Logophoricity: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:06, 14 November 2014

Template:Parenthetical referencing editnotice

The notion of logophoricity refers to the binding relation between a special class of pronouns and their antecedents. Logophoric elements occur within embedded clauses of communication and mental experience, and must bind with the antecedent whose speech, thoughts, or feelings are being reported (Clements 1975, p. 241). The phenomena was first observed in a number of African languages that have a distinct paradigm of logophoric pronouns which are morphologically differentiated from the other pronouns. Logophoricity is also used to account for non-clause-bounded reflexive pronouns found in Japanese and Icelandic (Clements 1975), (Maling 1984).

Languages vary in their marking of logophoric contexts. It could be a based on syntactic, semantic, or a combination of criteria. Thus, there are both syntactic- and semantic-based theories to account for logophoricity.

Background

The term logophor was introduced by Claude Hagège (1974) in order to distinguish logophoric pronouns from indirect reflexive pronouns. In particular, Hagège argues that logophors are a distinct class of pronouns which refer to the source of indirect discourse: the individual whose perspective is being communicated, rather than the speaker currently relaying this information. George N. Clements (1975) expanded upon this analysis, arguing that indirect reflexives serve the same function as logophoric pronouns, though they do not differentiate between logophoric and non-logophoric forms. In contrast logophoric pronouns (as defined by Hagège) do (Reuland 2006, p. 3). For example, the Latin indirect reflexive pronoun sibi may be said to have two grammatical functions (logophoric and reflexive), but just one form (Clements 1975). More recent analyses of logophoricity are in line with this account, under which indirect reflexives are considered to be logophors, in addition to those pronouns with a special logophoric form (Clements 1972, p. 3).

Clements also extended the concept of logophoricity beyond Hagège's initial typology, addressing syntactic and semantic properties of logophoric pronouns (Reuland 2006, p. 3). He posited three distinctive properties of logophors (Reuland 2006, pp. 171–2):

Logophoric pronouns are discourse-bound: they may only occur in a context in which the perspective of an individual other than the speaker's is being reported.
The antecedent of the logophoric pronoun must not occur in the same clause in which the indirect speech is introduced.
The antecedent specifies which individual's (or individuals') perspective is being reported.

These conditions are for the most part semantic in nature. However, Clements also claimed that there are additional syntactic factors which may play a role when semantic conditions are not met, yet logophoric pronouns are still present. For example in Ewe logophoric pronouns may only occur in clauses which are headed by the complementizer "be" (which designates a reportive context in this language), and may only have a second- or third-person antecedent (first-person antecedents are prohibited). Other languages impose different conditions on the occurrence of logophors, which leads Clements to conclude that there are no universal syntactic constraints which must be satisfied by logophoric forms.

Logophoric Typology

Logophoric Pronouns

Ewe

Adapted from Clements (1972), this syntactic derivation demonstrates the different referential possibilities in using a logophoric pronoun vs. a normal one, given the same structure.

Ewe is a language of the Niger-Congo family, which exhibits formally distinct logophoric pronouns (Reuland 2006:3). For example, the third person singular pronoun yè is used only in contexts in which the perspective of an individual other than the speaker is being represented (Clements 1975:152). These special forms are a means of unambiguously identifying the nominal co-referent in a given sentence (Clements 1975:142):

1) a. Kofi be  yè-dzo
           say LOG-leave
      'Kofi_i said that he_i left.' 
   b. Kofi be  e-dzo
           say Pro-leave
      'Kofi _i said that he/she_j left.'
  (Clements 1975: 142 (1,2))

