Reflections on the Use of the Pronoun Ale in Jula

Another perspective on logophoricity: reﬂections on the use of the pronoun ale in Jula

University of Stuttgart TripleA 7

July 20, 2020

1 / 75 The starting point

Two ambiguities A pronoun within an embedded report can be in two ways ambiguous. 1 referential ambiguity 2 perspectival ambiguity

2 / 75 The starting point

Referential ambiguity The pronoun can refer to the reported agent or not.

(1) Peteri said that hei /j is clever. (a) Peter said that Peter is clever. (b) Peter said that someone else (John) is clever.

3 / 75 The starting point

The notion of perspective An expression E is from the perspective of an individual X when E is interpreted relatively to X ´s judgments (attitudes) or when X is responsible for the content of E (cf. Reinhart 1983, Sanders and Redeker 1996, Sanders and Spooren 1997).

4 / 75 The starting point

Perspectival ambiguity Under coreference with the reported agent, the pronoun can indicate either the perspective of the reported agent or the perspective of the (reporting) speaker (cf. Reinhart 1983, Oshima 2006). de se vs. non de se ambiguity (see Casta˜neda1968, Lewis 1979, Perry 1979, and many others.)

(2) Peteri said that hei is clever. (a) de se context ( Peter´s perspective) Peter is proud of his academic achievement and says: “I am clever.” (b) non de se context ( Speaker´s perspective) After reading an old paper of himself, amnesic Peter comes to say: “This guy is clever.”

5 / 75 The special case of logophoric pronouns

The notion of logophoricity referential dependency that holds between a special class of pronominal forms, e.g., logophoric pronouns (LPs) and a sentence-internal antecedent that represents the person whose speech, attitude or other mental state is being reported (cf. Hag`ege1974, Clements 1975, Sells 1987).

6 / 75 The special case of logophoric pronouns

No referential ambiguity with LPs

(3) a. Ewe (Clements 1975:142) Koﬁ be ye`-dzo Koﬁ say LOG leave

‘Koﬁi said that hei/∗j left.’ b. Yoruba (cf. Adesola 2005, Anand, 2006)

Olu´i so p´e ouni r´ı John Olu say that LOG see John

‘Ol´ui said that hei/∗j saw John.’

7 / 75 The special case of logophoric pronouns

LPs indicate the perspective of reported agent. LPs only have de se reading

(4) Logophoric oun in Yoruba (Anand 2006, based on Park 2018:04) (a) C1: de se context ( Olu´s perspective) Olu says: ”I saw John.” (b) C2: non de se context ( Speaker´s perspective) Olu says: ”That guy saw John.” (Unbeknownst to Olu, that guy is he himself.)

Olu´i so p´e ouni r´ı John [ C1, C2] Olu say that LOG see John

‘Ol´ui said that hei saw John.’

8 / 75 Summarizing

Normal pronoun Logophoric pronoun referentially ambiguous refers to reported agent perspectivally ambiguous indicates reported agent´s perspective

9 / 75 In my talk

I will discuss the logophoric use of the Jula pronoun ale I show that the behavior of the pronoun cannot be accounted for under standard ways of analysing LPs. Propose an alternative approach to the phenomenon of logophoricity in Jula.

10 / 75 Outline

1 Core aspects of logophoricity in Jula

2 Standard analysis of logophoricity

3 Another way

4 Deriving logophoricity from contrastive focus

5 conclusion

11 / 75 Core aspects of logophoricity in Jula

12 / 75 Short note on the language

West African Manding Language (Niger-Congo Family), spoken in Burkina Faso and Cˆoted’Ivoire, closely related to Bambara (Mali). Tone language with rigid SOV word order, pre-verbal TAM-marking, no case marking. Two series of pronominal forms.

13 / 75 Logophoric marking

Jula has two series of pronominal forms. (5) Table 1: Personal pronouns of Jula simple forms emphatic forms singular plural singular plural 1. person n an ne anu 2. person i aw ile alu 3. person a o ale olu

ale (pl. olu) [3.pers, emphatic] has logophoric interpretation a (pl. o) [3.pers] is not anti-logophoric

14 / 75 Licensing contexts

complement and adjunct clauses introduced by ko [COMP]

(6) complement clause of speech predicate

a. Awai ko´ (ko) ai/j te se donkilila la. Awa say COMP 3SG HAB.NEG can singing PostP

‘Awai said that shei /j does not sing well.’

b. Awai ko´ (ko) alei/∗j te se donkilila la. Awa say COMP 3EMP HAB.NEG can singing PostP

‘Awai said that shei /∗j does not sing well.’

15 / 75 Licensing contexts

complement and adjunct clauses introduced by ko [COMP]

(7) complement clause of a doxastic predicate

a. (a bE) Adamai ñE na ko ai /j te se 3SG COP Adama.POSS eye PostP COMP 3SG HAB.NEG can donkilila la. singing PostP

‘Awai thinks/believes shei /j does not sing well.’

b. (a bE) Adamai ñE na ko alei/∗j te 3SG COP Adama.POSS eye PostP COMP 3EMP HAB.NEG se donkilila la. can singing PostP

‘Awai thinks/believes that shei /∗j does not sing well.’

16 / 75 Licensing contexts

complement and adjunct clauses introduced by ko [COMP]

(8) a. “genuine” causal clauses with sabu

?Adamai taga-ra Bobo sabu alei /j bamuso man kEnE Adama go-PFV Bobo COMP LOG mother COP.NEG well

‘Adamai went to Bobo because hisi /j mother was sick.’ b. “derived” causal clauses with ko

Adamai taga-ra Bobo ko alei /∗j bamuso man kEnE Adama go-PFV Bobo COMP LOG mother COP.NEG well

‘Adamai went to Bobo because hisi /∗j mother was sick.”

17 / 75 Nature of the dependency

Logophoricity in Jula exihibts the following properties Long-distance dependency no local antecedent

(9) a. Adamai ko Awaj ye alei/∗j bamuso nEni Adama say Awa PFV LOG mother insult

‘Adamai said that Awaj has insulted hisi / *herj mother.’

b. Adamai dimi-na ko Awaj ye alei/∗j bamuso Adama get.upset-PFV COMP Awa PFV LOG mother nEni insult

‘Adamai got upset because Awaj has insulted hisi / *herj mother.’

18 / 75 Nature of the dependency Logophoricity in Jula exihibts the following properties No c-command required

(10) a. [Adamai ñE]DP na ko Awaj ye alei/∗j bamuso Adama.POSS eye PostP COMP Awa PFV LOG mother nEni insult

‘Adamai thinks/believes that Awaj has insulted hisi / *herj mother.’

b. [Adama facEi ]DP dimi-na ko Awaj ye alei/∗j Adama father get.upset-PFV COMP Awa PFV LOG den nEni child insult

‘Adama´s fatheri got upset because Awaj has insulted hisi / *herj child (son).’

19 / 75 Nature of the dependency

Logophoricity in Jula exihibts the following properties The antecedent must be referential no quantiﬁer antecedent

(11) a. BEEi ko ale∗i/j hakili ka di everyone say LOG mind COP good

‘Everyonei said that he∗i/j is clever.’

b. BEEi dimi-na ko Awaj ye ale∗i/∗j/k nEni everyone get.upset-PFV COMP Awa PFV LOG insult ‘Everyonei got upset because Awaj has insulted him∗i/∗j/k .’

20 / 75 Nature of the dependency

Logophoricity in Jula exihibts the following properties No strict, but sloppy identity under VP ellipsis

(12) Adamai ko alei hakili ka di, Awaj fana Adama say LOG mind COP good Awa too

‘Adamai said that he∗i/j is clever, Awa did too.’ Adamai said that hei is clever. Awaj said that shej is clever. Adamai said that hei is clever. Awaj said that hei is clever.

21 / 75 Nature of the dependency

Logophoricity in Jula exihibts the following properties No strict, but sloppy identity under VP ellipsis

(13) Adamai dimi-na ko Issaj ye alei nEni, Awak fana everyone get.upset-PFV COMP Awa PFV LOG insult Awa too ‘Adamai got upset because Issaj has insulted himi , so did Awak too.’ Adamai got upset because Issaj has insulted himi . Awak got upset because Issaj has insulted herk . Adamai got upset because Issaj has insulted himi . Awak got upset because Issaj has insulted himi .

22 / 75 Logophoric ale encodes reported agent´s perspective

De se reading in complement clauses non de se context: Awa’s brother discreetly recorded her singing on his cell phone. He then sent her the recording with the following message: She sings well, doesn’t she? Awa listened to it and answered to her brother: This girl sounds horrible. She does not sing well. Unfortunately, Awa did not realize she has just heard her own voice.

(14) a. Awa ko´ (ko) sunguri nin te se donkilila la Awa say COMP girl DEM HAB.NEG can singing PostP ‘Awa said that this girl does not sing well.’

b. Awai ko´ (ko) ai te se donkilila la. Awa say COMP 3SG HAB.NEG can singing PostP

‘Awai said that shei does not sing well.’

c. # Awai ko´ (ko) alei te se donkilila la. Awa say COMP 3EMP HAB.NEG can singing PostP

‘Awai said that shei does not sing well.’

23 / 75 Logophoric ale encodes reported agent´s perspective

De se reading in causal clauses context 1: no speech Adama does not know his biological parents. He was living on the streets when he met a woman named Awa, who later on helped him ﬁnd work. Unbeknownst to both, Awa is the birth mother of Adama. One day Adama was in Ouagadougou when he was informed that Awa was sick. He immediately went to Bobo-Dioulasso to see her.

(15) #Adamai taga-ra Bobo ko alei /∗j bamuso man kEnE Adama go-PFV Bobo COMP LOG mother COP.NEG well

‘Adamai went to Bobo because hisi /∗j mother was sick.’

causal clauses with ko require that the antecedent of the logophoric pronoun has uttered the ”content of the reason”

24 / 75 Logophoric ale encodes reported agent´s perspective

De se reading in causal clauses context 1: speech Same like in context 1, but when Adama arrived in Bobo, he got a call from his friend Madu who asked him about the reason for his hasty departure. Adama responded: ”Awa is sick. I had to see her.”

(16) #Adamai taga-ra Bobo ko alei /∗j bamuso man kEnE Adama go-PFV Bobo COMP LOG mother COP.NEG well

‘Adamai went to Bobo because hisi /∗j mother was sick.’

Since Adama does not refer to Awa in terms of ”my mother”, the use of ale in (16) is not permitted.

25 / 75 Main aspects of logophoricity in Jula

Summarizing Aspects In Jula Marking ale (pl. olu) [3.pers, emphatic] complement and adjunct clauses introduced by Licensing contexts ko [COMP] - no c-command required Conditions on antecedency - non-local antecedent - only referential antecedent - ale refers to the reported agent Interpretation of the LP - only sloppy reading - ale conveys the perspective of the reported agent (cf. de se reading)

26 / 75 Standard analysis of logophoricity

27 / 75 The two-stage model (cf. Sundaresan 2012)

(17) a. LPs are variables that are bound by an operator in [Spec, CP] (cf. Koopman and Sportiche 1989)

b.DP i ... V [CP OPi .. [LOGi ..]]

Two binding relations involved. 1 the DP antecedent binds the operator. 2 the logophoric pronoun gets locally bound by the operator.

28 / 75 The two-stage model (cf. Sundaresan 2012)

(18) a. LPs are variables that are bound by an operator in [Spec, CP] (cf. Koopman and Sportiche 1989)

b.DP i ... V [CP OPi .. [LOGi ..]]

Licensing of the operator. 1 In complement clauses: OP is introduced by the matrix predicate (e.g. logophoric predicates) via selection 2 In adjunct clauses: the presence of OP is an inherent property of the adjunct complementizer (cf. Charnavel 2019)

29 / 75 The two-stage model (cf. Sundaresan 2012)

(19) a. LPs are variables that are bound by an operator in [Spec, CP] (cf. Koopman and Sportiche 1989)

b.DP i ... V [CP OPi .. [LOGi ..]]

Implementation. 1 Syntax: logophoric binding is local (cf. Sundaresan 2012, Nishigauchi 2014,i.a 2 Semantic: binding by operator yields de se reading (cf. Saﬁr 2004, Anand 2006, i.a)

30 / 75 Standard analysis of logophoricity

Application for Jula

(20) a. complement clause

Awai ko´ [CP OPi ko alei te se donkilila Awa say COMP 3EMP HAB.NEG can singing PostP la. ]

‘Awai said that shei does not sing well.’ b. “derived” causal clause with ko

Adamai taga-ra Bobo [CP OPi ko alei bamuso Adama go-PFV Bobo COMP LOG mother COP.NEG man kEnE ] well

‘Adamai went to Bobo because hisi /∗j mother was sick.’

31 / 75 Three problems

1. Licensing of the operator what licenses OP in (21) if selection does not apply?

(21) a. Adamai hakili bE a la ko Awaj ye alei/∗j nEni Adama.POSS mind COP 3SG PostP COMP Awa PFV LOG insult

‘Adamai remembers that Awaj has insulted himi /*herj .’ Lit. ‘Adama´s mind is on it that Awa has insulted him.’

b. a bE Adamai kOnO ko Awaj ye alei/∗j nEni 3SG COP Adama.POSS belly COMP Awa PFV LOG insult

‘Adamai thinks/believes that Awaj has insulted himi / *herj .’ Lit. ‘It is in Adama´s belly that Awa has insulted him.’

