I find Herb's introduction of the deixis ("pointing") function vs. the 
reference function extremely important in this discussion. I don't feel 
at all comfortable calling 'his' a pronoun! It's prototypical function 
is determining, not referring. It can function as a nominal, as in 
"Let's take his." But note that this likely has its source in ellipsis.

Why not talk about determinatives acting as nominals instead of the 
other way around? Reference is criterial for nominals; my thinking is 
heading towards the idea that we call something a nominal _because_ it 
refers.

Words like 'his' are not pronouns because they refer to an antecedent; 
they are CO-referent. They index a noun somewhere nearby and relate it 
to another noun; they are relational, not nominal. In "this book", 
"book" is the head of the nominal phrase; there are not two nominals (a 
pronoun and a noun) here. "This" is a proximal (near to speaker) deictic 
(pointing) determinative.

I don't know how widespread the acceptance of the new Cambrdge grammar's 
categorization scheme is. It definitely seems to favor keeping a single 
category name across a range of functions. I think it is more radical in 
this respect than other recent linguistic theory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] •      Home page: 
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/