Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Lingua 200 (2017) 33--44
www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua

The grammar of English pronouns§,§§

R.M.W. Dixon *
Language and Culture Research Centre, James Cook University, Australia
Received 12 June 2017; accepted 13 August 2017
Available online 6 September 2017

Abstract
A solution is proposed to explain the way personal pronouns enter into coordinations. This involves contrasting 1st person singular with
the other pronouns. In essence, 1sg ‘subject’ form I is preferred as second member of a coordination (as in John and I are going, rather than
*I and John are going) whereas for the other pronouns the ‘subject’ form (she, he, we, they) is preferred as first member of a coordination (as
in She and John are going, rather than *John and she are going). 1sg also differs in that either I or me can function as copula complement
(It was I or It was me) whereas for other pronouns only the non-subject form is acceptable in non-contrastive contexts (It was him, not *It was
he). The syntactic implications of these principles are examined. There is also discussion of the role of pronouns in ‘gapping’ constructions.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Pronouns in English typically function as complete noun phrases (NPs) which can fill an argument slot in clause
structure. However, pronouns do not always behave like other NPs.
For example, beginning with

(1) Mary loves John and Jane loves Pete

the repeated verb, loves, may be omitted (this is called ‘gapping’), giving:

(2) Mary loves John and Jane Pete

In contrast, if we start with

(3) Mary loves John and he loves you

§
I am in debt to many previous accounts of English pronouns, including Jespersen (1933: 132--6); Mencken (1936: 454--9; 1948: 371--4); Quirk
et al. (1985: 337--9); Burchfield (1989: 57--9); Declerck (1991: 273--5); Wales (1996: 94--109); Payne and Huddleston (2002: 458--63), and Mair
(2006: 143--4). Quinn (2005) assembled materials from questionnaires to students in New Zealand, and came up with a database similar to mine;
she did not attempt explanation of it.
§§
The most helpful and productive comments on a draft of this paper were provided by Alexandra Aikhenvald, Laurel Brinton, Kate Burridge,
Simon Overall and Maggie Tallerman. My grateful thanks to them.
* Correspondence to: D3 building JCU, McGregor Road, Smithfield, Queensland 4870, Australia.
E-mail address: robert.dixon@jcu.edu.au.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.08.002
0024-3841/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
34 R.M.W. Dixon / Lingua 200 (2017) 33--44

the repeated verb, loves, may not be omitted. That is, one cannot say:

(4) *Mary loves John and he you

It appears that one cannot ‘gap’ around pronouns (and this holds whatever the pronouns may be). This topic is further
discussed in Section 5.
Turning to a different matter (that which is the focus of this article): not all pronouns behave in the same way. Sentence
(5) is easily acceptable, while (6) is rather marginal:

(5) Have you heard about Mary, she and John are getting married
(6) ??Have you heard about Mary, John and she are getting married

However, when I is used in place of she, the situation is reversed. Sentence (7) is scarcely admissible, and (8) is
acceptable:

(7) *I and John are getting married

(8) John and I are getting married

The present article seeks to explore some of the fundamental properties of pronouns in Standard English.1 It is not cast
in terms of any esoteric ‘theory’. My intention is simply to describe the facts, and principles of functional use, and---where
possible---offer explanations for them. It is shown that the grammatical behaviour of pronouns is not entirely determined by
syntactic relations (subject, object, and so on); other factors play a significant role.
2. Aims

This investigation is concerned with 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person pronouns as they function in core and peripheral
argument slots within a clause. It is not concerned with possessive forms of pronouns.
There is a healthy---although sometimes vituperative---debate concerning what is ‘correct’. Some people insist on
saying It is I and reject It is me; others adopt the reverse position. Similarly for She is cleverer than I and She is cleverer
than me. Where there is debate, I take the position that both alternatives should be regarded as acceptable.
The grammatical possibilities for pronouns have shifted a good deal over time. Shakespeare's use differs significantly
from that of the language today. In order to describe a fairly homogeneous system, I have only considered example
sentences from about 1900 on.
This paper will attempt to formulate the canonical patterns of use for pronouns. Linguistics is a science describing human
behaviour, and thus differs from a discipline such as physics in that it uncovers pervasive tendencies rather than fixed rules.
Most statements in grammar are of a ‘more/less’ rather than a ‘yes/no’ nature. There is probably no area of modern English
grammar which shows more fluidity than that of pronoun behaviour. A variety of exceptions can certainly be found to the
principles stated here. However, they are generally recognisable as exceptions, and this serves to confirm the principles.
The 1st person singular (1sg) pronoun, I/me, has markedly different grammatical behaviour from the other pronouns,
and is most profitably discussed separately. (Failure to recognise this has led previous researchers to obtain somewhat
blurred results.)

3. Pronouns other than 1st person singular

3.1. The forms

The forms of non-1sg pronouns fall into two sets. That sometimes called ‘nominative’ is here referred to as the ‘S set’
(from the first letter of she) and that called ‘accusative’ as the ‘H set’ (from the first letter of her). 2nd person, you, and 3rd
person singular neuter, it, have the same form for each set.

1
Over a period of several decades, I have paid attention to what people said around me, and noted examples from books, dictionaries, and a
variety of other corpora. (including COCA, the Corpus of Contemporary American English).
A major source has, naturally, been my own knowledge and intuition, as a native speaker of British (and Australian) English but this has, of
course, been fully checked against other resources. I have also made use of the extensive materials collected while researching and writing Dixon
(1991, 2005).
All generalisations have been checked against data in COCA and other corpora.
There are of course differences in Non-standard varieties of English, on which there is much recent literature. These would be the topic for a
separate study.
 R.M.W. Dixon / Lingua 200 (2017) 33--44 35

S set H set
3rd person singular feminine she her
3rd person singular masculine he him
1st person plural we us
3rd person plural they them
2nd person you
3rd person singular neuter it

Although written as separate words, H forms are typically realised as enclitics:

full form enclitic form

her /hə:(r)/ /=ə(r)/
him /him/ /=im/
us /Ls/ or /Lz/ /=əz/
them /ðem/ /=əm/
you /ju:/ /=jə/
it /it/ /=it/

For example, Tell him! is generally /’tel=im/. It is only likely to be /’tel’him/, with stress on the pronoun, in a contrastive
situation such as Tell him and not her! Similarly Help us! is normally pronounced as /help-əz/.
S forms may be retained as separate words (with their own stress) or may be reduced to proclitics (although far less
frequently than H forms are reduced to enclitics). They are always separate words when in contrastive function.

full form proclitic form

she /ʃi:/ /ʃi=/
he /hi:/ /hi=/
we /wi:/ /wi=/
they /ðei/ /ðe=/
you /ju/ /jə=/
it /it/ /it=/

For instance, They hit him may be pronounced as a single phonological word /ðe=hit=im/. (Discussion of these and other
clitics in English is in Dixon, 2007.)

3.2. Basic functions

As is well known, pronouns of the S set function as intransitive, transitive and copula subject, while---in essence---the H
set fills all other roles. Thus, we get H forms as direct object of a transitive verb, as in (9), and after a preposition, as in (10),
and after linkers such as than and but, as in (16) and (44).

(9) John saw her

(10) John baked a cake for her

An H form is also used as subject of a for to complement clause, since it follows for:

(11) John chose for her to conduct the interviews

If the for is omitted from such a complement clause, an H form is still used, since it directly follows the main clause verb and
is effectively in object function to it:

(12) John chose her to conduct the interviews

An H form is also used as copula complement (after copula verb be):

(13) It was her

36 R.M.W. Dixon / Lingua 200 (2017) 33--44

In sentences such as (9--12) there is no possibility of using the S form (here she) in place of the H one (her). Copula
complement function is different---a stressed form of the S pronoun she could be used in (13) for contrast or emphasis. For
example:

(14) A: I wonder if it was John or Mary who committed the murder---he had the motive but she had the weapon
B: It was she

Here speaker B uses emphatic she to echo the she in A's question.
In a Sherlock Holmes short story, ‘The golden pince-nez’, a maid finds the old professor's secretary fatally stabbed.
‘‘‘The professor,’’ he murmured, ‘‘it was she’’ . . . Then he fell back dead.’ It turns out that the secretary had encountered a
strange woman on his morning walk, and described her to the professor. In his last breath he attempted to send a
message that it was this woman who had killed him, and for emphasis used the S pronoun ‘It was she’ (rather than ‘It was
her’).
An S form may be employed, in a context normally reserved for H pronouns, for poetic effect (and for rhyme). The lilting
song Girl from Ipanema includes a couplet (note that this is an original lyric, quite different from the original words in
Portuguese):

Each day as she walks to the sea

She looks straight ahead, not at he

The marked and unexpected use of he provides much greater pragmatic force than if the regular him had been employed
(say in Each day as she walks to the rim, She looks straight ahead not at him).
Now consider types of comparative construction. One can say either of:

(15) John is cleverer than she is

(16) John is cleverer than her

In (15) the S form she is used since it is in copula subject slot. In (16) there is nothing after the pronoun and it has H form,
her, by virtue of following comparative marker than.
A third possibility (fairly common in some dialects, especially in the USA) is:

(17) John is cleverer than she

One could regard this as an elliptical version of (15), with the is understood and omitted. Sentence (17) is rather likely to be
used (with special stress on the she) in a contrastive environment, such as:

(18) A: Mary has just won a scholarship, she's certainly the cleverest girl in the school
B: No, I disagree, John is far cleverer than she

As in (14), the contrastive she echoes the she in the previous utterance.

3.3. H pronouns in independent function

In some languages the answer to a question must be a complete sentence; for example, ‘Who ate the cheese?’, ‘John
ate the cheese’. Other languages, including English, allow a shorter response. When asked Who ate the cheese?, the
reply could be John ate the cheese, or John did, or just John.
A pronoun can make up a one-word response, and then it must always be in H form. Compare the set of responses:

(19) Who ate the cheese? She ate the cheese

(20) Who ate the cheese? She did
(21) Who ate the cheese? Her

In (19) and (20) the pronoun is in subject function and only an S form (such as she) can be used. In (21) the pronoun makes
up a complete clause and here only an H form (such as her) is allowed. Just she is not acceptable.
Another example of an H pronoun in independent function is when someone says Mary wants to go, and John also
wants . . ., and someone else jumps in with Us too!
 R.M.W. Dixon / Lingua 200 (2017) 33--44 37

An independent H-form pronoun may take an adjectival modifier, as in:

(22) Who forgot to lock the door? Silly old him

(23) Who didn’t get given any cheese? Poor deprived us

An H pronoun (but not an S one) can be used with what in a type of exclamation (typically---but not always---showing
disgust). For example:

(24) A: The Mortons got the prize and not us

B: What, them!

The response can be extended to incorporate the original statement, but with the verb in plain form:

(240 ) B’: What, them get the prize and not us!

In this sentence, the H pronoun is effectively in subject function (where an S pronoun is generally appropriate), but this is
within a sentence with the verb in plain form (showing no subject-verb agreement), a special construction type.
Further examples are (and see Declerck, 1991: 273--5):

(25) A: We got left out of the team

B: What, us!
or B’: What! Us get left out of the team!

(26) A: He came to insult you in front of all the others

B: What, him!
or B’: What! Him come and insult me in front of all the others

3.4. Apposition and modification

Any type of noun phrase can be placed in apposition with another; for example My father, the surgeon, works closely
with James Taylor, the anaesthetist.
This applies to both S and H plural pronouns (but is encountered less frequently with the singulars):

(27) We, the victors, salute you, worthy opponents

There are a number of ways in which a pronoun can be accompanied by a modifier within its noun phrase. Firstly, plural
S and H pronouns may be followed by a number word or a quantifier such as all:

(28) We three believed you two

(29) They all followed us four along the track

Interestingly, although they all and them all are fully acceptable, they or them followed by a number word is less felicitous.
Rather than They two came last and We saw them two, a more refined option would be to say The two of them came last
and We saw the two of them. (Note that the H form, them, is used after preposition of.) In contrast, we two, us two, and you
two are perfectly fine.
There can be an adverb such as only (or just) preceding an S pronoun as head of an NP, or alone following it, as in:

(30) Only she knows the password

(31) She alone knows the password

Only is also possible with an H pronoun:

(32) A: Was Janice at the party?

B: Yes, of all the people there, I knew only her
38 R.M.W. Dixon / Lingua 200 (2017) 33--44

However a preferred construction is with adverb only placed before the verb:

(320 ) B’: Yes, of all the people there, I only knew her

H pronouns we and (plural) you can occur with a specifying noun, as in:

(33) We don’t care about you academics

(34) She didn’t notice us fishermen on the shore

Such a specification is a little uneasy after the S pronoun we, in (35). An alternative is to employ the H form, us, which is
more at home with modifiers, as in (36):

(35) We academics demand to be heard

(36) Us academics demand to be heard

With the 3rd person plural pronoun *They academics demand to be heard is quite unacceptable (much worse than (35))
while Them academics demand to he heard is found in some dialects.
An H pronoun within a clause may be modified by an adjective (just as when it is in independent function):

(37) They don’t care about poor us, having to clean up

(38) Pay no attention to silly old him

However, adjectives do not occur with S pronouns. Instead of the unacceptable (39), an H pronoun with the adjective is
preposed, as in (40):

(39) *Poor we have to clean up

(40) Poor us, we have to clean up

Sentence (40) could be shortened to: Poor us have to clean up.

3.5. Janus constructions

A relative clause functions as modifier to the head of an NP in the main clause. There must be a common argument
(CA) linking the clauses. That is, the head of the NP in the main clause must have the same reference as one argument in
the relative clause.
To examine what happens when the CA is a pronoun, consider:

(41) It was her who hit John

(42) It was she who hit John

In (41), the CA is in copula complement function in the main clause, and the H form her reflects this. In (42), the CA is in
subject function for the relative clause, and the S form she reflects this. Construction (41) is commoner but (42) is also fully
acceptable. Janus-like, one can look either forward or back to decide on the form of the CA.2
However, if the CA is in object function in the relative clause, the possibilities coincide---either her as copula
complement of the main clause, or her as object of the relative clause:

(43) It was her who John hit

That is, *It was she who John hit is scarcely acceptable.
A further example is I pity him who cheats or I pity he who cheats, but only I pity him who John cheated (not *I pity he
who John cheated).
For a pronoun after but (with nothing further following), the H form is preferred:

(44) Please tell Mary that I love nobody but her

2
See the discussion in Mair (2006: 143--4).
 R.M.W. Dixon / Lingua 200 (2017) 33--44 39

However ‘nobody but PRONOUN’ can be in subject slot. There is again a janus-like choice of pronominal form:

(45) Nobody but her can do it

(46) Nobody but she can do it

In (45) the H pronoun her is used because it follows but. In (46), S form she is used because the complex NP is in subject
function. Again, the alternatives are both fully acceptable.

3.6. Coordination

The subject of any clause can involve the coordination of a pronoun with a non-pronominal NP.
The basic rule for non-1sg pronouns is that an S form should not come second in such a coordination. The possibilities
are:

(47) *NP and S *John and she are getting married

(48) NP and H John and her are getting married
(49) S and NP She and John are getting married
(50) H and NP Her and John are getting married

Sentence (47) is scarcely acceptable and (48) must be used for this order of coordinands. Sentences (49) and (50) are
both alright. As is typically the case when either an S or H form is possible, (49)---with S pronoun she---would be regarded
as more ‘proper’ and (50)---with H form her---as representing a more casual speech style.
Disjunctive marker or behaves in a similar way. One would never say The butler or we will do it. All of The butler or us
will do it, We or the butler will do it, and Us or the butler will do it are alright. Again, the last of these, with Us or the butler,
sounds rather casual when compared with the more formal We or the butler.
Things are a little different when two pronouns are coordinated. Here we find:

(51) *H and S *Him and she are getting married

(52) S and S She and he are getting married
(53) ?S and H ?She and him are getting married
(54) H and H Him and her are getting married

