182 Gréte Dalmi
GN is a complex generic operator (Moltmann 2006, 2010 , 2012 ), providing the
widest scope interpretation of generic inclusive lexical and null subjects. The most
convenient way of ensuring that GN should always take widest scope is to locate it in
SpeechActParticipant Phrase (SAPP), the left-most functional projection below For-
ceP in the present proposal (but see Sigurðsson 2004 and Bianchi 2006 for motivating
the placement of SAPP right above TP):
(69) [ForceP[SAPPGN [TOPP Az ember-nekGN [FinP kellemetlen
the man-dat unpleasant
0, [ha proGN kölcsönkér-0]]]]].
cop.pres 3 sg if (one) borrow-pres 3 sg
‘It is unpleasant (for one) if one borrows money.’
(70) [ForceP[SAPPGN [TOPP Az ember-nekGN [FinP kellemetlen
the man-dat unpleasant
0 [kölcsönkér-ni-e PROGN]]]]].
cop.pres 3 sg loan.ask-inf-3sg (one)
‘It is unpleasant (for one) [PROGN to borrow money].’
Even if the generic inclusive dative experiencer argument of a psych-impersonal predi-
cate is proGN, it can bind PROGN:^15
(71) [ForceP [SAPP GN [FinP Kellemetlen 0 proGN
unpleasant cop.pres 3 sg (one.dat)
[kölcsönkér-ni PROGN]]]].
loan.ask-inf (one)
‘It is unpleasant (for one) to borrow money.’
Such sentences acquire the general truth or conventional wisdom interpretaion.- The feature geometry of generic inclusive vs. unique reference DPs
D’Alessandro and Alexiadou (2003) derive the generic inclusive vs. unique refer-
ence alternation of impersonal si/se/on in the Romance languages from phi-feature
agreement in either of the two functional projections, SpeechParticipantPhrase
(SAPP) or AspectualPhrase (ASPP). In their account, generic si lacks the [+person]- Tóth’s (2010) proposal that PROarb is anaphorically controlled by the matrix AGR in
such sentences does not explain the existence of generic exclusive lexical DPs. If the matrix
AGR were sufficient to serve as an antecedent for PROarb, the generic exclusive lexical DP az
emberek ‘people’ would never appear.