DOCSLIB.ORG

A Broader Perspective on Point of View: Logophoricity in Ogonoid Languages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A Broader Perspective on Point of View: Logophoricity in Ogonoid Languages Oliver Bond University of Manchester 1. Introduction A number of different grammatical strategies are employed throughout the languages of the world to disambiguate interclausal co-reference. Such strategies include clause chaining structures, switch- reference systems, ‘indirect’ reflexive pronouns and logophoric reference. Languages exhibiting LOGOPHORIC PRONOUNS are almost exclusively found in African language families including subgroups of Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan as well as in neighbouring Afro-Asiatic languages. According to Culy (1997:847), the following much cited examples from Ewe (Kwa, Niger-Congo) represent the canonical use of logophoric reference, in which ‘the logophoric pronoun occurs in the complement of a speech predicate’. (1) Disambiguation of co-reference in Ewe (Clements 1975:142) (a) kofi be ye-dzo (b) kofi be e-dzo Kofi say LOG-leave Kofi say 3SG-leave ‘Kofii said that hei left.’ ‘Kofii said that he/shek left.’ In (1a), the logophoric pronoun (LOG) indicates co-referentiality between the subject of the matrix clause and the subject of the embedded clause whereas the use of the regular personal pronoun in (1b) indicates that each clause has a different subject referent.1 It has been commonly held in the literature that the function of logophoric pronouns is not to disambiguate co-reference of clausal arguments, but to indicate the expression of a POINT OF VIEW distinct from that articulated using the personal pronoun. In such constructions, the logophoric pronoun refers to the speaker or SOURCE (in the matrix clause) whose speech, thoughts, knowledge or emotion is being reported. This argument can be illustrated by two further Ewe sentences. (2) Expression of point of view in Ewe (Clements 1975: 160-161) (a) evi-a x tohehe be ye-a-a-da alakpa ake o child-D receive punishment so that LOG-T-P-tell lie again NEG ‘The childi received punishment so that hei wouldn’t tell lies again.’ (b) evi-a x tohehe be wo-a-a-da alakpa ake o child-D receive punishment so that PRO-T-P-tell lie again NEG ‘The childi received punishment so that hei/k wouldn’t tell lies again.’ Both (2a) and (2b) may be understood to mean that the subjects of each clause are co-referential. In (2a) the child is understood to have voluntarily received the punishment, while in (2b), the most likely interpretation is that the child was punished against his will. Crucially, in (2a) the child believes the 1 In line with conventions used elsewhere, the clause containing the verb of reporting will be referred to as the MATRIX clause, whereas the report itself will be referred to as the EMBEDDED clause. © 2006 Oliver Bond. Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, ed. John Mugane et al., 234-244. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 235 punishment will inhibit him from telling lies, and in (2b) the same belief is (most likely) held by someone else. This use of logophoric pronouns is often presented as evidence that expression of point of view is the underlying semantic function of logophoric reference systems (and not co-reference). However, while it is clear that the two constructions above may express a difference in point of view, the only reading available to speakers for (2a) is that the logophoric pronoun indicates the clausal subjects are co-referential. While the personal pronoun may also indicate co-referentiality, this is potentially due to the pragmatic unlikelihood of the non-co-referential meaning (i.e. that the child received the punishment so that someone else would not tell lies again). Culy (1994: 1076) comments that indication of point of view is limited to marginal constructions (such as purposive clauses in Ewe) and is not found in predicate complements. In fact, according to Culy (1997), the primary function of morphologically distinct logophoric pronouns is to mark indirect discourse as REPORTED. Following, Culy (1994, 1997) and others, the term (LOGOPHORIC) TRIGGER is employed here to refer to the referent in the matrix clause whose speech, thought, knowledge or emotion is being reported. He asserts that the stretch of discourse in which the speech, thoughts etc. is reported may be defined as a LOGOPHORIC DOMAIN. Culy (1994:1057) comments that a logophoric domain always starts in a clause subordinate to the one in which the trigger is identified. This is referred to as the SENTENTIAL LOGOPHORIC DOMAIN. It contrasts what is identified as the DISCOURSE LOGOPHORIC DOMAIN, which may extend across several utterances. Any element within the logophoric domain that is co-referent with the trigger in the matrix clause will be referred to as the TARGET of LOG marking. For example, in (1a), Kofi is the trigger and the target is the LOG marker ye-. Culy also makes a distinction between PURE and MIXED logophoric languages. Pure logophoric languages exhibit a morphological and/or syntactic form that is used only in logophoric domains whereas mixed logophoric languages exhibit an extended use of reflexives within a logophoric domain. This paper concerns only pure logophoric languages (see Culy (1994) for more on this distinction). In the rest of this paper, the properties of LOG marking in the Ogonoid (Niger-Congo) languages are introduced before discussing new data from Eleme2. Evidence is presented that point of view does not play a role in the use of logophoric marking in Eleme. Rather, it is argued that the logophoric trigger is determined by the interaction of person, number and grammatical relation hierarchies allowing for the development of a unique and comparably pervasive system of co-reference. 2. Logophoric reference in the Ogonoid languages The Ogonoid (also known as Ogoni or Kegboid) languages are spoken in Rivers State, South- eastern Nigeria and are classified as part of the Cross-River branch of Niger-Congo. Of the five languages belonging to the Ogonoid family, only Gokana and Kana have been previously analysed as exhibiting logophoric reference. This is the first description of logophors in Eleme and the two remaining Ogonoid languages, Tai and Baan, are undocumented in this respect. The system of logophoric marking in the Ogonoid languages differs significantly from most other logophoric reference systems in that each of the three languages discussed in this paper, namely Eleme, Gokana (Hyman and Comrie 1981) and Kana (Ikoro 1996), employs distinct verbal inflection in logophoric domains, in addition to the regular agreement marking. This contrasts other known logophoric reference systems that typically exhibit two sets of mutually exclusive pronouns, one logophoric and one non-logophoric. The following examples in (3) – (5) correspond to the Ewe examples given in (1) above. Note that while Eleme and Gokana bear a great deal of similarity to each other in this construction type, the Kana construction differs in that if the matrix verb is k ‘say’, it may be omitted in logophoric contexts in the presence of the obligatorily connective (i.e. complementizer) k (Ikoro 1996: 283). In examples (3a) and (4a) the trigger of LOG marking is the subject of the matrix verb k ‘say’. In (5a) it is the optional subject prefixed to the connective k. The target in each sentence is the 2 Fieldwork in Eleme was funded by a grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Council. All Eleme data is from the author’s fieldnotes. 236 subject of the embedded clause. As noted above, unlike the Ewe example in (1), logophoricity is not marked on the target form, but rather as a suffix on the verb of the embedded clause. (3) Eleme logophoric suffix (a) -k -d- (b) -k -d 3-say 3-fall-LOG 3-say 3-fall ‘Hei said that hei fell.’ ‘Hei said that hek fell.’ (4) Gokana logophoric suffix (Hyman and Comrie 1981:20) (a) ae k ae d- (b) ae k ae d he said he fell-LOG he said he fell ‘Hei said that hei fell.’ ‘Hei said that hek fell.’ (5) Kana logophoric suffix (Ikoro 1996:283) (a) a-k e-k-e (b) a-k e-k he-CONN he.DF-go-LOG he-CONN he.DF-go ‘Hei said that hei would leave.’ ‘Hei said that hek would leave.’ 2.1. Logophoric reference in Gokana Hyman and Comrie’s (1981) description of logophoric reference in Gokana is a thorough and extensive survey into the environments in which logophoric marking occurs in the language. It is the earliest description of a verbal suffix marking logophoric reference, and contrasts most other described systems (which usually employ mutually exclusive pronouns). In Gokana, the LOG suffix -EE, which may be represented by one of nine allomorphs depending on the phonological context, can be used in a reported context to indicate that a trigger NP in a matrix clause (of any person except second person plural) is included within a target NP in an embedded clause. Logophoric marking is obligatory with third person triggers, and optional with second person (singular)3 and first person triggers (although LOG marking is preferred with the former and dispreferred with the latter): ‘The trigger is normally subject of the matrix clause, but where semantically the source of the information contained in the embedded clause, it may also be the object of the matrix clause. The target, on the other hand, may be any NP in the embedded clause (e.g. subject, object, possessor).’ (Hyman and Comrie 1981:33) Crucially therefore, logophoric marking in Gokana depends on both syntactic and semantic parameters. For example, utterances such as in (6a), where the object of the matrix clause is the source, are morphologically marked for co-reference with the LOG suffix to contrast with (6b).
Recommended publications
  • Logophoricity in Finnish

    Logophoricity in Finnish

    Open Linguistics 2018; 4: 630–656 Research Article Elsi Kaiser* Effects of perspective-taking on pronominal reference to humans and animals: Logophoricity in Finnish https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0031 Received December 19, 2017; accepted August 28, 2018 Abstract: This paper investigates the logophoric pronoun system of Finnish, with a focus on reference to animals, to further our understanding of the linguistic representation of non-human animals, how perspective-taking is signaled linguistically, and how this relates to features such as [+/-HUMAN]. In contexts where animals are grammatically [-HUMAN] but conceptualized as the perspectival center (whose thoughts, speech or mental state is being reported), can they be referred to with logophoric pronouns? Colloquial Finnish is claimed to have a logophoric pronoun which has the same form as the human-referring pronoun of standard Finnish, hän (she/he). This allows us to test whether a pronoun that may at first blush seem featurally specified to seek [+HUMAN] referents can be used for [-HUMAN] referents when they are logophoric. I used corpus data to compare the claim that hän is logophoric in both standard and colloquial Finnish vs. the claim that the two registers have different logophoric systems. I argue for a unified system where hän is logophoric in both registers, and moreover can be used for logophoric [-HUMAN] referents in both colloquial and standard Finnish. Thus, on its logophoric use, hän does not require its referent to be [+HUMAN]. Keywords: Finnish, logophoric pronouns, logophoricity, anti-logophoricity, animacy, non-human animals, perspective-taking, corpus 1 Introduction A key aspect of being human is our ability to think and reason about our own mental states as well as those of others, and to recognize that others’ perspectives, knowledge or mental states are distinct from our own, an ability known as Theory of Mind (term due to Premack & Woodruff 1978).
  • Predicate Logic

    Predicate Logic

    Logical Form & Predicate Logic Jean Mark Gawron Linguistics San Diego State University [email protected] http://www.rohan.sdsu.edu/∼gawron Logical Form & Predicate Logic – p. 1/30 Predicates and Arguments Logical Form & Predicate Logic – p. 2/30 Logical Form The Logical Form of English sentences can be represented by formulae of Predicate Logic, What do we mean by the logical form of a sentence? We mean: we can capture the truth conditions of complex English expressions in predicate logic, given some account of the denotations (extensions) of the simple expressions (words). Logical Form & Predicate Logic – p. 3/30 The Leading Idea: Extensions Nouns, verbs, and adjectives have predicates as their translations. What does ’predicate’ mean? ’Predicate’ means what it means in predicate logic. Logical Form & Predicate Logic – p. 4/30 Intransitive verbs Translating into predicate logic (1) a. Johnwalks. b. walk(j) (2) a. [[j]] = John b. “The extension of ’j’ is the individual John.” c. [[walk]] = {x | x walks } d. “The extension of ’walk’ is the set of walkers” (3) a. [[John walks]] = [[walk(j)]] b. [[walk(j)]] = true iff [[j]] ∈ [[walk]] Logical Form & Predicate Logic – p. 5/30 Extensional denotations • Remember two kinds of denotation. For work with logic, denotations are always extensions. • We call a denotation such as [[walk]] (a set) an extension, because it is defined by the set of things the word walk describes or “extends over” • The denotation [[j]] is also extensional because it is defined by the individual the word John describes. • Next we extend extensional denotation to transitive verbs, nouns, and sentences.
  • Minimal Pronouns, Logophoricity and Long-Distance Reflexivisation in Avar

