DOCSLIB.ORG

Lecture 9. Pronouns and Reflexives: Syntax and Semantics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Formal Semantics and Current Problems of Semantics, Lecture 9 Formal Semantics and Current Problems of Semantics, Lecture 9 Barbara H. Partee, RGGU, April 8, 2008 p. 1 Barbara H. Partee, RGGU, April 8, 2008 p. 2 Lecture 9. Pronouns and Reflexives: Syntax and Semantics alternatives to them) are known by these names, so one has to learn to associate “Condition A” with reflexives, “Condition B” with pronouns, and “Condition C” with full NPs. 1. Review of Chomsky’s (syntactic) “Binding condtions”......................................................................................1 (3) Binding conditions 2. Semantic binding vs. coreference........................................................................................................................2 2.1. Basics of semantic binding ...............................................................................................................................2 Condition A: An anaphor must be bound in its local domain. 2.2 The c-command requirement on semantic binding and why QNPs cannot be bound .......................................5 Condition B: A pronoun must be free in its local domain. 2.3. Binding vs. coreference with non-quantificational antecedents........................................................................5 3. Grodzinsky and Reinhart on the scope of binding theory. ..................................................................................6 Condition C: An R-expression must be free. 3.1. Acquisition Findings and Their Possible Interpretations. .................................................................................7 These conditions rule out the impossible choices of co-indexing in (1), and also account for the 3.2. Anaphora. .........................................................................................................................................................8 3.3. Cutting the experimental pie...........................................................................................................................11 contrasts in the following. 4. Revision of next 3 weeks’ schedule. .................................................................................................................11 (4) a. Felixi invited himselfi. Homework #4: Prepare a presentation for April 29....................................................................................................12 References ..................................................................................................................................................................12 b. *Felixi invited himi. (This is a “condition B violation”) (5) a. Felixi heard himselfi sing. Readings: Full references and links are in References at the end. These are all on the CD. b. *Felixi heard himi sing. (A “condition B violation”) (1) (Reinhart 1999) Binding theory (2) Büring (2004), Chapters 4 and 5, Binding vs. Coreference, Other Cases of Semantic Binding. (6) a. Luciei believes that we should elect heri. (3) (Testelets 2005), St.Petersburg Lectures on Binding Theory, Lectures 1 and 4. b. *Luciei believes that we should elect herselfi. (A “condition A violation”) Optional readings: It is argued that these conditions are universal, with parametric variation across languages (and (4) (Chomsky 1980) On binding; (5) (Bach and Partee 1980) Anaphora and semantic structure; perhaps even across particular subclasses of anaphors and pronominals within a language) on (6) (Reinhart and Reuland 1993) Reflexivity (for next week); (7) (Grodzinsky and Reinhart the relevant definition of “local domain”. 1993) The innateness of binding and coreference; (8) (Pollard and Sag 1992) Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory (for next week); (9) (Fischer 2004) Optimal binding Issues to focus on, especially in a semantics course like this: ¾ How do the syntactic binding conditions relate to the semantics of anaphora? What happens 1. Review of Chomsky’s (syntactic) “Binding condtions”. when we distinguish “bound variable anaphora” from “coreference” and/or “pragmatic (Review from Lecture 5) anaphora”? A central question is how to describe and explain the differences in distribution between “plain ¾ More distinctions: different kinds of reflexives, various properties of anaphoric expressions pronouns” like he, she, it (called pronominals, or pronouns, in Chomskian Binding Theory) and in various languages. What’s the full range of syntactic anaphoric expressions, what’s the reflexive pronouns himself, herself, itself (anaphors in Chomskian Binding Theory), and similar full range of semantic (or semantic and pragmatic) varieties of anaphora, and how do syntax forms in other languages. Reinhart (1999) begins as follows: and semantics correlate