Cover not available

Article published In: Asian Languages and Linguistics
Vol. 6:2 (2025) ► pp.439–457

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

An analysis of Turkish lexical items insan and insanlar as impersonal pronouns

 | Hacettepe University
Published online: 29 January 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/alal.25002.yar
Abstract
This study examines Turkish lexical item insan and its plural form insanlar to uncover their functions as impersonal pronouns. These lexical items serve as impersonal pronouns when they appear in the subject position of the sentences of which verbs bear the aorist ending –Ir or the modality markers –Abil and –mAlI. However, when they occur in the object position, they do not assume an impersonal reading. These lexical items have inclusive readings regardless of their syntactic positions. Although insan and insanlar can be used in episodic sentences, the former still requires the use of the verbal endings –Ir, –Abil and –mAlI. The study concludes that impersonality in Turkish is realized through a combination of impersonal subjects such as insan and insanlar and generic verbal endings, –Ir, –Abil and –mAlI. The findings of the study offer a starting point to describe other Altaic and related languages in terms of impersonal pronouns.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Basics of Turkish pronominal system
  • 3.Impersonal pronouns
  • 4.İnsan and insanlar as impersonal pronouns
    • 4.1Syntax of insan and insanlar
    • 4.2Sentential positions of insan and insanlar
    • 4.3Binding properties of insan and insanlar
      • 4.3.1Binding properties of insan and insanlar in embedded clauses
      • 4.3.2Binding of insan and insanlar with reflexive and reciprocal pronouns
    • 4.4Inclusiveness of insan and insanlar
  • 5.Use of insan and insanlar in episodic sentences
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
References (33)
References
Abdurusul, Muzappar (2019). A brief description on impersonal constructions in Uyghur. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 7(4), 158–165.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ahn, Mikyung & Yap, Foong Ha (2023). When a third person pronoun means ‘you’: An analysis of Korean tangsin and speaker stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 210(2),157–171.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aksan, Yeşim, Aksan, Mustafa, Mersinli, Ümit & Demirhan, Umut Ufuk (2017). A frequency dictionary of Turkish. Core vocabulary for learners. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alhailawani, Mohammad Ali, Othman, Waleed Ahmad & Abdel-Ghafer, Osama Abdel Rahman (2022). On the feature (in)deficiency of dedicated impersonal pronouns: The view from Jordanian Arabic. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 7(1), 1–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia (2004). Impersonal pronouns in Somali, German and French. Paper presented at the syntax of the world’s languages, Max Planck Institute.
(2010). Binding properties of human pronouns in generic and episodic contexts. Paper presented at the workshop on impersonal human pronouns, CNRS /Université Paris-8.
Chierchia, Gennaro (1995). Variability of impersonal subjects. In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara H. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural languages (pp. 107–143). Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo (1988). On si constructions and the theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry, 191, 521–581.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie & van der Auwera, Johan (2012). Human impersonal pronouns in Swedish and Dutch: A contrastive study of man and men. Languages in Contrast, 121, 121–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egerland, Verner (2003). Impersonal pronouns in Scandanivian and Romance. Working papers in Scandanivian syntax, 711, 75–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet (1986). Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In Dan Slobin & Karl Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 195–208). John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1), 1–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erguvanlı, Eser (1986). Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora. In Dan Slobin & Karl Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 209–231). John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fenger, Paula (2018). How impersonal does one gets? A study of man pronouns in Germanic. The Journal of Germanic Comparative Linguistics, 21(3), 291–325.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & van der Auwera, Johan (2013). Towards a distributional typology of human impersonal pronouns based on data from European languages. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (Eds.), Languages across boundaries. Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska (pp. 119–158). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasanpoor, Jafar (1999). A study of European, Persian, and Arabic loans in standard Sorani. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Uppsala University.
von Heusinger, Klaus & Kornfilt, Jaklin (2005). The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages, 91, 3–44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, David (2018). The impersonal gets personal: A new pronoun in Multicultural London English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 381, 117–150.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemiksiz, Ömer (2022). Foreign-origin words in reading texts in secondary school Turkish textbooks. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 15(1), 407–424.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato & Lehrer, Adrienne (1990). Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(5), 739–759.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin (1991). Issues in syntax. In Hendrik Boeschoten & Ludo Verhoeven (Eds.), Turkish linguistics today (pp. 60–92). E. J. Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Turkish. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis J., Carlson, Gregory N., ter Meulen, Alice, Link, Godehard & Chierchia, Gennaro (1995). Genericity: An introduction. In Gregory N. Carlson & Francis J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 1–124). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laude-Cirtautas, Ilse. (1978). On necessitative and related forms in the Turkic languages. Central Asiatic Journal, 22(1–2), 44–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malamud, Sophia A. (2012). Impersonal indexicals: one, you, man and du. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 15(1), 1–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Öztürk, Balkız (2001). Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. In Eser Erguvanlı Taylan (Ed.), The verb in Turkish (pp. 239–259). John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna (2008). Ways of impersonalizing: Pronominal vs. verbal strategies. In María de los Ángeles Gómez González, J. Lachlan Mackenzie & Elsa M. González Álvarez (Eds.), Current trends in functional linguistics: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 3–26). John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Overlap and complementarity in reference impersonals: ‘Man’ constructions vs. third person plural-impersonals in the languages of Europe. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (Eds.), Impersonal constructions: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 57–90). John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turan, Ümit Deniz (1996). Türkçe’de kişisiz gizli özne ve ‘insan’ [Invisible impersonal subject and ‘insan’ in Turkish]. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 71, 245–249.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turgay, Tacettin (2023). Generic markers in Turkish. Turkic Languages, 271, 65–89.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke (2010). Swedish impersonal constructions from a crosslinguistic perspective: An exploratory corpus-based study. Orientalia Suecana, LIX1, 122–158.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yavaş, Feryal (1982). The Turkish aorist. Glossa, 16(1), 40–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zobel, Sarah (2011). Arguments for a two-operator analysis of impersonal pronouns in modal sentences. Alternate talk (not presented) at journee impersonels at CNRS/Paris 8, France
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue