Az általános alany ami nem az
és ami az de mégse
2011 október
Nytud
Bródy Mihály
The disappearing "universalimpersonal" personal
pronouns
With thanks to Kata Bródy for path-opening discussions
Universal Impersonal
•
‘Typical humans’, ‘humans generally’:
–
–
–
•
Not: with linguistic antecedent as in
–
•
„People think they don’t like to work”
Not: the ‘someone / some people’ sense as in the existential impersonal
–
•
„We should save the world”
„You don’t do that in polite company”
„One should not be rude”
„They sell newspapers on Melrose”
Not: generic with nonlinguistic anchor but restricted to subset of humans
–
„We are a clever bunch of people”
Note:
we= the (group of) people present or
we= those relevantly like the people present
Bewildering array of variaton in using
antecedentless personal pronouns in the
universal-impersonal sense of „people”
OK: 2sg, 1pl, sometimes 1sg, and 2, 3pl with locative
vs: 3sg, 1sg usually, 2, 3pl without the locative
1sg: When I go to the cinema I want to see a good film
vs. #I must earn a living
2sg: You must earn (yourself) a living
3sg: #He must earn a living
1pl: We must earn a living
2pl #(In Italy) you can’t earn (yourselves) a living
3pl #(In Italy) they can’t earn a living
Three components
• 1. impersonal cum adverbialpseudo-impersonal
• 2. all personal pronouns can be definite or generic, --like
nominal descriptions in general
• 2a. 1st and 2nd singular are generic nominals on a par
with one or the lion
• 2b. 1st and 2nd plural and 3rd +human singular and
plural can have the universal-impersonal reading when
used in the limiting case of ostensive exemplification
• 2c. general (not genericity specific) conditions on 3rd
singular and on plural pronouns conspire with general
conditions on generics to (typically, but not always) rule
out „real universal impersonal” (ie. ostensive
exemplification with the implied predicate +human) use
of the 3sg and 2,3pl personal pronouns
1. The pseudo-impersonal
1.1. Problems with the ambiguity
approach to the adverbial-with-universalimpersonal
• (Not always a subject:)
• (1) a. In Italy they like to take a nap in the
afternoon.
•
b. In Italy people like to take a nap in
the afternoon
• (2) a. In Italy the police can arrest them
without a warrant
•
b. In Italy the police can arrest people
without a warrant
(i) the locative
• (3) #They like to take a nap in the afternoon
(...who?, --no impersonal/people reading
possible)
• (4) #The police can arrest them without a
warrant (...who?, --no impersonal/people reading
possible)
• (5) People like to take a nap in the afternoon. -OK
• (6) The police can arrest people without a
warrant --OK
???
• why can't the locative be omitted when
the pronoun is used in the impersonal
universal / people sense? (people does
not contain a locative)
•  what is missing from universalimpersonal they that is provided by the
locative (and people)?
• why does it have to be present?
(ii) temporals (Toth 2010)
• (7) In the middle ages they ate mostly
potatoes
• (8) #Last year, they ate mostly potatoes
(...who?)
• (9) #On sunny days, ...
• (10)#Generally, ...
???
•  why some of the temporals are
(un-)acceptable in the construction?
2.2. A shift of perspective: 'people/one(s)
insertion'
• (11)
•
• (12)
•
day
a The Italians arrived yesterday
b The French work 24 hours a day
a. The Italian arrived yesterday
b. The French works 24 hours a
• (13) The tall (one(s)) arrived yesterday
Understood „people” can serve as an
antecedent for the plural pronouns:
• (14)a. We/you(pl)/they, the Italians, often sleep
in the afternoon.
•
b. We/you(pl)/they, in Italy, often sleep in
the afternoon
Though apparently not syntactically present:
• (15) *(People) in Italy like to sleep in the
afternoon
So no (non-standard) ambiguity
necessary for plural cum adverbial
construction
• (16) (People) in Italy, they like to take a nap in
the afternoon.
Parallel to:
• (14)a. We/you(pl)/they, the Italians (ie. Italian
people), often sleep in the afternoon.
