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

Cited by 2 other publications

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. Crossref logo
Rădulescu, Valentin & Daniël Van Olmen
2022. A questionnaire-based study of impersonalization in Romanian and English. Languages in Contrast 22:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. 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.