How Impersonal Can You Get Anna Siewierska Dik

How Impersonal Can You Get? Anna Siewierska & Dik Bakker (Lancaster University) Shades of Impersonality 1

How Impersonal Can You Get? Anna Siewierska & Dik Bakker (Lancaster University) Shades of Impersonality 2

How Impersonal Can ‘They’ Get? Anna Siewierska & Dik Bakker (Lancaster University) Shades of Impersonality 3

The notion “impersonal” Impersonality: work in its infancy Shades of Impersonality 4

The notion “impersonal” Impersonality: work in its infancy Area: - very broad - understudied - ill-defined Shades of Impersonality 5

The notion “impersonal” : 1 Shades of Impersonality 6

The notion “impersonal” : 1 • 1. Lack of human agent: Shades of Impersonality 7

The notion “impersonal” : 1 • 1. Lack of human agent: • Weather phenomena Shades of Impersonality 8

Galician Está chovendo be-3 sg raining `Its raining. ’ Shades of Impersonality 9

The notion “impersonal” : 1 • 1. Lack of human agent: • Weather phenomena • Bodily sensations and emotions Shades of Impersonality 10

Irish Ta’ ocras orm is hunger on-me `I am hungry. ’ Shades of Impersonality 11

The notion “impersonal” : 1 • 1. Lack of human agent: • Weather phenomena • Bodily sensations and emotions • Expression of modality Shades of Impersonality 12

Polish Trzeba odejśċ. necessary leave. 3 SG `It is neccesary to leave. ’ Shades of Impersonality 13

The notion “impersonal” : 2 • 2. Lack of fully specified human agent: Shades of Impersonality 14

Galician Non se pode ensinar trucos novos not REFL can teach tricks new a un to a can dog vello old `You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Shades of Impersonality 15

The notion “impersonal” : 3 • 3. Lack of overt grammatical subject: Shades of Impersonality 16

The notion “impersonal” : 3 • 3. Lack of overt grammatical subject: • Impersonal passives Shades of Impersonality 17

Lithuanian Vaikũ bùvo miĕgama sodé Child. PL. GEN be sleep. PP. N garden. LOC `The children slept in the garden. ’ (Lit. Of the children was being slept in the garden. ) Shades of Impersonality 18

The notion “impersonal” : 3 • 3. Lack of overt grammatical subject: • Impersonal passives • Constructions with expletive elements in subject position Shades of Impersonality 19

French Il est venu quelques hommes 3 SG is. 3 SG come. PP some men `Some men have come. ’ Shades of Impersonality 20

The notion “impersonal” : 3 • 3. Lack of overt grammatical subject: • Impersonal passives • Constructions with expletive elements in subject position • Locational & Existential constructions Shades of Impersonality 21

The notion “impersonal” : 3 • 3. Lack of overt grammatical subject: • Impersonal passives • Constructions with expletive elements in subject position • Locational & Existential constructions • Extrapositions Shades of Impersonality 22

The notion “impersonal” : 4 • 4. Presence of verb with no person differentiation: Shades of Impersonality 23

The notion “impersonal” : 4 • 4. Presence of verb with no person differentiation: • Infinitival constructions Shades of Impersonality 24

The notion “impersonal” : 4 • 4. Presence of verb with no person differentiation: • Infinitival constructions • Participial constructions Shades of Impersonality 25

The notion “impersonal” : 4 • 4. Presence of verb with no person differentiation: • Infinitival constructions • Participial constructions • (Grammaticalized) 3 SG-neuter inflection Shades of Impersonality 26

A Typology: Moreno Cabrera (1987) impersonals Shades of Impersonality 27

A Typology: Moreno Cabrera (1987) impersonals uncontrolled Shades of Impersonality 28

A Typology: Moreno Cabrera (1987) impersonals uncontrolled Shades of Impersonality 29

A Typology: Moreno Cabrera (1987) impersonals uncontrolled external Shades of Impersonality 30