    Minimal Pronouns, Logophoricity and Long-Distance Reflexivisation in Avar

    Minimal pronouns, logophoricity and long-distance reflexivisation in Avar* Pavel Rudnev Revised version; 28th January 2015 Abstract This paper discusses two morphologically related anaphoric pronouns inAvar (Avar-Andic, Nakh-Daghestanian) and proposes that one of them should be treated as a minimal pronoun that receives its interpretation from a λ-operator situated on a phasal head whereas the other is a logophoric pro- noun denoting the author of the reported event. Keywords: reflexivity, logophoricity, binding, syntax, semantics, Avar 1 Introduction This paper has two aims. One is to make a descriptive contribution to the crosslin- guistic study of long-distance anaphoric dependencies by presenting an overview of the properties of two kinds of reflexive pronoun in Avar, a Nakh-Daghestanian language spoken natively by about 700,000 people mostly living in the North East Caucasian republic of Daghestan in the Russian Federation. The other goal is to highlight the relevance of the newly introduced data from an understudied lan- guage to the theoretical debate on the nature of reflexivity, long-distance anaphora and logophoricity. The issue at the heart of this paper is the unusual character of theanaphoric system in Avar, which is tripartite. (1) is intended as just a preview with more *The present material was presented at the Utrecht workshop The World of Reflexives in August 2011. I am grateful to the workshop’s audience and participants for their questions and comments. I am indebted to Eric Reuland and an anonymous reviewer for providing valuable feedback on the first draft, as well as to Yakov Testelets for numerous discussions of anaphora-related issues inAvar spanning several years.
  • Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe Author(S): Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol

    Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe Author(S): Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol

    MIT Press Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe Author(s): Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 555-588 Published by: MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178645 Accessed: 22-10-2015 18:32 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:32:27 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hilda Koopman Pronouns, Logical Variables, Dominique Sportiche and Logophoricity in Abe 1. Introduction 1.1. Preliminaries In this article we describe and analyze the propertiesof the pronominalsystem of Abe, a Kwa language spoken in the Ivory Coast, which we view as part of the study of pronominalentities (that is, of possible pronominaltypes) and of pronominalsystems (that is, of the cooccurrence restrictionson pronominaltypes in a particulargrammar). Abe has two series of thirdperson pronouns. One type of pronoun(0-pronoun) has basically the same propertiesas pronouns in languageslike English. The other type of pronoun(n-pronoun) very roughly corresponds to what has been called the referential use of pronounsin English(see Evans (1980)).It is also used as what is called a logophoric pronoun-that is, a particularpronoun that occurs in special embedded contexts (the logophoric contexts) to indicate reference to "the person whose speech, thought or perceptions are reported" (Clements (1975)).
  • Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian Evidential System Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin

    Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian Evidential System Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin

    Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian evidential system Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin This paper provides an account of the Bulgarian admirative construction andits place within the Bulgarian evidential system based on (i) new observations on the morphological, temporal, and evidential properties of the admirative, (ii) a criti- cal reexamination of existing approaches to the Bulgarian evidential system, and (iii) insights from a similar mirative construction in Spanish. I argue in particular that admirative sentences are assertions based on evidence of some sort (reporta- tive, inferential, or direct) which are contrasted against the set of beliefs held by the speaker up to the point of receiving the evidence; the speaker’s past beliefs entail a proposition that clashes with the assertion, triggering belief revision and resulting in a sense of surprise. I suggest an analysis of the admirative in terms of a mirative operator that captures the evidential, temporal, aspectual, and modal properties of the construction in a compositional fashion. The analysis suggests that although mirativity and evidentiality can be seen as separate semantic cate- gories, the Bulgarian admirative represents a cross-linguistically relevant case of a mirative extension of evidential verbal forms. Keywords: mirativity, evidentiality, fake past 1 Introduction The Bulgarian evidential system is an ongoing topic of discussion both withre- spect to its interpretation and its morphological buildup. In this paper, I focus on the currently poorly understood admirative construction. The analysis I present is based on largely unacknowledged observations and data involving the mor- phological structure, the syntactic environment, and the evidential meaning of the admirative. Elena Karagjosova.
  • Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns

    Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns

    Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns Mark Baker Rutgers University April 2018 Abstract: I argue that indexical shift is more like logophoricity and complementizer agreement than most previous semantic accounts would have it. In particular, there is evidence of a syntactic requirement at work, such that the antecedent of a shifted “I” must be a superordinate subject, just as the antecedent of a logophoric pronoun or the goal of complementizer agreement must be. I take this to be evidence that the antecedent enters into a syntactic control relationship with a null operator in all three constructions. Comparative data comes from Magahi and Sakha (for indexical shift), Yoruba (for logophoric pronouns), and Lubukusu (for complementizer agreement). 1. Introduction Having had an office next to Lisa Travis’s for 12 formative years, I learned many things from her that still influence my thinking. One is her example of taking semantic notions, such as aspect and event roles, and finding ways to implement them in syntactic structure, so as to advance the study of less familiar languages and topics.1 In that spirit, I offer here some thoughts about how logophoricity and indexical shift, topics often discussed from a more or less semantic point of view, might have syntactic underpinnings—and indeed, the same syntactic underpinnings. On an impressionistic level, it would not seem too surprising for logophoricity and indexical shift to have a common syntactic infrastructure. Canonical logophoricity as it is found in various West African languages involves using a special pronoun inside the finite CP complement of a verb to refer to the subject of that verb.
  • The Predicate View of Names

    The Predicate View of Names

    The Predicate View of Names Aidan Gray March 28, 2008 There is, and has for some time been, a consensus among philosophers interested in lan- guage that proper names in natural language are properly thought of on the model of individual constants in a formal language. This is to say, at least, that their semantic function is to pick out individuals. This as opposed to, e.g., intransitive verbs, whose semantic function is to pick out properties of individuals (let’s say) or quantifiers phrases whose function is to pick out prop- erties of properties (let’s say). There has been disagreement as to the details of this approach — for instance, in grasping the meaning of the name must I simply know which object it refers to or must I also know the manner in which the name presents the object? — but the basic premise has rarely been questioned. What reasons have philosophers had to assimilate names to individual constants? The ques- tion immediately strikes one as odd. The oddness is, in part, an expression of fact the picture is so deeply held as to constitute part of our framework for asking questions about language. More interestingly, perhaps, the question strikes one as odd because it seems like, as philosophers, we understand individual constants on the model of names just as much as we understand names on the model of individual constants. Individual constants were introduced into formal languages to do the job that names do in natural languages. Though this may well be true, it has little bearing on the question at hand.
  • A Syntactic Analysis of Rhetorical Questions

    A Syntactic Analysis of Rhetorical Questions

    A Syntactic Analysis of Rhetorical Questions Asier Alcázar 1. Introduction* A rhetorical question (RQ: 1b) is viewed as a pragmatic reading of a genuine question (GQ: 1a). (1) a. Who helped John? [Mary, Peter, his mother, his brother, a neighbor, the police…] b. Who helped John? [Speaker follows up: “Well, me, of course…who else?”] Rohde (2006) and Caponigro & Sprouse (2007) view RQs as interrogatives biased in their answer set (1a = unbiased interrogative; 1b = biased interrogative). In unbiased interrogatives, the probability distribution of the answers is even.1 The answer in RQs is biased because it belongs in the Common Ground (CG, Stalnaker 1978), a set of mutual or common beliefs shared by speaker and addressee. The difference between RQs and GQs is thus pragmatic. Let us refer to these approaches as Option A. Sadock (1971, 1974) and Han (2002), by contrast, analyze RQs as no longer interrogative, but rather as assertions of opposite polarity (2a = 2b). Accordingly, RQs are not defined in terms of the properties of their answer set. The CG is not invoked. Let us call these analyses Option B. (2) a. Speaker says: “I did not lie.” b. Speaker says: “Did I lie?” [Speaker follows up: “No! I didn’t!”] For Han (2002: 222) RQs point to a pragmatic interface: “The representation at this level is not LF, which is the output of syntax, but more abstract than that. It is the output of further post-LF derivation via interaction with at least a sub part of the interpretational component, namely pragmatics.” RQs are not seen as syntactic objects, but rather as a post-syntactic interface phenomenon.
  • Assibilation Or Analogy?: Reconsideration of Korean Noun Stem-Endings*

