Irish Impersonals in Context

Jim McCloskey workshop on impersonal pronouns

UC Santa Cruz cnrs pouchet, paris, september 20th 2011

autonomous inflectionthe basics

A form of the finite verb known as the briathar saor or free (form of the) verb.
cuir-tear Present Tense
cuir-eadh Past Tense
cuir-fear Future Tense
chuir-f Conditional Mood
chuir-t Past Habitual

(1) a. Tgadh suas an corpn ar bharr na haille

raise [PAST-AUT] up the body on top the cliff [GEN]
The body was lifted to the top of the cliff
b. scaoileadh amach na lonta
release [PAST-AUT] out the nets
The nets were let out
c. Cuirtear i mbosca iad
put [PRES-AUT] in boxes them
They are put in boxes.
(2) a. H-irigheadh cleachtuighthe le daoine a bheith ag teacht
become [PAST-AUT] accustomed with people be [FIN] come [PROG]
One became accustomed to people coming. dca 81
b. Do chreidt insna seanscalta sin go lir fad shin
[PAST] believe [PAST-HABIT-AUT] in-the old-stories DEMON all long ago
People used to believe in all those old stories long ago. cfc 32
c. hItheadh, hladh, ceoladh agus ansin chuathas a sheanchas
eat [PAST-AUT] drink [PAST-AUT] sing [PAST-AUT] and then go [PAST-AUT] storytelling [FIN]
There was eating, drinking, singing, and then the storytelling began. ccc 1161

preliminaries
Not a passive in the modern language, although it derives from an Old Irish passive: (Thurneysen, 1946, 540, p. 349),
McCloskey (1979); Stenson (1981, 1989).
1. The internal argument appears in accusative rather than nominative case:
(3) a. Cuirfear sa reilg itiil.
bury [FUT-AUT] him [ACC] in-the graveyard local
He will be buried in the local graveyard.
b. *Cuirfear s sa reilg itiil.
bury [FUT-AUT] he [NOM] in-the graveyard local
He will be buried in the local graveyard.
2. If the internal argument is a light pronominal, it may be postposedan option permitted freely to direct objects but
absolutely forbidden to subjects (Stenson (1981, 4243), Chung & McCloskey (1987), Siadhail (1989, 207210), Duffield
(1995, 66-81), Adger (1997), McCloskey (1999)):
(4) a. Cuirfear sa reilg itiil amrach .
bury [FUT-AUT] in-the graveyard local tomorrow him [ACC]
He will be buried in the local graveyard tomorrow.
b. *Cuirfidh sa reilg itiil siad.
bury [FUT] him in-the graveyard local they
They will bury him in the local graveyard.
3. The internal argument may be a resumptive pronounagain an option permitted to direct objects but forbidden to
subjects (see McCloskey, 1990, and references cited there).
1 Examples with tags like ccc 16 are taken from a data-base of naturally occurring examples. For information about the data-base see the Appendix.
2 mccloskey

(5) a. fear gur bualadh le camn sa ghlin

man C-[PAST] strike [PAST-AUT] with hurley-stick in-the knee him
a man that was struck on the knee with a hurley-stick sat 106
b. *fear gur bhuail s le camn m
man C-[PAST] struck he with hurley-stick me
a man that (he) struck me with a hurley-stick
4. Agent phrases are impossible in the modern language, S (2006).
the initial question then: What is it about this set of inflectional endings which licenses silence where the most promi-
nent of the verbs arguments ought to be?

is there a structural subject?

A possibility: the most prominent argument is simply eliminated.
(6) Buaileadh le cloch .
strike [PAST-AUT] with stone him
He was hit with a stone.
(7) e [strike (e) Theme (e, pro) Instr (e, stone) Past (e)]

the missing subject is semantically active

Nancy Stenson (1989, 384393):
(8) a. Socraodh ar ionsa a dhanamh orthu.
settle [PAST-AUT] on attack make [FIN] on-them
It was agreed to mount an attack on them.
b. Glacadh go fonnmhar leis an ainmnichn.
take [PAST-AUT] eagerly with the nomination
The nomination was eagerly accepted.

