Az általános alany ami nem az és ami az de mégse

2011 október

Nytud

Bródy Mihály

The disappearing "universal-impersonal" personal

pronouns

With thanks to Kata Bródy for path-opening discussions

Universal Impersonal

• ‘Typical humans’, ‘humans generally’:– „We should save the world”– „You don’t do that in polite company”– „One should not be rude”

• 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– „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 orwe= 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 locativevs: 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 living3sg: #He must earn a living

1pl: We must earn a living2pl #(In Italy) you can’t earn (yourselves) a living3pl #(In Italy) they can’t earn a living

Three components

• 1. impersonal cum adverbialpseudo-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-universal-

impersonal• (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 universal- impersonal 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) a The Italians arrived yesterday • b The French work 24 hours a

day• (12) a. The Italian arrived yesterday• b. The French works 24 hours a

day

• (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

– „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.

• 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/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 / universal-impersonal 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 universal-impersonal (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-like-us’?

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 universal-

impersonal:

• (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) 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)

• Inclusiveness effect is a consequence of the rule like nature of the singulars:

• (50) 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