32 / 75 Three problems 2. Logophoric marking is always optional If OP is always part of the clause containing LPs, how is the absence of binding accounted for in (22) ?

(22) a. complement clause

Awai ko´ [OPi ko n∗i/j / Adama∗i/j te se donkilila Awa say COMP 1SG / Adama HAB.NEG can singing la. ] PostP

‘Awai said that I∗i/j / Adama∗i/j does not sing well.’ b. “derived” causal clause with ko

Adamai taga-ra Bobo [OPi ko n∗i/j / Awa∗i/j bamuso Adama go-PFV Bobo COMP 1SG / Awa mother man kEnE ] COP.NEG well

‘Adamai went to Bobo because my∗i/j / Awa´s∗i/j mother was sick.’

33 / 75 Three problems

3. The referential properties of ale (i) C-command, (ii) coindexing with quantifers, (iii) sloppy reading under VP ellipis are characteristics of variable binding (cf. Evans 1980, Bosch 1983, Grodzinsky and Reinhart 1993, Heim 1992, Reuland 2001, 2011B¨uring et al. 2005 Sportiche 2013,Reinhart, 2016, i.a.)

the referential dependency of ale does not satisfy (i) and (ii) (iii) is not an inherent property of referential dependencies with ale. Consider (35).

(23) Adamai ko Fatu hakili ka di, Awa fana Adama say Fatu mind COP good Awa too ‘Adama said that Fatu is clever, Awa did too.’ Adama said that Fatu is clever. Awa said that Fatu is clever.

34 / 75 Three problems

3. The referential properties of ale As is common in many logophoric systems (cf. von Roncador 1992, Culy 1994), the LP ale has non-logophoric uses. The referential behavior of non-logophoric ale parallels what we ﬁnd in logophoric contexts.

(24) no local antecedent.

Awai ye saa y´e ale∗i/j / ai/j / [a yErE]i/∗j kOfE Awa PFV snake see 3EMP / 3SG / 3SG SELF behind

‘Awai saw a snake behind her∗i/j / heri/j / herselfi/∗j .’

35 / 75 Three problems

(25) no quantiﬁer antecedent.

BEEi ye saa y´e ale∗i/j / ai/j / [a yErE]i/∗j kOfE everyone PFV snake see 3EMP / 3SG / 3SG SELF behind

‘Everyonei saw a snake behind him∗i/j / oneselfi /himj / oneselfi/∗j .’

36 / 75 Three problems

(26) non c-commanding antecedents are possible

Adamai na-na. alei ye an fo. Adama come-PFV 3EMP PFV 1Pl greet ‘Adama came. He greeted us.’

37 / 75 Standard analysis of logophoricity

Conclusion ale cannot be considered a bound variable. ale cannot have a local antecedent. An OP-based analysis cannot account for the logophoric use of ale .

38 / 75 Another way

39 / 75 Starting point

Referential properties of ale non-logophoric logophoric - no local antecedent - no local antecedent - no quantiﬁer antecedent - no quantiﬁer antecedent - no c-command required - no c-command required

Hypothesis Since the referential properties of ale inside and outside logophoric contexts are the same, the two uses may have something in common. Logophoricity being a particular use, it is more plausible to derive the logophoric use from the non-logophoric one.

40 / 75 Masiuk´s (1994) observation on ale in Bambara

Diﬀerence between a and ale whenever the simple form a and its emphatic counterpart ale are in free-variation, the emphatic form ale invokes that there exist for its antecedent contextually available alternatives that are excluded.

(27) a. Masiuk 1994:54

Musa, Sambai ko i kana taga foro la sini Musa Samba say 2SG SBJV.NEG go ﬁeld PostP tomorrow sabu denkundi bE alei ka so because name-giving.ceremony COP 3EMP POSS home ‘Musa, Sambai says that you should not go to the ﬁeld tomorrow because there will be a name-giving ceremony at hisi house.’ b. Inference the giving-name ceremony will be at Samba´s house, and not at the house of someone else. The meaning contribution of ale in (27a) recalls that of contrastive focus.

41 / 75 Contrastive focus

Repp (2010: 8 & 9) ”whereas focus on an item α indicates that alternatives to the denotation of α are relevant for the interpretation of the sentence containing α – and no more... contrast marking on an element α indicates that there is a salient alternative α in the immediate context for which what is said about α does not hold.”

