# English Pronoun Insertion



## JuanEscritor

Hello, all:

The thread The newscaster, she is annoying in the English Only section has prompted this topic.  I'd like to discuss the origins of this phenomenon along with the potential role it may play in further development of the English language.

As can be seen in the link, the issue is with the inclusion of two references to the same subject, one being a common noun (or perhaps proper name) and the other _always_ being a pronoun.  Sentences of this type have a form similar to the following:_The newscaster, she is annoying._
_The folks on Wall Street, they sure know how to lose my money._
_My neighbor Bill, he's always making noise late at night!_​It was suggested that this might be a case of topic movement, on grounds that the non-pronominal reference can be moved, but I am not certain that this is an adequate explanation.  If this were the reason for these constructions, then we might expect to find similarly constructed sentences in other persons:*_Juan, I am feeling tired._
*_My youngest son, you are hungry._​Sentences of this type simply do not allow the construction under question—with exceptions for names and such used as vocative expressions, a decidedly distinct phenomenon.  Based on this, I find that trying to understand the matter in terms of the non-pronominal reference seems problematic, hence the title of this thread: _pronoun_ insertion.  I don't want to get too into offering up my own underdeveloped thoughts, since I know that 'fringe theory' stuff is frowned upon on the boards, but I do want to discuss whether or not this phenomenon may represent a development in the English language, one that would make all verbs require a pronoun, perhaps with analogy to the other persons, which always require a pronoun (with some rare exceptions).  

To add to the examples given, I have noticed that my own speech makes frequent use of this even in questions, and often where the referent cannot be inferred from a pronoun alone, thus eliminating the possibility that the non-pronominal is simply extra information, as the phrase would be incomprehensible without it.  For example:_Your boss, what did he say when you asked for time off?_​Interestingly, such a sentence does not allow the movement apparently permissible in declarative constructions:*_What did he say when you asked for time off, your boss?_​This being, perhaps, further indication that we are dealing with something far more intricate than simply a movable topic phrase.

So, for the discussion here, I'd like to focus on a couple of specific questions regarding this phenomenon:

(1) Might these 'newscaster sentences' represent an extension of pronoun standards from 1st and 2nd persons to 3rd person? 
(2) What might this say about the development of English in these regards?

Many thanks to all who participate!
JE


----------



## berndf

I think this is a rudimentary form of topic-prominence in European languages.


----------



## strad

I rarely speak like this in English, and in fact these types of sentences sound really awful to me. 

However, this structure is VERY common in French, and I wonder if the history/prominence of the French language in England had any influence on this speech pattern.


----------



## Alxmrphi

berndf said:


> I think this is a rudimentary form of topic-prominence in European languages.



Exactly.



> If this were the reason for these constructions, then we might expect  to find similarly constructed sentences in other persons:
> 
> *_Juan, I am feeling tired._
> *_My youngest son, you are hungry._


But you do find constructions like these, for example in "_My son, you are leaving tomorrow..._" or "_My fellow countrymen, you have always been there for me...._", these sound very archaic and almost biblical yes, but still possible.

All it is is defining a context, and then commenting on it. Like berndf pointed out there are "topic-comment" languages, where you construct sentences by first of stating what it is you're talking about (topic) and then you add your sentence (comment), and languages like Japanese are well known for this, but it also exists in Italian, French and other languages. English, I would say, disprefers this option but it's still very possible, and at times used, like in the valid examples we're talking about here.

Have a look here -> Topic-Comment (quoted below)



> The term "topic" can be defined in a number of different ways. Among the most common are
> 
> 
> a.) the phrase in a clause that the rest of the clause is understood to be about,
> b.) the phrase in a discourse that the rest of the discourse is understood to be about,
> c.) a special position in a clause (often at the right or left-edge of the clause) where topics typically appear.
> In an ordinary English sentence, the subject is normally the same as the topic. For example, the topic is emphasized in _italics_ in the following sentences:
> 
> 
> (1) _The dog_ licked the little girl.
> (2) _The little girl_ was licked by the dog.
> Although these sentences mean the same thing, they have different topics. The first sentence is about _the dog_, while the second is about _the little girl_.
> In English it is also possible to use other sentence structures to show the topic of the sentence, as in the following:
> 
> 
> (3) As for _the little girl_, the dog licked her.
> A distinction must be made between the _clause-level topic_ and the _discourse-level topic_. Suppose we are talking about Mike's house:
> 
> 
> (4) _Mike's house_ was so comfortable and warm! _He_ really didn't want to leave, but he couldn't afford the rent, you know. And it had such a nice garden in the back!
> In the example, the discourse-level topic is established in the first sentence: it is _Mike's house_. In the following sentence, a new "local" topic is established on the sentence level: _he_ (Mike). But the discourse-level topic is still Mike's house, which is why the last comment does not seem out of place.


It might not *seem* like the same thing, but virtually every sentence starting with '_*Regarding*_' is using this exact same construction.