The most commonly occurring of these is (52), where two S pronouns are coordinated in subject position. Wales (1996:
102, 104) quotes two examples, one of which is:

(55) Daddy is having a busy week, and re-felting the lean-to roof with Sue's help
He and she are now measuring the floor space in the loft

An S form as second coordinand after an H one, in (51), is quite unacceptable, while the reverse order, in (53), is possible
but uncommon. It is greatly improved by adding an S plural pronoun:

(530 ) S and H She and him, they are getting married

Sentence (54), with two H forms, occurs in colloquial style. A preferred alternative is to again add an S plural pronoun
referring to the two people:

(540 ) H and H Him and her, they are getting married

When or is used in place of and, the ‘H or H’ construction is preferred: Him or her will have to do it.
When a coordinated NP is used in a non-subject role, only the H form of non-1sg pronouns is acceptable. For example,
Yesterday I saw him and her together, and They’ll give the prize to Mary or us/to us or Mary.

4. Bringing in 1st person singular

The 1sg pronoun stands apart from the others in two major ways: (1) it undergoes coordination in a quite different
manner; and (2) it can readily function as copula complement. There are also a number of minor distinctions, some of
40 R.M.W. Dixon / Lingua 200 (2017) 33--44

which are related to (2). We can now travel through the properties discussed for non-1sg pronouns, and examine how they
apply for the 1sg pronouns, I and me.
4.1. Forms and basic functions

Unlike the non-1sg S forms, I /ai/ is always a separate word, never reducing to be a proclitic. However, me is like the
non-1sg H pronouns:

full form enclitic form

me /mi:/ /=mi/

For example Did you see me? /did jə=’si:=mi/.

I is always used as intransitive, transitive or copula subject, and me as transitive object and after a preposition. Thus,
only me (not I) could be used instead of her in (9--12).
However, in copula complement function, both me and I are alright. We mentioned that for non-1sg pronouns only the H
form is readily acceptable here, as in (13) It was her. An S form may be used here (It was she), typically in a contrastive
situation or for particular emphasis (as in (14) and the Sherlock Holmes instance, quoted in Section 3.2).
As English is used, both of the following are normal and acceptable:

(56) It was me
(57) It was I

Preferences have shifted during the history of the language and today some pedants insist on one, some on the other. It
was I is said to be more formal, It was me rather informal. But I would doubt any speaker who says that they use just one of
these, to the total exclusion of the other.
1sg pronouns differ with respect to comparative constructions. We can match up:

(15) John is cleverer than she is (58) John is clever than I am

(16) John is cleverer than her (59) John is clever than me
(17) John is cleverer than she (60) John is clever than I

(58) and (59) parallel their non-1sg counterparts---I as subject of is and me after than with nothing following.
We mentioned that (17), which could be regarded as an elliptical version of (15) with the is omitted, is quite common in
some dialects, but is most likely to be encountered in a contrastive environment such as (18). However, (60) is more usual
than (17), and is fully acceptable across all dialects.
After but, there seems to be little difference between non-1sg and 1sg forms. Consider:

(61) John loves no one but her (63) John loves no one but me
(62) ?John loves no one but she (64) ?John loves no one but I

Sentences (63) and (61)---similar to (44)---are fine while (62) and (64) are both of marginal acceptability.
1sg behaves like other pronouns with respect to independent function. A reply to a question such as Who ate the
cheese? can be I ate the cheese or I did or Me but never just *I. The special exclamation construction can involve me, just
like the non-1sg H forms. For example: What, me! and What, me be made to clean up and not you!
Also like non-1sg H pronouns, me can be modified by an adjective, both in independent function---Silly me!-and within a
clause---They paid no attention to poor, neglected me. We also get Me too.
Both 1sg pronouns can be modified by an adverb such as only or alone:

(65) Only I/I alone am tall enough to pluck the forbidden fruit

Apposition of a plural pronoun with a non-pronominal NP was illustrated in (27), We, the victors, salute you, worthy
opponents. This is less likely with singular pronouns of all persons. That is, I, the victor, salute you, worthy opponent is not
impossible but sounds a trifle archaic.