In the above examples, sentence a. contains a logophoric pronoun, while sentence b. contains a normal third-person pronoun. The syntactic structure of both sentences is identical - they vary only in which pronoun occurs, which determines whether or not Kofi is referring to himself or to a different individual. As can be seen in the syntax tree to the right, the antecedent and logophoric pronoun in a. are co-referential across a clausal boundary. Notably, logophoric pronouns such as yè may occur at any level of embedding within the same sentence, and in fact, the antecedent with which it has co-referent relation need not be in the same sentence.(Clements 1972:170) The semantic condition imposed on the use of these logophors is that the context in which they appear must be reflective of another individual's perception, and not the speaker's subjective account of the linguistic content being transmitted (Clements 1972:171); however, a purely semantic account is insufficient in determining where logophoric pronouns may appear. More specifically, even when the semantic conditions which license the use of logophors are satisfied, there may be syntactic conditions which determine whether or not logophoric pronouns actually occur in a sentence (Clements 1972:172). Clements demonstrates that in Ewe, these forms may only be introduced by clauses head by the complementizer "be". In Ewe, this word has the function of designating clauses in which the feelings, thoughts, and perspective of an individual other than the speaker is being communicated (Clements 1972:169). Thus, although it is primarily the discursive context which licenses the use of logophoric pronouns in Ewe, syntactic restrictions also play a role in determining the distribution of pronouns in direct and indirect discourse (Clements 1972:169).

Wan

Nikitina & (2012) finds that in Wan, a language spoken primarily in the Ivory Coast, logophoric pronouns ɓā (singular) and mɔ̰̄ (plural) are used to indicate the speech of those who are introduced in the preceding clause.

2) a. yrā̠mū    é   gé   mɔ̰̄    súglù   é  lɔ̄
     children DEF said LOG.PL manoic DEF ate
    'The children_i said they_i had eaten the manoic.'
   b. yrā̠mū    é   gé   à̰  súglù   é  lɔ̄
     children DEF said 3PL manoic DEF ate
    'The children_i said they_j had eaten the manoic.'
     (Nikitina 2012: 283)

Nikitina & (2012) states that these pronouns can take the same syntactic positions as personal pronouns (e.g. subjects, objects, possessors, etc). They appear with verbs that have to do with mental and psychological activities and states, and are most often used during speech reports. In casual conversation, using perfect form when speaking of past speech is often associated with logophoricity, as it implies that the event is more relevant to the current speech report.

In a case where the speaker participates in the reported situation, their voice may be ambiguous as they may be confused with the voices of other characters in the discourse (Nikitina 2012, p. 295). Ambiguity with logophors also arises from reports where someone is reporting character A's report on character B's discourse. This is known as a nested report (Nikitina 2012, p. 292).

3)  è   gé kólì má̰, klá̰   gé  dóō     ɓāā      nɛ̰́   kpái   gā   ɔ̄ŋ́   kpū  wiá     ɓā   lāgá
   3SG said lie be hyena said QUOT LOG.SG.ALN child exact went wood piece enter LOG.SG mouth
  'He_i said: It's not true. Hyena_j said my_i,LOG own child went to enter a piece of wood in his_j,LOG mouth.'
  (Alternative interpretation: 'His_j,LOG own child went to enter a piece of wood in my_i,LOG mouth.')
  (Nikitina 2012: 293)

Here, in example 3, a character reports on another character's (hyena's) speech. Logophoric pronouns are used for both characters, so they are distinguished from the current speaker, but not from each other.

Abe

Abe is a Kwa language spoken in the Ivory Coast that uses two classes of third person pronouns: o-pronouns and n-pronouns. In certain contexts, the pronouns exhibit the same distribution as languages that has logophoric pronouns (Koopman 1989, p. 555). In particular, O-pronouns must be disjoint from the matrix subject in logophoric contexts, and N-pronouns are used as logophoric pronouns to express coreference with the speaker.

In Abe, logophoric contexts are kO-complements selected by certain verbs of saying. Example 4 below shows the importance of the syntactic criteria of selecting a kO-complements: both tell and said are verbs of saying (meaning that in Abe, the notion of logophoricity is not only based on semantics), but logophoricity is only exhibited in the embedded kO clause (Koopman 1989, p. 580). Example 4a illustrates a non-logophoric context, in which both o-pronouns and n-pronouns are free to bind with the matrix subject. In contrast, example 4b shows that only n-pronouns, as logophoric pronouns, can be used to refer to the matrix subject.

