How Impersonal Can You Get

1
How Impersonal Can You Get?

• Anna Siewierska
• Dik Bakker
• (Lancaster University)

2
How Impersonal Can You Get?

• Anna Siewierska
• Dik Bakker
• (Lancaster University)

3
How Impersonal Can They Get?

• Anna Siewierska
• Dik Bakker
• (Lancaster University)

4
The notion impersonal
Impersonality work in its infancy
5
The notion impersonal
Impersonality work in its infancy Area - very
broad - understudied - ill-defined
6
The notion impersonal 1
7
The notion impersonal 1
1. Lack of human agent
8
The notion impersonal 1
1. Lack of human agent Weather phenomena
9
Galician

• Está chovendo
• be-3sg raining
• Its raining.

10
The notion impersonal 1
1. Lack of human agent Weather phenomena
Bodily sensations and emotions
11
Irish

• Ta ocras orm
• is hunger on-me
• I am hungry.

12
The notion impersonal 1
1. Lack of human agent Weather phenomena
Bodily sensations and emotions Expression of
modality
13
Polish

• Trzeba odejsc.
• necessary leave.3SG
• It is neccesary to leave.

14
The notion impersonal 2
2. Lack of fully specified human agent
15
Galician

• Non se pode ensinar trucos novos
• not REFL can teach tricks new
• a un can vello
• to a dog old
• You cant teach an old dog new tricks.

16
The notion impersonal 3
3. Lack of overt grammatical subject
17
The notion impersonal 3
3. Lack of overt grammatical subject
Impersonal passives
18
Lithuanian

• Vaiku bùvo miegama 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.)

19
The notion impersonal 3
3. Lack of overt grammatical subject
Impersonal passives Constructions with
expletive elements in subject position
20
French

• Il est venu quelques hommes
• 3SG is.3SG come.PP some men
• Some men have come.

21
The notion impersonal 3
3. Lack of overt grammatical subject
Impersonal passives Constructions with
expletive elements in subject position
Locational Existential constructions
22
The notion impersonal 3
3. Lack of overt grammatical subject
Impersonal passives Constructions with
expletive elements in subject position
Locational Existential constructions
Extrapositions
23
The notion impersonal 4
4. Presence of verb with no person
differentiation
24
The notion impersonal 4
4. Presence of verb with no person
differentiation Infinitival constructions
25
The notion impersonal 4
4. Presence of verb with no person
differentiation Infinitival constructions
Participial constructions
26
The notion impersonal 4
4. Presence of verb with no person
differentiation Infinitival constructions
Participial constructions (Grammaticalized)
3SG-neuter inflection
27
A Typology Moreno Cabrera (1987)

• impersonals

28
A Typology Moreno Cabrera (1987)

• impersonals
• uncontrolled

29
A Typology Moreno Cabrera (1987)

• impersonals
• uncontrolled controlled

30
A Typology Moreno Cabrera (1987)

• impersonals
• uncontrolled controlled
• external

31
A Typology Moreno Cabrera (1987)

• impersonals
• uncontrolled controlled
• external internal

32
A Typology Moreno Cabrera (1987)

• impersonals
• uncontrolled controlled
• external internal nonspecific
• agent

33
A Typology Moreno Cabrera (1987)

• impersonals
• uncontrolled controlled
• external internal nonspecific specific
• agent
  covert
• 
  agent

34
A Typology Moreno Cabrera (1987)

• impersonals
• uncontrolled controlled
• external internal nonspecific specific
• agent
  covert
• 
  agent

35
NSAI realization
36
NSAI realization

• Generalized nouns people, humans

37
NSAI realization

• Generalized nouns people, humans
• Generalized pronouns on, man, uno

38
NSAI realization

• Generalized nouns people, humans
• Generalized pronouns on, man, uno
• Nonspecific use Indef Pro someone

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) 1PL, 2SG, 3SG, 3PL

40
NSAI realization

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

41
NSAI realization

• AND
• Passive constructions where the
• Agent is Covert and Nonspecific
• ? CONTEXT

42
Research Questions
43
Research Questions

• To what extent are the various
• types of NSAI functionally equivalent?

