Lecture 6 The Pronoun

Semantically, pronouns are words denoting substances qualities, quantities, circumstances, etc. not by naming or describing them, but by indicating them.

1. Thus, pronouns can be defined as words whose meaning are very stable, but whose references in speech are particular, variable and relative with to the speaker and the situation of speech.

2. Other scholars are of different opinions, speaking of the relative meaning of pronouns. We share the opinion that the pronoun has a categorial meaning that of deixis (indication).

Morphologically some pronouns have characteristics the nouns have:

Case: There is a contrast between subjective and objective cases for personal, possessive, interrogative pronoun., genitive case for reciprocal, defining, interrogative, indefinite pronouns: pronouns: 1. personal pronouns: she/her, I/me, he/him, we/us and etc. 2. possesive pronouns: my, his, her, our, it, their (genitive case), 3.interrogative pronouns: who/whom, whose, etc. 4. reciprocal pronouns: each other/each other's (genitive case). 5.defining pronouns: everybody/everybody's, other/other's (genitive case). 6. indefinite pronouns; one/one's, somebody/somebody's and etc. (genitive case)

Person: There is a contrast between 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd persons for personal, possessive, reflexive pronouns.

Gender distinctions are largely restricted to 3^rd person singular pronouns of the categories of personal, possessive, and reflexive pronouns - female (she, her, herself), male (he, his, himself). There are overt grammatical contrasts between (1) personal gender, and between (2) masculine and feminine gender.

Number: There are morphologically unrelated as in personal, possessive, reflexive demonstrate (this/these, that/those), defining (other/others) pronouns:

1. Singular: I, he, she, it, my, his, her, it, myself, herself, himself, itself, yourself, this, that, other.

2. Plural: we, they, our, their, ourselves, themselves, yourselves, these, those, others.

Syntactically most pronouns function like noun phrases rather than nouns.

The form me can occasionally be found in the function of subject, provided it does not immediately precede the predicate verb, as in the sentence: That’s the law of the state, Ham, and there’s nothing me or can do about it. (B.CAIDWBLL). The form me could not have been used here if there had not been the second subject you in the sentence. This confirms the view that stress plays an important part in determining the use of I or me in such conditions. The form her as subject is found, for instance, in the following sentence from a short story by the same author. Lujean's the likable kind. You and her will get along just fine before you know it. (E.CALDWELL). It should be noted, however, that the form her is .possible here because it is part of group you and her, and therefore gets some sentence-stress. If a feminine pronoun were to be the only subject of the sentence, the form would have to be she, no matter what the style of the sentence was.

Opinions on the precise stylistic coloring of such sentences different to some extent. What seems certain here is that the nominative forms I, he, etc. are being gradually restricted to the function of subject, whereas the objective case forms me, him, etc., are taking over all other functions. This process seems to have gone further with the 1^st person singular pronoun than with the others; the reason for this is not yet clear. It is the isolated position of this case system in the language which must be held responsible for the change. The distinction between/, he, she, we, they, on the one hand, and me, him, her, us, them, on the other, is thus changed from a case distinction to one of different character — that of unstressed and stressed forms of pronouns. This is similar to the process which has long since been completed in the French language (and in other Romance language, such as Italian, or Spanish ), where the original nominative form (e.g. French je, from Latin ego) has been restricted to the function of subject of the sentence, whereas the original objective case form (e.g. French moi, from Latin me) has taken over its other functions, mainly that of predicative. Cp. Jes uis ici 'I am here' and C' est moi it is me; II est ici ‘he is here' and Cest lui 'it is he (him)’. The development Modem English seems to be following the same lines, on the whole but it does differ from the French in so far as the use of / as a predicative is still quite possible, whereas in French that possibility is completely lost for the forms je, tu, etc. Here is a curious example from a modern play by S. Taylor:

Maude (suspecting). Is there someone you want to (Sabrina nods)

Who is it?

Sabrina (turning to Linus), Him!

Linis. For God's sake, Sabrina, watch your grammar. Sabrina. It is he!

With the pronoun who the development is partly similar, and partly different. It is similar in the main point: the case different between who and whom is quite obviously disappearing. But here it is the original objective case form that is giving way, and it is no longer preserved in any specific syntactic function. Thus, the sentence whom did you see? is being superseded by the variant, who did you see?, and, similarly, who tends to take the place of whom in such sentences as, This is the man who(m) you wanted to see. Examples of this use are found as early as in Shakespeare, for instance Between who? ("Hamlet"), and also occur in the 18^th century, for instance in a novel by Jane Austen in a conversation between speakers: But who are you looking for? Are your sisters coming? an example from a modern play: Who were you private secretary. (TAYLOR)

E Sapir has devoted several pages of his book on language to a detailed discussion of all factors contributing to the instead of whom in such contexts. Be that as it may, the gradual elimination of the objective form whom is beyond dought.

Thus the general tendency is clearly disappearance of the opposition between nominative and pronouns.

NUMBER

It ought to be emphasized that what we mean here is the grammatical category of number, and the question is, in what pronouns and to what extent that category is actually found.

It will be easily seen that the category of number has only a very restricted field in pronouns. It is found in the pronouns this/ these, that/ those, other/others (if not used before a noun). We need not dwell here on the very peculiar means which are used to form the plural of this and of that. The question is one of the history of English, rather than of Modern English structure. We can limit ourselves to the statements that the method by which each of the two words forms its plural is quite individual and unanalysable from the viewpoint of the modern language.

As to the pronouns /I, we, he, she, it, they, it must be stated that there is no grammatical category of number here. We is not a form of the pronoun /, but a separate word in its own right. In a similar way, they is not a form of he, or she, or it, or of all of them, but a separate word.

There is no grammatical category of number either in the pronouns my I our; his, her, its/ their, and mine/ ours; his, hers/theirs. E.g., her and there are different words, not different words, not different forms of one word.

A peculiar difficulty arises here with reference to the pronouns myself/ourself/ ourselves; yourself/yourselves; himself, herself, itself/ themselves.

If we compare the two pronouns myself and ourselves, we shall see at once

that the difference between the first elements of the two words is purely lexical (just as in the corresponding words my and our), whereas the second elements differ from each other by the same suffix -s that is used to form the plural of most nouns. Thus we are brought to the conclusion that ourselves is essentially a different from myself.

There are no other grammatical categories in the English pronouns: there is no category of gender. The pronouns he, she, it., and also the pronouns his, her its; his, hers; himself, herself, itself are all separate words. Thus, she is not a form of the word he but a word in its own right.

DISTINCTION OF TYPES OF PRONOUNS

There are many examples in English pronouns of the same phonetic unit used to express different meanings in different contexts. So the question arises whether this is a case of polysemy, that is different meanings of the same word, or of homonymy, that is, different words sounding alike. We may state the following cases in point: that demonstrative and that relative; who interrogative and who relative; which interrogative and which relative; myself (and the other self-pronouns) reflexive, and the same pronouns intensive (non-reflexive).

That seems to be the easiest of the problems to settle, as we can apply the test of the plural form here. The demonstrative that has a plural form those, whereas the relative that remains unchanged in th? plural.

It is obvious that which remains unchanged in the plural cannot be the same word as the that which has the plural form those. So we arrive at the conclusion that there are two different pronouns: that (relative) and that / those (demonstrative, parallel to this).

With the other pronouns mentioned above no criterion of this kind can be applied, as they, none of them, have any special plural form. So, if that question is to be solved at all, we shall have to look for criteria of a different kind, which may not prove so decisive as the one we applied in the case of that.

We shall have to rely on meaning and syntactical function. It is not hard to distinguish between the interrogative and the relative meaning in the pronouns who, what, and which. It is also evident that the relative who, what, and which can introduce subordinate clauses. However, it is not so easy to say whether the pronoun what is interrogative or relative in a sentence like the following: I know what you mean. On the one hand the meaning of the pronoun what seems to be the same as in the sentence I know what has happened (a so-called indirect question), where it is obviously interrogative. On the other hand, it can hardly be denied that what may be taken here as equivalent to that which and as connecting the subordinate clause with the main clause. Since no clear distinction can be established, it seems stifled to separate the two and to say that they are homonyms. More or less similar considerations apply to the other cases enumerated on page 70. We will therefore speak of "the pronoun himself etc., without distinguishing "the reflexive pronoun himself and "the emphatic pronoun himself.

LIMITS OF THE PRONOUN CLASS

The limits of the pronoun class are somewhat difficult to define. That is, there are words which have some pronominal features, without being full pronouns, or, even, have other features which are not pronominal at all. We may take the word many as a case in point.

Many is in several respects similar in meaning and function to the pronouns some and several of some children, some of the children, some of them; several children, several of the children, several of them; many children, many of the children, many of them.

In this respect many differs from adjectives, which of course cannot be followed by the group “of + noun or pronoun”. That would favour the view that many belongs to the pronoun class. On the other hand, however, many has an important characteristic which separates it from pronouns and brings it together with adjectives; it has degrees of comparison: more, (the) most. No pronoun has degrees of comparison, more, (the) most. No pronoun has degrees of comparison and indeed the pronouns some and several, which stand so close to many in other respects, cannot form such degrees. So, in determining the part of speech to which many belongs we have to decide which of its characteristics is more essential, unless we prefer to state that many, few, much and little are hybrids, partaking both of pronouns and of adjectives. Since the choice of the more essential feature remains somewhat arbitrary, the conclusion on the word many may be affected by it. If, for example, we decide that the morphological feature is more essential, we will say that many is an adjective, but we shall have to add that it shares some vital syntactical features with pronouns.

Another case in point is the word certain. When used as predicative it is of course an adjective, as in the sentence, We were quite certain of the fact. Things are different, however, when certain is used as an attribute standing before a noun and has a meaning much the same as attribute standing before a noun and has a meaning much the same as some, e. g. There are certain indications that this is true, or, A certain Mr. Brown wants to see you. The question arises, is this the same word, the adjective certain as in the first sentence, or is it a pronoun? Here, too, we should apply some objective tests. One of the peculiarities of the word is that it can be preceded by the indefinite article, which generally is not the case with pronouns. We must also find out whether certain can be followed by the group "of + noun or

pronoun". If no such examples are met with, we shall have to conclude that there are no sufficient reasons to class certain with the pronouns, in spite of the peculiar meaning it has in such sentences.

Other problems of this kind would have to be treated along similar lines.