cross-linguistically? Binding theory is the branch of linguistic theory that explains the behavior of sentence- We’ll begin looking at some of these today, especially at the significance of the distinction internal anaphora, which is labelled 'bound anaphora' …. The sentences in (1) each contain between semantic bound variable anaphora and coreferential or pragmatic anaphora, and how an anaphoric expression (she, herself), and a potential antecedent (Lucie or Lili). that leads to fundamental questions about what, if anything, the syntactic binding conditions apply to. The conclusion will be: semantic binding requires syntactic binding, but coreference (1) a. Lucie thought that Lili hurt her. does not. b. Lucie thought that Lili hurt herself. c. *Lucie thought that herself hurt Lili. 2. Semantic binding vs. coreference. The two anaphoric expressions have different anaphora options: In (1a), only Lucie can be Bach and Partee (1980); Büring (2004), Chapter 4, Binding vs. Coreference, pp. 81-96, Chapter the antecedent; in (1b), only Lili; in (1c), neither can. This pattern is universal. (Reinhart 5, Other Cases of Semantic Binding, pp. 104-117; Reinhart (1999). 1999, p.86) 2.1. Basics of semantic binding Binding Theory is concerned primarily with the differences between the distributions of Bach and Partee (1980) summarize a number of different places where coindexing is used in the pronominals like her and reflexive pronouns like herself. literature: What does “binding” mean in syntax? (7) (i) The same pronoun appears in several places in a sentence: (2) Syntactic binding: NP1 syntactically binds NP2 iff NP1 and NP2 are coindexed and NP1 c- He said he was OK. commands NP2. (ii) A pronoun appears together with a referring NP: The Binding conditions proposed in (Chomsky 1981) can be summarized as follows; what a John said that he was OK. “local domain” is must be specified; to a first approximation it’s a clause. These conditions (and (iii) A pronoun appears together with a quantificational NP: No woman doubts that she is OK. RGGU089.doc 1 RGGU089.doc 2 Formal Semantics and Current Problems of Semantics, Lecture 9 Formal Semantics and Current Problems of Semantics, Lecture 9 Barbara H. Partee, RGGU, April 8, 2008 p. 3 Barbara H. Partee, RGGU, April 8, 2008 p. 4 (iv) A pronoun appears in a relative clause: The interpretation of the quantified NP has nothing in it with the index 2! Quantified NPs are … the woman who said that she had found the answer. semantically “closed” expressions: all of their variables are bound internally to the NP (v) A reflexive or other obligatorily bound pronoun appears in a sentence: interpretation. John loves himself. If we treat Heimian indefinites as type <<e,t>,t>, this would not be true of them. A generalized Oscar is out of his head. (idiom meaning “is crazy”; *Oscar is out of your head.) 1 quantifier interpretation of Heimian a cat3 would be λP(cat’(x3) & P(x3)) (note ). But it is Bach and Partee: “It is really only in situation (7i) (in some sentences) and (7ii) that it seems equally true in this case that when such an indefinite is an antecedent of a pronoun, the appropriate to talk about coreference. In every other case … coindexing a pronoun with some indefinite does not provide any operator that could semantically bind the pronoun. Similarly for other expression is a shorthand way of saying that the pronoun in question is being interpreted definite NPs. So we are faced with the following “paradox”: as a bound variable.” The same point is emphasized by Reinhart (1982, 1983a, 1983b). (11) Syntactic - Semantic binding “paradox”: Syntactic binding corresponds to semantic binding only in the case of bound variable pronouns, but an NP antecedent to a bound As Büring (2004, p. 82) notes, when we replace the pronouns in (7ii) and (7iii) by copies of their variable pronoun never binds it! antecedent NP, we get very different results. The resolution of the “paradox” is seen in the extra node in the tree in (10): the adjoined “2” is (8) John said that John was OK. interpreted as λx2, and it is that lambda-operator that semantically binds both the “trace” of the (9) No woman doubts that no woman is OK. QR’d subject every tenor (he2 in Montague’s way, or t2 in a Chomskian LF) and the coindexed Sentence (8) is (usually said to be) anomalous because of its Condition C violation, but at the pronoun he2, both of them interpreted as bound variables x2. same time it is a semantically accurate paraphrase of (7ii). (12) Interpretation of the tree in (10): TR(every tenor) (λx2 TR(he2 thinks that he2 is Sentence (9), on the other hand, is not syntactically anomalous at all – it does not seem to be a competent)) Condition C violation – but it has a very different meaning from (7iii). The pronoun in (7iii) in (Büring does
Recommended publications
  • Questions Under Discussion: from Sentence to Discourse∗

