Collins and Postal (2012)

Such a tendency appears to come from contextual saliency. Korean bare imposters do not require an obligatory overt possessor, but such an effect can be detected, unlike a jussive subject, as presented in (177)-(179).

(181)Kinship imposters in Spanish (Dudley 2014: 43) [second person possessive (‘your’) + various kinship terms]

a. tu hijo ‘your son’

b. tu abuelo ‘your grandfather’

c. tu hija ‘your daughter’

as non-third person.

(182)a. Mummy will spank Johnny. (C&P 2012: 11) b. Daddy is enjoying himself/*myself. (C&P 2012: 20)

In (182), two kinds of imposters are used: a common noun mummy and daddy denoting a speaker, and a proper name Johnny denoting a hearer. And such noun phrases, which are not pronouns, but denote non-third persons, are named as imposters by Collins and Postal (2012), as has already been mentioned. Also, the comprehensive list of English imposters is presented in (183): head nouns of imposters are representative properties of a referent, personal name, relational nouns such as kinship terms and occupation or rank. This is very similar to the previous Korean case in (175).

(183)List of English imposters (C&P 2012: 7) a. 1^st person imposters:

(i) Yours truly, your faithful correspondent, the (present)

author(s), the present reviewer(s), the undersigned, the court, the (present) writer(s)

(ii) Personal names

(iii) Diminutive kinship terms: Daddy, Mommy, Auntie, Granny, Gramps

(iv) Nondiminutive kinship terms plus a personal name:

Uncle + Name, Aunt + Name, Cousin + Name, Grampa + Name, Gramma + Name

b. 2^nd person imposters:

(i) Madam, the + Common Noun denoting ranks in a military organization (the general/colonel, etc.), the Holy Father, my lord, my lady, baby/darling/dear/dearest/love[, …] the reader, the attentive listener, my colleague from South Carolina (legislative context)

(ii) The elements of (aii), especially when talking to very small children and pets (Does Bobby want to go to the movies?)

(iii) The elements of (aiii)

(iv) Possibly with some strain, the elements of (aiv)

Note that (182)a is equivalent of ‘I will spank you (C&P 2012: 11)’

semantically, but the verbal form of (182)b has to be is instead of am, and the Daddy denoting a speaker cannot bind a first person anaphor myself.

Therefore, Collins and Postal (2012) define imposters as in (184). To explain such a twofold property, they argue that (English) imposters are derived from an appositive structure, which contains a covert pronoun determining a notional meaning.¹⁶⁰ Both the entire DP and the notional pronoun are anteceded by the first person AUTHOR¹⁶¹ , and they get the first person reading. However, the grammatical feature of the entire DP is determined by the highest DP (DP³, here), hence, the imposter (DP⁴) has a third person feature. Consequently, it participates in Agree with the third person feature, and is and himself are employed in (182)b. The definition and internal structure are given in (184)-(185).

(184)Definition of imposters: (C&P 2012: 5) An imposter is a notionally X person DP that is grammatically Y person, X ≠ Y.

160 For this reason, Collins and Postal’s (2012) analysis on imposters in non-jussives can be referred to as DP-internal analysis as opposed to Zanuttini et al.’s (2012) Jussive head analysis on jussive subjects. In the DP-internal analysis, a notional pronoun determines the entire DP, in which it is embedded. On the contrary, Zanuttini et al.

(2012) can be classified as DP-external analysis in that a DP-external Jussive head on a clausal domain influences an interpretation of DPs.

161 This is in line with the DP-external analysis, in a sense, that an interpretation of DP depends on an external functional head, SpeechAct⁰, in which a person feature comes from an outside element of DPs in the imposter analysis, too. Refer to (11)- (12) and footnote 54 for Speech Act Projection.

(185)Collins and Postal’s (2012: 66) structure of an imposter AUTHOR Antecedence DP⁴

DP³ D'

Nixon

D DP¹

Antecedence DP² Clause

I

<DP³>

Movement

Their analysis on imposters has been extended to various languages, and the relevant linguistic phenomena have been enriched. For instance, in Mandarin Chinese (Wang 2014) and Indonesian (Kaufman 2014), grammatical features of imposters always conform to a notional pronoun, just like in Korean. That is to say, a first person imposter takes part in Agreement with a first person feature, and a second person imposter with a second person feature.¹⁶² In contrast, Bangla (Das 2014), which has both verbal and pronominal Agreement, participates in Agree with a grammatical third person feature, consistently ignoring a notional non-third person feature. However, other languages, including English, exhibit blended properties: what joins in the Agree operation between a notional and a grammatical feature is dependent on language-internal rules with reference to number and person features.