4.2. Janus constructions

The possibilities are different for 1sg pronouns from those described in Section 3.5 for non-1sg pronouns. First
consider the 1sg correspondents of (41/2) It was her/she who hit John, where the common argument is in subject function
for the relative clause:
 R.M.W. Dixon / Lingua 200 (2017) 33--44 41

(66) It was I who hit John

(67) It was me who hit John

Here the pronoun is in copula complement function for was. As already noted, either form of 1sg may be used here, I or
me. The pronoun is also in subject function for hit, and the form here is I. Thus:

 In (66) I is used, appropriate for both copula complement function and transitive subject function. Looking forwards or
backwards, the criteria coincide.
 The alternative form of 1sg in copula complement function is me, and this is employed in the equally acceptable (67).
It can be seen that the 1sg alternatives, It was I/me who hit John replicate the non-1sg forms It was her/she who hit
John, but for somewhat different reasons. However, when the common argument is in object function within the relative
clause, things are rather different. We saw that for non-1sg one can only say (43), It was her who John hit, and not *It was
she who John hit. In contrast, there are two possibilities for 1sg:
(68) It was me who John hit
(69) It was I who John hit

 In (68), there are two reasons for using me---as one possibility for copula complement function for was, and as object
function for hit.
 In (69) I may be used, since this is an alternative form of 1sg for copula complement function.

4.3. Coordination

In Section 3.6 we enunciated the basic rule for a coordinated NP involving a non-1sg pronoun: an S form should not
come second in such a coordination. The opposite applies for 1sg: the pronoun I should not come first in such a
coordination. We can thus have:

compare with non-1sg:

(70) *I and John are getting married She and John
(71) Me and John are getting married Her and John
(72) John and I are getting married *John and she
(73) John and me are getting married John and her

Sentence (70) is scarcely acceptable; (71) being preferred for this order of constituents. Although both (72) and (73) are
acceptable, (72)---with I---would be regarded as more proper and (73)---with me---as somewhat casual. Of the four
possibilities, (72) is by far the most frequently occurring.
When 1sg is coordinated with a non-1sg pronoun there are eight possibilities, of which six have a degree of
acceptability:

(74) she and I (76) her and I (78) I and she (80) *me and she
(75) she and me (77) her and me (79) *I and her (81) me and her

A non-1sg S form (here she) is preferred in first and the 1sg form I in second position; thus (74), she and I, is by far the most
common of these combinations. We saw in (52) that two S forms may be coordinated and this accounts for the (albeit rare)
occurrence of (78), I and she. However, outside this combination I cannot be in first or she in second positions, making (79)
and (80) unacceptable. Those combinations with an H in both positions---in (77) and (81)---or initially followed by and I---in
(76)---or finally preceded by she and---in (75)---are all acceptable.
As with combinations of non-1sg pronouns, somewhat more felicitous versions of the acceptable combinations are
produced if the coordination is followed by a plural pronoun referring to the two people involved. For example:

(740 ) She and I, we’re getting married

(81’) Me and her, we’re getting married

As with non-1sg pronouns, discussed in Section 3.6, disjunctive marker or behaves in a similar way to and in
combinations such as these.
42 R.M.W. Dixon / Lingua 200 (2017) 33--44

For non-1sg pronouns, only H forms are used in coordinate NPs when in object or copula complement function, or
following a preposition. However, things are different for 1sg. The principle that I does not occur as first element in a
coordination has a natural corollary: I is comfortable as second element, following and. Of the four possibilities for
coordination of an NP, including 1sg, in object slot, the only unacceptable one is when I comes before and:

(82) The doctor examined John and I

(83) The doctor examined John and me
(84) *The doctor examined I and John
(85) The doctor examined me and John

One man calling to another from a porch in America was reported as follows (Mencken, 1948: 374);

A They invited me and Jim

B (Not having heard) What?
A (louder) They invited Jim and I to their party

The same possibilities apply for copula complement function, and following a preposition.
When 1sg and non-1sg pronouns are coordinated, in object function or following a preposition, really only me is
acceptable. After Mary rebuked ---, or Tim gave a box of chocolates to ---, only me and her or her and me are satisfactory,
not *I and her or *her and I.
It is interesting to investigate what happens when a coordination of pronouns occurs in copula complement function. As
stated before, with just the 1sg pronoun, It was I and It was me are both acceptable. With a coordination we get:

(86) It was me and her

(87) It was her and me
(88) *It was I and her
(89) ?It was her and I

Sentences (86) and (87), involving me and an H non-1sg form, are fully acceptable. In (88), I is first element in a
coordination, which makes this unacceptable. Sentence (89) is rather marginal---I is second element in the coordinated
NP, which is in copula complement function, but I does not immediately follow the copula verb.

4.4. A social explanation?

The organisation of a language is not an arbitrary matter. There is a reason---or a partial reason---for most things, either
from within the language or from without.
In many English-speaking societies, there is a social convention not to put oneself first. If two people wish to go though
a doorway at the same time, each will urge the other to go first. In many aspects of life, ‘After you’ is the polite way to
behave.
This may be at least part of the reason why, whereas she, he, we, and they come first in a coordination---She and John
rather than *John and she)---I must go last---John and I, not *I and John.
This can lead to difficulties. However, language is fluid enough so that there is always a way of dealing with these. For
instance, a tourist who had been swept downstream was rescued by two policemen. The senior officer reported the
incident and felt he should put himself first. I being inadmissible (and me not formal enough for a police report) he instead
used myself (report in the Cairns Post, 17th April 2009):
‘Myself and Sen. Constable Smith could see him about 100m downstream hanging onto a rock,’ Sgt Lufkin said.
This can be seen against a current propensity to use a reflexive pronoun in non-reflexive function. It may sometimes be
to sound polite, as in: Is this room suitable for yourself, sir? in a hotel. Or it may be used to avoid the choice between I
(which sounds too posh) and me (which sounds rather informal), as He gave it to Fred and myself. The study of reflexive
pronouns falls outside the scope of the present paper.3
We can now turn to a special property which applies for all pronouns, both 1sg and non-1sg.

3
There is considerable literature on the use of a -self pronoun in place of a regular form. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1994: 229--32) suggest that it
originated as a ‘modesty device’. See also, among others, Churchward (1955), Wood (1956) and Baker (1985).
 R.M.W. Dixon / Lingua 200 (2017) 33--44 43

5. Gapping

English has various techniques for omitting a verb which is repeated between two clauses (‘gapping’). For example, if
two coordinated transitive clauses have the same verb, it may be omitted from the second clause, as in (2) and:

(90) John married Jane and Tom (married) Freda

(91) The boy ate an apple and the girl (ate) a pear
(92) Bill is reading a thriller and Robin (is reading) a romance

Corresponding noun phrases in the two clauses must be of the same type: John/Tom, the boy/the girl, an apple/a pear and
a thriller/a romance. They must also be short and succinct. For example, the second occurrence of the verb would be
unlikely to be omitted from: The heart specialist married the nurse and the podiatrist married the physiotherapist, or from:
The boy who lives in Texas loves ice-cream sodas and the girl from Arkansas loves waffles with lots of maple syrup.
For gapping to be felicitous, each argument should be a proper name, or a short NP. Gapping is possible with a
pronoun in object slot for both clauses, as in:

(93) Fred loves me and Tom (loves) you

It is less felicitous with pronouns in subject slots; for example:

(94) I could ask Fred and you could ask Tom

(95) ??I could ask Fred and you Tom

And gapping is not possible if a pronoun only occurs in the second clause. The second verb can scarcely be omitted from
(4) or from any of:

(96) Fred likes Sally and Tom likes me/you/her

(97) Fred likes Sally and I/you/she likes Maisie
(98) Fred likes Sally and I/she likes you/her

Another constraint concerning pronouns relates to the omission of a copula verb. I recently wrote to a friend:

(99) I was 20 and John 32 when we started collaborating

I should have perhaps followed the ‘me last’ principle and mentioned John first. But it would then have been inadmissible
to omit the second occurrence of was. I would have had to say:

(100) John was 32 and I was 20 when we started collaborating

The copula cannot be ‘gapped’ when the second clause begins with a pronoun (any pronoun).

