The change from the point of view of the pronominal forms

Let us now take a look at the pronouns from the point of view of the pronominal forms. In the old system, hann, hon, and thæt could be used both as Syn-pronouns and as Ref-pronouns:

Ref-pronoun Syn-pronoun

Links to a MALE non-linguistic referent in the discourse

hann Links to a nominal element in the

linguistic discourse, typically a DP Links to a FEMALE non-linguistic

referent in the discourse

hon Links to a nominal element in the linguistic discourse, typically a DP Links to an element in the non-

linguistic discourse

thæt Links to a nominal element in the

linguistic discourse, typically a DP Table 8.6. The third person pronouns in Old Swedish

In the new system, however, the pronouns han ‘he’ and hon ‘she’ could no longer be used as Syn-pronouns, only as Ref-pronouns.

80

The reason why we do not have to assume any NP layer is that this layer hosts phonological features related to nouns, including the features of formal gender. As shown in chapter 4, the pronouns han ‘he’ and hon ‘she’ do not have any formal gender feature at all.

Ref-pronoun Syn-pronoun Links to a MALE non-linguistic

referent in the discourse

han –

Links to a FEMALE non-linguistic referent in the discourse

hon –

Links to a countable non-linguistic element in the discourse

den Links to a nominal linguistic

element in the discourse, typically a DP

Links to a non-linguistic element in the discourse

det Links to a nominal linguistic

element in the discourse, typically a DP

Table 8.7. Third person pronouns in Modern Swedish

The change in the pronominal system could be described in terms of semanticization – the pronouns han ‘he’ and hon ‘she’ became purely semantic.

The three-gender system of the OSw type has vulnerable points. First of all, formal gender is not predictable, except for a few larger paradigms. There are thus a great number of listed elements and small paradigms (paradigms with few members), which have to be remembered. Remembering, in this sense, means primarily knowing the definite form of the noun, the form of the corresponding narticle, and the associated Syn-pronoun: han, hon or det. Since the three parts are interconnected, it is enough to remember one of the forms. Reliance on memory rather than general rules is a weak point, but can presumably be facilitated by sheer frequency – it helps if the category is exposed often and in many different forms. Another weakness is that new nouns that enter into the language have to find a place in the system, probably by means of analogy, either based on form or on meaning. What seems to have happened in the transition from the three-gender system of Old Swedish to the modern two-gender system is that there was a great influence of new wordsm in particular German words. Furthermore, phonological processes took place that made the paradigms weaker; the definite form of masculine and feminine nouns became indistinct, which, in turn meant that there were fewer forms to support the gender classification of the noun. In the end, only the form of the Syn- pronouns indicated gender membership. It is quite natural to conclude that this means that speakers in this situation tended to rely more and more on other, rule-based ways of pronominal reference, i.e. the use of Ref-pronouns instead of Syn-pronouns. Using Ref- pronouns instead of Syn-pronouns means less pressure on memory and more reliance on rules. However, the switch to a Ref-pronoun based system of reference was not strict – the Syn-pronouns den (3C) and det (3N) were still used, and are still used, when the referent is not

animate. This means that speakers still have to remember if a noun is common gender or neuter. In this case, however, there are a number of forms that support the gender classification: prenominal definite articles, prenominal indefinite articles, adjectival modifiers (in their strong) form, as well as predicative adjectives.

Importantly, the use of Ref-pronouns instead of Syn-pronouns has a weakness that the old system lacked. The new Ref-based system requires that a speaker makes a choice as to the natural gender of an animate referent. In a situation where a speaker is ignorant of the natural gender of a referent the system has offered different solutions – none of which is “perfect”. Traditionally, han ‘he’ has been used as a default pronoun, but in other cases han/hon ‘he/she’ or den (3C) has been chosen. More recently, the choice of han ‘he’ as a default gender has been criticized from a political point of view, and a new pronoun hen ‘he/she’, has been introduced for human referents. Even though the use of hen ‘s/he’, has been accepted quite widely, den (3C) is still quite commonly used, also for reference to animates. There are

speakers who tend to be hesitant towards hen, since it is sometimes interpreted as a political statement. Hen is also used with a range of meanings: when the natural gender of a referent is unknown by the speaker, when the speaker does not want to reveal the natural gender of the referent, and when either the referent or the speaker wants to distance themselves from the traditional male–female distinction. A person with a more traditional views on natural and social gender might even be offended if s/he is referred to as “hen”.

9 A brief look at other gender systems

In the previous chapters I have discussed the gender systems in Old and Modern Swedish, proposing a model where a distinction is made between lexical gender, formal gender, and semantic gender. Pronouns may express either a formal gender, in which case they are Syn- pronouns, or a semantic gender, in which case they are Ref-pronouns. A Ref-pronoun contains functional projections that correspond to the meaning conveyed by the pronoun, for example a SexP for the pronouns hon ‘she’ and han ‘he’. The corresponding projections are absent in nouns, even though the meaning is or includes components, such as ‘male’ and ‘female’. Furthermore, I have suggested that the structure of a Syn-pronoun is identical to the structure of a definite noun, except for the root phonology.

If the proposed account is to be of theoretical significance, it must be shown that the basic properties of the proposed model are possible to apply to other languages too, or at least that this is a viable option. The purpose of 9.1 is to show that seems to be possible for at least one related language, German. In 9.2 I will comment briefly on French and English.