A Typology: Moreno Cabrera (1987) impersonals uncontrolled external internal Shades of Impersonality 31

A Typology: Moreno Cabrera (1987) impersonals uncontrolled external internal controlled nonspecific agent Shades of Impersonality 32

A Typology: Moreno Cabrera (1987) impersonals uncontrolled external internal controlled nonspecific agent Shades of Impersonality specific covert agent 33

A Typology: Moreno Cabrera (1987) impersonals uncontrolled external internal nonspecific agent covert agent Shades of Impersonality 34

NSAI: realization Shades of Impersonality 35

NSAI: realization • Generalized nouns: ‘people’, ‘humans’ Shades of Impersonality 36

NSAI: realization • • Generalized nouns: ‘people’, ‘humans’ Generalized pronouns: ‘on’, ‘man’, ‘uno’ Shades of Impersonality 37

NSAI: realization • • • Generalized nouns: ‘people’, ‘humans’ Generalized pronouns: ‘on’, ‘man’, ‘uno’ Nonspecific use Indef Pro: ‘someone’ Shades of Impersonality 38

NSAI: realization • • Generalized nouns: ‘people’, ‘humans’ Generalized pronouns: ‘on’, ‘man’, ‘uno’ Nonspecific use Indef Pro: ‘someone’ Nonspecific uses of person forms (free or bound): 1 PL, 2 SG, 3 PL Shades of Impersonality 39

NSAI: realization • • • Generalized nouns: ‘people’, ‘humans’ Generalized pronouns: ‘on’, ‘man’, ‘uno’ Nonspecific use Indef Pro: ‘someone’ Nonspecific uses of person forms (free or bound): 1 PL, 2 SG, 3 PL Special verbal forms: impersonal, reflexives, infinitival Shades of Impersonality 40

NSAI: realization • AND : Passive constructions where the Agent is Covert and Nonspecific CONTEXT Shades of Impersonality 41

Research Questions Shades of Impersonality 42

Research Questions 1. To what extent are the various 2. types of NSAI functionally equivalent? Shades of Impersonality 43

Research Questions 1. To what extent are the various 2. types of NSAI functionally equivalent? 3. 2. Is the notion of Impersonality a 4. unified concept? Shades of Impersonality 44

Research Questions 1. To what extent are the various 2. types of NSAI functionally equivalent? 3. 2. Is the notion of Impersonality a 4. unified concept? 5. 3. If not so, is there a systematic use of the 6. NSAI types for the respective shades 7. of Impersonality across languages? Shades of Impersonality 45

Focus of presentation Shades of Impersonality 46

Focus of presentation Pronominal: 3 PL Shades of Impersonality 47

Focus of presentation Pronominal: 3 PL - Very common among languages Shades of Impersonality 48

Focus of presentation Pronominal: 3 PL - Very common among languages - Underinvestigated relative to verbal impersonals and passives Shades of Impersonality 49

Focus of presentation Pronominal: 3 PL - Very common among languages - Underinvestigated relative to verbal impersonals and passives - Consequence: lack of insight Shades of Impersonality 50

3 pl impersonals: free forms Icelandic (+English) Þeir eru búnir að loka they BE. 3 PL finished to close veginum einu sinni enn. road. DEF. DAT one time again ‘They’ve closed the road once again. ’ • Shades of Impersonality 51

3 pl impersonals: bound forms Russian Govorjat cto budet vojna Say. 3 PL that will. be war ‘They say there will be war. ’ • Shades of Impersonality 52

3 pl impersonals: bound forms Greek Mu klepsa-ne ta lefta I. GEN stole-3 PL the money. ACC `They stole my money from me. ` • Shades of Impersonality 53

3 PL IMPRS: commonality Shades of Impersonality 54

3 PL IMPRS: commonality • Eurasia: I-E: Romance, Slavic, Germanic, Baltic, Greek, Kashmiri, Persian, Sinhala; Fino. Ugric: Hungarian, Finnish, Erzya Mordvin, Nenets, Mari (Chermis), Udmurt, Komi; Turkic: Turkish; Basque; Dravidian: Tamil Shades of Impersonality 55

3 PL IMPRS: commonality • • Eurasia: I-E: Romance, Slavic, Germanic, Baltic, Greek, Kashmiri, Persian, Sinhala; Fino. Ugric: Hungarian, Finnish, Erzya Mordvin, Nenets, Mari (Chermis), Udmurt, Komi; Turkic: Turkish; Basque; Dravidian: Tamil Africa: AA: Arabic, Hebrew, Godie, Mupun; NK: Babungo, Nkore- Kiga, Fonge, Koromfe, NS: Kunama, Mundani, Ngiti Shades of Impersonality 56

3 PL IMPRS: commonality • New Guinea: Amele, Kobon Shades of Impersonality 57

3 PL IMPRS: commonality • • New Guinea: Amele, Kobon Oceania: Tawala, Paamese, lgs of New Caledonia Shades of Impersonality 58

3 PL IMPRS: commonality • • • New Guinea: Amele, Kobon Oceania: Tawala, Paamese, lgs of New Caledonia Australia: Marunguku Shades of Impersonality 59

3 PL IMPRS: commonality • • New Guinea: Amele, Kobon Oceania: Tawala, Paamese, lgs of New Caledonia Australia: Marunguku America: Copala Trique, Tetelcingo Nahuatl Shades of Impersonality 60

3 PL IMPRS: commonality • • New Guinea: Amele, Kobon Oceania: Tawala, Paamese, lgs of New Caledonia Australia: Marunguku America: Copala Trique, Tetelcingo Nahuatl UNIVERSAL? Shades of Impersonality 61

3 PL IMPRS & Universality Shades of Impersonality 62

3 PL IMPRS & Universality • NOT in languages without free and bound person forms, or number Shades of Impersonality 63

3 PL IMPRS & Universality • • NOT in languages without free and bound person forms, or number NOT in Cantonese, Colloq. Sinhala Shades of Impersonality 64

3 PL IMPRS & Universality • • • NOT in languages without free and bound person forms, or number NOT in Cantonese, Colloq. Sinhala NOT many American lgs special NONSPEC forms on the verb (old 3 PL? ? ) (Mithun 1999) Shades of Impersonality 65

Questionnaire Impersonals Questionnaire: Shades of Impersonality 66

Questionnaire Impersonals Questionnaire: Right method of data collection? Shades of Impersonality 67

Questionnaire Impersonals Questionnaire: Right method of data collection? 1. grammars: poor & unreliable Shades of Impersonality 68

Questionnaire Impersonals Questionnaire: Right method of data collection? 1. grammars: poor & unreliable 2. corpora (spoken!): unavailable Shades of Impersonality 69

Questionnaire Impersonals Questionnaire: Right method of data collection? 1. grammars: poor & unreliable 2. corpora (spoken!): unavailable 3. native speakers Shades of Impersonality 70

Questionnaire Impersonals Questionnaire: Right method of data collection? Native speakers (linguists): - 27 questions about 3 PL Shades of Impersonality 71

Questionnaire Impersonals Questionnaire: Right method of data collection? Native speakers: - 27 questions about 3 PL - English examples (SIC !) Shades of Impersonality 72

Questionnaire Impersonals Questionnaire: Right method of data collection? Native speakers: - 27 questions about 3 PL - English examples - Translation (glossed) Shades of Impersonality 73

Questionnaire Impersonals Questionnaire: Right method of data collection? Native speakers: - 27 questions about 3 PL - English examples - Translation (glossed) - Alternative strategies Shades of Impersonality 74

Questionnaire Respons GERM ROM SLAV SEM IRAN FIN SIN GRK UGR JAP INDIC DAIC TURK 7 6 4 2 2 1 1 1 (22. 58 (19. 35 (12. 90 ( 6. 45 ( 3. 23 Shades of Impersonality %) %) %) %) 75

Questionnaire Respons GERM ROM SLAV SEM IRAN FIN SIN GRK UGR JAP INDIC DAIC TURK 7 6 4 2 2 1 1 1 (22. 58 (19. 35 (12. 90 ( 6. 45 ( 3. 23 Shades of Impersonality %) %) %) %) 31 lgs (39 qst) 76

Questionnaire Respons GERM ROM SLAV SEM IRAN FIN SIN GRK UGR JAP INDIC DAIC TURK 7 (22. 58 6 (19. 35 4 (12. 90 2 ( 6. 45 1 ( 3. 23 Shades of 1 Impersonality %) %) %) %) 21 IE 77

Questionnaire Respons GERM ROM SLAV SEM IRAN FIN SIN GRK UGR JAP INDIC DAIC TURK 7 (22. 58 6 (19. 35 4 (12. 90 2 ( 6. 45 1 ( 3. 23 Shades of 1 Impersonality %) %) %) %) 21 EU 78

X D A Shades of Impersonality 79

Characteristics 3 PL IMPRS • • • Referential properties Semantic properties Grammatical relations Verb types Pragmatic/stylistic properties Shades of Impersonality 80

Referential properties 1 2 types of “impersonal” reference: 1. Impersonal vs. Vague (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990) Shades of Impersonality 81

Impersonal vs. vague Impersonal: applies to anyone or everyone with possible inclusion of speaker and addressee; quasi universal quantification: for every X • Vague: applies to specific individuals who are not identified or identifiable by the speaker and exclude the speaker and adressee; quasi existential quantification: there is an X • Shades of Impersonality 82

3 PL • • K&L: Vague rather than impersonal Specific individuals are not identifiable and since the speaker and hearer are excluded, 3 PL cannot embrace anyone or everyone Shades of Impersonality 83

3 PL • • • Cavadas Afonso (2003): both vague and impersonal Vague: unknown individuals belonging to a known restricted group; individuals cannot be identified but the group can be Impersonal: unknown individuals belonging to an unidentified group; neither individuals nor group can be identified Shades of Impersonality 84

Unidentified group … Well I saw a demolition order there actually – a few months ago – they said they were going to demolish some of the flats – which is a pity – I don’t know what they’re doing with Edinburgh though – as long as they don’t do what they did with Glasgow … Shades of Impersonality 85

Vague vs. Impersonal - Vague: indeterminacy of the referent on the part of the addressee but not necessarily on the part of the speaker - Impersonal: indeterminacy of the referent on the part of both addressee and speaker Shades of Impersonality 86

Vague vs. Impersonal? ? • Vague vs. Impersonal OR • Degrees of vagueness/impersonality Shades of Impersonality 87

Degrees of vagueness: 1 RG p. 1 … Well my father’s best friend was a grocer but he unfortunately died and they put a manager into the shop and I got a job as an apprentice, well an unauthorised apprentice. … • Shades of Impersonality 88

Degrees of vagueness: 2 DR p. 6 … I’d been around to the hall but not around the actual gardens themselves. I think that they’re marvellous now really, I mean they’ve a lot of work to do on them, hopefully with all this money they’re getting, they’ll be able to do something. Because in certain areas, they are neglected, you can see that, they haven’t the • resources to actually deal with them. … Shades of Impersonality 89

Degrees of vagueness: 3 DR p. 4 … At 7 you went into the, we called it the big school, you know it was just a junior school, you knew your 12, up to your 12 times table and it was just like pressing a button, if she said elevens, 121, it came out just like that and I think they’re coming back to that now, • there’s a move in that direction … Shades of Impersonality they ~ we 90

Referential properties 2 2 types of “impersonal” reference: 1. Impersonal vs. Vague (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990) 2. Impersonal (arbitrary) vs. Generic (Jaeggli (1986); Cinque (1988: 544); Cardinaletti & Starke (1998: 153) Shades of Impersonality 91

Impersonal vs. generic Impersonal ~ quasi existential: - there is an X They have cleaned a cow today in Switzerland. • Generic ~ quasi universal: - for every X They usually clean cows in Switzerland. • Shades of Impersonality 92