4)  a. yapi_i ka api ye O_i,j/n_(i),j ye sE
       Yapi tell Api ye he is handsome
    b. yapi_i hE kO O_j/n_i,(j) ye sE
       Yapi said kO he is handsome
       (Koopman 1989: 580 (66))

However, logophoricity is observed only within a subset of kO-complements (Koopman 1989, p. 580). In example 5, there are no effects of logophoricity as the pronouns behave normally. The distinction between 4b and 5 is the notion of the role Source (Sells 1987).

5)  a. m hE api_i kO O_i,j/n_{i, j} ye sE
       I said to Api kO she is handsome.
       (Koopman 1989: 580 (67))

Verbal Markings of Logophoricity

Akɔɔse

The simplest form of a logophoric verbal marking is a system called logophoric cross-referencing. This is when a distinct affix is used to specify logophoric cases (Curnow 2002). For example in Akɔɔse, a language spoken in Nigeria, the prefix mə- attaches to the verb to indicate that the pronoun is self-referencing.

6) a. à-hɔbé  ǎ  á-kàg
      he-said RP he-should.go
     'He said that he (someone else) should go'
   b. à-hɔbé  ǎ  mə-kàg
      he-said RP LOG-should.go
     'He said that he (himself) should go'
   (Hedinger 1984: 95)

It is important to note that not all cross-referencing utilizes the same properties. In Akɔɔse, cross-referencing can only occur when the matrix subject is second or third person singular, and not in plural or first person cases (Curnow 2002). However, any language that uses a logophoric cross-referencing system will always use it for singular referents (Curnow 2002:4).

Gokana

Another manifestation of logophoric affixes is the logophoric verbal affix, an affix that attaches to the verb to indicate logophoricity. Gokana, as seen below, is a language of the Benue-Congo family that uses the verbal suffix -èè, with several allomorphs (phonologically conditioned variations) to indicate logophoricity (Curnow 2002). This can be seen in the example below.

Logophoric affix

No affix

Gokana logophoric affix vs. the plain sentence without the logophoric affix.

7) a. aè  kɔ  aè dɔ̀
      he said he fell
     'He_i said that he_j fell'
   b. aè  kɔ  aè  dɔ-ɛ̀
      he said he fell-LOG
     'He_i said that he_i fell'
  (Hyman & Comrie 1981: 20)

Unlike logophoric pronouns and the cross-referencing system, the logophoric verbal suffix is not otherwise integrated into a system that marks person (Curnow 2002:11). In Gokana, the verbal affix only contrasts with its own absence as opposed to contrasting with another affix or pronoun, and therefore gives no indication of person.

The ambiguity regarding person that can arises from this lack of marking can be seen in Example 8 below.

8) lébàreè kɔ  aè div-èè  e
   Lebare said he hit-LOG him
  'Lebare_i said he_i hit him_j/ Lebare_i said he_j hit him_i'
  (Hyman & Comrie 1981: 24)

The above example shows that because the logophoric marking is attached to the verb, rather than a pronoun, the co-referencing becomes unclear. Either Lebare hit someone else, or someone else hit Lebare, but the logophor does not indicate which meaning is supposed to be conveyed (Curnow 2002:12).

In contrast with cross-referencing, verbal affixes are not obligatory for singular second person referents. In fact, unlike most other types of logophoricity, verbal affixes may also be used in first person case. Generally this use is unpreferred.

Long Distance Reflexive Logophors

Chinese

Logophoric pronoun

First person pronoun

Chinese logophoric pronoun ziji and first person pronoun wo can occupy the same syntactic position and refer to different individuals.

Liu (2012) does not consider Chinese to be a pure logophoric language, but believes that the referential use of some of its reflexives are decidedly logophoric. In Chinese, there are two types of long-range third person reflexives, simplex and complex. They are ziji and Pr-ziji (pronoun morpheme and ziji), respectively. The relationship between these reflexives and the antecedents are logophoric. The distance between the reflexives and their antecedents can be many clauses and sentences apart. Ziji is used logophorically.

9) a. Zhangsan_i renwei [Lisi_j kan-bu-qi ziji_i/j]
      Zhangsan  think  Lisi look-not-up self
     'Zhangsan_i thinks Lisi_j looks down on him_i/himself_i.'
   b. Wo renwei "ni  bu  yinggai kan-bu-qi  wo."
      I think, "You should not look down on me."
  (Chou 2012: 18)

Example a shows that the Chinese ziji can be used as both a locally bound anaphor and as a long distance logophor.

