Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:08:30.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the genesis of personal pronouns: Some conceptual sources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Bernd Heine  and
Kyung-An Song
Bernd Heine
Affiliation:
University of Cologneand Chonnam National University
Kyung-An Song*
Affiliation:
University of Cologneand Chonnam National University
*
Correspondence addresses: Bernd Heine, Department of Linguistics and African Studies, University of Köln, 50923 Köln, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Personal pronouns belong to the most conservative parts of grammar; that is, they are diachronically fairly stable, as suggested by the fact that in many cases they can be traced back etymologically to or even beyond the earliest stages of reconstructible language history. This is why so far not much progress has been made in unraveling the genesis of personal pronouns: the number of cases where it has been possible to determine their origin is severely limited. Still, some data do exist and allow for the reconstruction of some major lines of grammatical evolution. As we hope to show in this paper, this evolution is the product of a handful of crosslinguistically fairly uniform cognitive and communicative strategies.

Keywords

grammaticalizationidentifierpersonal pronounpluralizationshift in deixisspatial deixis
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 117 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blake, F. R. 1934. The origin of pronouns of the first and second persons. The American Journal of Philology 55. 244–248.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. 1985. Coexistence de deux usages de la syntaxe du français parlé. Actes du XVIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes, 1983, 7. 203–214.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. 1997. Approches de la langue parlée. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Braun, F. 1988. Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 50). Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, L. & Dryer, M. S.. 2008. The verbs for ‘and’ in Walman, a Torricelli language of Papua New Guinea. Language 84(3). 528–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Gilman, A.. 1968. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Fishman, J. A.. Readings in the sociology of language, 252–281. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D. & Pagliuca, W.. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Byrd, S. E. 2006. Calunga, an Afro-Brazilian speech of the Triangulo Mineiro. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Services.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. & Janda, R.. 2001. Introduction: Conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems. Language Sciences 23(2/3). 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1975. Polite plurals and predicate agreement. Language 51. 406–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, J. R. 1965. Pronominal reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Cooke, J. R. 1968. Pronominal reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 52). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Coveney, A. 2000. Vestiges of nous and the 1st person plural verb in informal spoken French. Language Sciences 22. 447–481.Google Scholar
Cysouw, M. 2003. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Rijk, R. P. 2008. Standard Basque: A progressive grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Forchheimer, P. 1953. The category of person in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1986. Introduction: Some reflections on pronominal systems. In Wiesemann, U. (ed.), Pronominal systems (Continuum, Schriftenreihe zur Linguistik 5), xvii–xxi. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Gregersen, E. A. 1974. The signalling of social distance in African languages. In Gage, W. W. (ed.), Language in its social setting, 47–55. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society.Google Scholar
Haase, M. 1992. Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel im Baskenland: Die Einflüsse des Gaskognischen und Französischen auf das Baskische. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Haase, M. 1994. Respekt: die Grammatikalisierung von Höflichkeit. (Edition Linguistik 44). Munich & Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Haberl, H. & Hanson, R.. n.d. Gender specification in inclusive pronouns: An analysis of Nama. Typescript.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. n.d. Pronouns in Khmer. Undated field notes.Google Scholar
Head, B. 1978. Respect degrees in pronominal reference. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A. & Moravcsik, E. (eds.), Universals of human language, Volume 3, Word structure, 151–211. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, J. 2004. Person. In Booj, G., Lehmann, C., Mugdan, J. & Skopeteas, S. (eds.), Morphologie—Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 17. 2.), Volume 2, 998–1015. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T.. 2007. The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. (Studies in the Evolution of Language 9). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hünnemeyer, F.. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T.. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Reh, M.. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & K.-A. Song. In press. On the grammaticalization of personal pronouns. Typescript. Chonnam National University, Gwangju.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, G. 1999. Submission strategies as an expression of the ideology of politeness: Reflections on the verbalisation of social power relations. Pragmatics 9. 21–36.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C.. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Humboldt, W. von. 1830. Über die Verwandtschaft der Ortsadverbien mit dem Pronomen in einigen Sprachen. Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. 1978. Typology and universals of personal pronouns. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A. & Moravcsik, E. (eds.), Universals of human language, Volume 3, Word structure, 213–247. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. S. 2002. Language contact and composite structures in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services.Google Scholar
König, E. & Siemund, P. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Frajzyngier, Z. & Curl, T. S. (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions. (Typological Studies in Language 40), 41–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lee, C. L. 1999. The implications of mismatched personal pronouns in Chinese. Text 19(3). 345–370.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Listen, P. 1999. The emergence of German polite Sie: Cognitive and sociolinguistic parameters. (Berkeley Insights in Linguistics and Semiotics 32). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lockwood, W. B. 1968. Historical German syntax. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Martelotta, M. E. & Cezario, M. M.. In press. Grammaticalization in Brazilian Portuguese.Google Scholar
Merlan, A. 2006. Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im Portugiesischen und Rumänischen: von Nominalsyntagmen zu Pronomina. In Schmidt-Radefeldt, J. (ed.), Portugiesisch kontrastiv gesehen und Anglizismen weltweit. (Rostocker Romanistische Arbeiten 10), 221–240. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. & Harré, R.. 1990. Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity (Language in Society 15). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nicolle, S. In press. Pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Narrog, H. & Heine, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, R. & Steinbach, M.. 2006. Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages. Linguistics in Potsdam 24. 5–98.Google Scholar
Pfau, R. & Steinbach, M.. In press. Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Narrog, H. & Heine, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 1969. On so-called pronouns in English. In Reibel, D. & Schane, S. (eds.), Modern studies in English, 187–224. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Samarin, W. J. 2002. Plurality and deference in urban Sango. In Carstens, V. & Parkinson, F. (eds.), Advances in African linguistics (Trends in African Linguistics 4), 299–311. Trenton, NJ & Asmara: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1985. Passive and related constructions. Language 61. 821–848.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. J. 1997. Die Diachronie der deutschen Anredepronomina aus Sicht der Universalienforschung. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 50. 267–281.Google Scholar
Simon, H. J. 2003. Für eine Grammatische Kategorie ‘Respekt’ im Deutschen: Synchronie, Diachronie und Typologie der deutschen Anredepronomina. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Song, K.-A. 2002. Korean reflexives and grammaticalization: A speaker-hearer dynamic approach. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55(5). 340–353.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge (Studies in Linguistics 96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (eds.). 1991a. Approaches to grammaticalization. Volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (eds.). 1991b. Approaches to grammaticalization. Volume 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tucker, A. N. 1940. The Eastern Sudanic languages. Volume 1. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar