Universal #256

Legacy number: 256

 Number  256
 Original  If there exists a regular gender (nominal class) distinction in a language, this distinction is necessarily present in the pronominal forms of the given language.
 Standardized  IF there is any opposition in gender (or noun class) for nouns, THEN there is the same opposition for pronouns.
 Formula  gender (noun) ⇒ the same gender (pronoun)
 Keywords  gender, noun class, noun, pronoun
 Domain  inflection
 Type  implication
 Status  achronic
 Quality  absolute?
 Basis  unspecified
 Source  Uspensky 1968: 7 [Uspensky 1972: 58]; Vardul’ 1969, referring to Uspensky

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Counterexamples
Possible counterexamples could be some Daghestanian (NE Caucasian) languages (although this must be confirmed).Turkana (Nilotic, Nilo-Saharan) (Dimmendaal 1983) has genders in nouns, but none in pronouns.Teop (Bougainville, Austronesian) (Mosel & Spriggs 2000; for details see Counterexamples of #518)
Notes
1. Uspensky comments:The so-called “neutrum” in Rumanian and the “changeable” gender in Tocharian do not fit this statement very well. Nevertheless, they are no strict counterexamples, because these genders in Rumanian and Tocharian are not in the noun paradigm, but in its agreement (they represent a “covert” category, as Worth called it);2. Cf. #518. Greenberg’s assertion is less restrictive. His statement pertains to the GENERAL presence of the corresponding category in the pronominal system, whereas in Uspensky’s statement the presence of the SAME CONCRETE DISTINCTION in the pronouns as well as in the nouns is emphasized. 3. Comment on Uspensky:... THEN there is the same opposition for ALL or SOME? pronouns.
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
1. Uspensky comments: The so-called "neutrum" in Rumanian and the "changeable" gender in Tocharian do not fit this statement very well. Nevertheless, they are no strict counterexamples, because these genders in Rumanian and Tocharian are not in the noun paradigm, but in its agreement (they represent a "covert" category, as Worth called it);

2. Cf. <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=518"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">. Greenberg's assertion is less restrictive. His statement pertains to the GENERAL presence of the corresponding category in the pronominal system, whereas in Uspensky's statement the presence of the SAME CONCRETE DISTINCTION in the pronouns as well as in the nouns is emphasized.

3. Comment on Uspensky: ... THEN there is the same opposition for ALL or SOME? pronouns.