In Chinese, there exists a Blocking Effect in which the long-distance reading of ziji is not possible because of a difference in point-of-view (POV) features between ziji and the embedded CP (Chou 2012, p. 18). One of these environments that cause blocking is when the third person embedded subject in example a is replaced with the first person pronoun or second person pronoun, as in example c, which restricts the referencing of ziji to only the local antecedent (Chou 2012, p. 20).

c. Zhangsan_i renwei [ni_j kan-bu-qi ziji_j/*i]
   Zhangsan think you look-not-up self
  'Zhangsan_i thinks you_j should not look down on *him_i/yourself_j'
  (Chou 2012: 18)

In c, ziji can only refer to the second person pronoun ni, as ziji takes the POV feature of the embedded subject. Here, ni has the second person point of view feature. The POV of the matrix subject is third person, which clashes with the embedded CP subject's POV of second person.

While the logophoric use of Pr-ziji is optional, its primary role is to be an emphatic or intensive expression of pronoun. Emphatic use is shown in example l. In example sentence l that uses a Pr-ziji for emphatic purposes, substituting the Pr-ziji (here, taziji) for ziji can reduce the emphasis and suggest logophoric referencing (Liu 2012, p. 74).

10) Lao Tong Bao_i suiran bu hen jide zufu shi zenyang "zuoren", dan fuqin de qinjian zonghou,ta_i shi qinyan   
    Old Tong Bao although not very recall grandpa be what sort of man but father MM diligence honesty he just with his own eyes  
   kanjian de; taziji_i ye shi guiju ren...
   see  PA himself also be respectable man
   'Although Old Tong Bao_i couldn't recall what sort of man his grandfather was, he_i knew his father had been hardworking and 

   honest—he had seen that with his own eyes. Old Tong Bao himself_i was a respectable person;...'
   (Liu 2012: 75)

Japanese

Prior to the first usage of the term "logophor", Kuno Susumu (1972) analyzed the licensing of the use of the Japanese reflexive pronoun zibun. His analysis focused on the occurrence of this pronoun in direct discourse in which the internal feeling of someone other than the speaker is being represented. Kuno argues that what permits the usage of zibun is a context in which the individual which the speaker is referring to is aware of the state or event under discussion - i.e., this individual's perspective must be represented.

11) a. John_i wa, Mary ga zibun_i ni ai ni kuru hi wa, sowasowa site-iru yo.
                                                  meet  to come days   excited  is
      'John is excited on days when Mary comes to see him.' 
    b. *John_i wa, Mary ga zibun_i o miru toki wa, itu mo kaoiro ga warui soo da.
                                   self              see  when     always complexion bad  I hear. 
       'I hear that John looks pale whenever Mary sees him.'
   (Kuno 1972: 182 (93))

The 11 a. sentence is considered grammatical because the individual being discussed (John) is aware that Mary comes to see him. Conversely, sentence h. is ungrammatical because it is not possible for John to look pale when he is aware that Mary sees him. As such, John's awareness of the event or state being communicated in the embedded sentence determines whether or not the entire sentences is grammatical. Similarly to other logophors, the antecedent of the reflexive zibun need not occur in the same sentence, as is the case for non-logophoric reflexives. This is demonstrated in the example above, in which the antecedent in sentence a. occurs in the matrix sentence, while zibun occurs in the embedded clause. Although traditionally referred to as "indirect reflexives", logophoric pronouns such as zibun are also referred to as long-distance, or free anaphors (Reuland 2006:4).

Although the grammatical usage of zibun is conditioned by semantic factors (namely, the representation of the direct internal feeling or knowledge of an individual other than the speaker), syntactic restrictions also play a role. For example, the usage of zibun in a matrix sentence requires coreference with the subject of the sentence (not the object):

12) a. John wa Mary o zibun no ie    de korosita. 
                      self  's house in killed 
      'John killed Mary in (lit.) self's house.' 
    b. Mary wa John ni zibun no ie    de koros-are-ta. 
                    by self  's house in kill-passive-past
      'Mary was killed by John in (lit.) self's house.'
     (Kuno 1972: 178 (83))

In the above sentences, zibun can only refer to the subjects of the sentences - "John" in sentence i. and "Mary" in sentence 12 b. As such, the passivized sentence 12 b. is not equivalent in meaning to sentence e. Importantly, that coreferent of zibun need not be aware of the action or state represented in the sentence - for instance, it is not implied in sentence 12 b. that Mary was aware that she was killed in her house. This use of zibun appears to be restricted to a non-logophoric context. In line with Clements' characterization of indirect reflexives, the logophoric pronoun is homophonous with the (non-logophoric) reflexive pronoun (Clements 1975, p. 3).

Icelandic

In Icelandic, there are the same reflexive form are used as both obligatory clause-bound anaphors and as logophoric pronouns. The reflexives can bind with antecedents across multiple clause boundaries, exhibiting the effect of a non-clause-bounded reflexives (NCBR) (Maling 1984).

13) Formaðurinn_i varð óskaplega reiður. Tillagan væri avívirðileg og væri henni beint gegn séri persónulega.
    The-chairman became furiously angry. The-proposal was(subj.) outrageous and was(subj) it aimed at self personally.
   'The chairman_i became furiously angry. The proposal was outrageous, and it was aimed against him(self)_i personally.'
    (Stirling 1993: 265(10))

The distribution of NCBR correlates with the grammatical mood. Specifically, the binding of the reflexive can only cross clauses of subjunctive mood, such as seen in example 14b (Maling 1984, p. 212). NCBR is prohibited across indicative mood as shown in example 14a below.

14) a. *Jon_i veit að María elskar sig_i
       John knows that Maria loves(ind.) REFL
      'John_i knows that Maria loves him_i.'

    b. Jon_i segir að María elski sig_i
       John says that Maria loves(subj.) REFL
      'John_i says that Maria loves him_i.'
       (Maling 1984: 212 (2))

When a verb selects a subjunctive complement, the subjunctive mood is not limited to that single clause. If the (structurally) higher verb takes a subjunctive complement, then the subjunctive mood can "trickle down" to the bottom of the tree, even if the intervening verbs often take indicative complements (Maling 1984, p. 223). Example 15 below illustrates this effect. When the indicative clause veit "know" is embedded under a verb like segja "say", the subjunctive mood trickles down and allows the reflexive to bind with matrix subject.

Subjunctive mood is the mood typically used for indirect discourse and reportive contexts that reflect an individual's point of view (Maling 1984, p. 223). By allowing the reflexive to bind with the speaker, the combination of NCBR and the "trickling" effect of subjunctive mood captures the property of logophoric pronouns.

15) Jón_i segir að Haraldur_j viti að Sigga elski sig_i,j.
    Jon says(subj.) that Haraldur knows(subj.) that Sigga loves(subj.) REFL
   'Jon_i says that Haraldur_j knows that Sigga loves him_i,j.'
    (Maling 1984: 223(23b))

Syntactic Accounts

There has been much discussion in linguistic literature on the type of approach that would best account for logophoricity. Syntactic accounts have been attempted within the context of Government and binding theory (Stirling 1993:268). More specifically, Binding Theory organizes nominal expressions into three groups: (i) anaphors, (ii) pronominals, and (iii) R-expressions. The distribution and grammaticality of these are governed by Conditions A, B, and C (Sportiche, et al., 2014):

Condition A: An anaphor must be bound within its domain; that is, it must be c-commanded by its co-referent antecedent.  An 
 element's domain is the nearest maximal projection (XP) with a specifier.
Condition B: A pronoun must be free within its domain.
Condition C: R-expressions must be free.

Anaphors are not referential in and of themselves; they must be co-indexed to an antecedent. Problems arise when the antecedent falls outside the anaphor's local domain, occurring inside the same sentence or even in a previous one. Seth A. Minkoff (2004) argues that logophors therefore form a special class of anaphors that may be linked to a referent outside their projected domain, categorizing them as a particular subset of anaphora that refer to the “source of a discourse” - i.e., the original (secondary) speaker, not the messenger relaying the information. Alternatively, Lesley Stirling (1993) contends that logophors are not anaphors at all, as they violate Condition A of Binding Theory with their lack of a c-commanding relationship to the antecedent. In relation to this, logophors and long-distance reflexives can be found in overlapping contexts with non-logophoric personal pronouns; they are not in complementary distribution with pronouns as anaphors are. Logophors also fail to satisfy Condition B, as they necessarily have antecedents and so are not referentially free within their domain - thus, they are not true pronominals, based on this condition.

Stirling (1993) points out that although certain syntactic constraints influence the distribution of logophoric forms (such as requiring that an antecedent be a grammatical subject (Kuno 1972)), syntactic binding is not crucial, nor sufficient, to explain the mechanism behind this. For example, a logophoric antecedent is often restricted to the semantic role of "source" in a discourse, or the semantic role of "experiencer" of a state of mind. Additionally, whether or not a logophoric form may be used may also be contingent on the lexical semantics of the verb in the matrix clause. There have been attempts to move beyond a solely syntactic approach in recent literature.

Koopman's (1989) Logical Variables

Koopman proposes a purely syntactic analysis of the distribution of n-pronouns vs o-pronouns in Abe: n-pronouns as logical variables and are Ā-bound by an operator at the Comp (Koopman 1989). The complementizer kO originates as a verb with a [+n] silent subject, which can only bind with [+n] elements like n-pronouns. [+n] elements cannot bind [-n] elements like lexical NP, QPs, and O-pronouns and vice versa. Based on Chomsky's Theta criterion, the silent subject will receive the theta role of the agent, which will manifest itself as the semantic property of logophoric pronouns binding with the speaker of an indirect discourse. Koopman proposes that if this can be generalized to other languages, then there is no "logophoric pronouns", but instead two distinct mechanisms coming together to give the effect of logophoricity.

Minkoff's (2004) Principle E

Since logophors cannot be entirely accounted for given the conditions of canonical Binding Theory (Stirling 1993:268), modifications to this theory have been posited. For example, Seth A. Minkoff (2004) suggests that logophoricity requires a new principle to be added to the set of conditions held by Binding Theory. He proposes Principle E which is stated thus:

Principle E: A free SELF-anaphor must co-refer with, and be in the backward co-reference domain of, an expression whose 
 co-referent typically possesses consciousness (Minkoff 2004:488)

Node X is in the backward co-reference domain of node Y if there are two further nodes, A and B, such that A predicates B, A dominates X, and B dominates Y.

The backward co-reference domain is a specification of the general concept of domain found in binding theory. For anaphors, domain is defined as the smallest XP node in a tree with a subject that contains the DP (Sportiche, Koopman & Stabler 2014:169). Backward co-reference domain means that node X is in the backward co-reference domain of node Y if there are two further nodes, A and B, such that A predicates B, A dominates X, and B dominates Y (Minkoff 2004:488). This specification is meant to account for cases where self-anaphors are free and possess consciousness, but are still unacceptable. Minkoff (2004) addresses the two crucial differences his Principle E holds with binding theory. First it operates distinctly in the backward co-reference domain, rather than the more general operation of c-command.This means that it operates in terms of both syntax and semantics, where c-command uses syntactic relations. It is also sensitive to the attribution of consciousness, unlike the syntax-specific binding theory.

Free anaphors and opacity

Free or long-distance anaphors are able to take an antecedent beyond their domain subject; this is a common situation in which to find logophors. Three scenarios may allow these exceptions: (i) if the logophor is properly bound (e.g. c-commanded and co-indexed) by an antecedent outside its local domain; (ii) if accurately interpreted by an antecedent that does not c-command; or (iii) if accurately interpreted without an explicitly stated antecedent.^[1] These lead to an extended version of Condition A that applies more generally to locality:

The dependent element (logophor) L is linked to an antecedent A if and only if A is contained within B, as in
                ... [B ... w ... L ...] ...  
in which B is the minimal category containing A, L, and opacity factor w (Koster 1984).

