Pronoun versus pro-form Pronoun is a category of words. A
pro-form is a type of
function word or expression that stands in for (expresses the same content as) another
word,
phrase,
clause or
sentence where the
meaning is recoverable from the context. In English, pronouns mostly function as pro-forms, but there are pronouns that are not pro-forms and pro-forms that are not pronouns. Examples [1 & 2] are pronouns and pro-forms. In [1], the pronoun
it "stands in" for whatever was mentioned and is a good idea. In [2], the
relative pronoun who stands in for "the people". Examples [3 & 4] are pronouns but not pro-forms. In [3], the
interrogative pronoun who does not stand in for anything. Similarly, in [4],
it is a
dummy pronoun, one that does not stand in for anything. No other word can function there with the same meaning; we do not say "the sky is raining" or "the weather is raining". A prop-word is a word with little or no semantic content used where grammar dictates a certain sentence member, e.g., to provide a "support" on which to hang a modifier. The word most commonly considered as a prop-word in English is
one (with the plural form
ones). The prop-word
one takes the place of a countable noun in a noun phrase (or determiner phrase), normally in a context where it is clear which noun it is replacing. For example, in a context in which hats are being talked about,
the red one means "the red hat", and
the ones we bought means "the hats we bought". The prop-word thus functions somewhat similarly to a pronoun, except that a pronoun usually takes the place of a whole noun (determiner) phrase (for example, "the red hat" may be replaced by the pronoun "it".) Finally, in [5 & 6], there are pro-forms that are not pronouns. In [5],
did so is a
verb phrase that stands in for "helped" (a
pro-verb), inflected from
to help stated earlier in the sentence. Similarly, in [6],
others is a
common noun, not a pronoun, but
the others probably stands in for the names of other people involved (e.g.,
Sho, Alana, and Ali), all
proper nouns.
Grammar Pronouns () are listed as one of
eight parts of speech in
The Art of Grammar, a treatise on Greek grammar attributed to
Dionysius Thrax and dating from the 2nd century BC. The pronoun is described there as "a part of speech substitutable for a noun and marked for a person." Pronouns continued to be regarded as a part of speech in
Latin grammar (the Latin term being , from which the English name—through
Middle French—ultimately derives), and thus in the European tradition generally. Because of the many different syntactic roles that they play, pronouns are less likely to be a single
word class in more modern approaches to grammar.
Linguistics Linguists in particular have trouble classifying pronouns in a single category, and some do not agree that pronouns substitute nouns or noun categories. (Such patterning can even be claimed for certain personal pronouns; for example,
we and
you might be analyzed as determiners in phrases like
we Brits and
you tennis players.) Other linguists have taken a similar view, uniting pronouns and determiners into a single class, sometimes called "determiner-pronoun", or regarding determiners as a subclass of pronouns or vice versa. The distinction may be considered to be one of
subcategorization or
valency, rather like the distinction between
transitive and intransitive verbs—determiners take a noun phrase
complement like transitive verbs do, while pronouns do not. This is consistent with the
determiner phrase viewpoint, whereby a determiner, rather than the noun that follows it, is taken to be the
head of the phrase. Cross-linguistically, it seems as though pronouns share 3 distinct categories: point of view, person, and number. The breadth of each subcategory however tends to differ among languages.
Binding theory and antecedents The use of pronouns often involves
anaphora, where the meaning of the pronoun is dependent on another referential element. The
referent of the pronoun is often the same as that of a preceding (or sometimes following) noun phrase, called the
antecedent of the pronoun. The grammatical behavior of certain types of pronouns, and in particular their possible relationship with their antecedents, has been the focus of studies in
binding, notably in the Chomskyan
government and binding theory. In this binding context, reflexive and reciprocal pronouns in English (such as
himself and
each other) are referred to as
anaphors (in a specialized restricted sense) rather than as pronominal elements. Under binding theory, specific principles apply to different sets of pronouns. In English, reflexive and reciprocal pronouns must adhere to
Principle A: an anaphor (reflexive or reciprocal, such as "each other") must be bound in its governing category (roughly, the clause). Therefore, in syntactic structure it must be lower in structure (it must have an
antecedent) and have a direct relationship with its referent. This is called a
C-command relationship. For instance, we see that
John cut himself is grammatical, but
Himself cut John is not, despite having identical arguments, since
himself, the reflexive, must be lower in structure to John, its referent. Additionally, we see examples like
John said that Mary cut himself are not grammatical because there is an intermediary noun,
Mary, that disallows the two referents from having a direct relationship. On the other hand, personal pronouns (such as
him or
them) must adhere to
Principle B: a pronoun must be free (i.e., not bound) within its governing category (roughly, the clause). This means that although the pronouns can have a referent, they cannot have a direct relationship with the referent where the referent selects the pronoun. For instance,
John said Mary cut him is grammatical because the two co-referents,
John and
him are separated structurally by
Mary. This is why a sentence like
John cut him where
him refers to
John is ungrammatical.
Binding cross-linguistically The type of binding that applies to subsets of pronouns varies cross-linguistically. For instance, in German linguistics, pronouns can be split into two distinct categories—personal pronouns and d-pronouns. Although personal pronouns act identically to English personal pronouns (i.e. follow Principle B), d-pronouns follow yet another principle, Principle C, and function similarly to nouns in that they cannot have a direct relationship to an antecedent.
Antecedents The following sentences give examples of particular types of pronouns used with antecedents: • Third-person personal pronouns: •
That poor man looks as if he needs a new coat. (the noun phrase
that poor man is the antecedent of
he) •
Julia arrived yesterday. I met her at the station. (
Julia is the antecedent of
her) •
When they saw us, the lions began roaring (
the lions is the antecedent of
they; as it comes after the pronoun it may be called a
postcedent) • Other personal pronouns in some circumstances: •
Terry and I were hoping no one would find us. (
Terry and I is the antecedent of
us) •
You and Alice can come if you like. (
you and Alice is the antecedent of the second—plural—
you) • Reflexive and reciprocal pronouns: •
Jack hurt himself. (
Jack is the antecedent of
himself) •
We were teasing each other. (
we is the antecedent of
each other) • Relative pronouns: •
The woman who looked at you is my sister. (
the woman is the antecedent of
who) Some other types, such as
indefinite pronouns, are usually used without antecedents. Relative pronouns are used without antecedents in
free relative clauses. Even third-person personal pronouns are sometimes used without antecedents ("unprecursed")—this applies to special uses such as
dummy pronouns and
generic they, as well as cases where the referent is implied by the context. == English pronouns ==