1932

Abstract

The notion of logophoricity is used to characterize linguistic elements sensitive to perspective. The goal of this review is to examine this notion by focusing on the behavior of so-called exempt reflexives. It has long been observed that reflexives can be exempt from Condition A of Binding Theory under perspectival conditions. The distribution of exempt reflexives can thus be examined to identify what perspectival properties are grammatically relevant and thereby specify the definition of logophoricity. In this article, I first review various proposals about this issue; in particular, the grammatical relevance of perspective for exempt reflexives has been explored in comparison with so-called logophoric pronouns as well as in the context of literary and philosophical studies. Second, after providing tools for exploring the perspectival properties of exempt reflexives crosslinguistically, I present my own hypothesis explaining why reflexives can superficially be exempt from Condition A under logophoric conditions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030220-085846
2021-01-04
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-030220-085846.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030220-085846&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adesola OP. 2005. Pronouns and null operators—A-bar dependencies and relations in Yoruba PhD Diss., Rutgers Univ New Brunswick, NJ:
  2. Adesola OP. 2006. A-bar dependencies in the Yoruba reference-tracking system. Lingua 116:122068–106
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Amritavalli R. 2000. Lexical anaphora in Kannada. Lexical Pronouns and Anaphors in Some South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology B Lust, K Wali, JW Gair, KV Subbarao 49–112 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anand P. 2006. De de se PhD Diss., MIT Cambridge, MA:
  5. Anand P, Hsieh FF. 2005. Long-distance reflexives in perspective. Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL24) J Alderete, C Han, A Kochetov 43–51 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Anand P, Nevins A. 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 14) RB Young 20–37 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Banfield A. 1973. Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech. Found. Lang. 10:11–39
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Banfield A. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction London: Routledge Kegan Paul
  9. Bianchi V. 2003. On finiteness as logophoric anchoring.. Temps et point de vue/Tense and Point of View J Guéron, L Tasmowski 213–46 Nanterre, Fr: Univ. Paris X
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bouchard D. 1984. On the Content of Empty Categories Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
  11. Boyeldieu P. 2004. Les pronoms logophoriques dans les langues d'Afrique centrale. Systèmes de marques personnelles en Afrique D Ibriszimow, G Segerer 11–22 Leuven, Neth./Paris: Peeters
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cantrall WR. 1969. On the nature of the reflexive in English PhD Diss., Univ. Ill. Urbana-Champaign:
  13. Cantrall WR. 1974. Viewpoint, Reflexives, and the Nature of Noun Phrases The Hague, Neth.: Mouton
  14. Castañeda HN. 1968. On the logic of attributions of self-knowledge to others. J. Philos. 65:15439–56
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chan QKY. 2017. Cantonese Jihgei: subject-object asymmetry and non-subject antecedent potential MA Thesis, Simon Fraser Univ Burnaby, Can:.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Charnavel I. 2020a. Locality and Logophoricity: A Theory of Exempt Anaphora Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  17. Charnavel I. 2020b. Logophoricity and locality: a view from French anaphors. Linguist. Inq. 51:4671723
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Charnavel I, Sportiche D. 2016. Anaphor binding: what French inanimate anaphors show. Linguist. Inq. 47:135–87
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Charnavel I, Sportiche D. 2017. Simplex yet local. Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS 47) 1: A Lamont, K Tetzloff 157–72 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chierchia G. 1989. Anaphora and attitudes de se. Semantics and Contextual Expressions R Bartsch, J van Benthem, P van Emde Boas 1–31 Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Clements GN. 1972. The verbal syntax of Ewe PhD Diss., SOAS Univ. London London, UK:
  22. Clements GN. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: its role in discourse. J. West Afr. Lang. 10:141–77
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Cole P, Hermon G, Huang CTJ 2001. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 33: Long Distance Reflexives New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Culy C. 1994. Aspects of logophoric marking. Linguistics 32:1055–94
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Culy C. 1997. Logophoric pronouns and point of view. Linguistics 35:845–59
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Curnow TJ. 2002. Three types of verbal logophoricity in African languages. Stud. Afr. Linguist. 31:1–21–25
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Doron E. 1991. Point of view as a factor of content. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 1) SK Moore, AZ Wyner 51–64 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dubinsky S, Hamilton R. 1998. Epithets as antilogophoric pronouns. Linguist. Inq. 29:685–93
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Eckardt R. 2014. The Semantics of Free Indirect Discourse: How Texts Allow Us to Mind-Read and Eavesdrop Leiden, Neth: Brill