anaphor binding
(9) *Gortaodh fin
hurt [PAST-AUT] him [REFL]
People hurt themselves.
(10) a. Chonaic muid a chile.
saw we each-other
We saw each other.
b. Chonaic sibh a chile.
saw you [PL] each-other
You saw each other.
c. Chonaic siad a chile.
saw they each-other
They saw each other.
(11) a. chuirt geall len- a chile
put [PAST-HABIT-AUT] bet with each-other
People used to place bets with each other. gsa 25
b. Tgadh suas an corpn ar bharr na haille ansan le cabhair a chile
raise [PAST-AUT] up the body on top the cliff [GEN] then with help each-other
The body was raised to the top of the cliff then with each others help fbf 136
c. Tthar a strcadh a chile.
be [PRES-AUT] tear [PROG] each-other
People are tearing each other apart. u 168
d. Thit ag ithe bile le chile
go [PAST-HABIT-AUT] eat [PROG] meal with each other
People used to go for a meal with each other. ia 351
Why the difference in behaviour between reflexives and reciprocals? Reflexives require agreement in person, number, and
gender with their antecedents; reciprocals do not. (Other possibilities will suggest themselves in addition later.)
3 mccloskey

interim conclusion
Following Stenson (1989) for Irish and Anderson (1982) for the corresponding construction in Breton, we take the au-
tonomous inflection to license the appearance of a silent argument with very particular semantic propertiesclose to those
of elements usually called arbitrary or impersonal. Call this silent element the autonomous argument.
the initial question refined: What are the properties of the autonomous argument and what is the nature of its inter-
action with the specialized verbal inflections which apparently license it?

two contexts
There are two contexts in which that question can profitably be addressed:
the typology of impersonal pronouns
Irish as a nulll subject (more accurately null argument) language

impersonal subject pronouns

Under what conditions are autonomous forms used?
Christian Brothers (1960, 418, p. 204):
sidtear iad nuair nach mian n gach g n nach fidir an gnomha a lua.
[They are used when it is not desirable, not necessary, or not possible to specify the agent.]

A standard description of arbitrary subjects: they are used when the intention of the speaker is to remain vague about the
exact identity of the subject (DAlessandro (2004) cited in Malamud (2005)).
(12) Man redete mit einander
Arb speak [PAST] with each other
People talked to each other. (Kratzer (1997))
(13) Si era parlato luno con laltro
Arb be [PAST] spoken the-one with the-other
People talked to each other. (Cinque (1988))

the range of interpretations of the autonomous argument

In the context of habitual aspects, a quasi-universal or gnomic or generic interpretation:
(14) a. inne go bhfeicf breoiteacht farraige ag teacht air, darfa leis ...
anyone C see [COND-AUT] sickness sea come [PROG] on-him say [COND-AUT] with-him
anyone who you would see getting sea-sick, you would say to them . . . cfc 130
b. tugtar madadh uisce (go minic) ar an dobharch
give [PRES-AUT] dog water (often) on the otter
The otter is often called a water-dog.
c. Gaeilge a labhartar anseo.
Irish C speak [PRES-AUT] here
Its Irish that people speak here.
With an episodic tense or aspect, the quantificational force is closer to that of an existential:
(15) a. lirodh drma leis san Abbey
produce [PAST-AUT] plays by-him in-the
Plays of his were produced at the Abbey. ia 22
b. Labhradh go hiongantach, go buadhach, go feargach
speak [PAST-AUT] wonderfully victoriously angrily
People spoke wonderfully, victoriously, angrily md 151
c. Tgadh scoil r bliain ina dhiaidh sin
raise [PAST-AUT] school new year after that
A new school was built a year later.
There is also a pseudo-specific use.
4 mccloskey

