Pro-forms: Difference between revisions

From Helpful
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:


Its best known example is the [[pronoun]].  
Its best known example is the [[pronoun]].  


With some mental flexibility, you can also see pro-verbs and even pro-sentences - consider ''"Yes."''.
With some mental flexibility, you can also see pro-verbs and even pro-sentences - consider ''"Yes."''.
Line 13: Line 14:
=Pronoun=
=Pronoun=
A specific kind of [[pro-form]], a '''pronoun''' (adj: pronominal) replaces a [[noun]] or [[noun phrase]] with a simpler word, often to avoid repetition and shorten a sentence for ease of speaking.
A specific kind of [[pro-form]], a '''pronoun''' (adj: pronominal) replaces a [[noun]] or [[noun phrase]] with a simpler word, often to avoid repetition and shorten a sentence for ease of speaking.
I, you, them, he, she, they.




For example, "Paul ate the apples, then '''he''' threw '''them''' away."
For example, "Paul ate the apples, then '''he''' threw '''them''' away."


Mentioning the apples and Paul twice ("Paul ate the apples, then Paul threw the apples away") would be grammatically correct and semantically identical.
Writing that as "Paul ate the apples, then Paul threw the apples away" would be grammatically correct,
Yet it feels oddly verbose because of its closeby redundancy.
and semantically identical in that it explains the same thing,
yet it would feels oddly verbose because of its closeby redundancy,
and we generally avoid that redundancy by using pronouns.


We generally avoid that redundancy by using pronouns, enough that ''not'' using pronouns quickly starts feeling feels like rhetoric [[anaphora]] (emphasis by repetition).
...to the point that ''not'' using pronouns quickly starts feeling feels like something like [[rhetoric anaphora]] (emphasis by repetition).




Line 29: Line 35:
References can be made clearer by using some type of agreement. The previous example uses [[grammatical gender]] and number.
References can be made clearer by using some type of agreement. The previous example uses [[grammatical gender]] and number.
In reality this is often a process disambiguation that relies on a reader's 'does this make any sense?' sense.
In reality this is often a process disambiguation that relies on a reader's 'does this make any sense?' sense.
<!--
* first-person pronouns - usually refers to the speaker
:: e.g. I
* second-person pronouns - usually refers to the one the speaker is addressing
:: e.g. you
* third-person pronouns - anyone else
:: he, she, it, they, etc.
There are other distinctions, such as
* personal pronouns - [[grammatical person]] (people, animals, objects)
* indefinite pronouns
person whose gender is unknown or unspecified often gets a singular they
-->


=Pro-verb=
=Pro-verb=
Line 34: Line 60:
Or that the omission of a subject implies that reference.
Or that the omission of a subject implies that reference.


The second sentence is understood as "Yes, you can kick it."
The second sentence is understood as "Yes, you can kick it."  
 
This runs right into how [[anaphora]] work, in particular around omissions.





Latest revision as of 16:38, 10 June 2024

This article/section is a stub — some half-sorted notes, not necessarily checked, not necessarily correct. Feel free to ignore, or tell me about it.

A pro-form is a word that can be used as a replacement to avoid redundancy without removing meaning from a sentence.


Its best known example is the pronoun.


With some mental flexibility, you can also see pro-verbs and even pro-sentences - consider "Yes.".

For adjectives and adverbs it is harder to demonstrate.


Pronoun

A specific kind of pro-form, a pronoun (adj: pronominal) replaces a noun or noun phrase with a simpler word, often to avoid repetition and shorten a sentence for ease of speaking.


I, you, them, he, she, they.


For example, "Paul ate the apples, then he threw them away."

Writing that as "Paul ate the apples, then Paul threw the apples away" would be grammatically correct, and semantically identical in that it explains the same thing, yet it would feels oddly verbose because of its closeby redundancy, and we generally avoid that redundancy by using pronouns.

...to the point that not using pronouns quickly starts feeling feels like something like rhetoric anaphora (emphasis by repetition).


Since pronouns can refer to things in the current, earlier and even later sentences, a pronoun should have only one sensible referent, and the writing should be aware of all the possible referents.

References can be made clearer by using some type of agreement. The previous example uses grammatical gender and number. In reality this is often a process disambiguation that relies on a reader's 'does this make any sense?' sense.


Pro-verb

In "Can I kick it? Yes, you can.", you can say that 'can' is a replacement of the previous sentence. Or that the omission of a subject implies that reference.

The second sentence is understood as "Yes, you can kick it."

This runs right into how anaphora work, in particular around omissions.


It itself is also a pro-form, specifically a pronoun, a reference to whatever it is we are supposed to be kicking.

Pro-sentence

A pro-sentence refers to one or a few words referring to an entire sentence or a large part of it.

In english, an extreme case is the answer "Yes." It's not a valid independent sentence, but an an answer to the first sentence before, meaning something like "Yes, you can kick it."


This could be seen as a forceful stretch preferred by those for whom analysis depends on sentences having all basic parts. In discourse analysis - which is probably the most useful for uttered dialogue anyhow - this is not necessarily necessary.

See also