Under this interpretation, domain is no longer limited to the maximal projection of the logophor. The opacity factor (w) is best described as a variable that takes a different value for different types of dependent elements (L); its role is to delineate domains with respect to category heads (V, N, A, or P). Koster gives the following example as illustration:

... V [_PP P NP]

explaining that P is the opacity factor, as head of the maximal projection PP, and "blocks" V from governing NP. Instead, the locality domain that governs NP is the maximal projection of its phrasal head—PP.

Semantic Accounts

Discourse Representation Theory

Sells' (1987) Account

Peter Sells introduced a semantic account of logophoricity using Discourse Representation Structure. This approach allows for the possibility of binding between an antecedent and a logophor within the same sentence or across sentences within a discourse. He introduced three semantic roles, or primitives, which occur in discourse: source, self, and pivot. The source refers to the individual who is the intentional communicator, the self to the individual whose perspective is being reported, and the pivot to the individual who is the deictic center of the discourse, i.e., the one from whose physical perspective the content of the report is being evaluated.(Sells 1987:455–456). The predicates which correspond to these primitives are represented by Discourse Markers (DMs). Additionally, there is a Discourse Marker (S) which stands for the speaker of the discourse. Sells imposes a condition that the DMs associated with a primitive predicate are able to be anaphorically related to other referents in the discourse.

This account attempts to explain logophoricity as the result of the interaction between the three primitives. For instance, if there is a logophoric pronoun in the discourse, it is interpreted with regards to a noun phrase (NP) that has a particular role assigned to it. As such, a logophoric NP is associate with a NP that is also associated with a particular semantic role. It may be the case that all three roles are assigned to one NP, such as the subject of the main verb in the following example:

16) Taroo_i wa Yosiko ga zibun_i o aisiteiru to itta.
   'Taroo_i said that Yosiko loved self_i.'
     (Sells 1987:461)

Since Taroo is the individual who is intentionally communicating the fact that Yosiko loved him, he is the source. Taroo is also the self, as it his perspective being reported, and he is additionally the pivot, as it his from his location that the content of the report is being evaluated.

In the DRS to the right, which is the Discourse Representation Structure for the Sentence in (16), S stands for the external speaker, u stands for a predicate (in this example, Taroo), and p stands for a proposition. The inner box contains the content of the proposition, which is that Yosiko (a predicate of the embedded clause, marked with v) loved Taroo, another predicate, which is marked by z. As can be inferred by the diagram, z is assigned the role of pivot, which corresponds to the NP Taroo.

Stirling's (1993) Account

Following from Peter Sells' account, (Stirling 1993:282) argued that there may not be a need for three primitive roles to explain logophoricity. In fact, logophoric phenomena can be explained by introducing only one semantic role into Discourse Structure Representations: the assigned epistemic validator (or, more briefly, validator). This semantic role is assigned the Discourse Marker v. Th role of validator is associated with the individual who is responsible for validating the content of what is being reported. Similarly to Sells, Stirling argues that once this primitive is within the bounds of a Discourse Representation Structure, it is free to be anaphorically related to other NPs in the discourse.

Stirling specifies three possibilities for a speaker in reporting a proposition:

i.   the speaker can assume the role of validator: v = i'
ii.  the speaker can dis-assign themselves from the role of validator: v ≠ i'
iii. the speaker re-assign the role of validator to another individual: v = x

Here, i' is the DM used for the current speaker, and x is the DM associated with some other available NP in the discourse.

According to Stirling, in using just the role of validator, it is possible to generalize across cases in which Sells argued necessitated the use of distinct primitives. For example, in contexts in which an individual's point of view is being reported, Sells posited the primitive of source; where a psychological state of an individual is being reported, Sells introduced the role of self. However, Sells argues that differentiating between these two contexts misses an important generalization: that it is due to certain lexical properties that logophoric pronouns may be used in both contexts. More specifically, where a NP is a logophoric antecedent, it is typically the subject of a verb of of communication, thought, perception, or psychological state in the matrix clause, while the logophoric pronoun occurs in a subordinate clause (Stirling 1993:285).

Stirling's (1993) DRS for the Ewe sentences: 'Kofi_i said that {he_i, s/he_j} left.'

