Chapter published in:
Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change
Edited by Richard J. Whitt
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 85] 2018
► pp. 171194


Biber, Douglas
1989A typology of English texts. Linguistics 27: 3–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan
2009Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward
1989Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65: 487–517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Diachronic 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
2013Grammaticalization in social context: The emergence of a new English pronoun. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17: 608–633. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja
2010Early 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. http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/
de Hoop, Helen & Tarenskeen, Sammie
2015It’s all about you in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 88: 163–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David
1985Why Old English had no prepositional passive. English Studies 3: 189–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deringer, Lisa, Gast, Volker, Haas, Florian & Rudolf, Olga
2015Impersonal 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Egerland, Verner
2003Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71: 75–102.Google Scholar
Fröhlich, Jürg
1951Der indefinite Agens im Altenglischen, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Wortes man. Winterthur-Töß: Paul Gehring.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & van der Auwera, Johan
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, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 119–158. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker, Deringer, Lisa, Haas, Florian & Rudolf, Olga
2015Impersonal uses of the second person singular: A pragmatic analysis of generalization and empathy effects. Journal of Pragmatics 88: 148–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Torben Juel
2009Generic variation? Developments in use of generic pronouns in late 20th century spoken Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41: 83–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Torben Juel & Gregersen, Frans
2016What do(es) you mean? The pragmatics of generic second person pronouns in modern spoken Danish. Pragmatics 26: 417–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jud-Schmid, Elisabeth
1956Der indefinite Agens von Chaucer bis Shakespeare. Die Wörter und Wendungen für “man”. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi
2015Impersonal and generic reference: A cross-linguistic look at Finnish and English narratives. Eesti ja Soome-Ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri 6: 9–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato & Lehrer, Adrienne
1990Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 739–759. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter & Oesterreicher, Wulf
2007Schriftlichkeit und kommunikative Distanz. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 35: 346–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laberge, Suzanne
1980The 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
2008Language 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Light, Caitlin & Wallenberg, Joel
2015The expression of impersonals in Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 19: 227–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou
2002The 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
2009The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English: Information structure and syntax in interaction. English Language and Linguistics 13: 97–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malamud, Sophia
2012Impersonal indexicals: One, you, man and du . Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Hans-Heinrich
1953Der indefinite Agens im Mittelenglischen (1050–1350). Wörter und Wendungen für “man”. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Søren, Fogtmann, Christina & Jensen, Torben Juel
2009From community to conversation — and back: Exploring the interpersonal potentials of two generic pronouns in Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia  41: 116–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Posio, Pekka
2016You and we: Impersonal second person singular and other referential devices in Spanish sociolinguistic interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 99: 1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti
1997Whatever happened to Middle English indefinite pronouns. In Studies in Middle English Linguistics, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 513–529. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne
2007Subjective 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena
2006Information 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seoane Posse, Elena
2000Impersonalising strategies in Early Modern English. English Studies 18: 102–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
2008Introduction: Impersonalization from a subject-centered vs. agent-centered perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society 106: 115–137. 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 [Studies in Language Companion Series 124], Andrej L. Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds), 57–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Papastathi, Maria
2011Towards a typology of third-person impersonals. Linguistics 49: 575–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorlin, Sandrine
2015Breaking 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, Lesley & Manderson, Lenore
2011About you: Empathy, objectivity and authority. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1581–1602. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tarenskeen, Sammie
2010From You to Me (and Back): The Flexible Meaning of the Second-person Pronoun in Dutch. MA thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Trudgill, Peter & Hannah, Jean
2008International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English, 5th edn. London York: Arnold.Google Scholar
van Bergen, Linda D.
2000The 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus
1973An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part Three, Second Half: Syntactical Units with Two and with more Verbs. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wales, Kathleen
1985Generic your and Jacobean drama: The rise and fall of a pronominal usage. English Studies 66: 7–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela
2000“Man lebt nur einmal.” Morphosyntax und Semantik des Pronomens man . Deutsche Sprache 28: 232–253.Google Scholar