1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 7, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 7, 2021

Shifty Attitudes: Indexical Shift Versus Perspectival Anaphora

Abstract

In cases of indexical shift, so-called indexical pronouns like , , , and refer to the speaker, addressee, location, and time of some context other than the utterance context. In cases of perspectival anaphora, an anaphor tracks the perspective of some individual other than the utterance speaker [or addressee(s)]. Thus, both phenomena involve referential obviation of a pronoun or anaphor from the utterance context. Such obviation also occurs under strikingly similar grammatical conditions—for instance, in the scope of an attitude predicate (e.g., , , ). In this review, I introduce the core properties of both phenomena and show that they actually stand in a subset–superset relation. The availability of indexical shift in a given environment entails that of perspectival anaphora, but not vice-versa. I describe a plausible way to make sense of these insights within a unified model of attitude shift, which in turn helps chart out clear avenues for future research.

Keyword(s): implicational shifty variation, indexical shift, intensionality, perspectival anaphora, perspective shift, perspective versus context
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-051220-043921
2021-01-04
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-051220-043921.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-051220-043921&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aikhenvald A. 2004. Evidentiality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  2. Anand P. 2006. De de se PhD Thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA:
  3. Anand P, Hacquard V. 2013. Epistemics and attitudes. Semant. Pragmat. 6:8
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Anand P, Nevins A. 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 14) R Young 20–37 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Austen J. 1994 (1816). Emma London: Penguin
  6. Baker CL. 1995. Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71:63–101
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker MC. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  8. Banfield A. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction Boston: Routledge/Kegan Paul
  9. Barlew J. 2016. Point of view and the semantics of spatial expressions in Mushunguli and English. J. Semant. 33:215–67
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bowern C, Lotridge V 2002. Ndebele Munich: Lincom Europa
  11. Bylinina L, McCready E, Sudo Y 2014. The landscape of perspective shifting Paper presented at the Workshop on Pronouns in Embedded Contexts at the Syntax-Semantics Interface Tübingen, Ger: Nov. 7–9
  12. Bylinina L, Sudo Y. 2015. The semantics of perspective sensitivity Lectures presented at the 27th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI 2015) Barcelona, Spain: Aug. 3–14
  13. Charnavel I. 2015. Apparent exemption from Condition A: a perspective-based theory Work. Pap., Harvard Univ Cambridge, MA: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002683
  14. Charnavel I. 2019. Locality and Logophoricity: A Theory of Exempt Anaphora Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  15. Charnavel I. 2020. Logophoricity and locality: a view from French anaphors. Linguist. Inq. 51:671–723
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Charnavel I, Mateu V. 2015. The clitic binding restriction revisited: evidence for anti-logophoricity. Linguist. Rev. 32:671–701
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chomsky N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
  18. Chomsky N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use New York: Praeger
  19. Cinque G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  20. Clements G. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: its role in discourse. J. West Afr. Lang. 2:141–77
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cohen A, Kaiser E. 2012. In someone else's shoes: a psycholinguistic investigation of FID and perspective-taking Presented at Quotation: Perspectives from Philosophy and Linguistics Bochum, Ger: Sept. 27–29
  22. Comrie B. 1999. Reference-tracking: description and explanation. STUF Lang. Typol. Univers. 52:335–46
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Corazza E. 2005. On epithets qua attributive anaphors. J. Linguist. 41:11–32
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Cristofaro S. 2005. Subordination Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  25. Cruse DA. 1986. Lexical Semantics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  26. Culy C. 1994. Aspects of logophoric marking. Linguistics 32:1055–94
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Deal AR. 2017. Shifty asymmetries: universals and variation in shifty indexicality Work. Pap., Univ. Calif Berkeley:
  28. Deal AR. 2018. Indexiphors: notes on embedded indexicals, shifty agreement, and logophoricity Work. Pap., Univ. Calif Berkeley: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003836
  29. Deal AR. 2020. A Theory of Indexical Shift: Meaning, Grammar and Crosslinguistic Variation Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  30. DeRose K. 1991. Epistemic possibilities. Philos. Rev. 100:581–605
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Dietz R. 2008. Epistemic modals and correct disagreement. Relative Truth M García-Carpintero, M Kölbel 239–64 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Eckardt R. 2014. The Semantics of Free Indirect Discourse: How Texts Allow Us to Read Minds and Eavesdrop Leiden, Neth: Brill
