-
11. Epithets
- The MIT Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
11 Epithets 11.1 Epithets as Imposters In this book, we have defended the view that like nonexpletive pronominals, imposters and camouflage DPs take antecedents (see condition (51) of chapter 5). In this chapter, we compare imposters and camouflage DPs with epithets, such as the fool and the idiot, which prominent generative-syntax views have also analyzed as having antecedents. Lasnik (1989, 150) cites (1a) and then comments as in (1b). (1) a. After John walked in, the idiot sat down. b. “Unlike names, epithets evidently are able to take antecedents. If [(1a)] is not an instance of antecedence (John being the antecedent of the idiot), then the notion is rather obscure.” There are other types of nonimposter, noncamouflage DPs that pattern similarly to epithets, but lack the negative/positive evaluative implications seemingly defining epithets. (2) a. Every wine which pleases people who drink that wine will sell well. b. Roy dated a nurse, and that nurse is outside. c. One linguist criticized another linguist and the second linguist got angry. d. Cecile bought a car and Donna bought a car and the latter car is in my driveway. Just as the ϕ-feature values of pronominals are in general determined by their antecedents, so the values of epithets are in general determined by theirs. (3) a. When Jack’s mother1 came in, Jerome told the fool1 not to be too hard on herself1/*himself1. b. When [Jack’s mother and sister]1 came in, Jerome told the fools1 not to be too hard on *herself1/themselves1. 136 Chapter 11 In (3a), the antecedent of the epithet is feminine, and so is the epithet itself, as evidenced by the feminine form of the reflexive pronoun. In (3b), the antecedent of the epithet is plural, and so is the epithet, as evidenced by the morphological form of the epithet the fools and the form of the reflexive. Just like imposters, then, epithets might well be nonpronominal DPs that take antecedents. Given our analysis of imposters and camouflage structures as involving a pronominal core, it is tempting to take epithets and the relevant forms in (2) to have the same kind of analysis. And given theoretical assumption (51) of chapter 5, this is essentially mandated. Relevantly, then, a version of such an analysis for epithets has already been sketched (see Postal 1972, 247), mentioning the need to “derive anaphoric epithets from underlying pronouns + appositive relative clauses.” That analysis translates easily into our precursor-based structure for imposters, as diagrammed in (4). (4) The natural precursor structures are systematically fine. (5) a. When Frank showed up, he, who is a bastard, started shouting. b. When Frank showed up, he, a bastard, started shouting. c. When Frank showed up, the bastard, started shouting. The core in a case like (4) is a 3rd person singular pronoun that accounts, under assumption (51) of chapter 5, for the fact that the epithet can take an antecedent . The secondary DP provides the descriptive content of the epithet. As with imposters, the shell agrees in ϕ-feature values with the secondary DP. Perhaps something similar could be justified for the forms in (2). However, we have not studied the latter expressions in detail and will say no more about them here. Recall that in chapter 1, we characterized imposters as follows: (6) An imposter is a notionally X person DP that is grammatically Y person, X ≠ Y. The epithet the bastard is notionally 3rd person (having a 3rd person antecedent) and grammatically 3rd person. Hence, epithets do not qualify as imposters under (6). Nevertheless, it is reasonable to think that they have roughly the same kind of internal structure as imposters. This implies that a statement like (6) does not really capture the essential nature of imposters and is best viewed as a merely [44.204.164.147] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 09:35 GMT) Epithets 137 heuristic description pointing at certain classes of data (see also the discussion of the use of Albany to denote the government of New York in chapter 1). 11.2 The Ultimate-Antecedent Constraint Even though epithets take antecedents, the latter cannot be 1st or 2nd person imposters. (7) a. *When this reporter entered the room, they criticized the bastard. (where this reporter denotes the speaker) b. *When Daddy entered the room, they criticized the fool. (where Daddy denotes the speaker)1 A similar fact holds for 2nd person imposters. (8) a. *If Madam enters the room dressed that way, they are going...