Non-standard Uses of German 1st Person Singular Pronouns

  • Sarah Zobel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6284)


The purpose of this paper is to shed light on a phenomenon concerning the German first person singular pronoun ich which challenges the standard view on the semantics of first person singular pronouns, i.e. that they are always speaker-referential. The presented data shows a non-standard use of first person singular ich which I analyze to have a similar semantics to the German impersonal (generic) pronoun man. The analysis for non-standard ich is shown to be modifiable to also model the deictic use of ich. Finally, I bring up some related problems that merit further investigation.


Choice Function Relational Component Emotional Involvement National Team Standard Semantic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Davis, C., Potts, C.: Affective demonstratives and the division of pragmatic labor. In: Aloni, M., Bastiaanse, H., de Jager, T., van Ormondt, P., Schulz, K. (eds.) Preproceedings of the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 32–41 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dekker, P.: Existential Disclosure. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 561–587 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elbourne, P.: Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31, 409–466 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    von Fintel, K., Iatridou, S.: What to Do If You Want to Go to Harlem: Anankastic Conditionals and Related Matters. Ms. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gast, V.: Modal particles and context updating - the functions of German ja, doch, wohl and etwa. In: Vater, H., Letnes, O. (eds.) Modalverben und Grammatikalisierung, pp. 153–177. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heim, I.: The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Doctoral Dissertation: University of Massachusetts (1982)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hentschel, E.: Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. Niemeyer (1986)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jäger, G.: On the semantics of ”as” and ”be”. a neo-carlsonian acount. In: Kim, M., Strauss, U. (eds.) Proceedings of NELS, vol. 31 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaplan, D.: Demonstratives. In: Almog, Perry, Wettstein (eds.) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1977/1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kratzer, A.: Making a Pronoun: Fake Indexicals as Windows into the Properties of Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 187–237 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kratzer, A.: German impersonal pronouns and logophoricity. Presentation at Sinn und Bedeutung II, Berlin, Germany (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kratzer, A.: Modality and Conditionals. In: Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch. de Gruyter, Berlin (1991).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kratzer, A.: The Notional Category of Modality. In: Eikmeyer, H., Rieser, H. (eds.) Words, worlds, and contexts: new approaches in word semantics, pp. 38–73 (1981)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krifka, M., Pelletier, F.J., Carlson, G.N., ter Meulen, A., Chierchia, G., Link, G.: Genericity: An Introduction. In: The Generic Book, pp. 1–124. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lakoff, R.: Remarks on This and That. In: Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, vol. 10, pp. 345–356 (1974)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindner, K.: Wir sind ja doch alte Bekannte - The use of German ja and doch as modal particles. In: Abraham, W. (ed.), Discourse Particles, Amsterdam, pp. 163–202 (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malamud, S.: Impersonal indexicals: you, man and si. Draft (2007)
  18. 18.
    Malamud, S.: Semantics and pragmatics of arbitrariness. Doctoral Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moltmann, F.: Generalising Detached Self-Reference and the Semantics of Generic One. Mind and Language (to appear)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moltmann, F.: Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. NLS 14, 257–281 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nunberg, G.: Indexicality and Deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 1–43 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Potts, C.: Conventional implicature and expressive content. In: Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., Portner, P. (eds.) To appear in Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Potts, C., Schwarz, F.: Affective ’this’. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology 3(5), 1–30 (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Potts, C., Alonso-Ovalle, L., Asudeh, A., Bhatt, R., Cable, S., Davis, C., Hara, Y., Kratzer, A., McCready, E., Roeper, T., Walkow, M.: Expressives and identity conditions. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 356–366 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reinhart, T.: Quantifier Scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335–397 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Romero, M.: Intensional Choice Functions for Which Phrases. In: Proceedings of SALT IX, pp. 255–272. CLC Publications, Ithaca (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stalnaker, R.: Indicative Conditionals. Reprint in Stalnaker, R. (1999); Context and Content (1975)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Zobel
    • 1
  1. 1.Georg-August Universität GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations