Pronouns that refer to “nobody”
Here is something that I have been thinking about for 30 years or so, with very little to show for it. Stuff like these sentences: (in all of these examples, take the “he” and “his” to refer to the “nobody”‘s)
This squib (the first for this blog) is of the popular “Do-it-yourself-theory” category. I have several hunches as to what might be going on, but I also think that it will take a dissertation or two to really get a handle on this baby, which I hereby urge that you go ahead and do!
(1) Nobody talked to his sister. ≥
(2) Nobody’s sister talked to him.
(3) I talked to nobody about his sister. >
(4) ??I talked to nobody’s sister about him.
(5) ?*I talked about nobody to his sister. >
(6) *I talked about nobody’s sister to him.
(7) What nobody said was that he was angry. ≥
(8) *That he was angry is what nobody said.
(9)a. What nobody would say in the queen’s presence is that he was angry. ≥
b. ?That he was angry is what nobody would say in the queen’s presence.
c.**That nobody was angry is what he said in the queen’s presence.
(10) Nobody was surprised (≥ (?)at the fact) that he had been followed.
(11) Nobody went, [did they / > ??did he]?
(12) [Everybody / >? Nobody] started screaming and said that he had been
robbed.
carlton63 Said,
January 27, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
(6) *I talked about nobody’s sister to him.
Here “nobody” works as a determiner, and is illogical because a nonexistent person can’t have a sister.
(2) Nobody’s sister talked to him.
Here “nobody” is not a det. It’s another way of saying “A sister did not talk to him” with the not being transposed.
(3) I talked to nobody about his sister.
This is another way of saying “I did not talk to anybody about his sister” with the not again being moved to replace any.
(4) ??I talked to nobody’s sister about him.
Here there is confusion about the reference of nobody. Is it nobody (the entity) or him?
carlton63 Said,
February 6, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
Above, I meant to write nonentity, not entity. I was saying that nobody is a nonentity.
Haj Ross Said,
February 7, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
I don’t think that the problem is that if an NP is possessivized, it licenses the conclusion that the NP exists. LIke in (a)
(a) Nobody’s sister was willing to talk.
No problem with logic here – this sentence succeeds in saying that of all of the relevant sisters, not one talked. What causes the problems in the original squib, I believe, is that there is an anaphoric link between nobody and a definite proform. English is not really happy to do this, although it is way happier than is Brasilian Portuguese, in which you cannot say anything like (b) (if “ele” is understood to refer to “ninguém”):
(b) Ninguém falou que a professora amava ele.
Nobody said that the teacher loved him
I think, thus, that there is a general distaste for letting definite proforms refer to non-specific indefinites. English has a milder form of this distaste than do some languages, but it is a distaste that is shaped by relationships like linear precedence and also by something like semantic “salience.” Subjects are more salient than are objects, and first objects are more salient than are second ones, in a way which I hope is clear.