    Questions Under Discussion: from Sentence to Discourse∗

    Questions under Discussion: From sentence to discourse∗ Anton Benz Katja Jasinskaja July 14, 2016 Abstract Questions under discussion (QUD) is an analytic tool that has recently become more and more popular among linguists and language philosophers as a way to characterize how a sentence fits in its context. The idea is that each sentence in discourse addresses a (of- ten implicit) QUD either by answering it, or by bringing up another question that can help answering that QUD. The linguistic form and the interpretation of a sentence, in turn, may depend on the QUD it addresses. The first proponents of the QUD approach (von Stut- terheim & Klein, 1989; van Kuppevelt, 1995) thought of it as a general approach to the analysis of discourse structure where structural relations between sentences in a coherent discourse are understood in terms of relations between questions they address. However, the idea did not find broad application in discourse structure analysis, where theories aiming at logical discourse representations are predominantly based on the notion of coherence re- lations (Mann & Thompson, 1988; Hobbs, 1985; Asher & Lascarides, 2003). The problem of finding overt markers for QUDs means that they are also difficult to utilize for quanti- tative measures of discourse coherence (McNamara et al., 2010). At the same time QUD proved useful in the analysis of a wide range of linguistic phenomena including accentua- tion, discourse particles, presuppositions and implicatures. The goal of this special issue is to bring together cutting-edge research that demonstrates the success of QUD in linguistics and the need for the development of a comprehensive model of discourse coherence that incorporates the notion of QUD as its integral part.
  • Logophoricity in Finnish

    Logophoricity in Finnish

    Open Linguistics 2018; 4: 630–656 Research Article Elsi Kaiser* Effects of perspective-taking on pronominal reference to humans and animals: Logophoricity in Finnish https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0031 Received December 19, 2017; accepted August 28, 2018 Abstract: This paper investigates the logophoric pronoun system of Finnish, with a focus on reference to animals, to further our understanding of the linguistic representation of non-human animals, how perspective-taking is signaled linguistically, and how this relates to features such as [+/-HUMAN]. In contexts where animals are grammatically [-HUMAN] but conceptualized as the perspectival center (whose thoughts, speech or mental state is being reported), can they be referred to with logophoric pronouns? Colloquial Finnish is claimed to have a logophoric pronoun which has the same form as the human-referring pronoun of standard Finnish, hän (she/he). This allows us to test whether a pronoun that may at first blush seem featurally specified to seek [+HUMAN] referents can be used for [-HUMAN] referents when they are logophoric. I used corpus data to compare the claim that hän is logophoric in both standard and colloquial Finnish vs. the claim that the two registers have different logophoric systems. I argue for a unified system where hän is logophoric in both registers, and moreover can be used for logophoric [-HUMAN] referents in both colloquial and standard Finnish. Thus, on its logophoric use, hän does not require its referent to be [+HUMAN]. Keywords: Finnish, logophoric pronouns, logophoricity, anti-logophoricity, animacy, non-human animals, perspective-taking, corpus 1 Introduction A key aspect of being human is our ability to think and reason about our own mental states as well as those of others, and to recognize that others’ perspectives, knowledge or mental states are distinct from our own, an ability known as Theory of Mind (term due to Premack & Woodruff 1978).
  • VP Ellipsis Without Parallel Binding∗

    VP Ellipsis Without Parallel Binding∗

    Proceedings of SALT 24: 000–000, 2014 The sticky reading: VP ellipsis without parallel binding∗ Patrick D. Elliott Andreea C. Nicolae University College London ZAS Berlin Yasutada Sudo University College London Abstract VP Ellipsis (VPE) whose antecedent VP contains a pronoun famously gives rise to an ambiguity between strict and sloppy readings. Since Sag’s (1976) seminal work, it is generally assumed that the strict reading involves free pronouns in both the elided VP and its antecedent, whereas the sloppy reading involves bound pronouns. The majority of current approaches to VPE are tailored to derive this parallel binding requirement, ruling out mixed readings where one of the VPs involves a bound pronoun and the other a free pronoun in parallel positions. Contrary to this assumption, it is observed that there are cases of VPE where the antecedent VP contains a bound pronoun but the elided VP contains a free E-type pronoun anchored to the quantifier, in violation of parallel binding. We dub this the ‘sticky reading’ of VPE. To account for it, we propose a new identity condition on VPE which is less stringent than is standardly assumed. We formalize this using an extension of Roberts’s (2012) Question under Discussion (QuD) theory of information structure. Keywords: VP ellipsis, strict/sloppy identity, pronominal binding, focus, Question under Discussion 1 Introduction It has been famously observed by Sag(1976) that pronouns give rise to an ambiguity in a VP Ellipsis (VPE) context. An example such as (1) is claimed to be ambiguous between so-called strict and sloppy readings. (1) Jonny totaled his car, and Kevin did h...i too.
  • Nouns, Adjectives, Verbs, and Adverbs

    Nouns, Adjectives, Verbs, and Adverbs

    Unit 1: The Parts of Speech Noun—a person, place, thing, or idea Name: Person: boy Kate mom Place: house Minnesota ocean Adverbs—describe verbs, adjectives, and other Thing: car desk phone adverbs Idea: freedom prejudice sadness --------------------------------------------------------------- Answers the questions how, when, where, and to Pronoun—a word that takes the place of a noun. what extent Instead of… Kate – she car – it Many words ending in “ly” are adverbs: quickly, smoothly, truly A few other pronouns: he, they, I, you, we, them, who, everyone, anybody, that, many, both, few A few other adverbs: yesterday, ever, rather, quite, earlier --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Adjective—describes a noun or pronoun Prepositions—show the relationship between a noun or pronoun and another word in the sentence. Answers the questions what kind, which one, how They begin a prepositional phrase, which has a many, and how much noun or pronoun after it, called the object. Articles are a sub category of adjectives and include Think of the box (things you have do to a box). the following three words: a, an, the Some prepositions: over, under, on, from, of, at, old car (what kind) that car (which one) two cars (how many) through, in, next to, against, like --------------------------------------------------------------- Conjunctions—connecting words. --------------------------------------------------------------- Connect ideas and/or sentence parts. Verb—action, condition, or state of being FANBOYS (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so) Action (things you can do)—think, run, jump, climb, eat, grow A few other conjunctions are found at the beginning of a sentence: however, while, since, because Linking (or helping)—am, is, are, was, were --------------------------------------------------------------- Interjections—show emotion.
  • CAS LX 522 Syntax I the Y Model