(16) a. Nuair a bhmis ag dul thairis sid ars chait clocha le ceann an t
when C we-were go [PROG] by-this-guy again throw [PAST-HABIT-AUT] stones at roof the house
When wed be going by this guy again, stones would be thrown at the roof of the house gsa 26
b. Bh s an-deireanach faoin am ar fgadh an Castle agus a ndeachthas abhaile
was it very-late by-the time C leave [PAST-AUT] the and C go [PAST-AUT] home
It was very late by the time people left the Castle and went home. ia 384
These interpretations closely mirror the range of interpretations identified for arbitrary subject pronouns in Romance and
Germanic languagesItalian si, French on, German man, Swedish man, Icelandic maur , Yiddish me(n) and so on.
Also anaphoric properties:
(17) Ieri, si giocato male e si perso.
yesterday Arb is played badly and Arb is lost
Yesterday, people played badly and they/people lost. (Chierchia (1995, (8b), p. 109))
(18) *sij detto che loroj hanno sbagliato
Arb is said that they have erred
Peoplej said that theyj were wrong. (Chierchia (1995, 109))
(19) a. do stadadh agus scaoileadh amach na lonta
stop [PAST-AUT] and release [PAST-AUT] out
[PAST] the nets
One stopped and let out the nets lds 73
b. *Dradh go rabhadar bocht.
say [PAST-AUT] C be-[PAST] -[P3] poor
Peoplej said that theyj were poor.
(20) Dradh go rabhthas bocht.
say [PAST-AUT] C be-[PAST-AUT] poor
Peoplej said that theyj were poor.
A final parallel: a close relation with pro:
(21) Diarr s peann agus pipar a thabhairt chuici. Tugadh.
asked she pen and paper bring [FIN] to-her bring [PAST-AUT]
She asked that pen and paper be brought to her. They were. cdc 20
(21) has an arbitrary pro in its first clause. It has an autonomous argument subject in its second clause. The latter has been
ellided in virtue of its similarity to (identity with?) the former.

general conclusion
The properties of the autonomous argument parallel closely the established properties (interpretive and anaphoric) of
arbitrary subject pronouns.

contrasts
Arbitrary pronouns in Germanic and Romance are subject to a sortal restriction that they are semantically plural (refer to
groups) and refer only to humans. No such restriction holds of the autonomous argument in Irish.
(22) Siladh suas go dt Robert Kennedy . . .
walk [PAST-AUT] up to
Somebody walked up to Robert Kennedy . . . Curnin (1996, Vol.2:693)
(23) Scrobhfad chuig lucht stirtha Chonradh na hireann. Scrobhadh chuig Conradh na
write [FUT] [S1] to people direct [GEN] League the [GEN] Ireland [GEN] write [PAST-AUT] to League of
Gaeilge i mBaile tha Cliath.
Irish language in Dublin
I will write to those who run the Irish League. The Gaelic League in Dublin were written to. cdc 64
The examples in (24) indicate that the autonomous argument is further not restricted in its reference to human, or even
animate, individuals.
(24) a. nor dghadh na nta
NEGPAST burn-[PAST-HABIT] the notes
The notes were not burned. iae 86
5 mccloskey

b. Raiceladh ar chsta na Sne trth

wreck [PAST-AUT] on coast the [GEN] China [GEN] him time
He was wrecked on the coast of China once. iae 105
c. Nuair a dhearcaimid ar an mid linn, litrochta, agus ceoil a thinig as it chomh beag leis,
when C we-look on the quantity learning literature and music C came from place as small as-it
cuirtear iontas orainn
put [PRES-AUT] wonder on-us
When we look at the quantity of learning, literature, and music that came from such a small place, we are
amazed png 138
d. thinig l millteanach gaoithe mire agus rinneadh smionagair den choliste
come [PAST] day terrible wind [GEN] great [GEN] and make [PAST-AUT] little-pieces of-the college
adhmaid
wood [GEN]
There came a day of terrible storms and the wooden college was smashed to pieces. png 139
question: Are these contrasts sufficiently deep to suggest that the connection with arbitary subject pronouns in Romance
and Germanic is mistaken? If not:
the initial question refined once more: how is it that a null pronominal element (with interpretive properties similar
to those of the arbitrary subject pronouns of German and Romance) can be licensed in Irish by a set of verbal endings
which are associated with finite tenses?

irish as a null subject language

The general syntactic configuration underlying agreement in Irish is (25):
(25) hp

h h i
Num
Pers

h pro i
Num
Pers

in which:
h commands pro,
pro is the most prominent nominal in the domain of h
pro is not within a phase (a syntactically closed domain)
h is one of the four or so functional (closed-class) categories of the language which may bear person and number
marking morphology:
(i) Finite Tense (giving rise to subject-verb agreement)
(ii) d (giving rise to possessor agreement)
(iii) v (giving rise to various species of object agreement)
(iv) p (giving rise to agreement between a preposition and its object)
(26) TenseP

hTensei
Num
Pers

h pro i
Num
Pers

(27) a. Labhradar pro leis na ceoltir.

speak-[PAST] -[P3] with the musicians
They spoke to the musicians.
b. N abraim pro a dhath.
NEG say-[PRES] [S1] anything
I dont say anything.
McCloskey & Hale (1984), McCloskey (1986, 1991), Andrews (1990), Legate (1999), Doyle (2002), Ackema & Neeleman
(2003).
6 mccloskey

bringing the pieces together

The autonomous argument is a null pronominal which agrees with a finite Tense bearing the feature Arb. The null pronom-
inal will in turn bear an occurrence of that same feature. The feature Arb is clearly uninterpretable on Tense, and equally
clearly interpretable on pro.
(28) TenseP

Tense
Fin

Arb
pro
[ Arb]

analytic gains
We understand why autonomous forms are restricted to subject positiona reflection of the general requirement
of locality on the syntax of the relation agree.
We understand the requirement that the autonomous argument be null.
We have the right level of generalization to state the distribution of autonomous forms. That is, these patterns are
available for all finite verbsexactly the level of generality which is achieved by associating the crucial licensing
feature with finite Tense.
We understand the impossibility of (9) and the possibility of (11), since arbitrary pronouns in general are known to
be able to bind reciprocals and the Irish reciprocal imposes no additional featural requirements on its antecedent.
We make a link with a larger typological property of Irishit is a head-marking language, in the sense of Nichols
(1986).

consequences, implications, and puzzles

a Null impersonal pronouns of the type discussed by Holmberg (2006) are not, in principle, restricted to the generic
interpretations.
b Other languages? Perhaps Estonian (Torn-Leesik (2007) cited in Siewierska (2008))
c The subjecthood of arbitrary pronouns in Romance and Germanic is unlikely to be a deep property. Compare the
-te- and -tla agreement markers of Classical Nahuatl, which seem to licence arbitrary pronouns in subject position, object
position, and possessor position (Andrews (2003)).
d How are the autonomous pronoun and pro related? Are they the same element? Arbitary, or free, interpretations of
pro are much more freely available in Irish than in at least some other languages (though see Bondaruk (2004)):
(29) ar mhaith leat an carr beag a ghlasadh duit?
would-you-like the car small get-ready [FIN] for-you
Would you like the small car to be readied for you? ss 192
(30) N maith le haoinne a niri
does-not-like anyone him shame [FIN]
Nobody likes to be shamed ot 343
(31) go raibh glanchuimhne aige ar Phucsla a mhar
C was pure-memory at-him on Puxley kill [FIN]
that he had the clearest memory of Puxley being killed cfc 166
Is there some principled connection between this fact and the availability of a null arbitrary pronoun?
e What are the verbs which resist autonomous inflection and what is the basis for these restrictions? Some, but not all,
unaccusative verbs may not take autonomous inflection. Stenson (1989), for example, notes (32):
(32) *Taitntear liom.
please [PRES-AUT] with-me
Things in general please me/I am easily pleased.
Compare (2a). Can this be understood in the same terms as Cherchias 1995, 108 observation that arbitrary si in Italian is
incompatible with kind-denoting predicates?
f What is the real featural constitution of the autonomous argument and how does this interact with its anaphoric
properties?
7 mccloskey

the lexically restricted cases

There are lexically restricted uses of the autonomous inflectioncases in which verbs exhibit the form of the autonomous
but not its particular interpretation. Rather, the meaning of these structures is unpredictable or idiosyncratic.
(33) a. Cailleadh dh bhliain shoin .
lose [PAST-AUT] two year ago him
He died two years ago.
b. Casadh orm arir .
turn [PAST-AUT] on-me last-night him
I met him last night.
c. Bitheadh anuraidh .
drown [PAST-AUT] last-year him
He drowned last year.
Verbs denoting psychological states:
(34) a. Chonaic m go raibh s seo iontach contirteach.
see [PAST] I C be [PAST] he DEMON very dangerous
I saw that this guy was very dangerous.
b. Tthear domh go bhfuil s seo contirteach.
see [PRES-AUT] to-me C be [PRES] he DEMON dangerous
It seems to me that this guy is dangerous.
(35) a. n uisce a samhlaigh m ba cheart a bheith glan
from-the water C imagine [PAST] I should be [FIN] clean
from the water that I imagined ought to be clean
b. n uisce a samhlaodh dom ba cheart a bheith glan
from-the water C imagine [PAST-AUT] to-me should be [FIN] clean
from the water that I imagined ought to be clean lg 235
(36) a. Cheap m go raibh cuma ghruama orthu.
think [PAST] I C be [PAST] look gloomy on-them
I thought that they looked gloomy.
b. ceapadh dom go raibh cuma ghruama orthu
think [PAST-AUT] to-me C be [PAST] look gloomy on-them
It appeared to me that they looked gloomy. at 70
(37) a. Thuig m n raibh an geimhreadh fs ann.
understand [PAST] I C NEGPAST be [PAST] the winter yet in-it
I understood that it wasnt the winter yet.
b. tuigeadh dom n raibh an geimhreadh fs ann
understand [PAST-AUT] to-me C NEGPAST be [PAST] the winter yet in-it
I gathered that it wasnt the winter yet. aii 112
(38) a. an t-athr a mheas siad a bheadh acu
the change C think [PAST] they C be [COND] at-them
the change that they thought they would have
b. an t-athr a measadh dibh a bheadh acu
the change C think [PAST-AUT] to-them C be [COND] at-them
the change that it seemed to them they would have dii 91
The general pattern: for v a psych-predicate:
(39) a. [ v dp cp ]
[Nom]
b. [ v [ PP do dp ] cp ]
[Aut]

Two puzzles:
How to link the special meaning with the appearance of the autonomous inflection.
In (33)(38), there are no silent arguments.
8 mccloskey

a proposal
(40) TenseP

Tense
Fin

Arb

v
[ Arb ]

It is the structure of (40) which gives rise to (33)(38).

The Arb feature of Tense must interact with some element in its domain (in order to ensure its own elimination). But
it can interact with only one such feature. Once it has entered into an agreement relation with one element or the other,
it is checked (valued, as in Chomsky (2001) or as in Pesetsky & Torrego (2001, 2004)) and will be inactiveunavailable for
further interaction. Hence, it can have within its domain either arbitrary pro or one of the special verbs in (33)(38), but
never both. This is the linking that we had hoped to ensure.

two periphrastic aspectsprogressive and perfect

(41) T siad ag tgil tithe ar an Mhullach Dubh.
be [PRES] they raise [PROG] houses on the
Theyre building houses in Mullaghduff.
(42) Bh siad (dreach) i ndiaidh an baile a fhgil.
be [PAST] they (just) after the home leave [FIN]
They had (just) left home.

(43) TenseP

Tense
f
vp

v
AspP

t
Asp
vp
ag
dp
[Subj]

v vp

v dp
[Obj]
9 mccloskey

(44) TenseP

Tense

f
vp

v
pp

t
p
TenseP
[-Fin]

i ndiaidh

dp dp v
[Subj] [Obj] [-Fin]

The initial interaction is unremarkable:

(45) a. Tthar ag iarraidh airgead a bhaili.
be [PRES-AUT] try [PROG] money gather [FIN]
There is an attempt to raise money.
b. Bhothas i ndiaidh airgead a bhaili.
be [PAST-AUT] after money gather [FIN]
Money had been raised.
More interesting: periphrastic aspects with the idiomatic verbs of (33)(38).
(46) a. tthar a mo chailleadh
be [PRES-AUT] [PROG] [S1] lose [FIN]
Im dying. umi 23
b. Bhothas i ndiaidh an bheirt bhan a chastil ar a chile.
be [PAST-AUT] after the two women turn [FIN] on each other
The two women had just met (each other). dca 204
c. nach rabhthas ag casachtil aon duine de na buachaill ga air
NEG C be [PAST-AUT] turn [PROG] any person of the boys young on-him
that he wasnt meeting any of the young boys pmb 205
d. na cratir a bhthear a bhitheadh
the creatures C be [PAST-AUT] drown [PROG]
the creatures who were drowning cdc 49
(47) a. toisigheadh a thaidhbhsiughadh ruda mar sin domh-sa
begin [PAST-AUT] seem [FIN] things like that to-me
I began to imagine things like that. umi 23
b. go rabhthas ag samhladh an ama a bh le theacht dthe
C be [PAST-AUT] imagine [PROG] the time C be [PAST] to-come to-her
that she was imagining the time that was to come i 120
c. an rud a bhthear a shamhailt damh
the thing C be [PAST-AUT] imagine [PROG] to-me
the thing that I was imagining emit 213
d. bhthidhe ag taidhbhreamh damh in mo shuan go . . .
be [PAST-HABIT-AUT] seem [PROG] to-me in my sleep C
it used to seem to me in my sleep that . . . emit 229
See Mac Cana & Baoill (1997), McCloskey (1998).
10 mccloskey