(Regarding) your test results, they are fine.
Your test results are fine.

(Regarding) our home insurance policy, it's something you should consider.
You should consider our home insurance policy.

I've never seen this mentioned in any book relating to the history of English however, so I'm not sure how best to look at how this has been used in earlier English.
But given that its presence is attested in a wide variety of unrelated languages, I'm tempted to say it's an _available_ option to all human language (utilised a lot in some, a bit in others, and not at all in other languages), but not really a linguistic 'development', just a discourse-construction to set the context in a conversation, intuitive to all people who use language.


----------



## Lars H

This could be a simple matter of communicational efficiency.
I can see a direct parallel in Swedish. 
The first referral is to help the listener to get a grip of the circumstances, what it's all about. Will the coming message be about your boss, the newscaster or Dalai Lama? 
Second, once the topic has been established, the actual message can be presented. 
It's perhaps not all that effective for the speaker, since there are extra, seemingly unnecessary words, but it could facilitate for the listener. In particular in the news, when we rarely know what the next topic will be.

It's not proper English - or Swedish - but somehow it works.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Lars H said:


> It's not proper English - or Swedish - but somehow it works.



What's not proper about it?
If it works then I think that's evidence enough that it's correct (and proper).


----------



## Lars H

Good point 
Agree!


----------



## JuanEscritor

Alxmrphi said:


> But you do find constructions like these, for example in "_My son, you are leaving tomorrow..._" or "_My fellow countrymen, you have always been there for me...._", these sound very archaic and almost biblical yes, but still possible.



But aren't these examples rather of vocative expressions?  Can we be sure that it is an identical phenomenon?  



> All it is is defining a context, and then commenting on it. Like berndf pointed out there are "topic-comment" languages, where you construct sentences by first of stating what it is you're talking about (topic) and then you add your sentence (comment), and languages like Japanese are well known for this, but it also exists in Italian, French and other languages. English, I would say, disprefers this option but it's still very possible, and at times used, like in the valid examples we're talking about here.


But I then wonder, if the purpose is to highlight the topic, why is there need of the extra pronoun?  In the sentences:

_The newscaster, she is annoying._
_The newscaster is annoying._​the only difference is in the addition of the pronoun (at least in written form).  The topic is clear in each.



> But given that its presence is attested in a wide variety of unrelated languages, I'm tempted to say it's an _available_ option to all human language (utilised a lot in some, a bit in others, and not at all in other languages), but not really a linguistic 'development', just a discourse-construction to set the context in a conversation, intuitive to all people who use language.


I'm still having trouble understanding why the addition of the pronoun helps to emphasize the topic.  Could it be there are two phenomena taking place here?

Perhaps someone will be able to offer examples from other languages for comparison.

Thanks,
JE


----------



## Alxmrphi

> But aren't these examples rather of vocative expressions?  Can we be sure that it is an identical phenomenon?


Your example was using a different grammatical _person_, so if you're going to use the second person singular, you're going to be using an expression you can argue to be vocative, the third person is a giant mass of possible things to talk about, all in a sense that the object isn't present. It's like how imperatives don't exist in the first person singular, because you can't really give yourself a command in that way, it's done via second person singular. Using a different person would only make sense in an expression like that, hence a way similar (and in most cases identical) to a vocative expression. You said you should be able to use it in a different person, and stated an exception for vocative expressions, which are virtually going to be all what you're going to find using this _person_, as it's a direct 1-1 conversation.



> But I then wonder, if the purpose is to highlight the topic, why is there need of the extra pronoun?  In the sentences:_The newscaster, she is annoying._
> _The newscaster is annoying._​the only difference is in the addition of the pronoun (at least in written form).  The topic is clear in each.


I believe it's purely stylistic, I can imagine a conversation taking place and then someone taking a big sigh and saying "_and the newscaster, *she *is annoying_", you just don't get the same effect (emphasis) with "_and the newscaster is annoying_", don't you agree?

I am not sure why you're calling a sort of phenomena, it's just a way of highlighting information, similar to having the different alternatives in English like.

_Peter, I hate.
I hate Peter.
Peter, I hate him.

Now I really hate washing the dishes_ _
It's washing the dishes that I hate
Wash the dishes? Hate it
I hate washing the dishes_

We have a lot of stylistic options available to us in discourse, this is just another one of them.
Some languages are structured to prefer the introduction of information via this way, English is not, but regularly uses it because it's handy to use when the required effect is a sort of emphasis.

The extra pronoun is needed, because (as you can tell with the little breath you take in using these constructions) when you start again you're in a new sentence, and all sentences in English need subjects, so the pronoun is required because your _topic_ is a separate contextual unit.


----------



## Ghabi

Alxmrphi said:


> I've never seen this mentioned in any book relating to the history of English however, so I'm not sure how best to look at how this has been used in earlier English ....


You may be interested in reading this article.