  30. Frajzyngier Z. 1985. Logophoric systems in Chadic. J. Afr. Lang. Linguist. 7:23–37
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Frege G. 1918. The Thought: A Logical Inquiry, transl. AM Quinton, M Quinton, 1956. Mind 65:289–311 from German )
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Giorgi A. 2006. From temporal anchoring to long distance anaphors. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 24:41009–47
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Giorgi A. 2007. On the nature of long-distance anaphors. Linguist. Inq. 38:2321–42
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Giorgi A. 2010. About the Speaker: Towards a Syntax of Indexicality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  35. Hagège C. 1974. Les pronoms logophoriques. Bull. Soc. Linguist. Paris 69:287–310
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Haida A. 2009. (Proto-)logophoricity in Tangale Presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 40) Cambridge, MA: Nov 13–15
  37. Hestvik A, Philip W. 2001. Syntactic versus logophoric binding: evidence from Norwegian child language. See Cole et al. 2001 119–39
  38. Hicks G. 2009. The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  39. Huang CTJ, Liu CSL. 2001. Logophoricity, attitudes and ziji at the interface. See Cole et al. 2001 141–95
  40. Hyman LM, Comrie B. 1981. Logophoric reference in Gokana. J. Afr. Lang. Linguist. 3:19–37
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Iida M. 1992. Context and binding in Japanese PhD Diss., Stanford Univ Stanford, CA:
  42. Jackendoff R. 1992. Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 10:11–31
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Jayaseelan KA. 1998. Blocking effects and the syntax of Malayalam taan. The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics R Singh 11–27 London: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kameyama M. 1984. Subjective/logophoric bound anaphor Zibun. Papers from the 20th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society228–38 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kamp H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation.. Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Part 1: Mathematical Centre Tracts J Groenendijk, T Janssen, M Stokhof 277–321 Amsterdam: Math. Cent.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kaplan D. 1968. Quantifying. Synthese 19:1–2178–214
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kaplan D. 1989. Demonstratives. Themes from Kaplan J Almog, J Perry, H Wettstein 481–563 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kim JH, Yoon JH. 2009. Long-distance bound local anaphors in Korean—an empirical study of the Korean anaphor caki-casin. . Lingua 119:5733–55
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Kinyalolo K. 1993. The logophoric pronoun émi as an LF operator/anaphor. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 23)223–37 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kishida M. 2011. Reflexives in Japanese PhD Diss., Univ. Md., College Park
  51. Koopman H, Sportiche D. 1989. Pronouns, logical variables and logophoricity in Abe. Linguist. Inq. 20:555–89
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kornfilt J. 2001. Local and long-distance reflexives in Turkish. See Cole et al. 2001 197–226
  53. Kuno S. 1972. Pronominalization, reflexivization, and direct discourse. Linguist. Inq. 3:2161–95
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Kuno S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  55. Kuno S, Kaburaki E. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguist. Inq. 8:627–72
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kuroda SY. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language PhD Diss., MIT Cambridge, MA:
  57. Kuroda SY. 1973. Where epistemology, style, and grammar meet: a case study from Japanese. A Festschrift for Morris Halle S Anderson, P Kiparsky 377–91 New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kusumoto K. 1998. Tenses as logophoric pronouns Presented at the MIT/UConn/UMass Semantics Workshop Storrs, CT: Oct. 31
  59. Lakoff G. 1972. Linguistics and natural logic. Semantics of Natural Language D Davidson, G Harman 545–655 Dordrecht, Neth: Reidel
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Lees RB, Klima ES. 1963. Rules for English pronominalization. Language 39:117–28
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Lewis D. 1979. Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philos. . Rev 88:4513–43
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Li N. 1991. Perspective-taking in Mandarin discourse PhD Diss., State Univ. N.Y Buffalo:
  63. Lidz J. 2001. Condition R. Linguist. Inq. 32:1123–40
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Maier E. 2015. Quotation and unquotation in free indirect discourse. Mind Lang 30:3345–73
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Major T, Ozkan S. 2018. Anaphora in two Turkic languages: Condition A is not enough. IULC Work. Pap. 18:2 https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/iulcwp/article/view/26054
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Maling J. 1984. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in modern Icelandic. Linguist. Philos. 7:211–41
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Mitchell JE. 1986. The formal semantics of point of view PhD Diss., Univ. Mass Amherst:
  68. Morgan JL. 1970. On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion. Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society380–89 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Napoli DJ. 1979. Reflexivization across clause boundaries in Italian. J. Linguist. 15:11–28