6. 1st person singular again

One further feature of pronouns involves the form of a following verb:

 3sg subject requires verbal suffix -(e)s in present tense---he/she/it goes

 The remaining subject pronouns take zero---I/you/we/they go

Now consider the following construction type:

(101) There, but for the grace of God, go I

In place of go I one could substitute go you, go we, go they, goes he, goes she or goes it. So far, all well and good. But
there is a further possibility: the final word of (101) can be an H form. The form of the verb preceding it is then of great
interest. We get:
44 R.M.W. Dixon / Lingua 200 (2017) 33--44

goes her, goes him

go us, go them
goes me

That is, 1sg non-subject pronoun me takes suffix -(e)s just like 3sg. Once again, 1sg behaves in a special manner. I
wonder why.

7. Further issues

It is clear that 1sg pronouns behave differently from the rest. However, it is not the case that all the non-1sg's have
exactly the same properties. For example, it was pointed out in Section 3.4 that 3pl is less felicitous with a number word (as
in they two) than other plural pronouns, and that They academics is scarcely acceptable. Also, while she/he/we and John
are alright as coordinations in subject slot, they and John is somewhat marginal. No doubt there are further differences of
grammatical behaviour between the non-1sg forms, providing scope for further study.

8. Envoi

At first glance, the grammatical properties of English pronouns appear to be somewhat chaotic. Progress can be made
by considering 1sg separately, and by enunciating canonical patterns and exceptions to them. A central principle has
been revealed: that the S forms of non-1sg pronouns are most at home as first member of a coordination, while 1sg I is
preferred as second member.
A number of other traits can be perceived, but these are always tendencies rather than definite rules. There is perhaps
no other area of grammar in which so many alternatives are available (such as It was me and It was I). Rather than
squabbling over which of these is ‘correct’, it behoves us to consider all possibilities equally, and to assess and explain
them.
It appears that, when I and me are both possible, I is regarded as highfalutin and me as more casual (or even vulgar).
However, there is often no choice available, with me being perfectly proper. It is not helpful to lump together canonical
constructions, and exceptions which deviate from them in varied ways, and to try to categorise everything in terms of a
distinction between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ styles.
There is much more to be done. Once a matrix is established (as I have tried to do here), the prospects for further
understanding of the grammatical properties of English pronouns are enticing.

References

Baker, C.L., 1985. Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language
71, 63--101.
Burchfield, R., 1989. Unlocking the English Language. Faber and Faber, London.
Churchward, C.M., 1955. Personal pronouns ending in -self or -selves. Engl. Lang. Teach. 9, 125--131.
Declerck, R., 1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Kaitukusha, Tokyo.
Dixon, R.M.W., 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Dixon, R.M.W., 2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dixon, R.M.W., 2007. Clitics in English. Engl. Stud. 88, 574--600.
Jespersen, O., 1933. Essentials of English Grammar. George Allen and Unwin, London.
Mair, C., 2006. Twentieth-Century English: History, Variation, and Standardization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mencken, H.L., 1936. The American Language: An Inquiry into the Development of English in the United States, 4th ed. Knopf, New York.
Mencken, H.L., 1948. The American Language: An Inquiry into the Development of English in the United States. Supplement two. Knopf,
New York.
Payne, J., Huddleston, R., 2002. 5. Nouns and noun phrases. In: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. pp. 323--523 Chief Authors: Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum.
Quinn, H., 2005. The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leach, G., Svartvik, J., 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, Harlow.
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I., 1994. Standard and non-standard pronominal usage in English, with special reference to the eighteenth century. In:
Stein, D., van Ostade, I.T.-B. (Eds.), Towards a Standard English, 1600--1800. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 217--242.
Wales, K., 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wood, F.T., 1956. Further Thoughts on the Pronouns in -self. Engl. Lang. Teach. 10, 97--108.