This account can be used to explain the following examples from Ewe:

17) a. Kofi  be  yè-dzo
       Kofi say Log-leave
      'Kofi_i said that he_i left.'
    b. Kofi  be  e-dzo
       Kofi say Pro-leave
      'Kofi_i said that s/he_j left.'

The above examples are identical save for the logophoric pronoun yè appearing in (17) a. and the normal pronoun e appearing in (5) b. A DRS representing these sentences follows:

In the DRS to the right, each box represents a separate proposition, and the content of each is understood to have a distinct validator (v₁ and v₂). For the sentence in (17) a., in order to indicate the anaphoric relation between the subject of the matrix sentence (the antecedent of the logophor) and the logophoric pronoun, we would need to specify that x = v₂. In order to interpret the DRS as per sentence (17) a., we do not need to impose such a condition, as x need not corefer to this antecedent in the discourse.

References

^ Koster, Jan (1984). "On Binding and Control". Linguistic Inquiry. 15 (3): 417–459.

Hagège, Claude (1974), "Les pronoms logophoriques", Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 69: 287–310
Chou, Chao-Ting T. (2012), "Syntax-Pragmatics Interface: Mandarin Chinese Wh-the-hell and Point-of-View Operator", Syntax, 15: 1–24
Clements, George N. (1975), "The Logophoric Pronoun in Ewe: Its Role in Discourse", Journal of West African Languages, 2: 141–177
Curnow, Timothy J. (2002), "Three Types of Logophoricity in African Languages", Studies in African Linguistics, 31: 1–26
Hedinger, Robert (1984), "Reported Speech in Akɔɔse", Studies in African Linguistics, 12 (3): 81–102
Hyman, Larry M. & Bernard Comrie (1981), "Logophoric Reference in Gokana", Studies in African Linguistics, 3 (1): 19–37
Koopman, Hilda (1989), "Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe", Linguistic Inquiry, 20 (4): 555–588
Kuno, Susumu (1972), "Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse", Linguistic Inquiry, 3: 161–195
Liu, Lijin (2012), "Logophoricity, Highlighting and Contrasting: A Pragmatic Study of Third-person Reflexives in Chinese Discourse", English Language and Literature Studies, 2: 69–84
Maling, Joan (1984), "Non-Clause-Bounded Reflexives in Modern Icelandic", Linguistics and Philosophy, 7 (3): 211–241
Minkoff, Seth A. (2004), "Consciousness, Backward Coreference, and Logophoricity", Linguistic Inquiry, 35 (3): 485–494
Nikitina, Tatiana (2012), "Logophoric Discourse and First Person Reporting in Wan (West Africa)", Anthropological Linguistics, 54: 280–301
Reuland, E. (2006), "Chapter 38. Logophoricity", The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp. 1–20, ISBN 9781405114851, retrieved 2014-10-28 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
Sells, Peter (1987), "Aspects of Logophoricity", Linguistic Inquiry, 18 (3): 445–479
Sportiche, Dominique, Koopman, & Stabler (2014), "Chapter 7. Binding and the Hierarchical Nature of Phrase Structure", An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis, Wiley Blackwell, p. 168, ISBN 9781405100175{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Stirling, Lesley (1993), "Chapter 6 Logophoricity", Switch-Reference and Discourse Representation, Cambridge University Press, pp. 252–307, ISBN 9780521023436, retrieved 2014-11-11

[1] Koster, Jan (1984). "On Binding and Control". Linguistic Inquiry. 15 (3): 417–459.

[1]

@@ Line 112: / Line 112: @@
 Unlike logophoric pronouns and the cross-referencing system, the logophoric verbal suffix is not otherwise integrated into a system that marks person {{Harvcol|Curnow|2002|p=11}}. In Gokana, the verbal affix only contrasts with its own absence as opposed to contrasting with another affix or pronoun, and therefore gives no indication of person.
-The ambiguity regarding person that can arises from this lack of marking can be seen in example 8) below.
+The ambiguity regarding person that can arises from this lack of marking can be seen in Example 8 below.
 ) ''lébàreè kɔ  aè div-èè  e''