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Nichols J. 1985. Cross-clause reflexivization in Chechen and Ingush Work. Pap., Univ. Calif Berkeley:
  71. Nishigauchi T. 2014. Reflexive binding: awareness and empathy from a syntactic point of view. J. East Asian Linguist. 23:157–206
    [Google Scholar]
  72. O'Connor MC. 1992. Topics in Northern Pomo Grammar New York: Garland
  73. Oshima DY. 2006. Perspectives in reported discourse PhD Diss., Stanford Univ Stanford, CA:
  74. Oshima DY. 2007. On empathic and logophoric binding. Res. Lang. Comput. 5:119–35
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Pan H. 1997. Constraints on Reflexivization in Mandarin Chinese New York, NY: Garland
  76. Park Y. 2018. Attitudes de se and logophoricity PhD Diss., Univ. Mass Amherst:
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Patel-Grosz P. 2012. (Anti-)Locality at the interfaces PhD Diss., MIT Cambridge, MA:
  78. Pearson H. 2015. The interpretation of the logophoric pronoun in Ewe. Nat. Lang. Semant. 23:277–118
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Percus O, Sauerland U. 2003. On the LFs of attitude reports. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7:228–42 Konstanz: Univ. Konstanz
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Perry J. 1979. The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs 13:13–21
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Pollard C, Sag IA. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguist. Inq. 23:261–303
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Pollard C, Xue P. 2001. Syntactic and non-syntactic constraints on long-distance reflexives. See Cole et al. 2001 317–42
  83. Pulleyblank D. 1986. Clitics in Yoruba. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics H Borer 43–64 Orlando, FL: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Rakósi G. 2013. Myself, the armchair linguist. Argumentum 9:282–93
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Reinhart T, Reuland E. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguist. Inq. 24:657–720
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Reuland E. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  87. Rooryck J, Vanden Wyngaerd G 2011. Dissolving Binding Theory Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  88. Ross JR. 1970. On declarative sentences. Readings in English Transformational Grammar RA Jacobs, PS Rosenbaum 222–72 Waltham, MA: Ginn
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Safir K. 2004. The Syntax of Anaphora Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  90. Schlenker P. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality: a cross-categorial approach PhD Diss., MIT Cambridge, MA:
  91. Schlenker P. 2003. Indexicality, logophoricity, and plural pronouns. Research on Afroasiatic Grammar J Lecarme 409–28 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Schlenker P. 2004. Context of thought and context of utterance: a note on free indirect discourse and the historical present. Mind Lang 19:3279–304
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Sells P. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguist. Inq. 18:445–79
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Sharvit Y. 2008. The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguist. Philos. 31:3353–95
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Sigurðsson 1990. Long distance reflexives and moods in Icelandic. Mod. Icel. Syntax 24:309–46
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Sloggett S. 2017. When errors aren't: how comprehenders selectively violate Binding Theory PhD Diss., Univ. Mass Amherst:
  97. Solberg PE. 2017. The discourse semantics of long-distance reflexives PhD Diss., Univ. Oslo Oslo, Nor:.
  98. Speas M. 1999. Person and point of view in Navajo direct discourse complements Work. Pap., Univ. Mass Amherst:
  99. Speas M. 2004. Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua 114:3255–76
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Speas M, Tenny C. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. Asymmetry in Grammar AM Di Sciullo 315–44 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Strahan TE. 2003. Long-Distance Reflexives in Norwegian: A Quantitative Study Munich: Lincom Eur.
  102. Sundaresan S. 2012. Context and (co)reference in the syntax and its interfaces PhD Diss., Univ. Tromsø, Tromsø, Nor./Univ. Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Ger.
  103. Sundaresan S. 2018. Perspective is syntactic: evidence from anaphora. Glossa 3:1128
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Thráinsson H. 1976. Reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 6)225–39 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. von Bremen K. 1984. Anaphors: reference, binding, and domains. Linguist. Anal. 14:191–229
    [Google Scholar]
  106. von Roncador M. 1992. Types of logophoric marking in African languages. J. Afr. Lang. Linguist. 13:2163–82
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Wang Y, Pan H. 2015. Empathy and Chinese long distance reflexive ziji—remarks on Giorgi (2006, 2007). Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 33:1307–22
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Yu WXF. 1992. Challenging Chinese reflexive data. Linguist. Rev. 9:285–94
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Yu XF. 1996. A study of Chinese reflexives PhD Diss., SOAS Univ. London London, UK:
  110. Zribi-Hertz A. 1989. Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 56:695–727
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030220-085846
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030220-085846
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error