Cover not available
Part of
Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change
Edited by Richard J. Whitt
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 85] 2018
► pp. 171–194

“You can’t control a thing like that”

Genres and changes in Modern English human impersonal pronouns

| University of Jena
While there is ample evidence showing that the impersonal use of second-person singular pronouns has increased in several languages, the recent history of impersonal you in English has not yet received much attention in the literature. The present investigation presents corpus evidence from Modern English indicating that this strategy has indeed gained in frequency, independently of changes in the general frequency of second-person pronouns and the evolution of genres. Tracing specific functions of impersonal you diachronically reveals that you simulating the hearer’s membership in the set generalized over and encoding hidden self-reference are relatively new uses, supporting the view that this impersonal strategy has undergone semantic extensions comparable to developments found in other languages.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Human impersonal pronouns
    • 2.1Introduction
    • 2.2Human impersonal pronouns in earlier English
  • 3.A corpus study on the Modern English HIP you
    • 3.1The corpus and data extraction
    • 3.2Quantitative observations
  • 4.Changes in English genres
    • 4.1Genres throughout Modern English
    • 4.2The role of second-person pronouns
  • 5.Has impersonal you changed, after all?
    • 5.1Impersonal vs. deictic you
    • 5.2Simulation
    • 5.3Self-reference
    • 5.4A comparative view
    • 5.5How ‘involved’ are second-person impersonals?
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.85.08haa
References (46)
References
Biber, Douglas. 1989. A typology of English texts. Linguistics 27: 3–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan. 2009. Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65: 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Variation in English: Multidimensional Studies, Douglas Biber & Susan Conrad (eds), 66–83. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia. 2006. “Arbitrary” pro and the theory of pro-drop. In Agreement and Arguments, Peter Ackema, Patrick Brandt, Maaike Schoorlemmer & Fred Weermann (eds), 230–257. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2013. Grammaticalization in social context: The emergence of a new English pronoun. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17: 608–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coveney, Aidan. 2003. ‘Anything you can do, tu can do better’: tu and vous as substitutes for indefinite on in French. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7: 164–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. <[URL]>
de Hoop, Helen & Tarenskeen, Sammie. 2015. It’s all about you in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 88: 163–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1985. Why Old English had no prepositional passive. English Studies 3: 189–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deringer, Lisa, Gast, Volker, Haas, Florian & Rudolf, Olga. 2015. Impersonal uses of the second person singular and generalized empathy: An exploratory corpus study of English, German and Russian. In The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns [Studies in Language Companion Series 171], Laure Gardelle & Sandrine Sorlin (eds), 311–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egerland, Verner. 2003. Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71: 75–102.Google Scholar
Fröhlich, Jürg. 1951. Der indefinite Agens im Altenglischen, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Wortes man. Winterthur-Töß: Paul Gehring.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & van der Auwera, Johan. 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, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 119–158. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker, Deringer, Lisa, Haas, Florian & Rudolf, Olga. 2015. Impersonal uses of the second person singular: A pragmatic analysis of generalization and empathy effects. Journal of Pragmatics 88: 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Torben Juel. 2009. Generic variation? Developments in use of generic pronouns in late 20th century spoken Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41: 83–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Torben Juel & Gregersen, Frans. 2016. What do(es) you mean? The pragmatics of generic second person pronouns in modern spoken Danish. Pragmatics 26: 417–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jud-Schmid, Elisabeth. 1956. Der indefinite Agens von Chaucer bis Shakespeare. Die Wörter und Wendungen für “man”. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi. 2015. Impersonal and generic reference: A cross-linguistic look at Finnish and English narratives. Eesti ja Soome-Ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri 6: 9–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato & Lehrer, Adrienne. 1990. Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 739–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter & Oesterreicher, Wulf. 2007. Schriftlichkeit und kommunikative Distanz. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 35: 346–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laberge, Suzanne. 1980. The changing distribution of indefinite pronouns in discourse. In Language Use and the Uses of Language, Roger W. Shuy & Anna Shnukal (eds), 76–87. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Leino, Pentti & Östmann, Jan-Ola. 2008. Language change, variability and functional load: Finnish genericity from a constructional point of view. In Constructional Reorganization [Constructional Approaches to Language 5], Pentti Leino (ed.), 37–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Light, Caitlin & Wallenberg, Joel. 2015. The expression of impersonals in Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 19: 227–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2002. The loss of the indefinite pronoun man . In English Historical Syntax and Morphology. Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7-11 11 September 2000  [Current Issue in Lingustic Theory 223], Teresa Fanego, Maria Jose Lopez-Couso & Javier Perez-Guerra (eds), 181–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2009. The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English: Information structure and syntax in interaction. English Language and Linguistics 13: 97–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malamud, Sophia. 2012. Impersonal indexicals: One, you, man and du . Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Hans-Heinrich. 1953. Der indefinite Agens im Mittelenglischen (1050–1350). Wörter und Wendungen für “man”. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Søren, Fogtmann, Christina & Jensen, Torben Juel. 2009. From community to conversation — and back: Exploring the interpersonal potentials of two generic pronouns in Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia  41: 116–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Posio, Pekka. 2016. You and we: Impersonal second person singular and other referential devices in Spanish sociolinguistic interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 99: 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1997. Whatever happened to Middle English indefinite pronouns. In Studies in Middle English Linguistics, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 513–529. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2007. Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversations. In Stancetaking in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164], Robert Englebretson (ed.), 111–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena. 2006. Information structure and word order change: The passive as an information-rearranging strategy in the history of English. In Handbook of the History of English, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds), 360–391. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seoane Posse, Elena. 2000. Impersonalising strategies in Early Modern English. English Studies 18: 102–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2008. Introduction: Impersonalization from a subject-centered vs. agent-centered perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society 106: 115–137. DOI logoGoogle 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 [Studies in Language Companion Series 124], Andrej L. Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds), 57–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Papastathi, Maria. 2011. Towards a typology of third-person impersonals. Linguistics 49: 575–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorlin, Sandrine. 2015. Breaking the fourth wall: The pragmatic functions of the second person pronoun in House of Cards . In The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns [Studies in Language Companion Series 171], Laure Gardelle & Sandrine Sorlin (eds), 125–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stirling, Lesley & Manderson, Lenore. 2011. About you: Empathy, objectivity and authority. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1581–1602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarenskeen, Sammie. 2010. From You to Me (and Back): The Flexible Meaning of the Second-person Pronoun in Dutch. MA thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Trudgill, Peter & Hannah, Jean. 2008. International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English, 5th edn. London York: Arnold.Google Scholar
van Bergen, Linda D. 2000. The indefinite pronoun man: ‘nominal’ or ‘pronominal’? In Generative Theory and Corpus Studies: A Dialogue from 10 ICEHL, Ricardo Bermùdez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg & Chris B. McCully (eds), 103–122. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus. 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part Three, Second Half: Syntactical Units with Two and with more Verbs. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wales, Kathleen. 1985. Generic your and Jacobean drama: The rise and fall of a pronominal usage. English Studies 66: 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela. 2000. “Man lebt nur einmal.” Morphosyntax und Semantik des Pronomens man . Deutsche Sprache 28: 232–253.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Rădulescu, Valentin & Daniël Van Olmen
2022. A questionnaire-based study of impersonalization in Romanian and English. Languages in Contrast 22:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Breed, Adri & Daniël Van Olmen
2021. The Passive as an Impersonalisation Strategy in Afrikaans and Dutch: A Corpus Investigation. Dutch Crossing 45:2 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.