[Lingtyp] Definition of "personal pronoun"
Sebastian Löbner
loebner at hhu.de
Sun Jul 11 23:35:33 UTC 2021
Hi everybody,
I would like to propose an essentially semantic definition of "personal
pronouns", which I hope reflects a more or less uncontroversial view and
may help to clarify some of the questions that came up in the
discussion. I'm not a typologist, though; the most exotic language I
know well is Japanese.
1. Personal pronouns are NPs, not pro-Ns
2. They are definite (they are individual concepts according to my
theory of concept types, JoS 2011)
3. They are restricted to minimal sortal content, such as 'male' or
'female' either in the sense of sex or of grammatical gender.
4. If they have singular reference, the reference can be fixed to the
producer or the addressee of the utterance.
5. If they have plural reference, more complex definitions are in need
for variants of 'we', plural 'you'/'ihr', 'they', duals etc.
5. They may in addition carry social meaning, in particular concerning
the social relationship between the producer and the referent of the
pronoun.
6. The restriction on the sortal content also holds for 3rd person
pronouns. Since 1st or 2nd person reference is ruled out for 3rd person
pronouns, they may lack any further content except for grammatical
gender or noun class. If grammatically possible, their meaning may
consist in just being a definite NP. As with all (pragmatically)
definite NPs, their reference would be construed from the context.
These restrictions, I think, solve some of the problems that came up in
he discussion:
- The distinction of personal pronouns from ordinary lexical NPs.
- The distinction of personal pronouns from demontratives in NP
function: Demonstratives may denote things related to producer or
addressee, but never refer to the interlocutors themselves.
- The distinction of personal pronouns from possessive pronouns: These
are probably also universally inherently definite NPs (if used as NPs
rather than as determiners), but refer to something that is /in relation
to/ what the corresponding personal pronoun refers to.
- Since personal pronouns are full NPs and individual concepts, they
cannot take restrictive attributes such as attributive adjectives.
Restrictive attributes combine with sortal concepts only.
Best regards, Sebastian Löbner
Am 09.07.2021 um 18:00 schrieb lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org:
> Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Definition of “personal pronoun" (Sebastian Nordhoff)
> 2. Re: Definition of “personal pronoun" (Martin Haspelmath)
> 3. Re: Definition of “personal pronoun" (Riccardo Giomi)
> 4. Re: Definition of “personal pronoun" (Don Killian)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:29:47 +0200
> From: Sebastian Nordhoff<sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de>
> To:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Definition of “personal pronoun"
> Message-ID:<bb142fe0-8e28-5376-8450-1be735a16b61 at glottotopia.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> 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
>
>
> On 7/8/21 5:17 PM, Paolo Ramat wrote:
>> 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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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>
>> *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
>> <mailto: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>
>> *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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 14:57:27 +0200
> From: Martin Haspelmath<martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>
> To:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Definition of “personal pronoun"
> Message-ID:<3cf1cc65-e9f5-939f-cb06-8f590789c06d at eva.mpg.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> 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>> *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>
>> *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
>> <mailto: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>
>> *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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20210712/34a0fa9f/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list