•
b. We/you(pl)/they, (people) in Italy, often
sleep in the afternoon
1.3. Some problems solved...
• (3) #They like to take a nap in the afternoon (...who?, -no impersonal/people reading possible)
• (4) #The police can arrest them without a warrant
(...who?, --no impersonal/people reading possible)
• (5) People like to take a nap in the afternoon. --OK
• (6) The police can arrest people without a warrant --OK
(i) Universal-impersonal they here is not a synonym
of people, so there is no reason to expect these
sentences to behave similarly.
But why are (3) and (4) not possible as
universal-impersonals?
• (17) a. *(People), they like to take a nap in the
afternoon
•
b. *(People), the police can arrest them
• Recoverability requires contextual restriction?
• More natural than the condition it replaces: (a particular
interpretation of an element (the putatively antecedentless and
ambiguous pronoun) possible in the presence of a restriction
such that independent evidence ((3)-(4) vs (5) and (6) above)
shows that the interpretation in question did not in fact need
the restriction.)
(ii) the temporal restriction
• (18)a. People in the middle ages (ie. "people of the
middle ages", "people who lived in the middle ages")
•
b. #People last year (not construable as "people of
last year" "people who lived last year")
•
c. #People on sunny days (not construable as
"people of sunny days" "people who lived on sunny
days")
(18a) and (18b,c): stage vs individual level properties
Individual vs stage level
• individual vs stage level, --apparently a further
requirement on insertability of people
• Suppose „people-insertion” is a property of
individual level N-modifiers including
locative/temporal adverbials
• ungrammaticality of the impossible temporals
(and locatives, see below),
•  necessity of the locative or temporal phrase
Individual vs stage level (2)
• the restriction is relevant only to temporals?
• no, only an apparent puzzle.
• (19)a. In this village they ate potatoes. (possible:
"People in this village ate potatoes")
•
Cf. People of this village ate potatoes
•
b. In this bar they ate (their) potatoes
("someone/#people) in this bar ate (their)
potatoes ")
•
Cf. #People of this bar
To summarize so far
• the third plural cum adverbial
constructions do not represent a genuine
impersonal use of the personal pronoun
• this is a case of an ordinary personal
pronoun with a covert impersonal
antecedent.
2. Universal impersonal reading of
personal pronouns without a
locative/temporal adverbial
A different, but equally complex
paradigm:
•
•
Universal impersonal pronouns are generic („typical, characteristic humans, humans generally”...)
Generic pronouns are fixed (universal impersonal) or have variable interpretation which may or
may not include the universal impersonal
•
•
I you(sg) vs it s(he) we you(pl) they
I, you is fixed, but we has variable interpretation like it
–
–
–
•
•
I you(sg) we vs (s)he it you(pl) they
I, you (sg), we --can be, (though difficult with the 1st singular) He, you(pl), they –apparently cannot
in general be universal-impersonal
–
–
•
•
„You do not speak Chinese” –one does not
„We do not speak Chinese” –eg. Americans,
„It has large paws” –the lion, the African lion etc.
„You/we have to work for a living”
„They have to work for a living”
(S)he vs you(pl) they
(S)he cannot but you(pl) and they can refer to a proper subset of humans, in spite of the fact that
they all can have variable interpretation
–
–
–
„They do not speak Chinese” –eg: Americans, Americans like them...
„He does not speak Chinese” –NOT: He as an American, Americans like him...
„He has a fairly large jaw” –eg: the Neanderthal man, the Neanderthal male of this site etc...
2.1. The second singular
• (26) In Italy you don't do that (="(When) in Italy, one (should) not do
that.")
(26) not a pseudo-impersonal, --it would have have no source: (27)
Also: the locative/temporal restriction is unnecessary:(28)
• (27) (*You(sg) people/one/man) in Italy, you take a nap in the
afternoon
• (28) a. You don't do that. (possible: "one does not do that")
•
b. You like to go shopping from time to time (possible: "one
likes to go shopping...")
You is ambiguous
•
Universal-impersonal you similar to 3sg impersonal one
•
•
•
•
•
--no (covert antecedent containing) adverbial restriction necessary/possible
--inclusiveness
(29) a. One takes a nap in the afternoon
b. One doesn't do that.
c. One likes to go shopping from time to time
•
You: constant or (Gen x) (x: addressee)
•
•
•
Potential adressee—general property of (this type of(?)) generics:
Clearer with stage level properties.
„A/the final year student tends to skip boring classes”. –any potential final year
student
„Final year students...” ?
•
2.2. The first singular
• (30) In Italy, when I go to the cinema, I expect to see a good film,
don't I? (="(When) going to the cinema in Italy, one expects to see
a good film")
• But
• (31) a. (In Italy), I take a nap in the afternoon (not= "People/one (in
Italy) (should) take a nap in the afternoon")
• Again no pseudo-impersonal source necessary or possible:
• (32) a. *(I/people/one/man) in Italy, when I go to the cinema, I
expect to see a good film, don't I? (="(When) in Italy, when one
goes to the cinema one expects to see a good film")
•
b. When I go to the cinema, I expect to see a good film, don't I?
(="When one goes to the cinema one expects to see a good film")
• like the second singular:
• --no need for the locative,
• --inclusive
Universal-impersonal 1sg restricted to
conditional contexts, ie. to hypothetical
situations
•
in the context of a given utterance the identity of the speaker is
generally fixed while that of the adressee can vary:
•
•
(33) a. I like you but not you
b. *I and/but not I like you
•
the universal-impersonal interpretation is possible only when the
pronoun is not interpreted as having definite reference, but is
functioning as a non-degenerate variable. --a requirement of applying
the generic operator(?)
•
generally possible for the second singular but for the first singular
only in contexts that evoke possible worlds, and even then only
marginally, given the apparent strong tendency of 1sg to refer rigidly
to the speaker
1sg also ambiguous
• : constant or (Gen x) (x: speaker (in the
current speech situation))...
• definite-personal use: pronouns as specialized
names or definite descriptions, --as constants,
• universal impersonal use: pronouns are
interpreted as variables bound by a generic
operator.
• "Gen x (x:human)", "Gen x (x: addressee/
speaker)"
2.3. The –human third singular
• Cannot be universal impersonal: not +human
• But similarly to the other singular personal pronouns, definite
or generic when antecedentless:
• Ostensive reference of the antecedentless -human singular
personal pronoun it
• deictic (ostensive exhibition) or members of a kind (ostensive
exemplification).
• (34) It has large paws --the lion I am pointing at has large paws OR
typically animals like the one I'm pointing at (the lion /the African
lion/ the adult African lion etc.) have large paws
• It is also ambiguous: constant or (Gen x) (x: objects of the
same kind as the one exhibited)...
The personal vs generic / universalimpersonal ambiguity of singular pronouns is a
general property of nominal descriptions
•
 a/the lion: definite or generic: (Gen x) (x: lion)
•
no specific statement should be necessary about the universalimpersonal (i.e. generic) use of personal pronouns
•
1st and 2nd singular universal impersonal: (i) or (ii) ?
– (i)like a nominal description (predicate lexical) i.e. generic I, you like one, -no ostension necessary
– (ii) or like ostensive exemplification (lexical predicate (I, you) is ostensive
and contentful predicate provided by nonlinguistic context) i.e. generic I,
you like generic it
Evidence for (i):
•
•
The account of the difference between 1st and 2nd singular above
(does not work with (ii))
(i) Gen x x speaker vs Gen x x addressee VS (ii)„Gen x x like me/you”
The fact that 1st and 2nd singulars in the generic sense must be
universal, ie. cannot be restricted to a proper subset of humans
3. The problem of the 2nd and 3rd
plurals (and part of the problem of the
3rd singular)
3.1. 1pl and 2pl contrast with singulars...