44
Research Questions

• To what extent are the various
• types of NSAI functionally equivalent?
• 2. Is the notion of Impersonality a
• unified concept?

45
Research Questions

• To what extent are the various
• types of NSAI functionally equivalent?
• 2. Is the notion of Impersonality a
• unified concept?
• 3. If not so, is there a systematic use of the
• NSAI types for the respective shades
• of Impersonality across languages?

46
Focus of presentation
47
Focus of presentation
Pronominal 3PL
48
Focus of presentation

• Pronominal 3PL
• Very common among languages

49
Focus of presentation

• Pronominal 3PL
• Very common among languages
• - Underinvestigated relative to verbal
• impersonals and passives

50
Focus of presentation

• Pronominal 3PL
• Very common among languages
• - Underinvestigated relative to verbal
• impersonals and passives
• Consequence lack of insight

51
3pl impersonals free forms

• Icelandic (English)
• Þeir eru búnir að loka
• they BE.3PL finished to close
• veginum einu sinni enn.
• road.DEF.DAT one time again
• Theyve closed the road once again.

52
3pl impersonals bound forms

• Russian
• Govorjat cto budet vojna
• Say.3PL that will.be war
• They say there will be war.

53
3pl impersonals bound forms

• Greek
• Mu klepsa-ne ta lefta
• I.GEN stole-3PL the money.ACC
• They stole my money from me.

54
3PL IMPRS commonality
55
3PL 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

56
3PL 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

57
3PL IMPRS commonality

• New Guinea Amele, Kobon

58
3PL IMPRS commonality

• New Guinea Amele, Kobon
• Oceania Tawala, Paamese, lgs of New Caledonia

59
3PL IMPRS commonality

• New Guinea Amele, Kobon
• Oceania Tawala, Paamese, lgs of New Caledonia
• Australia Marunguku

60
3PL IMPRS commonality

• New Guinea Amele, Kobon
• Oceania Tawala, Paamese, lgs of New Caledonia
• Australia Marunguku
• America Copala Trique, Tetelcingo Nahuatl

61
3PL IMPRS commonality

• New Guinea Amele, Kobon
• Oceania Tawala, Paamese, lgs of New Caledonia
• Australia Marunguku
• America Copala Trique, Tetelcingo Nahuatl
• ? UNIVERSAL?

62
3PL IMPRS Universality
63
3PL IMPRS Universality

• NOT in languages without free and bound person
  forms, or number

64
3PL IMPRS Universality

• NOT in languages without free and bound person
  forms, or number
• NOT in Cantonese, Colloq. Sinhala

65
3PL 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 3PL??)
• (Mithun 1999)

