Logophoricity and shifts of perspective
New facts and a new account
This study presents a typology of existing approaches to logophoricity and discusses problems the different
approaches face. It addresses, in particular, perspective-based accounts describing constructions with logophoric pronouns in
terms of their intermediate position on the direct-indirect continuum (
Evans 2013), and
lexical accounts incorporating the idea of coreference with the reported speaker into the pronoun’s meaning, either through
role-to-value mapping mechanisms (
Nikitina 2012a,
b), or through feature specification (
Schlenker 2003a,
b). The perspective-based approach is shown to be unsatisfactory when it comes to
treating language-specific data in precise and cross-linguistically comparable terms. It fails to account, for example, for
cross-linguistic differences in the behavior of logophoric pronouns, for their optionality, and for their close diachronic
relationship to third person elements. Lexical accounts are better equipped to handle a variety of outstanding issues, but they,
too, need to be revised to accommodate a variety of discourse phenomena associated with logophoricity, including alternation with
first person pronouns. The proposed solution follows the lines of lexical approaches but aims at enriching the pronouns’ lexical
representation with notions pertaining to narrative structure, such as the role of Narrator. A separate solution is proposed for
treating conventionalized uses occurring outside speech and attitude reports.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1The puzzle of logophoricity
- 1.2Three recent accounts: A contrastive analysis
- 2.Little-discussed properties of logophoric systems
- 2.1Logophoric pronouns are not restricted to indirect discourse
- 2.2Logophoricity comes in varieties
- 2.3Logophoricity need not involve special pronouns
- 3.Issues problematic for all three approaches
- 3.1Logophoric pronouns are not restricted to attitude reports
- 3.2Logophoric pronouns can refer to the actual speaker
- 3.3Logophoric pronouns can alternate with first person
- 4.Proposed tentative solutions
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
- Abbreviations
-
References
References (52)
References
Aaron, Uche E. 1992. Reported speech in Obolo narrative discourse. In Shin Ja J. Hwang & William R. Merrifield (eds.), Language in context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, 227–240. Dallas: SIL & The University of Texas at Arlington.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. Semi-direct speech: Manambu and beyond. Language Sciences 301. 383–422.
Ameka, Felix K. 2004. Grammar and cultural practices: The grammaticalization of triadic communication in West African languages. Journal of West African Languages 321. 5–27.
Benveniste, Émile. 1956. La nature des pronoms. Reprinted in Émile Benveniste, Problèmes de linguistique générale, 251–257. Paris: Gallimard, 1966.
Bhat, D. N. S. 2007. Pronouns. Oxford: OUP.
Boyeldieu, Pascal. 2004a. A qui s’adresse le logophorique yakoma. In Pascal Boyeldieu & Pierre Nougayrol (eds.), Langues et cultures: Terrains d’Afrique. Hommage à France Cloarec-Heiss, 185–191. Leuven: Peeters.
Boyeldieu, Pascal. 2004b. Les pronoms logophoriques dans les langues d’Afrique centrale. In D. Ibriszimow & G. Segerer (eds.), Systèmes de marques personnelles en Afrique, 11–22. Leuven: Peeters.
Bugaeva, Anna. 2008. Reported discourse and logophoricity in Southern Hokkaido dialects of Ainu. Gengo Kenky¯u 1331. 31–75.
Clements, George N. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 101. 141–177.
Coulmas, Florian. 1986. Reported speech: Some general issues. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Culy, Christopher. 1994. Aspects of logophoric marking. Linguistics 321. 1055–1094.
Culy, Christopher. 1997. Logophoric pronouns and point of view. Linguistics 351. 845–859.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2001. Logophoric marking and represented speech in African languages as evidential hedging strategies. Australian Journal of Linguistics 211. 131–157.
Evans, Nicholas. 2013. Some problems in the typology of quotation: A canonical approach. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 66–98. Oxford: OUP.
Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1985. Logophoric systems in Chadic. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 71. 23–37.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1993. A Grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Reimer.
Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka. 2019. Direct and indirect speech revisited: Semantic universals and semantic diversity. In Alessandro Capone, Manuel García-Carpintero & Alessandra Falzone (eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics in the world languages, 173–199. Springer.
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Güldemann, Tom & Manfred von Roncador. 2002. Preface. In Tom Güldemann & Manfred von Roncador (eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains, vii–ix. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hagège, Claude. 1974. Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 69(1). 287–310.
Hanks, William F. 1996. Exorcism and the description of participant roles. In Michael Silverstein & Greg Urban (eds.), Natural histories of discourse, 160–200. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hellwig, Birgit. 2006. Complement clause type and complementation strategies in Goemai. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Complementation, 204–223. Oxford: OUP.
Hill, Harriet. 1995. Pronouns and reported speech in Adioukrou. Journal of West African Languages 251. 87–106.
Hyman, Larry M. 1979. Phonology and noun structure. In Larry M. Hyman (ed.), Aghem grammatical structure, 1–72. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.
Hyman, Larry M. & Bernard Comrie. 1981. Logophoric reference in Gokana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 31. 19–37.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s participation framework. In Paul Drew & Anthony Wootton (eds.), Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, 161–227. Oxford: Polity Press.
Margetts, Anna. 2015. Person shift at narrative peak. Language 91(4). 755–805.
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2008. The mixing of syntactic properties and language change. Stanford: Stanford University PhD thesis.
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2012a. Personal deixis and reported discourse: Towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic Typology 16(2). 233–263.
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2012b. Logophoric discourse and first person reporting in Wan (West Africa). Anthropological Linguistics 54(3). 280–301.
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2018a. When linguists and speakers do not agree: The endangered grammar of verbal art in West Africa. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 28 (2). 1–24.
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2019. Diminutives derived from terms for children: Comparative evidence from Southeastern Mande. Linguistics 57(1). 1–28.
Nikitina, Tatiana & Anna Bugaeva. In preparation. Logophoric speech is not indirect: Towards a syntactic approach to reported speech constructions.
Nikitina, Tatiana & Yvonne Treis. Forthcoming. The use of manner demonstratives in discourse: A contrastive study of Wan (Mande) and Kambaata (Cushitic). In Åshild Næss, Anna Margetts & Yvonne Treis (eds.), Demonstratives in Discourse. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Nikitina, Tatiana & Alexandra Vydrina. 2020. Reported speech in Kakabe: Loose syntax with flexible indexicality. Folia Linguistica.
Perrin, Mona. 1974. Direct and indirect speech in Mambila. Journal of Linguistics 101. 27–37.
Plank, Frans. 1986. Über den Personenwechsel und den anderer deiktischer Kategorien in der wiedergegebenen Rede. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 141. 284–308.
Roncador, Manfred von. 1988. Zwischen direkter und indirekter Rede. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Roncador, Manfred von. 1992. Types of logophoric marking in African languages. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 131. 163–182.
Rumsey, Alan. 2000. Agency, personhood and the ‘I’ of discourse in the Pacific and beyond. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 61. 101–115.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003a. Indexicality, logophoricity, and plural pronouns. In Jacqueline Lecarme (ed.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar II: Selected papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, 409–428. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003b. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 261. 29–120.
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 181. 445–479.
Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina. 2019. Reported speech forms a dedicated semantic domain. Linguistic Typology 23(1). 119–159.
Stirling, Lesley. 1993. Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: CUP.
Thomas, Elaine. 1978. A grammatical description of the Engenni language. Dallas: SIL & The University of Texas at Arlington.
Urban, Greg. 1989. The “I” of discourse. In Benjamin Lee & Greg Urban (eds.), Semiotics, self, and society, 27–51. New York: Mouton.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Vandelanotte, Lieven
2023.
Constructions of speech and thought representation.
WIREs Cognitive Science 14:2
Nikitina, Tatiana & Anna Bugaeva
2021.
Logophoric speech is not indirect: towards a syntactic approach to reported speech constructions.
Linguistics 59:3
► pp. 609 ff.
Spronck, Stef & Daniela Casartelli
2021.
In a Manner of Speaking: How Reported Speech May Have Shaped Grammar.
Frontiers in Communication 6
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.