• universal-impersonal reading of the 1pl is
acceptable in a much wider set of contexts
than that of the 1sg and without the
marginality:
• (35) We like to clean ourselves from time to time
(possibly: "People like to clean themselves..." )
• (36) I like to clean myself from time to time (not:
"People like to clean themselves..." )
...and with each other
• 2pl (like 3pl) apparently cannot be „real”
universal-impersonal (37b) as opposed to the
2sg and the 1pl (37a)(=(36a)):
• (37)a.We like to clean ourselves from time to
time (possibly: "People like to clean
themselves..." )
•
b.You like to clean yourselves from time to
time (not: "People like to clean themselves..." )
•
c.They like to clean themselves from time to
time (not: "People like to clean themselves..." )
(1pl and 2pl can both appear in the
pseudo universal-impersonal)
• (38)a. (In Italy), we/ you(pl) don't do that to
ourselves/ yourselves (= "(We/ You,) people
(relevantly connected with Italy) we/ you don't do
that to ourselves/ yourselves"
•
b. You(pl) you don't do that to yourselves -not: "people don't/shouldn't do that to
themselves"
•
b'. We don't do that to ourselves --possible:
"people don't/shouldn't do that to themselves"
Ostensive exemplification possible for all
plurals
• resulting in a generic reading (39a)
• (39) a. We/you/they are competing with China /
the third form --Americans / the second form
•
b. They have large paws --lions
• but this is not the universal-impersonal: not
humans in general (39a) and the 3rd plural
not restricted to humans (39b)
3.2. The first missing piece
Plural nominal Agr:
•
a. first plural pronoun refers to (members of)
a set G such that G includes the speaker
•
b. second plural pronoun refers to a set G
such that G includes the addressee, but
excludes the speaker
•
c.third plural pronoun refers to a set G such
that G excludes both the speaker and the
addressee
The second missing piece
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Deictic use:
(i)ostensive exhibition (--enumeration?):
(40) "[pointing to several watches:] They are Russian"
(ii)ostensive exemplification:
(41) a. [pointing to a watch/several watches:] They are widespread in
Russia
b. [pointing to a watch/several watches:] They are useful when you
need to know the time
c. [pointing to a watch/several watches:] They tend to be unreliable
they in (41) might be understood as watches, or old
watches or old Russian watches, …but NOT: (old(Russian))
watches except yours, (old(Russian)) watches except the one
over there, (old (Russian)) watches except yours and uncle
Ben's...
• Generic reading: Exception of specific constants not possible.
In ostensive exemplification speaker and
addresse are specific constants
• (42)
a. [Watching a film with an obnoxious
male protagonist, a woman to another woman]
They totally lack empathy, --possible
interpretation: "Men totally lack empathy"
•
b. [Watching a film with an obnoxious male
protagonist, a man to a man/woman] They totally
lack empathy, --NOT: "Men totally lack empathy"
, OK: "Adolescents totally lack empathy"
•
c. [Watching a film with an obnoxious male
protagonist, a woman to a man] They totally
lack empathy, --NOT: "Men totally lack empathy„
Why 2pl and 3pl are typically not
universal impersonal:
• second and third plural features on pronouns exempt specific
objects (the speaker or the speaker and the addressee) from the
reference range
• No generic use with exception of specific constants
•  apparent impossibility of the (non pseudo-) universal-impersonal
use (where the kind is x:human) of 2pl and 3pl
•  contrast with the possible universal-impersonal use of 1st plural
we and the singulars: I, you --no exclusion clause for these (also
one and people– see below)
• Generic use possible only if the intended kind does not include the
speaker /addressee so the exception is irrelevant or vacuous
3.3. Universal impersonal 2pl, 3pl
•
•
where the exclusion clause does not conflict with the ":x human" predicate of the
universal-impersonal interpretation, 2pl and 3pl should be capable to carry this reading.
Someone not considering himself human in some relevant sense might say (43)
•
(43) I cannot enjoy life any more. But you(pl)/they always seem to laugh your/their heads off
•
universal-impersonal people sense in (43): bad command of the language or perfect
English coupled with an unhealthy mental state („set of humans does not include me”)
•
Also: Martians might use 2pl and 3pl for humans generally in ostensive exemplification,
just like we can for humans that we can conceptualize as belonging to a different species:
•
(44) a.Watching a neanderthal man in the cinema:
•
–
–
They had a very muscular jaw.
—neanderthals, neanderthal men, neanderthal men at this site etc.
–
b. A Martian watching a human in a Martian cinema
–
–
In some ways they are almost intelligent, you know
Humans, human males, human males with some property P (relevant in the context for a Martian)
4. The generic +human 3rd
singular
4.1. 1sg=speaker, 2sg=addressee, 3rd
sg= –speaker, -addressee
we expect 3rd singular to behave like 3rd plural in
ostensive exemplification: where the exclusions are
not relevant he should be able to mean Gen x:x
human of the kind exhibited, :
• (45)a. Watching a neanderthal man in the cinema:
– They/he had a very muscular jaw.
– —neanderthals, neanderthal men, neanderthal men at this site
etc.
b. Watching a stereotyped caricature of a Hungarian:
– Look sonny, he eats goulash and drinks Bull’s blood
Why is the stereotype necessary only in the case of ‘humans-likeus’?
4.2. Contrast between 3rd plural and 3rd
singular
•
•
(46) a. [Watching a film with an obnoxious black protagonist, a woman to another
woman] They totally lack empathy, --possible interpretation: "Men totally lack
empathy"
BUT: He totally lacks empathy --NO ostensive exemplification /generic
interpretation possible unless strong ostensive indication of a subkind of
human, as eg. in the context of racism:
•
b. [Watching a film with a black protagonist, a klu klux klan member to his son]
You see, he has no brains.
•
•
Ostensive exemplification: members of a kind (plurals or singulars)
or members of a collection (plural pronouns only)
•
Gen x Px VS Gen x Px and x in G(y:Qy)
•
Our default conceptual system is not racist: proper subsets of humans are not
easily accessible as kinds
strongly indicative context necessary for the singular
the plural makes possible the addition of another predicate to restrict P further
•
•
5. Residual Matters
5.1.Ostensive exemplification and the 1st and
2nd singular personal pronoun in the universal
impersonal sense
• (47)a.One does /You (gen) do not speak Chinese –
typical "normal” humans... ---offensive. NOT:Americans
•
b. We do not speak Chinese (exhibition or
exemplification)—you and me / we Americans... ---not
offensive
• The contrast is not between singulars and plurals, cf.
„He has a large brain”—Neanderthals at this site. It
follows from our earlier distinction between lexical
and ostensively exemplified predicates
5.2. Possibility of one/people vs typical
impossibility of he/they as universalimpersonal:
• (48) a.He likes/ They like to nap  "Gen x: x human and x not I and
x not you (and x in some G)" --not a possible way generic
expression
•
b.One likes / People like to nap  "Gen x: x human (and x in
some G)" the reference of the predicate is restricted to participants
viewed as neither speaker nor addresse, --well formed generic NP,
no ungrammaticality
• 3rd sg overt nominal agrement: -speaker –addressee
• 3rd sg without (overt?) nominal agrement: default, no restriction
• („viewed as”: „People in this room are taller than 1 meter 50” true
of 3rd person verbal agreement in general, hence also 3sg:„(In
our family) everybody likes cornflakes” „Mommy likes her daughter"
"On a ete decu").
5.3. one vs people
•
Sg vs pl generics : ‘Rule like/definitional-’ vs ‘descriptive/inductive’
generalization
•
Not specific to (universal) impersonals either.
•
lions:(gen) the lion:: people:one::they(gen):he(gen)/it(gen)
•
•
(49)
•
Inclusiveness effect is a consequence of the rule like nature of the singulars:
•
(50)
a. One does not do that (approx=(gen)people do not do that as a rule )
b. People do not do that(=(gen)people do not do that–a descriptive
generalization)
you take / one takes vs people take a nap in the afternoon
Singular generics always viewed as rule like: Mari (2008) vs Krifka (2011) („A trout can be caught in
many ways”) Cf: „One can be cheated in many ways”
5.5. Pseudo impersonal account still
necessary
• Could the function of the adverbial in constructions like (47) be
to restrict the domain of application of the predicate "x:human"
so that it does not include the speaker and the addressee? No:
• (51) In Italy they like pizza
• (52) a In our family we like pizza
•
b.In your family you(pl) like pizza
•
c.In our/your family they like pizza
• (53) a. After I was born we ate potatoes
•
b. After you were born you(pl) ate potatoes
•
c. After I was/you were born they ate potatoes
6. Summary
• A composite picture with simple ingredients:
• (1)Plural third pseudo universal impersonals with required adverbial
modifiers: pronouns with the impersonal antecedent people,
• (2)Pronominal universal impersonals are generics, needing no
specific additional statements in the grammar
• (3)1st, 2nd singular are generic descriptions with a lexical predicate
that implies +human.
• (4)3rd singulars and the plurals can be used in ostensive
exemplification and thus their (non-pseudo) universal impersonal
use can be seen as a case of a predicate provided by ostensive
exemplification (or equally as generic descriptions with a lexical
predicate +human).
• (5)The conflict between genericity and general restrictions on 3rd
singular and 2nd, 3rd plural pronouns (crucially: exempting speaker
(and addressee),) strongly restrict their use as universal impersonals
Thank you