Skip to content

Universal 256: gender (noun) ⇒ the same gender (pronoun)

Posted in Universals Archive

Universal 256: gender (noun) ⇒ the same gender (pronoun)

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.
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
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)

One Comment

  1. FP
    FP

    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.

    1. May 2020

Comments are closed.