Editing Pronoun (section)

== Theory ==

=== 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 (linguistics)|sentence]] where the [[Meaning (linguistics)|meaning]] is recoverable from the context.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Crystal|first1=David|title=A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics|date=1985|publisher=Basil Blackwell|edition=2nd}}</ref> In English, pronouns mostly function as pro-forms, but there are pronouns that are not pro-forms and pro-forms that are not pronouns.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Huddleston|first1=Rodney|title=Cambridge grammar of the English Language|last2=Pullum|first2=Geoffrey K.|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2002|location=Cambridge}}</ref><sup>[p.&nbsp;239]</sup>
{| class="wikitable"
|+Pronouns versus Pro-forms
!
!Example
!Pronoun
!Pro-form
|-
|1
|''<u>It</u> is a good idea''.
|✓
|✓
|-
|2
|''I know the people <u>who</u> work there.'' 
|✓
|✓
|-
|3
|''<u>Who</u> works there?''
|✓
|
|-
|4
|''<u>It</u> is raining''.
|✓
|
|-
|5
|''I asked her to help, and she <u>did so</u> right away.'' 
|
|✓
|-
|6
|''JJ and Petra helped, but <u>the others</u> didn't.''
|
|✓
|}
Examples [1 & 2] are pronouns and pro-forms. In [1], the pronoun ''[[It (pronoun)|it]]'' "stands in" for whatever was mentioned and is a good idea. In [2], the [[relative pronoun]] ''[[Who (pronoun)|who]]'' stands in for "the people".

Examples [3 & 4] are pronouns but not pro-forms. In [3], the [[Interrogative word|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 [[Proper and common nouns|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 noun]]s.

=== Grammar ===
Pronouns ({{Lang|grc-Latn|antōnymía}}) are listed as one of [[Part of speech#Western tradition|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 {{lang|la|pronomen}}, 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.<ref>For example, Vulf Plotkin (''The Language System of English'', Universal Publishers, 2006, pp. 82–83) writes: "[...] Pronouns exemplify such a word class, or rather several smaller classes united by an important semantic distinction between them and all the major parts of speech. The latter denote things, phenomena and their properties in the ambient world. [...] Pronouns, on the contrary, do not denote anything, but refer to things, phenomena or properties without involving their peculiar nature."</ref>

=== Linguistics ===
[[File:Our as a pronoun or determiner.png|left|thumb|150x150px|Examples of "our" as a determiner or a noun]]
Linguists in particular have trouble classifying pronouns in a single category, and some do not agree that pronouns substitute nouns or noun categories.<ref name="Bhat" /> Certain types of pronouns are often identical or similar in form to [[determiner (class)|determiner]]s with related meaning; some English examples are given in the table.

{| class="wikitable floatright" border="1" style="text-align:center"
! !! Pronoun !! Determiner
|-
! [[Possessive]]
| ''ours'' || ''our'' freedom
|-
! Demonstrative
| ''this'' || ''this'' gentleman
|-
! Indefinite
| ''some'' || ''some'' frogs
|-
! Negative
| ''none'' || ''no'' information
|-
! Interrogative
| ''which'' || ''which'' option
|}
This observation has led some linguists, such as [[Paul Postal]], to regard pronouns as determiners that have had their following noun or noun phrase deleted.<ref name="Postal">{{Cite journal|last=Postal|first=Paul|year=1966|editor-last=Dinneen|editor-first=Francis P.|title=On So-Called "Pronouns" in English|journal=Report of the Seventeenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies|publisher=Georgetown University Press|pages=177–206|place=Washington, D.C.}}</ref> (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 (linguistics)|valency]], rather like the distinction between [[transitivity (grammar)|transitive and intransitive]] verbs – determiners take a noun phrase [[complement (grammar)|complement]] like transitive verbs do, while pronouns do not.<ref>For detailed discussion see George D. Morley, ''Explorations in Functional Syntax: A New Framework for Lexicogrammatical Analysis'', Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2004, pp. 68–73.</ref> This is consistent with the [[determiner phrase]] viewpoint, whereby a determiner, rather than the noun that follows it, is taken to be the [[head (linguistics)|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.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Pronouns - Grammar and Representation|last1=Simon|first1=Horst J.|last2=Wiese|first2=Heike|publisher=Linguistics Today|year=2002|isbn=9789027227737|pages=190}}</ref>

==== Binding theory and antecedents ====
The use of pronouns often involves [[anaphora (linguistics)|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 (grammar)|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 (linguistics)|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 [[anaphor]]s (in a specialized restricted sense) rather than as pronominal elements. Under binding theory, specific principles apply to different sets of pronouns. 
[[File:Reflexive.png|left|thumb|198x198px|Example reflexive structure. Since "himself" is immediately dominated by "John", Principle A is satisfied.]]

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 (grammar)|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.
[[File:Pronoun.png|thumb|204x204px|Example pronoun structure. Since "him" is immediately dominated by "John", Principle B is violated.]]

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 =====
{{Context|section|date=July 2020|reason=There is unexplained jargon ("d-pronoun") and no examples are given.}}
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.<ref name=":0" />

===== 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 pronoun]]s, are usually used without antecedents. Relative pronouns are used without antecedents in [[free relative clause]]s. Even third-person personal pronouns are sometimes used without antecedents ("unprecursed") – this applies to special uses such as [[dummy pronoun]]s and [[generic they|generic ''they'']], as well as cases where the referent is implied by the context.