Imposters and their implications for third-person feature specification
-
and
Abstract
Imposters, seemingly third person nouns with speech act participant reference, have been varyingly analyzed as being licensed through an elaborated DP syntax (Collins and Postal. 2008. Imposters. Manuscript. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000640 (accessed 12 May 2017), Collins and Postal. 2012. Imposters: A study of pronominal agreement. Cambridge: MIT Press) or through lexical specification (Kaufman 2014. The syntax of Indonesian imposters. In Chris Collins (ed.), Cross-linguistic studies of imposters and pronominal agreement, 89–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press). Looking at Korean and Indonesian, two languages that make frequent use of imposters, we show that both can be accounted for without appeal to an elaborated DP syntax and that, in fact, such a structure makes the wrong predictions. Rather, other heads in the clause, in conjunction with differences in lexical specification, can account for both languages. In Indonesian, which freely allows imposters to bind anaphors with person features of the referent, the imposter is lexically specified for those features. In Korean, where such binding is restricted, imposters are underspecified for person and so anaphors only occur when there is another person feature-carrying head to supply the necessary features (Zanuttini et al. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(4). 1231–1274). Previously left unexplained was why Korean imposters were unable to bind any person-marked anaphors, including third person, under an assumption that person-underspecified DPs get valued with a default third person feature. We argue this is a result of the difference in types of third person, those specified for third person and those that are not (Sigurðsson 2010. On EPP effects. Studia Linguistica 64(2). 159–189).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our language consultants Hye Sook Lee, Hye Young Kim, and Minjeong Son for their careful judgments. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments. All faults and elicitation errors remain our own.
References
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619830Search in Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1971. Subjectivity in language. Problems in general linguistics 1. 223–230.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Lucien. 2011. Korean honorifics and politeness in second language learning. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.206Search in Google Scholar
Choi, Jaehoon. 2016. Jussive subjects as imposters. 언어학 [Linguistics] 74. 3–24.10.17290/jlsk.2016..74.3Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Collins, Chris & Paul Martin Postal. 2008. Imposters. Manuscript. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000640 (accessed 12 May 2017).10.7551/mitpress/9780262016889.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Collins, Chris & Paul Martin Postal. 2012. Imposters: A study of pronominal agreement. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262016889.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Conners, Thomas, Claudia M. Brugman & Nikki Adams. 2016. Reference tracking and non-canonical referring expressions in Indonesian. NUSA: Studies of Languages in and around Indonesia 60, 59–88.Search in Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye & Dennis Ryan Storoshenko. 2012. Semantic binding of long-distance anaphor caki in Korean. Language 88(4). 764–790.10.1353/lan.2012.0075Search in Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3). 482–526.10.1353/lan.2002.0158Search in Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2013. Politeness distinctions in pronouns. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/45 (accessed 12 May 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Hong, Ki-Sun. 1989. Consciousness condition on the Korean reflexive Caki. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 15, 161–169.10.3765/bls.v15i0.1740Search in Google Scholar
Hong, Sunshim. 1985. A and A’ binding in Korean and English: Government-binding parameters. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Jun, Youngchul. 2000. Focus effect on genericity. 어학연구 [Language research] 36(4). 785–802.Search in Google Scholar
Kang, Nam-Kil. 2008. Distributive and collective readings in a conjunct NP antecedent. 영어영문학연구 [English literature research] 50(3). 1–18.10.18853/jjell.2008.50.3.001Search in Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2014. The syntax of Indonesian imposters. In Chris Collins (ed.), Cross-linguistic studies of imposters and pronominal agreement, 89–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336852.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Kwang-Sup. 1990. Where do contrastive and focus readings come from? In Hajime Hoji (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 1. 395–411. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Lan. 2015. A note on imposter expressions in Korean. 언어학 [Linguistics] 71. 139–160.10.17290/jlsk.2015..71.139Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2). 187–237.10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin. 1996. Generic sentences are topic constructions. In Fretheim Thorstein & Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility, pragmatics and beyond new series, vol. 38. 213–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.38.12leeSearch in Google Scholar
Lee, Gunsoo. 2001. On bound pronouns and anaphors. 생성문법연구 [Generative grammar research] 11(1). 151–166.Search in Google Scholar
Madigan, Sean. 2015. Anaphora and binding. In Lucien Brown & Jaehoon Yeon (eds.), The handbook of Korean linguistics, 137–154. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118371008.ch8Search in Google Scholar
Madigan, Sean & Masahiro Yamada. 2007. Asymmetry in anaphoric dependencies: A cross-linguistic study of inclusive reference. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13(1). 183–195.Search in Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language &llinguistic Theory 25(2). 273–313.10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2Search in Google Scholar
Nishiyama, Kunio. 2003. Post-syntactic passivization and the abstract clitic position in Indonesian. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19. 107–121.Search in Google Scholar
Noguchi, Tohru. 1997. Two types of pronouns and variable binding. Language 73(4). 770–797.10.1353/lan.1997.0021Search in Google Scholar
O’Grady, William. 1987. The interpretation of Korean anaphora: The role and representation of grammatical relations. Language 63(2). 251–277.10.2307/415656Search in Google Scholar
Pak, Miok, Paul Portner & Raffaella Zanuttini. 2004. Deriving clause types: Focusing on Korean. In Proceedings of the 2004 linguistic society of Korea international conference, 359–368. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Pak, Miok, Paul Portner & Raffaella Zanuttini. 2008. Agreement and the subjects of jussive clauses in Korean. Proceedings of NELS 37(2). 127–138.Search in Google Scholar
Rullman, Hotze. 2004. First and second person pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1). 159–168.10.1162/ling.2004.35.1.159Search in Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Árman. 2010. On EPP effects. Studia Linguistica 64(2). 159–189.10.1111/j.1467-9582.2010.01171.xSearch in Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 2001. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sohng, Hong-Ki. 2004. A minimalist analysis of X^ 0 reflexivization in Chinese and Korean. 생성문법연구 [Generative grammar research] 14. 375–396.Search in Google Scholar
Wijayanto, Agus, Malikatul Laila, Aryati Prasetyarini & Susiati Susiati. 2013. Politeness in interlanguage pragmatics of complaints by Indonesian learners of English. English Language Teaching 6(10). 188–201.10.5539/elt.v6n10p188Search in Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella, Miok Pak & Paul Portner. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(4). 1231–1274.10.1007/s11049-012-9176-2Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Sources and pathways for non-directive imperatives
- Verb phrase secondary predication: Biblical Hebrew as a case study
- (Non)finiteness, constructions and participles in Lithuanian
- Perception verbs and the conceptualization of the senses: The case of Avatime
- The relative verb forms of Cuwabo (Bantu P34) as contextually oriented participles
- Croft’s cycle in Arabic: The negative existential cycle in a single language
- Imposters and their implications for third-person feature specification
- Defying chronology: Crosslinguistic variation in reverse order reports
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Sources and pathways for non-directive imperatives
- Verb phrase secondary predication: Biblical Hebrew as a case study
- (Non)finiteness, constructions and participles in Lithuanian
- Perception verbs and the conceptualization of the senses: The case of Avatime
- The relative verb forms of Cuwabo (Bantu P34) as contextually oriented participles
- Croft’s cycle in Arabic: The negative existential cycle in a single language
- Imposters and their implications for third-person feature specification
- Defying chronology: Crosslinguistic variation in reverse order reports
