1887
Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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 2012ab), or through feature specification (Schlenker 2003ab). 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.20001.nik
2020-04-15
2020-09-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aaron, Uche E.
    1992 Reported speech in Obolo narrative discourse. InShin 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2008 Semi-direct speech: Manambu and beyond. Language Sciences30. 383–422. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ameka, Felix K.
    2004 Grammar and cultural practices: The grammaticalization of triadic communication in West African languages. Journal of West African Languages32. 5–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Benveniste, Émile
    1956 La nature des pronoms. Reprinted in Émile Benveniste, Problèmes de linguistique générale, 251–257. Paris: Gallimard 1966.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhat, D. N. S.
    2007Pronouns. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230242.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230242.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boyeldieu, Pascal
    2004a A qui s’adresse le logophorique yakoma. InPascal Boyeldieu & Pierre Nougayrol (eds.), Langues et cultures: Terrains d’Afrique. Hommage à France Cloarec-Heiss, 185–191. Leuven: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2004b Les pronoms logophoriques dans les langues d’Afrique centrale. InD. Ibriszimow & G. Segerer (eds.), Systèmes de marques personnelles en Afrique, 11–22. Leuven: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bugaeva, Anna
    2008 Reported discourse and logophoricity in Southern Hokkaido dialects of Ainu. Gengo Kenky¯u133. 31–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Clements, George N.
    1975 The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages10. 141–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Coulmas, Florian
    1986 Reported speech: Some general issues. InFlorian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110871968.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Culy, Christopher
    1994 Aspects of logophoric marking. Linguistics32. 1055–1094. 10.1515/ling.1994.32.6.1055
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1994.32.6.1055 [Google Scholar]
  12. 1997 Logophoric pronouns and point of view. Linguistics35. 845–859. 10.1515/ling.1997.35.5.845
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1997.35.5.845 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
    2001 Logophoric marking and represented speech in African languages as evidential hedging strategies. Australian Journal of Linguistics21. 131–157. 10.1080/07268600120042499
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268600120042499 [Google Scholar]
  14. Evans, Nicholas
    2013 Some problems in the typology of quotation: A canonical approach. InDunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 66–98. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Faltz, Leonard M.
    1985Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
    1985 Logophoric systems in Chadic. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics7. 23–37. 10.1515/jall.1985.7.1.23
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jall.1985.7.1.23 [Google Scholar]
  17. 1993A Grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Reimer.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gentens, Caroline, María Sol Sansiñena, Stef Spronck & An Van Linden
    2019 Irregular perspective shifts and perspective persistence, discourse-oriented and theoretical approaches. Pragmatics29(2). 155–169. 10.1075/prag.18050.gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18050.gen [Google Scholar]
  19. Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka
    2019 Direct and indirect speech revisited: Semantic universals and semantic diversity. InAlessandro Capone, Manuel García-Carpintero & Alessandra Falzone (eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics in the world languages, 173–199. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑78771‑8_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78771-8_9 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Güldemann, Tom
    2008Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211450
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211450 [Google Scholar]
  22. Güldemann, Tom & Manfred von Roncador
    2002 Preface. InTom Güldemann & Manfred von Roncador (eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains, vii–ix. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.52.01gul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.52.01gul [Google Scholar]
  23. Hagège, Claude
    1974 Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris69(1). 287–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hanks, William F.
    1996 Exorcism and the description of participant roles. InMichael Silverstein & Greg Urban (eds.), Natural histories of discourse, 160–200. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hellwig, Birgit
    2006 Complement clause type and complementation strategies in Goemai. InR. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Complementation, 204–223. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hill, Harriet
    1995 Pronouns and reported speech in Adioukrou. Journal of West African Languages25. 87–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hyman, Larry M.
