impression vs. impersonation

I think that the difference lies in the intent of the actor: an impression is a behavioral caricature, intended for entertainment and not to be believed, while an impersonation is intended to be accepted at face value. As similar distinction lies between a tall tale with a lie.

Does anyone know of a reference book that would contrast between pairs of related words such as these?

I'd only add that while an impression is generally done by an actor, comedian or someone trying to entertain, an impersonation includes quite illegal situations, to wit, the cop scenario. It's obviously illegal to impersonate an official. It's only humiliating if someone impersonates a moron, like Borat does. But it could do real damage if someone was to impersonate a cop with you. I wonder how they handle this in the Punk'd tv show. I assume they do the impersonations, both of official and non-official people, and then get the punkee to sign a release in order to televise.

Looking at the OED, impression has always had the sense (since the late 1300s at least) of an imprint (such as an impression made in wax), and thus of a copy. That is precisely the Latin etymology. However, the word has also been used to describe the effect of something on the mind, which has come down to us in examples like "It gave me the impression that...", and "he made a good first impression". This, of course, comes from the idea that the thing or person is making a stamped image on the mind, which is a common trope in conceptions of consciousness (e.g. sense impressions).

Incidentally, the first usage of impression as a performance is listed as 1953. Interestingly, it is in scare quotes, but whether the OED has missed earlier usage I don't know.

Impersonation appears in 1825, and derives from an older sense which literally means to personify or render into a personality: thus, a soul is said to be "impersonated" when it is incarnated into a body (1633), or vices and passions are said to be "impersonated" when they are represented as human figures in literature (1790s). From the latter sense, it is an easy step to one person dramatically representing another, although when the faint air of deceit or counterfeit, as emphasised by Nah, Lance and John, began to cling to the word is unclear.

I have a question. What term is proper when the impersonation does not involve a person? I have a bird that repeats sounds of other animals and inanimate objects around the house (squeaky door, telephone ringer, etc.) Would the word "imitation" be better to use than "impersonation"?

Kelly your bird is using onomatopoeia! LOL

I think I can actually answer this. I am a vocal "Impressionist" vs. an "Impersonator". Impression means to take on only a single aspect of the original while Impersonation means to replicate the original in its entirety. In entertainment, Rich Little would be an "Impressionist". Shawn Klush would be an Elvis "Impersonator", etc.

Todd, Kelly's bird would be using onomatopoeia if the bird actually says "Sqeeeaak" or "riinnggg!" not if he actually makes a squeaking or ringing noise.

I am a Judy Garland impressionist. I chose the word "impressionist" over "impersonator" when I first started doing this. To me, there is a big difference. This may be my own interpretation, but to me it makes total sense. To me, to give an impression, is like an impressionist painting. And impressionistic painting gives you the idea of what it is you're looking at. It is not exactly like the subject matter. If you look at Matisse, you will see slightly blurry watercolors that give you the impression of a landscape, a countryside or an ocean view etc. It is more figurative than literal. I see impersonation as much more literalist. My job as a duty impressionist is to give the idea of Judy, and impression of Judy but not an exact mimic. If the voice is slightly different if the movements are slightly different, that is an impression. And impersonator is more literal, attempting to recreate the exact movements and body language as well as the actual, specific vocal qualities. That is my take, and it fits perfectly for what I do.

I am a Judy Garland impressionist. I chose the word "impressionist" over "impersonator" when I first started doing this. To me, there is a big difference. This may be my own interpretation, but to me it makes total sense. To me, to give an impression is like an impressionist painting. An impressionistic painting gives you the idea of what it is you're seeing. It is not exactly like the subject matter. If you look at a Matisse, you will see slightly blurry watercolors that give you the impression of a landscape, a countryside or an ocean view etc. It is more figurative than literal. I see impersonation as much more literalist. My job as a Judy impressionist is to give the idea of Judy, an impression of Judy, but not an exact "copy." If the voice is slightly different if the movements are slightly different, that is an impression. And impersonator is more literal, attempting to recreate the exact movements and body language as well as the specific vocal qualities and sounds. That is my take, and it fits perfectly for what I do.