Article published in:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 22:1 (2022) ► pp. 1–42

A questionnaire-based study of impersonalization in Romanian and English

With special attention to passivization

| University of Cambridge , UK
| Lancaster University , UK
This paper is the first contrastive study of impersonalization in Romanian and English. Taking an acceptability judgment approach, we describe the functional potential in all impersonal uses of not only the pronouns ‘one’, ‘you’ and ‘they’ but also the lesser studied passive. We find inter alia: a similar division of labor in the languages between ‘you’ and ‘they’ for contexts paraphrasable as, respectively, ‘everyone’ and ‘someone/some people’; a wider range of uses for pro-dropped ‘they’ than for its overt counterpart, as hypothesized in previous research; and a preference in English, but not Romanian, for passives to ‘they’ especially in contexts like ‘they’ve stolen my wallet!’, where the referent is entirely unidentifiable and likely to be singular. Levels of identifiability and number, each of which has been suggested in a separate semantic map as necessary for capturing impersonalization, are also shown to interact, supporting a proposal to combine them in one map.
Keywords: impersonal, pronoun, passive, semantic map, English/Romanian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Impersonalization
    • 1.2Impersonal constructions
    • 1.3Languages
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Acceptability judgment questionnaires
    • 2.2Questionnaire design
    • 2.3Implementation
    • 2.4Statistics
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Universal-internal uses
      • 3.1.1In general
      • 3.1.2‘You’ and ‘one’
      • 3.1.3The passive, versus ‘you’
    • 3.2Non-universal-internal uses
      • 3.2.1In general
      • 3.2.2‘They’
      • 3.2.3The passive, versus ‘they’
    • 3.3Summary
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 21 May 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.20004.rad
References
Baayen, R. H.
2008 Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D. and Sorace, A.
1996 Magnitude Estimation of Linguistic Acceptability. Language 72(10): 32–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cabredo Hofherr, P.
2006 “Arbitrary” Pro and the Theory of Pro-Drop. In Agreement and Arguments, P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Schoorlemmer and F. Weerman. (eds), 230–257. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cojocaru, D.
2003 Romanian Grammar. Durham: Slavic and East European Language Research Center, Duke University.Google Scholar
Coussé, E. and van der Auwera, J.
2012 Human Impersonal Pronouns in Swedish and Dutch: A Contrastive Study of Man and Men . Languages in Contrast 12(2): 121–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, D.
2008a Impersonal and Related Constructions: A Typological Approach. Lyon: Lumière University Lyon 2.Google Scholar
2008b Impersonal Pronouns and Coreference: The Case of French On. Lyon: Lumière University Lyon 2.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R.
2007 Impersonal Si Constructions: Agreement and Interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Data-Bukowska, E.
2018 The Third Person Plural Impersonal in Swedish: A Typological Account. Linguistica Copernicana 151: 163–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Hoop, H. and Tarenskeen, S.
2015 It’s All about You in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 881: 163–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C.
1998 Impersonal Se Constructions in Romance and the Passivization of Unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29(3): 399–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fenger, P.
2018 How Impersonal does One Get? A Study of Man-Pronouns in Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21(3): 291–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, S. S.
2013 Impersonality in Spanish Personal Pronouns. In Deixis and Pronouns in Romance Languages, K. J. Kragh and J. Lindschouw. (eds), 87–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fonesca-Greber, B. and Waugh, L. R.
2003 On the Radical Difference between the Subject Personal Pronouns in Written and Spoken European French. In Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, P. Leistyna and C. F. Meyer. (eds), 225–240. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gast, V.
2015 On the Use of Translation Corpora in Contrastive Linguistics: A Case Study of Impersonalization in English and German. Languages in Contrast 15(1): 4–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gast, V., Deringer, L., Haas, F. and Rudolf, O.
2015 Impersonal Uses of the Second Person Singular: A Pragmatic Analysis of Generalization and Empathy Effects. Journal of Pragmatics 881: 148–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gast, V. and van der Auwera, J.
2013 Towards a Distributional Typology of Human Impersonal Pronouns, Based on Data from European Languages. In Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in the Memory of Anna Siewierska, D. Bakker and M. Haspelmath. (eds), 119–158. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A. and Sansò, A.
2007 The Spread and Decline of Indefinite Man-Constructions in European Languages: An Areal Perspective. In Europe and the Mediterranean Linguistic Areas: Convergences from a Historical and Typological Perspective, P. Ramat and E. Roma. (eds), 95–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gönczöl-Davies, R.