    1979 Phonology and noun structure. InLarry M. Hyman (ed.), Aghem grammatical structure, 1–72. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hyman, Larry M. & Bernard Comrie
    1981 Logophoric reference in Gokana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics3. 19–37. 10.1515/jall.1981.3.1.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jall.1981.3.1.19 [Google Scholar]
  29. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1988 Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s participation framework. InPaul Drew & Anthony Wootton (eds.), Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, 161–227. Oxford: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Margetts, Anna
    2015 Person shift at narrative peak. Language91(4). 755–805. 10.1353/lan.2015.0059
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0059 [Google Scholar]
  31. Matić, Dejan & Brigitte Pakendorf
    2013 Non-canonical ‘say’ in Siberia: Areal and genealogical patterns. Studies in Language37(2). 356–412. 10.1075/sl.37.2.04mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.2.04mat [Google Scholar]
  32. Nikitina, Tatiana
    2008 The mixing of syntactic properties and language change. Stanford: Stanford University PhD thesis.
  33. 2012a Personal deixis and reported discourse: Towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic Typology16(2). 233–263. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0008 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2012b Logophoric discourse and first person reporting in Wan (West Africa). Anthropological Linguistics54(3). 280–301. 10.1353/anl.2012.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1353/anl.2012.0013 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2018a When linguists and speakers do not agree: The endangered grammar of verbal art in West Africa. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology28 (2). 1–24. 10.1111/jola.12189
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12189 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2018b Focus marking and differential argument marking: The emergence of bidirectional case marking in Wan. InEvangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Information structure in lesser-described languages: Studies in prosody and syntax, 195–217. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.199.07nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.07nik [Google Scholar]
  37. 2019 Diminutives derived from terms for children: Comparative evidence from Southeastern Mande. Linguistics57(1). 1–28. 10.1515/ling‑2018‑0029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0029 [Google Scholar]
  38. Nikitina, Tatiana & Anna Bugaeva
    . In preparation. Logophoric speech is not indirect: Towards a syntactic approach to reported speech constructions.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Nikitina, Tatiana & Yvonne Treis
    . Forthcoming. The use of manner demonstratives in discourse: A contrastive study of Wan (Mande) and Kambaata (Cushitic). InÅshild Næss, Anna Margetts & Yvonne Treis eds. Demonstratives in Discourse. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Nikitina, Tatiana & Alexandra Vydrina
    2020 Reported speech in Kakabe: Loose syntax with flexible indexicality. Folia Linguistica.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Perrin, Mona
    1974 Direct and indirect speech in Mambila. Journal of Linguistics10. 27–37. 10.1017/S0022226700003984
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700003984 [Google Scholar]
  42. Plank, Frans
    1986 Über den Personenwechsel und den anderer deiktischer Kategorien in der wiedergegebenen Rede. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik14. 284–308. 10.1515/zfgl.1986.14.3.284
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.1986.14.3.284 [Google Scholar]
  43. Roncador, Manfred von
    1988Zwischen direkter und indirekter Rede. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111678764
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111678764 [Google Scholar]
  44. 1992 Types of logophoric marking in African languages. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics13. 163–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Rumsey, Alan
    2000 Agency, personhood and the ‘I’ of discourse in the Pacific and beyond. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute6. 101–115. 10.1111/1467‑9655.t01‑1‑00006
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.t01-1-00006 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schlenker, Philippe
    2003a Indexicality, logophoricity, and plural pronouns. InJacqueline Lecarme (ed.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar II: Selected papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, 409–428. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.241.19sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.241.19sch [Google Scholar]
  47. 2003b A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy26. 29–120. 10.1023/A:1022225203544
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022225203544 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sells, Peter
    1987 Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry18. 445–479.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina
    2019 Reported speech forms a dedicated semantic domain. Linguistic Typology23(1). 119–159. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0005 [Google Scholar]
  50. Stirling, Lesley
    1993Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511597886
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597886 [Google Scholar]
  51. Thomas, Elaine
    1978A grammatical description of the Engenni language. Dallas: SIL & The University of Texas at Arlington.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Urban, Greg
    1989 The “I” of discourse. InBenjamin Lee & Greg Urban (eds.), Semiotics, self, and society, 27–51. New York: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.20001.nik
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.20001.nik
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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