Focus conveys the presence of alternatives that are relevant for the intepretation of linguistics expressions (Krifka 2008) the set of alternatives is context dependent ALT(α) = the set of objects matching α in type, including α (cf. Zimmermann & Hole 2009)

42 / 75 Contrastive focus

Contrastive focus involves set of mutually exclusive alternatives (cf. Wagner 2012, Spathas 2010, Umbach 2004, Repp 2010, 2019)

43 / 75 Contrastive focus

Zimmermann (2007:10) Contrastive focus marking is typically absent in answers to wh-questions, and typically present in correcting statements.

(28) a. Q: What did you eat in Russia? A: We ate [pelmeni]F . Possible alternatives: pelmeni, borscht, solyanka b. A: Surely, you ate pelmeni! B: No, [caviar]F , we ate! Excluded alternative: pelmeni

Pragmatic eﬀect of contrastive focus: the speaker conveys information that s/he thinks is unexpected for the hearer or is contrary to hearer´s presuppositions (cf. Lambrecht (1994), Givon 2001, Steedmann 2006, Zimmermann 2007).

44 / 75 The form: ale is a plus focus

Morphological composition of emphatic pronouns Emphatic pronouns are composed of the simple pronoun + the particle le.

(29) Personal pronouns of Jula simple forms emphatic forms singular plural singular plural 1. person n an ne = n + (l)e anu = an + (l)e + -w 2. person i á ile = i + le alu = á+ le + -w 3. person à o ale = a + le olu = o + le + -w

45 / 75 The form: ale is a plus focus The function of le le is described as focus marker in many sources (Derive 1976, Tera 1983, Maire 1986, Keita 1989,1990, Sanogo 1992) le expresses contrastive focus, not new information focus (cf. Slezak 2009)

(30) Slezak (2009:146) a. i be mun baara lo kE ? 2SG PRS what work IND do ‘Which work do you do ?’ Speaker has no speciﬁc works in mind. b. i be mun baara le kE ? 2SG PRS what work FOC do ‘Which exact work do you do ?’ Speaker has speciﬁc works in mind.

46 / 75 The form: ale is a plus focus

The function of le le is described as focus marker in many sources (Derive 1976, Tera 1983, Maire 1986, Keita 1989,1990, Sanogo 1992) le expresses contrastive focus, not new information focus (cf. Slezak 2009)

(31) Slezak (2009:145) a. A: jon le /#lo taga-ra so, muso wa cE ? who FOC IND go-PFV home woman or man ‘Who (exactly) went home, the woman or the man?’ b. B: Muso le /#lo taga-ra. woman FOC IND go-PFV ‘The WOMAN went home?’ Excluded alternative: man

47 / 75 Using ale involves contrastive focus

Masiuk´s (1994) observation ﬁnds conﬁrmation in Jula

In (32a), the use of ale forces the interpretation that no one else than the antecedent Adama greeted us. This interpretation does not arise with the use of a (32b).

(32) a. Adamai na-na. alei ye an fo. Adama come-PFV 3EMP PFV 1Pl greet ‘Adama came. He greeted us.’ ⇒ No one else than Adama greeted us.

b. Adamai na-na. ai ye an fo. Adama come-PFV 3SG PFV 1Pl greet ‘Adama came. He greeted us.’

48 / 75 Using ale involves contrastive focus Masiuk´s (1994) observation ﬁnds conﬁrmation in Jula

In (33b), the presence of a establishes a cross-sentential reference. However, the use of ale requires that in the context no one else than its antecedent makes the proposition true. (33a) is ungrammatical because another individual, e.g., Awa, satisﬁes the truth condition of the proposition x greeted us.

(33) a. Awai na-na. ai ye an fo. [Adamai na-na. #alej ye Awa come-PFV 3SG PFV 1Pl greet Adama come-PFV 3EMP PFV an fo.] 1Pl greet ‘Awai came. Shei greeted us. Adamaj came. Hej greeted us.’

b. Awai na-na. ai ye an fo. [Adamai na-na. aj ye Awa come-PFV 3SG PFV 1Pl greet Adama come-PFV 3SG PFV an fo.] 1Pl greet ‘Awai came. Shei greeted us. Adamaj came. Hej greeted us.’ 49 / 75 Using ale involves contrastive focus Masiuk´s (1994) observation ﬁnds conﬁrmation in Jula

changing the predicate’s denotation improves the grammaticality of the sentence, as suggested by (34a) and (34b).

(34) a. Negated predicate

Awai na-na. ai ye an fo. [Adamai na-na. alej Awa come-PFV 3SG PFV 1Pl greet Adama come-PFV 3EMP ma an fo.] PFV.NEG 1Pl greet ‘Awai came. Shei greeted us. Adamaj came. Hej did not greet us.’ b. Diﬀerent predicate

Awai na-na. ai ye an fo. [Adamai na-na. alej ye Awa come-PFV 3SG PFV 1Pl greet Adama come-PFV 3EMP PFV an nEni.] 1Pl insult ‘Awai came. Shei greeted us. Adamaj came. Hej insulted us.’

50 / 75 Using ale involves contrastive focus

From these facts, we can make the following generalization. Generalization Whenever ale and a are syntactically in free variation, the use of the former conveys 1 the existence of contextual alternatives for its antecedent 2 the impossibility that one of these alternatives instead of the antecedent themself makes the proposition of the sentence containing the pronoun true.

51 / 75 Further evidence

ambiguous particles ale conveys a contrastive focus reading with some ambiguous particles

(35) The particle dOnrOn ‘only, alone’ a. Awa dOnrOn na-na Awa PART come-PFV (i) ‘Only Awa has come (noone else has come).’ (ii) ‘Awa has come alone (no one was with her).’ b. ale dOnrOn na-na 3EMP PART come-PFV ‘Only S/HE has come (noone else has come.)’ c. a dOnrOn na-na 3SG PART come-PFV ‘S/he has come alone (no one was with her/him.)’ #‘Only S/HE has come (noone else has come.)’

52 / 75 Further evidence ambiguous particles ale conveys a contrastive focus reading with some ambiguous particles

(36) The particle kOni ‘as for, indeed’ a. Awa kOni na-na Awa PART come-PFV ‘As for Awa, she has come.’ b. Awa na-na kOni Awa PART come-PFV PART ‘Indeed, Awa has come.’ (37) a. ale kOni na-na, (tO-w ma na) 3EMP PART come-PFV other-PL PFV.NEG come ‘As for her, she has come (others haven´t come).’ b. a kOni na-na (# tO-w ma na) 3SG PART come-PFV other-PL PFV.NEG come ‘Indeed, she has come (# others haven´t come).’

53 / 75 Further evidence

particles with contrastive focus meaning here only ale is possible

(38) Awai do? BEE na-na foo alei /*ai Awa where everyone come-PFV PART 3EMP/3SG ‘Where is Awa? Everyone has come except her.’

54 / 75 Further evidence

Interrogative discourse with alternative questions With the use of ale in (39d), speaker B removes the uncertainty of speaker A by excluding the alternative that A has in mind. here too only ale is possible

(39) Context: Two persons A and B are having a phone call. It is raining in A´s location

a. [A] Jon na-na? Afi waa Abii ? ‘Who has come? Afi or Abii ?’ who come-PFV Afi or Abi b. [B] Afi le na-na. ‘AFI has come’ Afi FOCUS come-PFV

c. [A] Abii wa? ‘Abi?’ Aﬁ PART

d. [B] OnhOn alei /#ai ma na. ‘No, SHE has not come.’ no 3EMP/3SG NEG.PFV come

55 / 75 Further evidence Declarative sentences involving correction In (40b), answer B involves a narrow focus of negation. What is negated is the fact that Adama has married Awa, among other possible candidates. At the same time, it states that someone else got married to Adama.

(40) a. [A] Adama ye Awai furu Adama PFV Awa marry ‘Adama has married Awa’

b. [B] Adama ma alei furu, nga Fatu Adama NEG.PFV 3EMP marry but Fatu ‘Adama has not married her, but Fatu.’

c. [B´] Adama ma ai furu, # nga Fatu Adama NEG.PFV 3EMP marry but Fatu ‘Adama has not married her, # but Fatu’

56 / 75 Capturing the meaning contribution of ale

Main points ale and a are third person pronouns [3.SG] Whenever ale and a are syntactically in free-variation, the use of the former conveys contrastive focus 1 the existence of contextual alternatives for its antecedent 2 the impossibility that one of these alternatives instead of the antecedent themself makes the proposition of the sentence containing the pronoun true. The inherent focus-marking of ale is responsible for its contrastive focus reading.

57 / 75 Capturing the meaning contribution of ale

Co-indexing via assignment function (B¨uring2011:24) g [[αi ]] = g(i) if g(i) ∈ [[F1]]...[[Fn]], undeﬁned otherwise

(41) Application: The pronoun a g [[ai ]] = g(i) if g(i) ∈/ INDEX (42) Application: The pronoun ale g [[alei ]] =

(i) g(i) if g(i) ∈/ INDEX (ii) ∀x[g(i) = x ⇒ ∀y.y ∈ ALT (x): y 6= x [P(x) = 1 → P(y) = 0]] where P is the predicate of the clause containing the pronoun.