> ... I'm tempted to say it's an _available_ option to all human language (utilised a lot in some, a bit in others, and not at all in other languages), but not really a linguistic 'development', just a discourse-construction to set the context in a conversation, intuitive to all people who use language.


I fully agree with you!


----------



## Lars H

JuanEscritor said:


> But I then wonder, if the purpose is to highlight the topic, why is there need of the extra pronoun?  In the sentences:
> 
> _The newscaster, she is annoying._
> _The newscaster is annoying._​



In spoken English (as well as in other languages,) I think it is normally said _The newscaster (tiny pause), she is annoying_. But _The newscaster (tiny pause) is annoying_ would sound rather odd.

The little pause marks the division between (with Alxmrphi's words) the separate contextual units of the sentence.

In written language the pause, or the extra pronoun, won't be needed since the reader don't really read word by word, but instead takes in groups of words or sentences simultaneously.


----------



## koniecswiata

"The newscaster, she's really annoying."  This seems like perfectly fine English--at least in the spoken language.  It might not seem proper in usual written text--that's probably because writing has more formal purposes generally.  Of course, you might see it in a book that's showing real dialog between characters.
Personally, I think it's a construction for expressing emphasis.  A similar type would be:  "Me, I love ice-cream!"


----------



## hadronic

In French, the phenomenon is so wide that it can affect virtually all components of the sentence that can be replaced by a pronoun :
- Pierre, il le lui a déja dit, à son père, pourquoi il ne veut pas venir.
- Moi, de mes problèmes, je ne lui en parlerai jamais, à Pierre.


----------



## sokol

It is also quite common in German - at least in Austrian colloquial style (and dialects).

Compare the following examples of Austrian dialect (I chose dialect examples as it sounds to me most natural this way; the same might also be possible in standard language but as I don't use it in colloquial speech that's difficult to tell, for me those sentences sound weird in standard language - but they might be acceptable even there):

Dea Bua, aus den wiad nu wos. - Der Bub, aus dem wird noch was. - This boy, he will make something of his life (he will become a good worker, famous, whatever).

Da Fraunz, der hot ma des eh scho dazöhlt, das da Peda, da Leinbaun Peda woasst eh, dass der so an schwaan Unfoi ghobt hot. - Der Franz, der hat mir das eh schon erzählt, dass der Peter, der Leitenbauer Peter kennst ihn eh, dass der so einen schweren Unfall gehabt hat. - Frank, he already told me that Peter, that Leitenbauer Peter you know, that he had such a grave accident.

Even the last sentence is not "constructed": it is possible to hear such ones in real life (but usually they tend to be shorter).

As said, I am not sure if stricter grammarians would accept this construction for German standard language - but in colloquial speech it is common enough.


----------



## Ghabi

hadronic said:


> - Pierre, il le lui a déja dit, à son père, pourquoi il ne veut pas venir.
> - Moi, de mes problèmes, je ne lui en parlerai jamais, à Pierre.


Do the commas in the above sentences indicate pauses in speech? Or you actually say the sentences at one go?


----------



## hadronic

You can say all at one go, yes.


----------



## last time

koniecswiata said:


> Personally, I think it's a construction for expressing emphasis.  A similar type would be:  "Me, I love ice-cream!"


This kind of construction is really common in colloquial speech where I live, although the pronoun usually comes at the end:

I love ice-cream, me.

You're really funny, you.

I've never been there, myself.

etc.


----------



## Ghabi

hadronic said:


> You can say all at one go, yes.


If so the French case is probably different from the English one, as in French we just have subject-verb-object sentences without a topic (which would be indicated by a pause), do we?


----------



## francisgranada

An other point of wiev, similar to that of Alxmrphi: regardless of the reason and the stylistical correctness of such constructions, these "comma separated parts" of the examples above can be viewed as incomplete sentences and separate from the rest:

The newscaster, she is annoying.
_And what about the newscaster? She is ennoying._
_(The newscaster is the person that is annoying.)_

The folks on Wall Street, they sure know how to lose my money_._
_You know the folks on Wall Street. They sure know how to lose my money._
_(The folks on Wall Street are the people that sure know how to lose my money.)_

My youngest son, you are hungry.
_My youngest son! (vocative) You are hungry._

I love ice-cream, me.
_I love ice-cream. It's me (who loves the ice-cream)._​_You're really funny, you._
_You're really funny. That's what you are._
_You're really funny. That's you and not someone else._
_You're really funny. You! (vocative)_

I've never been there, myself.
_I've never been there. I'm speaking really about myself._


​


----------



## hadronic

Ghabi said:


> If so the French case is probably different from the English one, as in French we just have subject-verb-object sentences without a topic (which would be indicated by a pause), do we?



Actually, it's topical in its form, as the components are present twice (once as a noun and once as a pronoun), but you can be right in assuming that this construction is so common, that sometimes it looses most of its topical power, becoming the regular and (almost) only way to say it (without is still possible, but will sound forceful and bookish).

Of course, if you make the pause, then it actually becomes topical.


----------

