Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:17:59 -0500 (EST)
From: "Carol L. Tenny" <tenny@kollar.com>
To: Linguistics Conference <LINCONF@tamvm1.tamu.edu>
Subject: REPLY FROM TENNY TO HUANG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961030154500.8115A-100000@suma3.reading.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.93.961101102954.5984C-100000@tc.kollar.com>
TO CONFEREES:
First of all, a general apology for the slowness of my reply. I have
been off-line for several weeks, and I have just recently gotten back
on-line, and am catching
up. I want to say that I have been impressed with the quality of the
conference and the range of interesting facts presented in the papers, as
much as I have been able to catch up on them.
REPLY FROM TENNY TO HUANG
(I have included Huang's question below)
This is an excellent question. Thank you for asking it. I have followed
Reinhart and Reuland and Sells, among others, in classing this kind of
phenomenon as logophoric, but this does broaden the notion of
logophoricity beyond the original sense in which Hagege used the term (and
beyond its greek roots as well). I won't speak for Reinhart and Reuland
or Sells here, except to say that both sets of authors acknowledge
implicitly or explicitly that the kind of point of view involved in
locational deixis is different from that of a source of
information or holder of a mental state. (Maybe Reinhart can comment
on this.) Sells uses a particular discourse role distinguishing it from
the others, although he lumps it in with the general phenomenon of
logophoricity.
I do believe that locational deixis is a different beast from the
classical cases of logophoricity. My paper is in part the beginning of an
attempt to make the distincion in a principled way. On the other hand,
both locational deixis and classical logophoricity have to do with "point
of view"; hence the temptation to lump them together in some way.
I think the implicational scale for logophoric predicates is an excellent
one. However, note that if we add deictically-oriented verbs suchs as
"come" in Japanese to the list of logophoric predicates, we have added a
kind of locational deixis, since we don't know which way "come" is, until
we know where the speaker is.
Of course, whatever we call it, the proof is in the pudding. We will have
to see if the class of sentences like "John put the book by him", show a
distinctive behavior of their own, that seems
due to their being examples of locational deixis. My paper suggests
this as a possible approach. We will have to see as more facts emerge. I'm
sure the conference attendees can provide much more crosslinguistic
insight.
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, LINGUIST Conferences wrote:
> From: Yan Huang <llshuang@reading.ac.uk>
> Subject: Yan Huang commenting on Tenny and others re logophoricity
>
>
>
> A number of papers presented so far mention/discuss the notion of
> logophoricity, which was introduced in studies of African languages (I
> think) by Hagege. Naturally, most of these papers refer (rather
> uncritcally) to the influential work by Reinhart and Reuland. But I
> feel that RR's use of this notion is too liberal. Whenever there is a
> counterexample to structural binding theory, it is attributed to the
> factor of logophoricity. This will eventually lead to making it
> impossible to permit the recognition of any real counterexample and
> falsify any theory. Unless the notion of logophricity can be clearly
> defined so that we know what constitutes a clear set of counterexample
> to it, the concept is of no great use (apart from the fact that it may
> be used as an escaping route).
>
> One way to tighten the notion might be to return to its orignal use in
> African lanugages and to maintain the postion that a logophoric domain
> has to be triggered by a logocentric predicate (provided that the
> logophor and its antecedent are not the co-arguments of the
> predicate).These logocentric predicates are commonly thought to form
> an implicational scale: speech predicates > epistemic predicates >
> psychological predicates > perceptive predicates. (see e.g. Stirling
> 93, Huang 94, Culy 94). To this we might add 'deictically oriented
> predicates' such as 'come' in languages like Chinese, Japanese, and
> Korean.
>
> With these points in mind, I am not sure on what basis Tenny (and RR)
> take examples of the following kind (her (3) and (9)) as logophoric;
> the predicates in these examples do not seem to be logocentric.
>
> Timothy put/placed/set/the book close by him
>
>
>
> References:
> Culy, C. (94). Aspects of logophoric marking. Linguistics 32.
> Huang, Y. (94). The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with
> Special Reference to Chinese. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics).
> Cambridge University Press.
> Huang, Y. (96). Logophoricity: logophoric pronouns in African languages
> and long-distance reflexives in East Asain languages. MS
> Stirling, L. (93). Switch-reference and discourse representation. CUP.
>
>
> --Yan Huang
>