66
Questionnaire Impersonals
Questionnaire
67
Questionnaire Impersonals
Questionnaire Right method of data collection?
68
Questionnaire Impersonals
Questionnaire Right method of data
collection? 1. grammars poor unreliable
69
Questionnaire Impersonals
Questionnaire Right method of data
collection? 1. grammars poor unreliable 2.
corpora (spoken!) unavailable
70
Questionnaire Impersonals
Questionnaire Right method of data
collection? 1. grammars poor unreliable 2.
corpora (spoken!) unavailable 3. native speakers
71
Questionnaire Impersonals
Questionnaire Right method of data
collection? Native speakers (linguists) - 27
questions about 3PL
72
Questionnaire Impersonals
Questionnaire Right method of data
collection? Native speakers - 27 questions
about 3PL - English examples (SIC !)
73
Questionnaire Impersonals
Questionnaire Right method of data
collection? Native speakers - 27 questions
about 3PL - English examples - Translation
(glossed)
74
Questionnaire Impersonals
Questionnaire Right method of data
collection? Native speakers - 27 questions
about 3PL - English examples - Translation
(glossed) - Alternative strategies
75
Questionnaire Respons
GERM 7 (22.58 ) ROM
6 (19.35 ) SLAV 4 (12.90 ) SEM
2 ( 6.45 ) IRAN 2
( 6.45 ) FIN 2 ( 6.45 ) SIN
2 ( 6.45 ) GRK 1 (
3.23 ) UGR 1 ( 3.23 ) JAP
1 ( 3.23 ) INDIC 1 (
3.23 ) DAIC 1 ( 3.23 ) TURK
1 ( 3.23 )
76
Questionnaire Respons
GERM 7 (22.58 ) ROM
6 (19.35 ) SLAV 4 (12.90 ) SEM
2 ( 6.45 ) IRAN 2
( 6.45 ) FIN 2 ( 6.45 ) SIN
2 ( 6.45 ) 31 lgs GRK
1 ( 3.23 ) (39 qst) UGR 1 (
3.23 ) JAP 1 ( 3.23 ) INDIC
1 ( 3.23 ) DAIC 1 (
3.23 ) TURK 1 ( 3.23 )
77
Questionnaire Respons
GERM 7 (22.58 ) ROM
6 (19.35 ) SLAV 4 (12.90 ) SEM
2 ( 6.45 ) IRAN 2
( 6.45 ) FIN 2 ( 6.45 ) SIN
2 ( 6.45 ) 21 IE GRK
1 ( 3.23 ) UGR 1 ( 3.23 ) JAP
1 ( 3.23 ) INDIC 1
( 3.23 ) DAIC 1 ( 3.23 ) TURK
1 ( 3.23 )
78
Questionnaire Respons
GERM 7 (22.58 ) ROM
6 (19.35 ) SLAV 4 (12.90 ) SEM
2 ( 6.45 ) IRAN 2
( 6.45 ) FIN 2 ( 6.45 ) SIN
2 ( 6.45 ) 21 EU GRK
1 ( 3.23 ) UGR 1 ( 3.23 ) JAP
1 ( 3.23 ) INDIC 1
( 3.23 ) DAIC 1 ( 3.23 ) TURK
1 ( 3.23 )
79
X
D ? A
80
Characteristics 3PL IMPRS

• Referential properties
• Semantic properties
• Grammatical relations
• Verb types
• Pragmatic/stylistic properties

81
Referential properties 1
2 types of impersonal reference 1. Impersonal
vs. Vague (Kitagawa Lehrer 1990)
82
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

83
3PL

• KL Vague rather than impersonal
• Specific individuals are not identifiable
• and since the speaker and hearer are
• excluded, 3PL cannot embrace anyone
• or everyone

84
3PL

• 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

85
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 dont know what theyre doing with Edinburgh
though as long as they dont do what they did
with Glasgow
86
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
87
Vague vs. Impersonal??

• Vague vs. Impersonal
• OR
• Degrees of vagueness/impersonality

88
Degrees of vagueness 1

• RG p.1
• Well my fathers 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.

89
Degrees of vagueness 2

• DR p.6
• Id been around to the hall but not around
• the actual gardens themselves. I think that
• theyre marvellous now really, I mean theyve
• a lot of work to do on them, hopefully with all
• this money theyre getting, theyll be able to do
  
• something. Because in certain areas, they are
• neglected, you can see that, they havent the
• resources to actually deal with them.

90
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
• eleven elevens, 121, it came out just like that
• and I think theyre coming back to that now,
• theres a move in that direction they we

91
Referential properties 2
2 types of impersonal reference 1. Impersonal
vs. Vague (Kitagawa Lehrer 1990) 2.
Impersonal (arbitrary) vs. Generic (Jaeggli
(1986)Cinque (1988544) Cardinaletti
Starke (1998 153)
92
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.

93
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.

94
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

95
Comparison 1 2

• KL vague CS impersonal
• KL impersonal CS generic
• Some CS generic KL vague

96
Notions of impersonality

• KL anybody or everybody potentially
• including speech act participants
• CS some unspecified group of individuals
• not including speech act participants
• Degree of impersonality
• KL one gt you gt we gt 3pl
• CS 3pl gt we gt you gt one

97
Semantic properties

• Humanness necessarily human
• Number morphologically plural but
• not necessarily semantically plural

98
Number indeterminate

• English
• a. They ran over my dog!
• Spanish
• b. llaman a la puerta
• calling-3PL at the door
• They/someone is calling at the door.

99
Grammatical relations

• 3PL impersonal interpretation restricted
• to subjects of
• main or subordinate clauses
• active clauses not passive
• verbs that are not ergative or copulative

100
Subjects active not passive

• Spanish
• Fueron arrestados (por la policía)
• were.3PL arrested by the police
• They were arrested by the police.
• Only specific!

101
Verb types not ergatives

• Spanish
• Mueren en defensa de la democracia
• die.3PL in defense of the democracy
• They die in defense of democracy.
• Only specific!

102
Not in copulative clause

• Italian
• Ieri sono stati villani con tutti
• yesterday were.3PL rude for all
• Yesterday they were rude to all.
• Only specific!

103
Pragmatic/stylistic properties

• Expression of negative emotions or negative
  assessment of the situation expressed in the
  clause
• Colloquial spoken as opposed to written language

104
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 3PL

105
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

106
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
  hed done his stint up country cos hed made
  such a good job of it, they gave him local leave.
  

107
Group of persons

• Myhill (1997814)
• X Guess what? We found a liberal doctor.
• Y What? Already?
• X Yes sir. The bodys 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.

108
Individual reading

• - What happened?
• - My car has been broken into. Theyve taken the
  radio
• - Why are you here?
• - They told me to come here.

109
The sample (n31)

• Lgs with NO 3PL IMP 6
• Cantonese, Finnish (Standard),
• German(1), Japanese, Coll. Singhalese, Thai
• Lgs with 3PL IMP 25
• Organizations gt Group gt Individual
• 25 23 17

110
No individual reading

• Finnish (South West dialect)
• German(2), Icelandic, Danish,
• Norwegian, Swedish
• French
• Mandarin

111
Acceptability of individual reading

• Spanish/Galician/Italian/Portuguese gt
• Polish/Russian/Croatian/Bulgarian gt
• Dutch/English
• Degree of context required, e.g. Hebrew vs.
  English

112
Role of context

• Italian (Cinque 1988 543)
• Prima hanno telefonato mi pareva
• earlier have.3PL telephoned me seemed
• tua sorella
• your sister
• Someone/they telephoned earlier. It was
• your sister.

113
Role of context

• Dutch
• Ze hebben gebeld.
• 3PL have.PL rung
• They rang.
• Het was Kirsten / de bank.
• It was Kirsten / the bank.

114
No Group reading

• Only for Swedish and Finnish (South-West Dialect)

115
Readings of 3pl Pro drop

• In pro-drop languages impersonal interpretation
  possible only with bound forms not with free
  forms

116
Spanish

• a. Llaman a la puerta
• calling-3PL at the door
• They/someone is calling at the door.
• b. Ellos llaman a la puerta
• they calling3pl at the door
• They/someone are calling at the door.'

117
Readings Pro drop

• CS for impersonal (arbitrary) readings
  pronominal form must be weak or deficient but for
  generic it may be weak or strong (not confirmed)
• SB individual interpretations of 3pl favour
  languages which are pro-drop Romance, Slavic,
  Turkish, Hungarian, Persian, Arabic but also
  English, Dutch

118
Alternative strategies to 3PL

• Lgs which use 3pl impersonally
• Pass Vimp GP 3sg 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

119
Agentless passives

• No referential restrictions agent may be
  definite, specific, arbitrary, generic (but
  Myhill 1997823)
• No semantic restrictions (unless diachronic ties
  to refl) implied agent may be any grammatical
  person may be human or non-human or inanimate
  may be semantically singular or non-singular no
  additonal restrictions on its nature

120
Verbal impersonals

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

121
Restrictions

• Grammatical person
• 3pl gt VImp gt passive
• Number
• 3pl gt VImp gt passive
• Humanness
• 3pl VImp gt passive
• Agentivity
• 3pl gt V Imp gt passive

122
Degress of impersonalization

• If impersonal without restrictions relating to
  referential value and semantic properties
• 3pl gt Vimp gt Passive

123
3PL VImp vs. Pass

• Verbal valency 3pl 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

124
Concluding remarks

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

125
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.

126
References

• Cavadas Afonso, S. P. 2003. Impersonal
  Constructions in portuguese A Construction
  Grammar Approach. Masters 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 the
  theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19.4, 521-581.

127
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.

128
References

• Weiner, E. J W. Labov 1983. Journal of
  Linguistics 19, 29-58.

129
?