, and weak
> pronouns are prosodically reduced and/or dependent. Weak pronouns are
> functionally analogous to bound pronouns (p. 92).
>
> Hope that's helpful!
>
> Danny
>
> *References*
>
>    - Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. *Reference in discourse*. Oxford University
>    Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001
>    <https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001>.
>
>
> Daniel W. Hieber, Ph.D.
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> University of Alberta Language Technology Lab (ALTLab)
> danielhieber.com <http://www.danielhieber.com>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> JOO, Ian [Student] <ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 5, 2021 11:53 PM
> *To:* LINGTYP <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject:* [Lingtyp] Definition of “personal pronoun"
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210711/766e10d6/attachment.htm>