58 / 75 Deriving logophoricity from contrastive focus

59 / 75 Two things to account for

1 LPs are referentially unambiguous: unlike normal pronouns they refer only to the reported agent. 2 LPs have de se reading: unlike normal pronouns they indicate only the reported agent´s perspective.

60 / 75 Absence of referential ambiguity

(43) Adamai ko alei hakili ka di Adama say LOG mind COP good

‘Adamai said that he∗i/j is clever.’

g [[alei ]] = Adama ⇒ ∀y.y ∈ ALT (Adama): y 6= Adama [clever(Adama) = 1 → clever(y) = 0]

excluded alternative individuals: Awa, Issa etc.. excluded alternative sentence interpretations: (i) Adama said that Awa is clever (ii) Adama said that Issa is clever

61 / 75 de se reading

Caveat This is a challenging task that requires an in-depth reﬂection.

Nevertheless, let me consider two possibles ways of going. 1 with an enriched set of alternatives 2 from the unexpectedness eﬀect of contrastive focus

62 / 75 de se reading: enriched set of alternatives Assumption in report contexts, the set of alternatives for the antecedent of ale, i.e., the reported agent, includes de se and non de se alternatives. de se and non de se alternatives = two diﬀerent mental counterparts of the reported agent according to the reported agent.

(44) Adamai ko alei hakili ka di Adama say LOG mind COP good

‘Adamai said that he∗i/j is clever.’

g [[alei ]] = Adama ⇒ ∀y.y ∈ ALT (Adama): y 6= Adama [clever(Adama) = 1 → clever(y) = 0] ALT(Adama) = Adama , Adama , Awa, Issa... dese nondese ALT(α) = the set of objects matching α in type, including α (cf. Zimmermann & Hole 2009)

63 / 75 de se reading: enriched set of alternatives

Assumption in report contexts, the set of alternatives for the antecedent of ale, i.e., the reported agent, includes de se and non de se alternatives. de se and non de se alternatives = two diﬀerent mental counterparts of the reported agent according to the reported agent.

(45) Adamai ko alei hakili ka di Adama say LOG mind COP good

‘Adamai said that he∗i/j is clever.’

g [[alei ]] = Adama ⇒ ∀y.y ∈ ALT (Adama): y 6= Adama [clever(Adama) = 1 → clever(y) = 0] excluded alternatives: Adama , Awa, Issa... nondese ∀y.y ∈ ALT (Adama): y 6= Adama (according to Adama)

64 / 75 de se reading from the unexpectedness eﬀect of contrastive focus Background Recall the pragmatic eﬀect of contrastive focus: the speaker conveys information that s/he thinks is unexpected for the hearer or is contrary to hearer´s presuppositions (cf. Lambrecht (1994), Givon 2001, Steedmann 2006, Zimmermann 2007). Assume the speaker is per default the perspective holder for any sentence s/he utters.

Whenever the Speaker utters: (46) a. Adama is clever. b. Adama said that he is clever

Hearer expects: the utterances to represent the speaker´s perspective towards the content of (46a) and (46b).

65 / 75 de se reading from the unexpectedness eﬀect of contrastive focus

Background Recall that in report contexts:

I de se reading = reported agent´s perspective I non de se reading = speaker perspective

66 / 75 de se reading from the unexpectedness eﬀect of contrastive focus

Exclusion of non de se reading Assume the speaker is per default the perspective holder for any sentence s/he utters. the use of ale conveys perspective shift due to the unexpectedness eﬀect of contrastive focus.

I Unexpected information: the content of clause containing ale is from the perspective of the antecedent of the pronoun, i.e., the reported agent.

67 / 75 de se reading from the unexpectedness eﬀect of contrastive focus

Exclusion of non de se reading

Whenever the Speaker utters:

(47) Adamai ko [alei hakili ka di]reported content Adama say LOG mind COP good

‘Adamai said that he∗i/j is clever.’ Speaker conveys the hearer: interpret reported content from the perspective of the reported agent. the perspective of reported agent =⇒ de se reading the perspective of reported agent ; non de se reading

68 / 75 de se reading

which option is more convincing? 1 Option 1: with an enriched set of alternatives ? 2 Option 2: from the unexpectedness eﬀect of contrastive focus ? 3 none of 1 and 2 ? For sure further reﬂections are needed on this issue.