    CAS LX 522 Syntax I the Y Model

    CAS LX 522 The Y model • We’re now ready to tackle the most abstract branch of Syntax I the Y-model, the mapping from SS to LF. Here is where we have “movement that you can’t see”. θ Theory Week 10. LF Overt movement, DS Subcategorization Expletive insertion X-bar theory Case theory, EPP SS Covert movement Phonology/ Morphology PF LF Binding theory Derivations Derivations • We think of what we’re doing when we • The steps are not necessarily a reflection of what construct abstract structures of sentences we are doing online as we speak—what we are this way as being a sequence of steps. doing is characterizing our knowledge of language, and it turns out that we can predict our – We start with DS intuitions about what sentences are good and bad – We do some movements and what different sentences mean by – We arrive at SS characterizing the relationship between underlying – We do some more movements thematic relations, surface form, and interpretation in terms of movements in an order with constraints – We arrive at LF on what movements are possible. Derivations Derivations • It seems that the simplest explanation for the • Concerning SS, under this view, languages pick a complex facts of grammar is in terms of several point to focus on between DS and LF and small modifications to the DS that each are subject pronounce that structure. This is (the basis for) SS. to certain constraints, sometimes even things which • There are also certain restrictions on the form SS seem to indicate that one operation has to occur has (e.g., Case, EPP have to be satisfied).
  • Minimal Pronouns, Logophoricity and Long-Distance Reflexivisation in Avar

    Minimal Pronouns, Logophoricity and Long-Distance Reflexivisation in Avar

    Minimal pronouns, logophoricity and long-distance reflexivisation in Avar* Pavel Rudnev Revised version; 28th January 2015 Abstract This paper discusses two morphologically related anaphoric pronouns inAvar (Avar-Andic, Nakh-Daghestanian) and proposes that one of them should be treated as a minimal pronoun that receives its interpretation from a λ-operator situated on a phasal head whereas the other is a logophoric pro- noun denoting the author of the reported event. Keywords: reflexivity, logophoricity, binding, syntax, semantics, Avar 1 Introduction This paper has two aims. One is to make a descriptive contribution to the crosslin- guistic study of long-distance anaphoric dependencies by presenting an overview of the properties of two kinds of reflexive pronoun in Avar, a Nakh-Daghestanian language spoken natively by about 700,000 people mostly living in the North East Caucasian republic of Daghestan in the Russian Federation. The other goal is to highlight the relevance of the newly introduced data from an understudied lan- guage to the theoretical debate on the nature of reflexivity, long-distance anaphora and logophoricity. The issue at the heart of this paper is the unusual character of theanaphoric system in Avar, which is tripartite. (1) is intended as just a preview with more *The present material was presented at the Utrecht workshop The World of Reflexives in August 2011. I am grateful to the workshop’s audience and participants for their questions and comments. I am indebted to Eric Reuland and an anonymous reviewer for providing valuable feedback on the first draft, as well as to Yakov Testelets for numerous discussions of anaphora-related issues inAvar spanning several years.
  • 8. Binding Theory

    8. Binding Theory

    THE COMPLICATED AND MURKY WORLD OF BINDING THEORY We’re about to get sucked into a black hole … 11-13 March Ling 216 ~ Winter 2019 ~ C. Ussery 2 OUR ROADMAP •Overview of Basic Binding Theory •Binding and Infinitives •Some cross-linguistic comparisons: Icelandic, Ewe, and Logophors •Picture NPs •Binding and Movement: The Nixon Sentences 3 SOME TERMINOLOGY • R-expression: A DP that gets its meaning by referring to an entity in the world. • Anaphor: A DP that obligatorily gets its meaning from another DP in the sentence. 1. Heidi bopped herself on the head with a zucchini. [Carnie 2013: Ch. 5, EX 3] • Reflexives: Myself, Yourself, Herself, Himself, Itself, Ourselves, Yourselves, Themselves • Reciprocals: Each Other, One Another • Pronoun: A DP that may get its meaning from another DP in the sentence or contextually, from the discourse. 2. Art said that he played basketball. [EX5] • “He” could be Art or someone else. • I/Me, You/You, She/Her, He/Him, It/It, We/Us, You/You, They/Them • Nominative/Accusative Pronoun Pairs in English • Antecedent: A DP that gives its meaning to another DP. • This is familiar from control; PRO needs an antecedent. Ling 216 ~ Winter 2019 ~ C. Ussery 4 OBSERVATION 1: NO NOMINATIVE FORMS OF ANAPHORS • This makes sense, since anaphors cannot be subjects of finite clauses. 1. * Sheselfi / Herselfi bopped Heidii on the head with a zucchini. • Anaphors can be the subjects of ECM clauses. 2. Heidi believes herself to be an excellent cook, even though she always bops herself on the head with zucchini. SOME DESCRIPTIVE OBSERVATIONS Ling 216 ~ Winter 2019 ~ C.
  • Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe Author(S): Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol

    Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe Author(S): Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol

    MIT Press Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe Author(s): Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 555-588 Published by: MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178645 Accessed: 22-10-2015 18:32 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:32:27 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hilda Koopman Pronouns, Logical Variables, Dominique Sportiche and Logophoricity in Abe 1. Introduction 1.1. Preliminaries In this article we describe and analyze the propertiesof the pronominalsystem of Abe, a Kwa language spoken in the Ivory Coast, which we view as part of the study of pronominalentities (that is, of possible pronominaltypes) and of pronominalsystems (that is, of the cooccurrence restrictionson pronominaltypes in a particulargrammar). Abe has two series of thirdperson pronouns. One type of pronoun(0-pronoun) has basically the same propertiesas pronouns in languageslike English. The other type of pronoun(n-pronoun) very roughly corresponds to what has been called the referential use of pronounsin English(see Evans (1980)).It is also used as what is called a logophoric pronoun-that is, a particularpronoun that occurs in special embedded contexts (the logophoric contexts) to indicate reference to "the person whose speech, thought or perceptions are reported" (Clements (1975)).
  • Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian Evidential System Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin

    Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian Evidential System Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin

    Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian evidential system Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin This paper provides an account of the Bulgarian admirative construction andits place within the Bulgarian evidential system based on (i) new observations on the morphological, temporal, and evidential properties of the admirative, (ii) a criti- cal reexamination of existing approaches to the Bulgarian evidential system, and (iii) insights from a similar mirative construction in Spanish. I argue in particular that admirative sentences are assertions based on evidence of some sort (reporta- tive, inferential, or direct) which are contrasted against the set of beliefs held by the speaker up to the point of receiving the evidence; the speaker’s past beliefs entail a proposition that clashes with the assertion, triggering belief revision and resulting in a sense of surprise. I suggest an analysis of the admirative in terms of a mirative operator that captures the evidential, temporal, aspectual, and modal properties of the construction in a compositional fashion. The analysis suggests that although mirativity and evidentiality can be seen as separate semantic cate- gories, the Bulgarian admirative represents a cross-linguistically relevant case of a mirative extension of evidential verbal forms. Keywords: mirativity, evidentiality, fake past 1 Introduction The Bulgarian evidential system is an ongoing topic of discussion both withre- spect to its interpretation and its morphological buildup. In this paper, I focus on the currently poorly understood admirative construction. The analysis I present is based on largely unacknowledged observations and data involving the mor- phological structure, the syntactic environment, and the evidential meaning of the admirative. Elena Karagjosova.
  • On the Grammar of Negation

