Do autistic girls talk differently about social groups?

New data, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, suggest that pronoun use during natural conversation might inform us about clinically meaningful social function.

Verkkokeskustelijoiden käsitykset hän- ja se-pronominien norminvastaisesta käytöstä

Artikkeli tarkastelee ei-kielitieteilijöiden käymää keskustelua eläimeen viittaavasta hän-pronominista sekä ihmiseen viittaavasta se-pronominista internetin keskustelupalstoilla. Normitetussa suomen kielessä eläimiin viittaavan kolmaspersoonaisen pronominin sääntö on tiukempi kuin monissa muissa kielissä. Esimerkiksi ruotsissa ja englannissa persoonapronominin käyttö eläimistä sallitaan ja sitä jopa suositellaan tietyissä tilanteissa, mutta suomessa vain demonstratiivipronomini on yleiskielen mukainen. Hän-pronominia kuitenkin käytetään viittaamassa erityisesti lemmikkieläimiin ainakin puhutussa kielessä, lastenkirjoissa ja leikittelevissä, vapaamuotoisissa teksteissäkin. Se-pronomini taas on puheessa tavallinen ihmisviitteisenä. Keskusteluissa esiin tuotavia käsityksiä tutkitaan kansanlingvistisestä näkökulmasta yhdistämällä sisällönanalyysiä ja diskurssianalyysiä. Tulokset täydentävät aiemmin kyselyaineistojen perusteella tehtyä tarkastelua ja vertaavat kahta pronomininormia koskevia käsityksiä toisiinsa. Havainto, että ei-kielitieteilijät keskittyvät normiin ja vaativat yksiselitteisiä sääntöjä, ei yllätä. Normidiskurssia selvästi yleisempää on kuitenkin vedota arvostukseen ja väitellä siitä, ilmaiseeko pronominivalinta puhujan suhtautumista viittauskohteeseen. Keskustelijat ovat aidosti erimielisiä, ja kummankin normin rikkomista myös puolustetaan ja ymmärretään. Verkkokeskustelijat kytkevät kaksi pronomininormia yhteen kahdella erilaisella tavalla: se-pronominin käyttöä ihmisistä käytetään sekä puolustamassa että vastustamassa hän-pronominin käyttöä eläimistä. Alueellinen vaihtelu nousee verkkokeskusteluissa esiin harvemmin kuin aiemmin tarkastelluissa kyselyvastauksissa. Normidiskurssin vastapainoksi asettuvat käsitykset tilanteen mukaan vaihtelevista käyttötavoista sekä kielenkäyttäjän oikeudesta käyttää kieltä haluamallaan tavalla. Lisäksi verkkokeskustelijat esittävät, että hän-pronominin käyttö viittaamassa eläimiin olisi lisääntynyt viime vuosina muiden kielten vaikutuksesta tai siksi, että ihmisten suhtautuminen lemmikkieläimiin on muuttunut. Online discussions about rules for third-person pronoun use in Finnish The article examines online discussions regarding the use of the personal pronoun hän ‘he, she’ for animals and the demonstrative pronoun se ‘it’ for people. In Standard Finnish, the norm regulating the third-person pronouns used for animal referents is stricter than in many other languages. In English and Swedish, for instance, a personal pronoun is allowed and even recommended in some contexts. Even though it is against the norms of Standard Finnish, the personal pronoun hän ‘he, she’ may refer to pets in colloquial speech, children’s books and playful style. The demonstrative pronoun se ‘it’, in turn, refers to all kinds of referents, including people, in informal spoken language. The approach in this article is folk linguistic and the methods used are those of discourse analysis and content analysis. It is not surprising that participants in online discussions focus on the standard norm and insist upon simple, unambiguous rules. However, a more common discourse in the data is to argue as to whether the choice of pronoun is linked to a demonstration of respect for animals. The perspectives regarding the two norms governing pronoun use intertwine in several interesting ways, and breaking these norms can be justified by situational variation and the right to use language freely. Many participants in online discussions think that the use of hän for animals may have increased due to the influence of other languages and changing attitudes towards animals.

Gender identity and nonbinary pronoun use

This study contributes to the emerging literature on gender identity and pronoun use by exploring strategies to refer to unknown human referents. In an online survey involving mainly a university population aged 29 and below, participants were first asked to pick a potential roommate from two fictional characters with gender-ambiguous names and write short answers explaining their choice. Secondly, participants were explicitly asked what pronoun they would use to refer to an unknown human referent from a list of neopronouns in addition to singular they. The results show a strong association between participants’ self-identified gender and the gendered pronoun used. The results also show singular they is the most popular gender-inclusive pronoun for an unknown individual while pronoun avoidance strategies include repeating names and using generic nouns. Additionally, the reflexive form themself is preferred over themselves for unknown human referents, in contrast to previous research showing almost the same rate of naturalness for themselves and themself in the specific-reference context.

EXPRESS: Representations underling pronoun choice in Italian and English

Research has shown that speakers use fewer pronouns when the referential candidates are more similar and hence compete more strongly. Here we examined the locus of such an effect, investigating whether pronoun use is affected by the referents’ competition at a non-linguistic level only (non-linguistic competition account) or whether it is also affected by competition arising from the antecedents’ similarities (linguistic competition account) and the extent to which this depends on the type of pronoun. Speakers used Italian null pronouns and English pronouns less often (relative to full nouns) when the referential candidates compete more strongly situationally, whilst the antecedents’ semantic, grammatical or phonological similarity did not affect the rates of either pronouns, providing support for the non-linguistic competition account. However, unlike English pronouns, Italian null pronouns were unaffected by gender congruence between human referents, running counter to the gender effect for the use of non-gendered overt pronouns reported earlier. Hence, whilst both null and overt pronouns are sensitive to non-linguistic competition, what similarity affects non-linguistic competition partly depends on the type of pronouns.