2008 Romanian: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haas, F.
2018a “You can’t Control a Thing like That”: Genre and Change in Modern English Human Impersonal Pronouns. In Diachronic Corpora, Genre and Language Change, R. J. Whitt. (ed.), 171–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018b Changing Human Impersonal Pronouns in English: A Corpus Study. Paper presented at the Fifty-First Conference of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. Tallinn, Estonia, 30 August 2018.
Hall, D.
2020 The Impersonal Gets Personal: A New Pronoun in Multicultural London English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 381: 117–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, T. J. and Gregerson, F.
2016 What do(es) You Mean? The Pragmatics of Generic Second Person Pronouns in Modern Spoken Danish. Pragmatics 26(3): 417–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, C. and Lehrer, A.
1990 Impersonal Uses of Personal Pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 14(5): 739–759. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, B.
2016 Generic Uses of the Second Person Singular – How Speakers Deal with Referential Ambiguity and Misunderstanding. Pragmatics 26(3): 501–522. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laberge, S. and Sankoff, G.
1979 Anything You can Do. In Discourse and Syntax, T. Givón. (ed.), 419–440. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malamud, S.
2012 Impersonal Indexicals: One, You, Man and Du . Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 151: 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manea, C.
2012 Remarks on the Passive Voice in English and Romanian. Studii de Gramatică Contrastivă 181: 54–73.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F.
2010 Generalizing Detached Self-Reference and the Semantics of Generic One . Mind & Language 25(4): 440–473. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, J.
1997 Toward a Functional Typology of Agent Defocusing. Linguistics 35(5): 799–844. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, P. E.
1994 “You could Feel it through the Skin”: Agency and Positioning in Prisoners’ Stabbing Stories. Text 14(1): 45–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pană Dindelegan, G.
2008 Construcții pasive și construcții impersonale. In Gramatica Limbii Române II: Enunțul, V. Guţu Romalo. (ed.), 133–147. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RomâneGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2013 The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Posio, P. and Vilkuna, M.
2013 Referential Dimensions of Human Impersonals in Dialectal European Portuguese and Finnish. Linguistics 51(1): 177–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rasinger, S. M.
2013 Quantitative Research in Linguistics: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rudolf, O.
2016 Human Impersonal Strategies in English and Russian: A Comparative Corpus Study. PhD Thesis, University of Jena.Google Scholar
Sansò, A.
2006 ‘Agent Defocusing’ Revisited: Passive and Impersonal Constructions in some European Languages. In Passivization and Typology: Form and Function, W. Abraham and L. Leisiö. (eds), 232–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M.
1985 Passives and Related Constructions: A Prototype Analysis. Language 61(4): 821–848. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A.
2004 Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Ways of Impersonalizing: Pronominal vs. Verbal Strategies. In Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives, M. A. Gómez González, J. Lachlan Mackenzie and E. M. González Álvarez. (eds), 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Overlap and Complementarity in Reference Impersonals: Man-Constructions vs. Third Person Plural-Impersonals in the Languages of Europe. In Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, A. Malchukov and A. Siewierska. (eds), 57–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A. and Papastathi, M.
2011 Towards a Typology of Third Personal Plural Impersonals. Linguistics 49(3): 575–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J. and Almeida, D.
2012 Assessing the Reliability of Textbook Data in Syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax . Journal of Linguistics 48(3): 609–652. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, L. and Manderson, L.
2011 About You: Empathy, Objectivity and Authority. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6): 1581–1602. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, J., Gast, V. and Vanderbiesen, J.
2012 Human Impersonal Pronoun Uses in English, Dutch and German. Leuvense Bijdragen 981: 27–64.Google Scholar
Van Olmen, D. and Breed, A.
2018a Human Impersonal Pronouns in Afrikaans: A Double Questionnaire-Based Study. Language Sciences 691: 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018b Human Impersonal Pronouns in West Germanic: A Questionnaire-Based Comparative Study of Afrikaans, Dutch and English. Studies in Language 42(4): 798–846. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, G.
2001  Man lebt nur einmal: Morphosyntax und Semantik des Pronomens man . Deutsche Sprache 38(3): 232–253.Google Scholar