Abstract Imposters, seemingly third person nouns with speech act participant reference, have been varyingly analyzed as being licensed through an elaborated DP syntax (Collins and Postal. 2008. Imposters. Manuscript. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000640 (accessed 12 May 2017), Collins and Postal. 2012. Imposters: A study of pronominal agreement. Cambridge: MIT Press) or through lexical specification (Kaufman 2014. The syntax of Indonesian imposters. In Chris Collins (ed.), Cross-linguistic studies of imposters and pronominal agreement, 89–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press). Looking at Korean and Indonesian, two languages that make frequent use of imposters, we show that both can be accounted for without appeal to an elaborated DP syntax and that, in fact, such a structure makes the wrong predictions. Rather, other heads in the clause, in conjunction with differences in lexical specification, can account for both languages. In Indonesian, which freely allows imposters to bind anaphors with person features of the referent, the imposter is lexically specified for those features. In Korean, where such binding is restricted, imposters are underspecified for person and so anaphors only occur when there is another person feature-carrying head to supply the necessary features (Zanuttini et al. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(4). 1231–1274). Previously left unexplained was why Korean imposters were unable to bind any person-marked anaphors, including third person, under an assumption that person-underspecified DPs get valued with a default third person feature. We argue this is a result of the difference in types of third person, those specified for third person and those that are not (Sigurðsson 2010. On EPP effects. Studia Linguistica 64(2). 159–189).

中文翻译：

---

冒名顶替者及其对第三人称特征规范的影响

摘要冒名顶替者，看似具有言语行为参加者参考的第三人称名词，已经通过详细的DP语法得到了不同的分析（Collins and Postal。2008。Imposters。Manuscript。http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000640（ （2017年5月12日访问），柯林斯和邮政（2012年）。冒名顶替者：代词协议研究（剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社）或通过词汇规范（考夫曼，2014年。印度尼西亚冒名顶替者的句法。）克里斯·柯林斯（主编），跨语言。冒名顶替者和代词协议的研究，89–120。牛津：牛津大学出版社）。通过频繁使用冒名顶替者的韩文和印度尼西亚文这两种语言，我们发现两种语言都可以解释而无需使用精心设计的DP语法，而实际上，这种结构做出了错误的预测。相反，该条款的其他负责人，结合词汇规范的差异，可以解释两种语言。在印度尼西亚语中，冒名顶替者可以自由地将照应词与指称的人物特征绑定在一起，而冒名顶替者在词汇上被指定为这些特征。在朝鲜语中，这种绑定受到限制，冒名顶替者的人称不足，因此，只有当另一个人带有特征的头部来提供必要的特征时，照应者才会出现（Zanuttini等人，2012年。对命令式，冒犯性的解释性限制的句法分析）和自然语言与语言理论30（4）。1231–1274）。以前无法解释的是，为什么韩国假冒者无法绑定任何带有人标记的照应，包括第三人称，而前提是假定人称不足的DP带有默认的第三人称特征而受到重视。