Impersonal Pronouns and First-Person Perspective

Literature Cited

1. Alonso-Ovalle L 2002. Arbitrary pronouns are not that indefinite. Proceedings of Going Romance 2000 C Beyssade, R Bok-Bennema, F Drijkoningen, P Monachesi 1–14 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
   [Google Scholar]
2. Anand P 2006. De de se PhD Diss., MIT Cambridge, MA: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/37418
3. Anand P, Nevins A 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory R Young 20–37 Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bimpeh AA. 2019. Default de se: the interpretation of the Ewe logophor. Proceedings of Triple A5: Fieldwork Perspectives on the Semantics of African, Asian and Austronesian Languages MR Bochnak, M Butt, E Meertens, M-M Zymla 1–16 Tübingen, Ger: Univ. Tübingen
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bimpeh AA. 2021. Logophoricity in Ewe: an empirical-semantic assessment of yè PhD Diss., Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Univ. Frankfurt am Main, Ger:.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bolinger D. 1979. To catch a metaphor: you as norm. Am. Speech 54:194–209
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bylinina L. 2017. Judge-dependence in degree constructions. J. Semant. 34:2291–331
   [Google Scholar]
8. Cabredo Hofherr P 2004. Impersonal pronouns in Somali, French and German Paper presented at Syntax of the World's Languages (SWL) 1 Leipzig, Ger.: Aug. 5–8
9. Carlson G 1995. Truth-conditions of generic sentences: two contrasting views. The Generic Book G Carlson, J Pelletier 224–37 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
   [Google Scholar]
10. Charnavel I. 2019. Locality and Logophoricity: A Theory of Exempt Anaphora Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
11. Charnavel I. 2020. Logophoricity and locality: a view from French anaphors. Linguist. Inq. 51:4671–723
    [Google Scholar]
12. Chierchia G 1990. Anaphora and attitudes de se. Semantics and Contextual Expression J van Benthem, van Emde Boas, R Bartsch 1–32 Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
    [Google Scholar]
13. Chierchia G 1995. The variability of impersonal subjects. Quantification in Natural Languages E Bach, E Jelinek, A Kratzer, BH Partee 107–43 Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer Acad.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Cimpian A, Brandone A, Gelman S. 2010. Generic statements require little evidence for acceptance but have powerful implications. Cogn. Sci. 34:1452–82
    [Google Scholar]
15. Cinque G. 1988. On Si constructions and the theory of Arb. Linguist. Inq. 19:4521–81
    [Google Scholar]
16. Clements G. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: its role in discourse. J. West Afr. Lang. 10:141–77
    [Google Scholar]
17. Deal AR. 2020. A Theory of Indexical Shift: Meaning, Grammar, and Crosslinguistic Variation Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
18. Fodor J. 1975. The Language of Thought Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
19. Franzén N. 2018. Aesthetic evaluation and first-hand experience. Australas. J. Philos. 96:4669–82
    [Google Scholar]
20. Gruber B. 2017. Temporal and atemporal uses of ‘you’: indexical and generic second person pronouns in English, German, and Dutch. J. Comp. Ger. Linguist. 20:3199–227
    [Google Scholar]
21. Haida A. 2009. (Proto-)logophoricity in Tangale Handout of talk presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 40) MIT, Cambridge, MA: Nov 13–15
22. Hall D. 2020. The impersonal gets personal: a new pronoun in Multicultural London English. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 38:117–50
    [Google Scholar]
23. Kirkpatrick JR, Dieball A, Knobe J. 2021. “You do it like this!” Bare impersonals as indefinite singular generics Work. Pap., Oxford Univ. Oxford, UK:
24. Kitagawa C, Lehrer A. 1990. Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. J. Pragmat. 14:739–59
    [Google Scholar]
25. Knobe J, Mandelkern M, Diebal A, Kirkpatrick JR. 2021. ‘You do it like this!’ Impersonal pronouns and default reasoning Work. Pap., Yale Univ. New Haven, CT:
26. Kratzer A. 1997. German impersonal pronouns and logophoricity Presented at Sinn und Bedeutung II Berlin: Dec. 5–7
27. Kusumoto K. 1998. Tenses as logophoric pronouns Handout of talk presented at the MIT/UConn/UMass Semantics Workshop Storrs, CT: Oct. 31
28. Landau I 2015. A Two-Tiered Theory of Control Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
29. Malamud S. 2006. Semantics and pragmatics of arbitrariness. PhD Diss., Univ. Pa. Philadelphia:
30. Malamud S. 2012. Impersonal indexicals: one, you, man, and du. J. Comp. Ger. Linguist. 15:1–48
    [Google Scholar]
31. Moltmann F. 2006. Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Nat. Lang. Semant. 14:257–81
    [Google Scholar]
32. Moltmann F. 2010a. Generalizing detached self-reference and the semantics of generic one. Mind Lang. 25:440–73
    [Google Scholar]
33. Moltmann F. 2010b. Relative truth and the first person. Philos. Stud. 150:187–220
    [Google Scholar]
34. Mothersill M. 1984. Beauty Restored Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
35. Ninan D. 2014. Taste predicates and the acquaintance inference. Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 24)290–309 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Nunberg D. 1993. Indexicality and deixis. Linguist. Philos. 16:1–43
    [Google Scholar]
37. Park Y. 2018. Attitudes de se and logophoricity PhD Diss., Univ. Mass. Amherst:
38. Pearson H. 2013. A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. J. Semant. 30:1103–54
    [Google Scholar]
39. Pearson H. 2015. The interpretation of the logophoric pronoun in Ewe. Nat. Lang. Semant. 23:277–118
    [Google Scholar]
40. Podobryaev A. 2014. Persons, imposters, and monsters PhD Diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA
41. Safir K. 2004. What does one mean when one says it? Presented at Harvard–MIT–UConn Indexicality Workshop Cambridge, MA: Nov. 19
42. Schlenker P 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality: a cross categorial approach PhD Diss., MIT Cambridge, MA: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/9353
43. Schlenker P. 2017. Super monsters I: Attitude and Action Role Shift in sign language. Semant. Pragmat. 10:9
    [Google Scholar]
44. Sudo Y 2016. Person indexicals in Uyghur indexical shifting. Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS36) N Rolle, J Steffman, J Sylak-Glassman 441–56 Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Sundaresan S. 2012.. Context and (co)reference in the syntax and its interfaces PhD Diss., Univ. Tromso/Univ. Stuttgart, Tromso, Nor./Stuttgart, Ger.
46. Sundaresan S. 2018. Perspective is syntactic: evidence from anaphora. Glossa 3:1128
    [Google Scholar]
47. Zimmermann M 2011. Discourse particles. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 2 C Maienborn, K von Heusinger, P Portner 2011–38 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
48. Zobel S. 2014. Impersonally interpreted personal pronouns PhD Diss., Univ. Göttingen, Göttingen, Ger.
49. Zobel S. 2022. The impersonal use of German 1st person singular ich. Linguist. Inq. In press. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00446
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]