(48) TenseP

Tense
 Fin 
Arb
F
vp
-thar

v
AspP

t
Asp
vp

a
h v i
1st vp
Sing

v
mo [ Arb ] dp

chailleadh h pro i
1st
Sing

A notable feature of the examples in (46) and (47) is that the single argument of the unaccusative verb is realized as a direct
object (see McCloskey (1998) for more discussion).
11 mccloskey

References
Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman. 2003. Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Thoery 21. 681735.
Adger, David. 1997. vso order and weak pronouns in Goidelic Celtic. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 42. 929.
Anderson, Stephen. 1982. Wheres morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13. 571612.
Andrews, Avery. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 507557.
Andrews, Richard J. 2003. Introduction to classical nahuatl, revised edition. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
Authier, J.-Marc P. 1989. Arbitary null objects and unselective binding. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Kenneth J. Safir (eds.), The null subject
parameter, 4567. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bondaruk, Anna. 2004. PRO and control in English, Irish and Polisha Minimalist analysis. Lublin, Poland: Wydawnictwo kul.
Bondaruk, Anna & Magdalena Charzyska-Wjcik. 2003. Expletive pro in impersonal passives in Irish, Polish, and Old English. Lin-
guistische Berichte 195. 325362.
Breatnach, Liam. 1994. An Mhen-Ghaeilge. In Kim McCone, Damien McManus, Cathal Hinle, Nicholas Williams & Liam Breatnach
(eds.), Stair na Gaeilge, 221333. Coliste Phdraig, Maigh Nuad: Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge.
Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia. 2006. Arbitary pro and the theory of pro-drop. In P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Schoorlemmer & F. Weerman
(eds.), Agreement and arguments, 230258. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. The variability of impersonal subjects. In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara Partee
(eds.), Quantification in natural languages, volume 1, 107143. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 152. Cambridge, ma: mit Press.
Christian Brothers, (The). 1960. Graimar Gaeilge na mBrithre Crosta. Dublin, Ireland: Mac an Ghoill.
Chung, Sandra & James McCloskey. 1987. Government, barriers and small clauses in Modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 173237.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On Si constructions and the theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 621581.
Condoravdi, Cleo. 1989. Indefinite and generic pronouns. In E. J. Fee & K. Hunt (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, 7185. Stanford, California: CSLI.
DAlessandro, Roberta. 2004. Impersonal si constructions: Agreement and interpretation: University of Stuttgart dissertation.
DAlessandro, Roberta & Artemis Alexiadou. 2003. Inclusive and exclusive impersonal pronouns: a feature-geometrical analysis. Paper
presented at the XXIV Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Urbino, Italy, February 2003.
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (ed.), The logic of decision and action, 317. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Doyle, Aidan. 2002. Covert and overt pronominals in Irish. Lublin, Poland: Wydawnictwo Folium.
Duffield, Nigel. 1995. Particles and projections in Irish syntax. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Egerland, Verner. 2003. Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71. 75102.
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Irish, the epp, and pro. University of Arizona, Tucson.
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases: University of Massachussets, Amherst dissertation.
Holmberg, Anders. 2006. The Null Generic Subject Pronoun in Finnish. In Elsi Kaiser, Satu Manninen, Katri Hietam & Virve Vihman
(eds.), Passives and impersonals in European languages, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. On arbitrary plural pronominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 4376.
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and discourse representation. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Janssen & Martin Stockhof (eds.),
Formal methods in the study of language, 277322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.
Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and
discourse representation theory. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1999. On a tu le prsident! the nature of passives and ultra-definites. In B. Fox, D. Jurafsky & L. Michaelis (eds.),
Cognition and function in language, 256272. Stanford, California: csli Publications.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Gail Mauner. 2000. A-definites and the discourse status of implicit arguments. Journal of Semantics 16. 207236.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1997. German impersonal pronouns and logophoricity. Presented to Sinn und Bedeutung, Berlin 1997, Handout
available at http://semanticsarchive.net.
Legate, Julie. 1999. The morphosyntax of Irish agreement. In Karlos Arregi, Benjamin Bruening, Cornelia Krause & Vivian Lin (eds.),
mitwpl 33: Papers on morphology and syntax, cycle one, 219240. Cambridge, ma: Department of Linguistics, mit.
Mac Cana, Proinsias & Dnal P. Baoill. 1997. Gnithe den chasta sa Nua-Ghaeilge. In Anders Ahlqvist & Vra apkova (eds.), Dn
do oide, essays in memory of Conn R. Clirigh, 265280. Dublin, Ireland: Institiid Teangeolaochta ireann.
Malamud, Sophia A. 2005. (In)definiteness-driven typology of arbitrary items. To appear in Passives and Impersonals in European
Languages, ed. S. Manninen, K. Hietaam, E. Keiser & V. Vihman. John Benjamins.
McCloskey, James. 1979. Transformational syntax and model theoretic semantics: A case-study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: Reidel.
McCloskey, James. 1983. A vp in a vso language. In Ewan Klein Gerald Gazdar & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Order, concord and
constituency, 955. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
McCloskey, James. 1986. Inflection and conjunction in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 245281.
McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, A-binding and levels of representation in Irish. In Randall Hendrick (ed.), Syntax of the
modern Celtic languages, vol. 23 Syntax and Semantics, 199248. New York and San Diego: Academic Press.
McCloskey, James. 1991. Coordination and agreement in old irish. In Jorge Hankamer & Sandra Chung (eds.), A festschrift for william
shipley, 105114. Syntax Research Center, UC Santa Cruz.
McCloskey, James. 1998. Tr nta comhrire. riu 49. 165169.
McCloskey, James. 1999. On the right edge in Irish. Syntax 2. 189209.
McCloskey, James. 2000. Reciprocals, parts, and wholes. In Sandra Chung, James McCloskey & Nathan Sanders (eds.), WebFest for Jorge
Hankamer, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Cruz. Http://ling.ucsc.edu/jorge.
McCloskey, James. 2007a. The grammar of autonomy in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, To appear.
McCloskey, James. 2007b. Impersonals in Irish and beyond. To appear in Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic Explorations in Honor
12 mccloskey