Impersonal vs. generic • • Impersonal: Somebody, whoever, cleaned a cow today and this event took place in Switzerland. Generic: People who inhabit Switzerland typically clean cows. Shades of Impersonality 93

Impersonal vs. generic • • Impersonal: require specific time reference; preclude a range restriction on the subject; speaker may not be included among potential referents Generic: forbid specific time reference; require a range restriction on the subject; speaker may be included Shades of Impersonality 94

Comparison 1 & 2 • K&L vague = C&S impersonal • K&L impersonal # C&S generic • Some C&S generic ~ K&L vague Shades of Impersonality 95

Notions of impersonality • • • K&L: anybody or everybody potentially including speech act participants C&S: some unspecified group of individuals not including speech act participants Degree of impersonality: K&L: one > you > we > 3 pl C&S: 3 pl > we > you > one Shades of Impersonality 96

Semantic properties • • Humanness: necessarily human Number: morphologically plural but not necessarily semantically plural Shades of Impersonality 97

Number: indeterminate English a. They ran over my dog! Spanish b. llaman a la puerta calling-3 PL at the door ‘They/someone is calling at the door. ’ Shades of Impersonality 98

Grammatical relations • • 3 PL “impersonal” interpretation restricted to subjects of: main or subordinate clauses active clauses not passive verbs that are not ergative or copulative Shades of Impersonality 99

Subjects: active not passive Spanish Fueron arrestados (por la policía) were. 3 PL arrested by the police `They* were arrested by the police. ’ * Only specific! Shades of Impersonality 100

Verb types: not ergatives Spanish Mueren en defensa de la democracia die. 3 PL in defense of the democracy `They* die in defense of democracy. ’ * Only specific! Shades of Impersonality 101

Not in copulative clause Italian Ieri sono stati villani con tutti yesterday were. 3 PL rude for all `Yesterday they* were rude to all. ’ * Only specific! Shades of Impersonality 102

Pragmatic/stylistic properties • • Expression of negative emotions or negative assessment of the situation expressed in the clause Colloquial; spoken as opposed to written language Shades of Impersonality 103

Parameters of variation • • Potentially all of the above Now: interpretation of the nature of the plural referent Availability of individual reading and nature of this reading Availability and nature of alternative strategies to 3 PL Shades of Impersonality 104

Nature of plural referent • • Official institution such as government, municipal council, army, university, or recognized group Incidental group of persons involved in a common activity Shades of Impersonality 105

Institutional … The war came along, but prior to that, in the radio field there was a challenge from a, a radio firm in er London. They said that a certain article could not be repaired. … … This er very good orderly got local leave after he’d done his stint up country ‘cos he’d made such a good job of it, they gave him local leave. … Shades of Impersonality 106

Group of persons Myhill (1997: 814) X: Guess what? We found a liberal doctor. Y: What? Already? X: Yes sir. The body’s on its way. Surgery is scheduled for tonight. Y: My God. Are we sure he was a liberal? X: Pretty sure. They pulled him from a Volvo. • Shades of Impersonality 107

Individual reading - What happened? - My car has been broken into. They’ve taken the radio - Why are you here? - They told me to come here. Shades of Impersonality 108

The sample (n=31) Lgs with NO 3 PL IMP: 6 Cantonese, Finnish (Standard), German(1), Japanese, Coll. Singhalese, Thai Lgs with 3 PL IMP: 25 Organizations > Group > Individual 25 23 17 Shades of Impersonality 109

No individual reading • • Finnish (South West dialect) German(2), Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish French Mandarin Shades of Impersonality 110

Acceptability of individual reading Spanish/Galician/Italian/Portuguese > Polish/Russian/Croatian/Bulgarian > Dutch/English • Degree of context required, e. g. Hebrew vs. English Shades of Impersonality 111

Role of context Italian (Cinque 1988: 543) Prima hanno telefonato; mi pareva earlier have. 3 PL telephoned; me seemed tua sorella your sister `Someone/*they telephoned earlier. It was your sister. ’ Shades of Impersonality 112

Role of context Dutch Ze hebben gebeld. 3 PL have. PL rung ‘They rang. ’ Het was *Kirsten / de bank. It was *Kirsten / the bank. Shades of Impersonality 113

No Group reading • Only for Swedish and Finnish (South. West Dialect) Shades of Impersonality 114

Readings of 3 pl & Pro drop In pro-drop languages impersonal interpretation possible only with bound forms not with free forms: Shades of Impersonality 115

Spanish a. Llaman a la puerta calling-3 PL at the door ‘They/someone is calling at the door. ’ b. Ellos llaman a la puerta they calling: 3 pl at the door `They/*someone are calling at the door. ' Shades of Impersonality 116

Readings & Pro drop • • C&S: for impersonal (arbitrary) readings pronominal form must be weak or deficient but for generic it may be weak or strong (not confirmed) S&B: individual interpretations of 3 pl favour languages which are pro-drop: Romance, Slavic, Turkish, Hungarian, Persian, Arabic but also English, Dutch Shades of Impersonality 117

Alternative strategies to 3 PL Lgs which use 3 pl “impersonally” Pass Vimp GP 3 sg Indef Noun Organ. 14 4 2 1 5 Group 8 3 4 1 2 2 Individ 7 1 1 1 5 Total 29 8 7 1 7 7 Shades of Impersonality 118

Agentless passives • • No referential restrictions: agent may be definite, specific, arbitrary, generic (but Myhill 1997: 823) No semantic restrictions (unless diachronic ties to refl); implied agent may be any grammatical person; may be human or nonhuman or inanimate; may be semantically singular or non-singular; no additonal restrictions on its nature Shades of Impersonality 119

Verbal impersonals • • Reference: VImp more often generic than 3 pl Person: VImp in contrast to 3 PL typically include 1 st person Humanness: same as 3 PL (? Russian) Number: VImp less restricted in regard to number than 3 PL Shades of Impersonality 120

Restrictions Grammatical person 3 pl > VImp > passive • Number 3 pl > VImp > passive • Humanness 3 pl & VImp > passive • Agentivity 3 pl > V Imp > passive • Shades of Impersonality 121

Degress of impersonalization • • If impersonal: without restrictions relating to referential value and semantic properties 3 pl > Vimp > Passive Shades of Impersonality 122

3 PL & VImp vs. Pass • • Verbal valency; 3 pl & VImp do not affect the basic valency of the verb while passives do Agent suppression vs. deletion Presence of agent for grammatical rules Issues of register and style Shades of Impersonality 123

Concluding remarks • • 3 pl obviously under-investigated Worthy of investigation both from syntactic and pragmatic perspectives The readings it may express appear to conform to a hierarchy: organisation > group > individual Is in competion mainly with the agentless passive Shades of Impersonality 124

Concluding remarks • Is more restricted referentially and semantically than the agentless passive and thus may be seen to reflect a lower degree of impersonalization than the agentless passive. Shades of Impersonality 125

References • • • Cavadas Afonso, S. P. 2003. Impersonal Constructions in portuguese: A Construction Grammar Approach. Master’s disserattion, Manchester University Cardinaletti, Anna & Starke, Michael. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In: Henk van Riemsdijk (ed. ), 145 -233. Cinque, G. 1988. The Si Constructions and theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 4, 521581. Shades of Impersonality 126

References • • • Jaeggli, O. A. 1986. Arbitrary Plural pronominals. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 4, 43 -76. Kitagawa, C & A. Lehrer 1990. Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 739 -759. Myhill, J. 1997. Towards a functional typology of agent defocusing. Linguistics 35, 799 -844. Shades of Impersonality 127

References • Weiner, E. J & W. Labov 1983. Journal of Linguistics 19, 29 -58. Shades of Impersonality 128

? Shades of Impersonality 129