1.3 Data discussion – part II: Co-occurring linguistic material
1.3.3 Co-occurring referentially interpreted personal pronouns
Similarly to spatial and temporal adverbials that restrict the sentential content to specific confined times or places, referentially interpreted personal pronouns restrict the content of a sentence to one or more specific situations, and promote an episodic interpretation of that sentence. Example (62) illustrates the effect of second person singular du co-occurring with first person singular mich (Engl. ‘me’) which is inter-preted referentially. The most readily available interpretation for du is the referential interpretation, in parallel tomich.
(62) Du
you musst must
mich me.acc
gut well
behandeln.
treat
Available: ‘You (addr.) have to treat me well.’
Unavailable(?): ‘One should treat me well’
The effect is, again, not an absolute blocking of the impersonal interpretation of ich and du: when I consulted native speakers whether sentences like (62) could also be interpreted as general rules of conduct, they did not outright refuse, but stated that they prefer the impersonal pronoun man instead of ich or du to express the intended meaning.
The preference to exchange du with man disappears if the first person singular pronoun is replaced by the bare plural Kinder (Engl. ‘children’), see (63). Here, the impersonal, as well as the referential interpretation of du is available.
(63) Du
you musst must
Kinder children
gut well
behandeln.
treat
Available: ‘You (addr.) have to treat children well.’
Available: ‘You (imp.) have to treat children well.’
Hence, it seems that general rules of conduct regarding specific, but arbitrary individ-uals are exceptional—in the same way that generalizations and rules regarding specific confined times or places are exceptional. This is supported by a comparable tendency to prefer a referential interpretation for ich or du when a proper name co-occurs in the sentence. In (64), the referentially interpreted personal pronoun of (62) has been replaced with the proper name Maria, and as for (62), the sentence was intended as a general rule of conduct regarding Maria. Yet, the native speakers that I consulted again strongly preferred a referential interpretation fordu.
(64) Du
Available: ‘You (addr.) have to treat Mary well, else she gets sad.’
Unavailable(?): ‘You (imp.) have to treat Mary well, else she gets sad.’
To express the intended general rule of conduct, native speakers again preferred to substitute du with man.
Even more support for the exceptionality of general rules of conduct regarding spe-cific, but arbitrary individuals comes from the observation that sentences in which ich or du co-occur with proper names of special single individuals who may have specific rules associated with them readily allow an impersonal reading of personal pronouns.
Consider (65).
Available: ‘In the presence of Elizabeth II, you (addr.) must not eat a banana.’
Available: ‘In the presence of Elizabeth II, you (imp.) must not eat a banana.’
Another type of restriction exists for multiple occurrences of the same pronominal form in the same clause. This restriction addresses which of the occurrences can be inter-preted impersonally if the other occurrences are interinter-preted referentially: intuitively, either all occurrences of the same pronominal form are interpreted impersonally, or all are interpreted referentially. Available: ‘A student has to respect himself.’
Available: ‘I have to respect myself.’
Unavailable: *‘A student has to respect me.’
Unavailable: *‘As a student, I have to respect people in general.’
Curiously, though, possessive pronouns seem to behave differently with respect to this restriction. Malamud (2007) observes the following pattern for the impersonal use of you.
(67) In those days, you could marry your cousin.
a. Available: Addressee could marry addressee’s cousin b. Available: One could marry one’s cousin
c. Unavailable: *Addressee could marry one’s cousin d. Available: One could marry addressee’s cousin
(Malamud 2007:14)
The availability of the first two interpretations, for which all occurrences of you are interpreted in a uniform manner, is expected. Surprisingly, though, the fourth read-ing, in which you in subject position is interpreted impersonally and the possessive is interpreted referentially, is available as well.
The same pattern is observed for German, as well—although native speakers seem to strongly prefer an interpretation in which the second person singular forms are read uniformely.
Available: ‘You (addr.) can marry your cousin.’
Available: ‘One can marry one’s cousin.’
Unavailable: *‘You can marry one’s cousin.’
Available: ?? ‘One can marry your cousin.’
So far, only pronominal combinations occurring in the same clause were considered.
Crucially, the restrictions observed inside a single clause do not hold for multi-clausal sentences, as exemplified by(69)–(71).
(69) Also,
‘Well, I don’t really know anything about finances, but a financial institution can’t choose a price/ value for currency.’41
(70) Ich
‘I think this is an absolutely stupid argument! The bridal couple can’t expect their guests to more or less pay for the party!’42
41 http://www.kurzefrage.de/wirtschaft-finanzen/233962/stimmt-es-dass-jede-bank-und-wechselstube-ihren-eigenen-wechselkurse
42 http://www.urbia.de/archiv/forum/th-2142726/Wieviel-Geld-zur-Hochzeit-schenken.html
(71) Ich
‘I found it really embarrassing and impolite that they treat their customers like that. A service provider can’t ignore his customers in this way.’43
Examples(69)–(71) illustrate a “shift” from a referential use of first person singularich to an impersonal use: In the first sentence/clause of the examples, ich is used refer-entially. In the second sentence, the speaker switches to the impersonal reading, and all further occurrences of first person singular pronouns are interpreted impersonally.
These examples have in common, that the first sentences containing the referential use express the speaker’s attitude regarding the situation under discussion: in (69) the speaker states that he has limited knowledge regarding the topic under discussion, in (70) the speaker comments on a previous utterance in the discussion, and in (71) the speaker directly comments on the situation she is describing.
Similarly, impersonally interpreted ich and du may be embedded under attitude predicates with the speaker as attitude holder, see (72) and (73).
(72) Ich
‘I think this will never be fully clarified because a company can commission a test from a laboratory in Poland and ask for a receipt for the lease of a truck.’44 (73) Ich
auf Schritt und Tritt wherever-she-goes
verfolgen.
follow
‘I mean, one can’t always follow one’s child around.’45
The final observation regarding the interaction between impersonally and referen-tially interpreted personal pronouns is similar, but not directly connected to the pre-vious discussion: it seems to be the case that in an ongoing discourse, the impersonal interpretation is unavailable if the subject matter is a particular issue regarding the speaker or addressee, respectively. Consider (74) and (75).
43http://www.qype.com/place/529390-Vorher-Nachhair-Hagen
44http://www.hundeforum-chat.de/hundeforum/print.php?threadid=1535&boardid=27&
styleid=1&page=4
45http://de.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070928054833AAl2RG0
Scenario: A and B are at a sea-food restaurant.
‘What do you think I should get to eat?’
B: Hier
Available: ‘It’s best for you (addr.) to order shrimps in this place.’
Unavailable: ‘In this place, it’s best if you (imp.) order shrimps.’
Scenario: A and B are at a sea-food restaurant. A knows that B is on a diet.
(75) A: Was
‘What do you order in this kind of restaurant?’
B: Am besten
Available: ‘It’s best for me to order shrimps in this kind of restaurant.’
Unavailable: ‘In this kind of restaurant, it’s best if one orders shrimps.’
Note that in case the impersonally used personal pronouns in B’s answers are substi-tuted by the impersonal pronoun man, the B-examples can be interpreted as general-izations, as intended.