    On the Grammar of Negation

    Please provide footnote text Chapter 2 On the Grammar of Negation 2.1 Functional Perspectives on Negation Negation can be described from several different points of view, and various descriptions may reach diverging conclusions as to whether a proposition is negative or not. A question without a negated predicate, for example, may be interpreted as negative from a pragmatic point of view (rhetorical ques- tion), while a clause with constituent negation, e.g. The soul is non-mortal, is an affirmative predication from an orthodox Aristotelian point of view.1 However, common to most if not all descriptions is that negation is generally approached from the viewpoint of affirmation.2 With regard to the formal expression, “the negative always receives overt expression while positive usually has zero expression” (Greenberg 1966: 50). Furthermore, the negative morpheme tends to come as close to the finite ele- ment of the clause as possible (Dahl 1979: 92). The reason seems to be that ne- gation is intimately connected with finiteness. This relationship will be further explored in section 2.2. To be sure, negation of the predicate, or verb phrase negation, is the most common type of negation in natural language (Givón 2001, 1: 382). Generally, verb phrase negation only negates the asserted and not the presup- posed part of the corresponding affirmation. Typically then, the subject of the predication is excluded from negation. This type of negation, in its unmarked form, has wide scope over the predicate, such that the scope of negation in a clause John didn’t kill the goat may be paraphrased as ‘he did not kill the goat.’ However, while in propositional logic, negation is an operation that simply re- verses the logical value of a proposition, negative clauses in natural language rarely reverse the logical value only.
  • Pronouns: a Resource Supporting Transgender and Gender Nonconforming (Gnc) Educators and Students

    Pronouns: a Resource Supporting Transgender and Gender Nonconforming (Gnc) Educators and Students

    PRONOUNS: A RESOURCE SUPPORTING TRANSGENDER AND GENDER NONCONFORMING (GNC) EDUCATORS AND STUDENTS Why focus on pronouns? You may have noticed that people are sharing their pronouns in introductions, on nametags, and when GSA meetings begin. This is happening to make spaces more inclusive of transgender, gender nonconforming, and gender non-binary people. Including pronouns is a first step toward respecting people’s gender identity, working against cisnormativity, and creating a more welcoming space for people of all genders. How is this more inclusive? People’s pronouns relate to their gender identity. For example, someone who identifies as a woman may use the pronouns “she/her.” We do not want to assume people’s gender identity based on gender expression (typically shown through clothing, hairstyle, mannerisms, etc.) By providing an opportunity for people to share their pronouns, you're showing that you're not assuming what their gender identity is based on their appearance. If this is the first time you're thinking about your pronoun, you may want to reflect on the privilege of having a gender identity that is the same as the sex assigned to you at birth. Where do I start? Include pronouns on nametags and during introductions. Be cognizant of your audience, and be prepared to use this resource and other resources (listed below) to answer questions about why you are making pronouns visible. If your group of students or educators has never thought about gender-neutral language or pronouns, you can use this resource as an entry point. What if I don’t want to share my pronouns? That’s ok! Providing space and opportunity for people to share their pronouns does not mean that everyone feels comfortable or needs to share their pronouns.
  • Pronoun Verb Agreement Exercises

    Pronoun Verb Agreement Exercises

    Pronoun Verb Agreement Exercises hammercloth.Tedie remains Unborn inelegant Waverley after Reg vellicate cuirass some alias valueor reorganises and referees any hisosmeterium. crucian so Prussian stingingly! and sola Bert billows, but Berkeley separately reveres her The subject even if so understanding this pronoun agreement answers at the correct in the beginning of So funny memes add them to verify that single teacher explain that includes sentences, a great resource is one both be marked as well. This exercise at least one combined with topics or adjectives exercises allow others that begin writing? Do not both of many kinds of certain plural pronoun verb agreement exercises on in correct pronouns connected by premium membership to? One pronoun agreement exercise together your quiz! This is the currently selected item. Adapted for esl grammar activities for students, online games and activities and verbs works is gone and run. Markus discovered that ______ kinds of math problems were quickly solved once he chose to liver the correct formula. Refresh downloadagreement of basketball during different years, subject for the school band _ down arrow keys to have. To determine whether to use a singular or plural verb with an indefinite pronoun, consider the noun that the pronoun would refer to. Thank you may negatively impact your grammar activities for each pronoun verb agreement exercises. Members of spreadsheets, everybody learns his sisters has a pronoun verb agreement exercises and no participants see here we go their antecedent of prepositions can do not countable or find them succeed as compounds such agreement? Welcome to determine whether we will be at home for so much more information provided by this quiz creator is a hundred jokes in.