of David M. Perlmutter, Donna B. Gerdts, John Moore, and Maria Polinsky, eds., mit Press, expected 2007.
McCloskey, James & Kenneth Hale. 1984. On the syntax of person number marking in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 1. 487533.
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62. 558119.
Curnin, Brian. 1996. Aspects of the Irish of Iorras Aithneach, County Galway. Dublin, Ireland: University College Dublin dissertation.
S, Diarmuid. 2006. Agent phrases with the autonomous verb in Modern Irish. To appear in riu.
Siadhail, Mchel. 1989. Modern Irish: Grammatical structure and dialectal variation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in
language, 355426. Cambridge, ma: mit Press.
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Jacqueline Guron & Jacqueline Lecarme
(eds.), The syntax of time, 495538. Cambridge, ma: mit Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 501558.
Siewierska, Anna. 2008. Introduction: Impersonalization from a subject-centered vs. agent-centered perspective. Transactions of the
Philological Society 106. 123.
Stenson, Nancy. 1981. Studies in Irish syntax. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Stenson, Nancy. 1989. Irish autonomous impersonals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7. 379406.
Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1946. A grammar of Old Irish. Dublin, Ireland: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
Torn-Leesik, Reeli. 2007. The voice system of Estonian. Manuscript, University of Tartu.

appendixthe data base

A data-base of naturally occuring examples drawn mostly from published sources but also from radio broadcasts and spoken word cds.
At the time of writing, this data-base contains some 10,000 examples, coded for 250 features of interest to the theoretical linguist. It is
searchable by syntactic feature and by dialect and in it are represented all of the major dialects, including many which are now extinct.
The oldest materials date from the end of the 19th century and the most recent are contemporary. The examples were extracted from
262 published texts (not including items taken from more ephemeral sources like radio broadcasts, newspapers, periodicals, and the like).
The average page-length of the published texts is 217.94, suggesting an overall corpus-size, in a certain sense, of 14 to 15 million words,
assuming 250 words per page.