69 / 75 Contrastive focus meeting logophoricity

(48) Ambiguity between contrastive focus and logophoric reading

mOgO-w ko´ Adamai nalonin lo. Awaj ko´ alei/j hakili ka person-PL say Awa idiot COP Awa say 3EMP mind COP di. good (i) ‘Peoplei said that Adama is an idiot. Awaj said that hei is clever (compared to someone else, say Awa´s brother.)’ (ii) ‘Peoplei said that Adama is an idiot. Awaj said that shej is clever (compared to Adama).’ (49) Intervening contrastive focus blocks logophoric reading

Adamai ko´ Awaj kOni ale∗i/j hakili ka di. Adama say Awa PART 3EMP mind COP good ‘Adamai said that as for Awaj she∗i/j is clever.’

70 / 75 conclusion

71 / 75 Conclusion

1 Logophoricity in Jula

I marking: emphatic pronoun ale I ale refers to the reported agent (cf. no referential ambiguity) I ale has de se reading (cf. reported agent´s perspective) 2 A standard operator-based analysis fails because

I ale is not a bound variable I ale cannot have a local antecedent 3 My proposal: derive logophoricity from the contrastive focus semantics of ale

I logophoricity arises via the exclusion of alternatives under conference with the reported agent I Account easily for the absence of referential ambiguity I Perhaps problematic: de se reading

72 / 75 Outlook

The connection between logophoricity and contrastive focus is real in Jula and requires for sure more investigation. Next step: evidence from other languages?

73 / 75 A ni ce ! (thank you!)

74 / 75 References Adesola, Oluseye (2005). “Pronouns and null operators: A-bar dependencies and relations in Yoruba”. PhD thesis. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Anand, Pranav (2006). “De De Se”. PhD thesis. MIT. Bosch, Peter (1983). Agreement and anaphora: A study of the role of pronouns in syntax and discourse. Acad. Press. Büring,Daniel et al. (2005). Binding theory. Cambridge University Press. Castañeda,Hector-Neri (1968). “On the logic of attributions of self-knowledge to others”. In: The journal of philosophy 65.15, pp. 439–456. Charnavel, Isabelle (2019). “Perspectives in causal clauses”. In: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37.2, pp. 389–424. Clements, Georges N. (1975). “The Logophoric Pronoun in Ewe: Its Role in Discourses”. In: Journal of West African Languages 2. Culy, Christopher (1994). Aspects of logophoric marking. Evans, Gareth (1980). “Pronouns”. In: Linguistic inquiry 11.2, pp. 337–362. Grodzinsky, Yosef and Tanya Reinhart (1993). “The innateness of binding and coreference”. In: Linguistic inquiry 24.1, pp. 69–101. Hagège,Claude (1974). “Les pronoms logophoriques”. In: Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 69. Heim, I (1992). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. The interpretive tract, ed. by U. Sauerland and O. Percus, 205–246. Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche (1989). “Pronouns, logical variables, and logophoricity in Abe”. In: Linguistic Inquiry, pp. 555–588. Lewis, David (1979). “Attitudes de dicto and de se”. In: The philosophical review 88.4, pp. 513–543. Nishigauchi, Taisuke (2014). “Reflexive binding: awareness and empathy from a syntactic point of view”. In: Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23.2, pp. 157–206. Oshima, David Yoshikazu (2006). “Perspectives in reported discourse”. PhD thesis. Stanford University. Perry, John (1979). “The problem of the essential indexical”. In: Noûs, pp. 3–21. Reinhart, Tanya (1983). “Point of view in language-the use of parentheticals”. In: Essays on deixis 188, pp. 169–194. – (2016). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Routledge. Reuland, Eric (2001). “Primitives of binding”. In: Linguistic inquiry 32.3, pp. 439–492. – (2011). Anaphora and Language Design (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Safir, Ken (2004). “Person, context and perspective”. In: Italian Journal of Linguistics 16.1, pp. 200–230. Sanders, Joséand Gisela Redeker (1996). “Perspective and the representation of speech and thought in narrative discourse”. In: Spaces, worlds and grammar, pp. 290–317. Sanders, Joséand Wilbert Spooren (1997). “Perspective, sulijectivity, and modality from a cognitive. inguis ic point of view”. In: Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics 151, p. 85. Sells, Peter (1987). “Aspects of logophoricity”. In: Linguistic inquiry 18.3, pp. 445–479. Sportiche, Dominique (2013). “Binding theory—Structure sensitivity of referential dependencies”. In: Lingua 130, pp. 187–208. Sundaresan, Sandhya (2012). “Context and (Co) reference”. PhD thesis. Phd Dissertation. University of Stuttgart. von Roncador, Manfred (1992). “Types of logophoric marking in African languages”. In: Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 13(2). 75 / 75