  34. Giorgi A. 2006. From temporal anchoring to long distance anaphors. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 24:1009
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Giorgi A. 2010. Towards a Syntax of Indexicality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  36. Hagège C. 1974. Les pronoms logophoriques [Logophoric pronouns]. Bull. Soc. Linguist. Paris 69:287–310
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Halle M. 1997. Impoverishment and fission. PF: Papers at the Interface B Bruening, Y Kang, M McGinnis 425–50 Cambridge, MA: MIT Work. Pap. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Harris J, Potts C. 2009a. Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguist. Philos. 32:523–52
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Harris J, Potts C. 2009b. Predicting perspectival orientation for appositives. Proceedings of CLS 45207–21 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Haspelmath M. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  41. Hicks G. 2009. The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  42. Huang CTJ, Tang CCJ. 1991. The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. Long-Distance Anaphora J Koster, E Reuland 263–82 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Jayaseelan K. 1997. Anaphors as pronouns. Stud. Linguist. 51:186–234
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kaplan D. 1989. Demonstratives: an essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. Themes from Kaplan J Perry, J Almog, H Wettstein 481–563 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Koopman H, Sportiche D. 1989. Pronouns, logical variables, and logophoricity in Abe. Linguist. Inq. 20:555–88
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Korotkova N. 2016. Heterogeneity and uniformity in the evidential domain PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif Los Angeles:
  47. Korotkova N. 2019. The embedding puzzle: constraints on evidentials in complement clauses. Linguist. Inq. In press. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00363
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Kracht M. 2008. The fine structure of spatial expressions. Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P A Asbury, J Dotlačil, B Gehrke, R Nouwen 35–62 Philadelphia: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kratzer A. 2009. Making a pronoun: fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguist. Inq. 40:187–237
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kuno S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  51. Legate JA. 2002. Walpiri: theoretical implications PhD Thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA:
  52. Levinson SC. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  53. Lødrup H. 2007. A new account of simple and complex reflexives. J. Comp. German. Linguist. 10:183–201
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Maier E. 2016. A plea against monsters. Grazer Philos. Stud. 93:363–95
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Minkoff S. 2003. Consciousness, backward coreference, and logophoricity. Linguist. Inq. 35:485–94
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Moltmann F. 2010. Relative truth and the first person. Philos. Stud. 150:187–220
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Murray S. 2012. The indexical component of evidentiality Presented at the Fifth North American Summer School of Logic, Language, and Information (NASSLLI 2012) Austin, Tex: June 18–22
  58. Murugesan G. 2019. Predicting the Anaphor Agreement Effect and its failures PhD Thesis, Univ. Leipzig Leipzig, Ger:.
  59. Nevins A. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequence for person-case effects. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 25:273–313
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Nishigauchi T. 2014. Reflexive binding: awareness and empathy from a syntactic point of view. J. East Asian Ling. 23:157–206
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Oshima DY. 2006. Perspectives in reported discourse PhD Thesis, Stanford Univ Stanford, CA:
  62. Oshima DY. 2007. On empathic and logophoric binding. Res. Lang. Comput. 5:19–35
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Pancheva R, Zubizarreta ML. 2018. The Person Case Constraint: the syntactic encoding of perspective. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 36:1291–337
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Partee B. 1989. Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. Proceedings of CLS 25342–65 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Pearson H. 2013. The sense of self: topics in the semantics of de se expressions PhD Thesis, Harvard Univ Cambridge, MA:
  66. Pearson H, Dery J. 2013. Dreaming de re and de se: experimental evidence for the oneiric reference constraint. Proceedings from Sinn und Bedeutung 18 U Etxeberria, A Fluş, A Irurtzun, B Leferman 322–39 Leioa, Spain: Univ. Basque Ctry.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Percus O, Sauerland U. 2003. Pronoun movement in dream reports. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 33)347–66 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Pica P. 1987. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 17) J McDonough, B Plunkett 483–99 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Podobryaev A. 2014. Persons, imposters, and monsters PhD Thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA:
  70. Potts C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  71. Progovac L. 1993. Long-distance reflexives: movement-to-Infl versus relativized subject. Linguist. Inq. 24:755–72
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Quang PD. 1971. English sentences without overt grammatical subject. Studies Out in Left Field: Defamatory Essays Presented to James D. McCawley on the Occasion of His 33rd or 34th Birthday A Zwicky, P Salus, R Binnick, A Vaneck 3–10 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Quer J. 2005. Context shift and indexical variables in sign languages. Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 15)152–68 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Raynaud L. 2019. Licensing reflexives and participants PhD Thesis, Georg-August Univ. Göttingen Göttingen, Ger:.
  75. Reinhart T. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation London: Croom Helm
  76. Reuland E. 2001. Anaphors, logophors, and binding. Long-Distance Reflexives P Cole, G Hermon, CTJ Huang 343–70 London: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Reuland E. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  78. Rizzi L. 1990. On the anaphor-agreement effect. Riv. Linguist. 2:27–42
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Rooryck J, vanden Wyngaerd G 2011. Dissolving Binding Theory Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  80. Rowling JK. 2007. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows London: Bloomsbury
  81. Rullman H. 2004. First and second person pronouns as bound variables. Linguist. Inq. 35:159–68
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Sauerland U, Schenner M. 2007. Embedded evidentials in Bulgarian. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11 L McNally, E Puig-Waldmüller 525–39 Barcelona, Spain: Univ. Pompeu Fabra
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Schlenker P. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality: a cross-categorial approach PhD Thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA:
  84. Schlenker P. 2003a. Indexicality, logophoricity, and plural pronouns. Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II (Selected Papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Paris, 2000) J Lecarme 409–28 Philadelphia: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Schlenker P. 2003b. A plea for monsters. Linguist. Philos. 26:29–120
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Sells P. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguist. Inq. 18:445–79
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Shklovsky K, Sudo Y. 2014. The syntax of monsters. Linguist. Inq. 45:381–402
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Sigurðsson HÁ 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 9:327–63
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Speas M. 2000. Person and point of view in Navajo verbs. Papers in Honor of Ken Hale A Carnie, E Jelinek, M Willie 19–38 Cambridge, MA: MIT Work. Pap. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Speas M. 2004. Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua 114:255–76
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Speas P, Tenny C. 2003. Configurational properties and point-of-view roles. Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 1: Syntax and Semantics AMD Sciullo 315–44 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Steube A. 1985. Erlebte rede aus linguistischer Sicht. Z. Germanist. 6:389–406
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Sundaresan S. 2012. Context and (co)reference in the syntax and its interfaces PhD Thesis, Univ. Tromsø, Tromsø, Nor./Univ. Stuttgart Stuttgart, Ger:.
  94. Sundaresan S. 2016. Anaphora versus agreement: a new kind of Anaphor Agreement Effect in Tamil. The Impact of Pronominal Form on Interpretation P Grosz, P Patel-Grosz 77–106 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Sundaresan S. 2018a. An alternative theory of indexical shift: variation and selection without context-overwriting Work. Pap., Univ. Leipzig Leipzig, Ger: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004115
  96. Sundaresan S. 2018b. Perspective is syntactic: evidence from anaphora. Glossa 3:1128
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Sundaresan S. 2020a. Distinct featural classes of anaphor in an enriched person system. Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme PW Smith, J Mursell, K Hartmann 425–61 Berlin: Lang. Sci. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Sundaresan S. 2020b. The Syntax of Perspectival Anaphora Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Forthcoming
  99. von Stechow A. 2002. Feature deletion under semantic binding: tense, person, and mood under verbal quantifiers. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 33)379–404 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Wiklund AL, Bentzen K, Hrafnbjargarson GH, Hróarsdóttir Þ 2009. On the distribution and illocution of V2 in Scandinavian that-clauses. Lingua 119:1914–38
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Woolford E. 1999. More on the Anaphor Agreement Effect. Linguist. Inq. 30:257–87
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-051220-043921
Loading
Shifty Attitudes: Indexical Shift Versus Perspectival Anaphora
Annual Review of Linguistics 7, 235 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-051220-043921
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-051220-043921
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-051220-043921
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

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