References

References

Baayen, R. H.
2008Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D. and Sorace, A.
1996Magnitude 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.
2003Romanian Grammar. Durham: Slavic and East European Language Research Center, Duke University.Google Scholar
Coussé, E. and van der Auwera, J.
2012Human Impersonal Pronouns in Swedish and Dutch: A Contrastive Study of Man and Men . Languages in Contrast 12(2): 121–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, D.
2008aImpersonal and Related Constructions: A Typological Approach. Lyon: Lumière University Lyon 2.Google Scholar
2008bImpersonal Pronouns and Coreference: The Case of French On. Lyon: Lumière University Lyon 2.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R.
2007Impersonal Si Constructions: Agreement and Interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Data-Bukowska, E.
2018The Third Person Plural Impersonal in Swedish: A Typological Account. Linguistica Copernicana 15: 163–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Hoop, H. and Tarenskeen, S.
2015It’s All about You in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 88: 163–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C.
1998Impersonal Se Constructions in Romance and the Passivization of Unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29(3): 399–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fenger, P.
2018How 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.
2013Impersonality 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.
2003On 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.
2015On 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.
2015Impersonal Uses of the Second Person Singular: A Pragmatic Analysis of Generalization and Empathy Effects. Journal of Pragmatics 88: 148–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gast, V. and van der Auwera, J.
2013Towards 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.
2007The 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.
2008Romanian: 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
2018bChanging 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.
2020The Impersonal Gets Personal: A New Pronoun in Multicultural London English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38: 117–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, T. J. and Gregerson, F.
2016What 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.
1990Impersonal Uses of Personal Pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 14(5): 739–759. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, B.
2016Generic 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.
1979Anything You can Do. In Discourse and Syntax, T. Givón. (ed.), 419–440. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malamud, S.
2012Impersonal Indexicals: One, You, Man and Du . Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manea, C.
2012Remarks on the Passive Voice in English and Romanian. Studii de Gramatică Contrastivă 18: 54–73.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F.
2010Generalizing Detached Self-Reference and the Semantics of Generic One . Mind & Language 25(4): 440–473. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, J.
1997Toward 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.
2008Construcții pasive și construcții impersonale. In Gramatica Limbii Române II: Enunțul, V. Guţu Romalo. (ed.), 133–147. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RomâneGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2013The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Posio, P. and Vilkuna, M.
2013Referential Dimensions of Human Impersonals in Dialectal European Portuguese and Finnish. Linguistics 51(1): 177–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rasinger, S. M.
2013Quantitative Research in Linguistics: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Rudolf, O.
2016Human 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.
1985Passives and Related Constructions: A Prototype Analysis. Language 61(4): 821–848. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A.
2004Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Ways 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
2011Overlap 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.
2011Towards a Typology of Third Personal Plural Impersonals. Linguistics 49(3): 575–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J. and Almeida, D.
2012Assessing 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.
2011About You: Empathy, Objectivity and Authority. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6): 1581–1602. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, J., Gast, V. and Vanderbiesen, J.
2012Human Impersonal Pronoun Uses in English, Dutch and German. Leuvense Bijdragen 98: 27–64.Google Scholar
Van Olmen, D. and Breed, A.
2018aHuman Impersonal Pronouns in Afrikaans: A Double Questionnaire-Based Study. Language Sciences 69: 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018bHuman 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