Intention and Attention in Image-Text Presentations: A Coherence Approach

In image-text presentations from online discourse, pronouns can refer to entities depicted in images, even if these entities are not otherwise referred to in a text caption. While visual salience may be enough to allow a writer to use a pronoun to refer to a prominent entity in the image, coherence theory suggests that pronoun use is more restricted. Specifically, language users may need an appropriate coherence relation between text and imagery to license and resolve pronouns. To explore this hypothesis and better understand the relationship between image context and text interpretation, we annotated an image-text data set with coherence relations and pronoun information. We find that pronoun use reflects a complex interaction between the content of the pronoun, the grammar of the text, and the relation of text and image.

I blame you, I hear you: Couples’ pronoun use in conflict and dyadic coping

In dyadic interaction, a verbal focus on one individual (“you-talk,” “I-talk”), rather than on the couple (“we-talk”) has predominantly been linked to dysfunctional relationship processes. However, context differences in these links have not yet been systematically examined. Is it functional to asymmetrically focus on one partner during support interactions but problematic during conflict? Does a high level of couple-focus represent a resource across contexts? In this preregistered study, we investigated dyad-level pronoun use (we-/I-/you-talk) and their link to situational relationship functioning (SRF) across three interaction tasks (one conflict, two dyadic coping tasks) within couples ( N = 365). More specifically, we examined associations of couple-means, i.e. pronoun use as a shared resource/vulnerability between partners, and couple-differences, i.e. functional/dysfunctional asymmetric pronoun use with observed interaction positivity and relationship climate. Results revealed both context differences and similarities. Asymmetric partner-focus (i.e. you-talk) was dysfunctional in conflict, whereas asymmetric partner- and self-focus (i.e., you-talk/I-talk; focus on the stressed partner) were functional in dyadic coping. Beyond asymmetry, you-talk (couple-mean) showed consistent negative associations with SRF in all tasks studied. We-talk (couple-mean) was positively linked to SRF, but only in conflict interactions. In conflict, couple-focus thus represented a shared resource that can buffer from dysfunctional conflict interaction characterized by partner-focus. In line with conceptual frameworks, the dyadic coping results emphasize the importance of focusing on the partner in need. The study corroborates the prospect of pronoun use as a context-specific indicator of relationship functioning. Gender differences, implications for future research and possible interventions are discussed.

Acquisition of Object Pronouns in EFL in Germany by Heritage Speakers of Turkish

Summary L3 acquisition has begun to attract the attention of many scholars in recent years. Heritage contexts are especially fruitful areas to understand how linguistic and nonlinguistic mechanisms interact with one another. The current study focuses on L3 English acquisition of object pronouns with L1 Turkish, L2 German speakers. We seek to find out whether the speakers could produce object pronouns accurately, whether L3 English proficiency has any effects on their acquisition, and finally, whether all object pronouns are acquired in the same way. Data for this study come from a corpus consisting of written and oral productions of 167 participants, who were students in four distinct grades, namely 5th, 7th, 10th and 12th graders at different schools in Berlin, Germany. The results reveal that participants were highly meticulous in their object pronoun use. Also, no clear L1 effect was observed, while L2 impact is implied. Lastly, proficiency and linguistic features are noted as significant factors that have an impact on L3 acquisition.

The Relationship Between Pronoun Use in Couple Interactions, Attachment, and Relationship Satisfaction

Research shows pronoun use may be related to relationship factors. Our research invited 40 couples (adults mostly partnered for 2 or fewer years) to engage in a 15-min conversation after completing demographics, attachment, and relationship satisfaction measures. Romantic partners tended to use pronouns similarly. Attachment anxiety and avoidance were related to lower relationship satisfaction. Bivariate actor partner interdependence models showed when men used we pronouns, lower relationship satisfaction was reported in both partners. When men used I pronouns, women were more likely to use we pronouns. When men used you pronouns, women were more likely to use I pronouns and engage in more attachment avoidant behaviors. Findings suggest communication patterns may be interpreted differently by younger couples. Couples therapists may want to investigate communication patterns to create a new dialogue that increases relationship satisfaction and limits insecure attachment behaviors.

To We or Not to We: Corpus-Based Research on First-Person Pronoun Use in Abstracts and Conclusions

A growing trend exists for authors to employ a more informal writing style that uses “we” in academic writing to acknowledge one’s stance and engagement. However, few studies have compared the ways in which the first-person pronoun “we” is used in the abstracts and conclusions of empirical papers. To address this lacuna in the literature, this study conducted a systematic corpus analysis of the use of “we” in the abstracts and conclusions of 400 articles collected from eight leading electrical and electronic (EE) engineering journals. The abstracts and conclusions were extracted to form two subcorpora, and an integrated framework was applied to analyze and seek to explain how we-clusters and we-collocations were employed. Results revealed whether authors’ use of first-person pronouns partially depends on a journal policy. The trend of using “we” showed that a yearly increase occurred in the frequency of “we” in EE journal papers, as well as the existence of three “we-use” types in the article conclusions and abstracts: exclusive, inclusive, and ambiguous. Other possible “we-use” alternatives such as “I” and other personal pronouns were used very rarely—if at all—in either section. These findings also suggest that the present tense was used more in article abstracts, but the present perfect tense was the most preferred tense in article conclusions. Both research and pedagogical implications are proffered and critically discussed.