Thanks to Chris Collins for this feedback.
Pronouns aren’t nouns. Their job is to replace nouns, that much I was right on, but to describe them as a special type of noun is not accurate. The question I had to ask though was why not? A little bit of digging and I found this at http://forums.atozteacherstuff.com/showthread.php?t=28629&page=3:
“A pronoun is not in fact a noun per se, because it cannot substitute for a noun per se. The word classroom, underlined in sentence (a) below, is pretty unexceptionally a noun. If it were true that a pronoun can substitute for a noun, then sentence (b) ought to be acceptable, because it is substituted for classroom, but that sentence is no good. In fact, what a pronoun can be substituted for is a noun phrase – here, the classroom – and that’s why sentence (c) is all right.
a. The teacher locked the classroom.
b. *The teacher locked the it.
c. The teacher locked it.
In linguistics, a noun is any word that can be used where a noun (not a pronoun, not a noun phrase) can be used. This definition sounds really unwieldy, but it turns out to work a little more reliably than the old person-place-or-thing definition (it’s a little difficult to see beauty or ridicule or swimming, for example, as things in the usual sense).”
Basically (and I hope I’ve got this right) there must exist a noun or a noun phrase that the pronoun replaces, otherwise it makes no sense. While the function of a pronoun is that of a noun or a noun phrase*, without the assumption that one such word or phrase exists (whether it is mentioned or not) a pronoun does not mean anything. A pronoun cannot be used without replacing something.
If you don’t understand what the problem is, don’t panic. All it amounts to is a border dispute by two neighbouring countries that are almost identical in culture.
Anyway, expect amendments to page eight in future posts.
*Noun phrases will be addressed when discussing sentence construction in chapter two.