Collins and Postal (2012) ascribe the cross-linguistic variations regarding binding to an antecedent issue: whether a language allows an

162 Interestingly, all the three languages do not have a morphology of verbal Agreement, and only pronominal binding can be tested.

immediate antecedent or ultimate antecedent¹⁶³. The definitions for these terms are given in (186)-(187).

(186)Immediate antecedent (C&P 2012: 28) Node A immediately antecedes node B if and only if A antecedes B and there is no C such that A antecedes C and C antecedes B.

(187)Ultimate antecedent (C&P 2012: 28) Node A ultimately antecedes B if and only if A antecedes B and there is no C that antecedes A.

In (182)b, the imposter subject daddy can only bind the third person anaphor himself, but not the first person myself. Under their notion of antecedent,

163 The kinds of antecedents are further generalized in terms of sources to embody various antecedents which correspond to neither immediate nor ultimate antecedents. Instead, positing primary and secondary sources, for which the definitions are given below, these can give explanations for partitive and coordinate constructions as well. While an immediate antecedent is equivalent to a primary source, an ultimate antecedent is a sub-type of secondary source. In this study, however, other kinds of secondary sources are not important, so I take Collins and Postal’s (2012) analysis on Agreement, laying stress on antecedent.

(i) Definition: primary source (C&P 2012: 188) A is a primary source for B if and only if

a. A immediately antecedes B, or b. A is a key conjunct of B, or c. A shares a lexical basis with B.

(ii) Definition: Source (ibid.: 156) A is a source for B if and only if

a. A is a primary source for B or b. there is a C that is a source for B and [i.] A is a primary source for C, or

[ii.] C is a predicate nominal and A is C’s subject, or [iii.] C is a partitive DP and A is C’s set DP.

(iii) Definition: secondary source (ibid.: 156) A is a secondary source for B if and only if A is a source for B and not a primary source for B.

(182)b is a result of binding by immediate antecedent: daddy is an immediate antecedent of himself since there are no antecedents between them. Due to a language-specific reason, the ultimate antecedent AUTHOR cannot be a proper antecedent in this sentence. Since plural imposters in English allow non-third person pronominal Agreement, the choice of anctecedent seems to be related to the number feature, but it does not seem to be conclusive. This is because other types of imposters such as so-called camouflage DPs can antecede a non-third person pronominal when it is singular as in (188). As depicted in (189), a bound element can choose the immediate antecedent your majesty and the ultimate antecedent Addressee as its binder, hence herself and yourself are available, respectively. Under this approach, Mandarin Chinese, Indonesian, and Korean are analyzed as adopting ultimate antecedents only, but Bangla chooses immediate antecedents exclusively. English takes both strategies.

(188)[Your¹ Majesty]¹ should praise yourself¹/herself¹. (C&P 2014: 11) (189) Ptr2P (C&P 2014: 12, adapted)

DP Prt2'

Addressee

Prt2 TP

DP T'

your majesty T VP

immediate antecedent

praise yourself / herself

immediate antecedent

However, as argued in Wang (2014) for Mandarin Chinese, an imposter candidate in Korean might not be a true imposter. Rather, it is a complex DP that contains a covert pronoun which heads the entire DP. This is depicted

in (190).

(190) DP1 (Wang 2014: 179, adapted)

DP² D¹' φ-feature

percolation laoshi / furen D¹⁰

‘teacher/Madam’ wo / ni

‘I/you’

I agree with Wang’s idea since imposter candidates in Korean and Mandarin Chinese do not correspond to Collins and Postal’s definition of imposters.¹⁶⁴ Regardless of whether this study follows Collins and Postal (2012) or Wang (2014), the key point for explaining a Korean-type imposter (candidate) is that the non-third person pronoun determines a person feature of an entire imposter phrase. Thus, this study will not present any particular view as of now.