    Assibilation Or Analogy?: Reconsideration of Korean Noun Stem-Endings*

    Assibilation or analogy?: Reconsideration of Korean noun stem-endings* Ponghyung Lee (Daejeon University) This paper discusses two approaches to the nominal stem-endings in Korean inflection including loanwords: one is the assibilation approach, represented by H. Kim (2001) and the other is the analogy approach, represented by Albright (2002 et sequel) and Y. Kang (2003b). I contend that the assibilation approach is deficient in handling its underapplication to the non-nominal categories such as verb. More specifically, the assibilation approach is unable to clearly explain why spirantization (s-assibilation) applies neither to derivative nouns nor to non-nominal items in its entirety. By contrast, the analogy approach is able to overcome difficulties involved with the assibilation position. What is crucial to the analogy approach is that the nominal bases end with t rather than s. Evidence of t-ending bases is garnered from the base selection criteria, disparities between t-ending and s-ending inputs in loanwords. Unconventionally, I dare to contend that normative rules via orthography intervene as part of paradigm extension, alongside semantic conditioning and token/type frequency. Keywords: inflection, assibilation, analogy, base, affrication, spirantization, paradigm extension, orthography, token/type frequency 1. Introduction When it comes to Korean nominal inflection, two observations have captivated our attention. First, multiple-paradigms arise, as explored in previous literature (K. Ko 1989, Kenstowicz 1996, Y. Kang 2003b, Albright 2008 and many others).1 (1) Multiple-paradigms of /pʰatʰ/ ‘red bean’ unmarked nom2 acc dat/loc a. pʰat pʰaʧʰ-i pʰatʰ-ɨl pʰatʰ-e b. pʰat pʰaʧʰ-i pʰaʧʰ-ɨl pʰatʰ-e c.
  • 30. Tense Aspect Mood 615

    30. Tense Aspect Mood 615

    30. Tense Aspect Mood 615 Richards, Ivor Armstrong 1936 The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rockwell, Patricia 2007 Vocal features of conversational sarcasm: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psycho- linguistic Research 36: 361−369. Rosenblum, Doron 5. March 2004 Smart he is not. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/smart-he-is-not- 1.115908. Searle, John 1979 Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seddiq, Mirriam N. A. Why I don’t want to talk to you. http://notguiltynoway.com/2004/09/why-i-dont-want- to-talk-to-you.html. Singh, Onkar 17. December 2002 Parliament attack convicts fight in court. http://www.rediff.com/news/ 2002/dec/17parl2.htm [Accessed 24 July 2013]. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Voegele, Jason N. A. http://www.jvoegele.com/literarysf/cyberpunk.html Voyer, Daniel and Cheryl Techentin 2010 Subjective acoustic features of sarcasm: Lower, slower, and more. Metaphor and Symbol 25: 1−16. Ward, Gregory 1983 A pragmatic analysis of epitomization. Papers in Linguistics 17: 145−161. Ward, Gregory and Betty J. Birner 2006 Information structure. In: B. Aarts and A. McMahon (eds.), Handbook of English Lin- guistics, 291−317. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Rachel Giora, Tel Aviv, (Israel) 30. Tense Aspect Mood 1. Introduction 2. Metaphor: EVENTS ARE (PHYSICAL) OBJECTS 3. Polysemy, construal, profiling, and coercion 4. Interactions of tense, aspect, and mood 5. Conclusion 6. References 1. Introduction In the framework of cognitive linguistics we approach the grammatical categories of tense, aspect, and mood from the perspective of general cognitive strategies.
  • Intensifiers, Reflexivity and Logophoricity in Axaxdərə Akhvakh

    Intensifiers, Reflexivity and Logophoricity in Axaxdərə Akhvakh

    Conference on the Languages of the Caucasus Leipzig, 07 – 09 December 2007 Intensifiers, reflexivity and logophoricity in Axaxdərə Akhvakh Denis CREISSELS Université Lumière (Lyon2) e-mail: [email protected] 1. Introduction Akhvakh is a Nakh-Daghestanian language belonging to the Andic branch of the Avar-ADDic-Tsezic family, spoken in the western part of Daghestan and in the village of Axaxdərə near Zaqatala (Azerbaijan). The variety of Akhvakh spoken in Axaxdərə (henceforth AD Akhvakh) is very close to the Northern Akhvakh varieties spoken in the Axvaxskij Rajon of Daghestan (henceforth AR Akhvakh), presented in Magomedbekova 1967 and Magomedova & Abdullaeva 2007. AD Akhvakh shows no particular affinity with any of the Southern Akhvakh dialects spoken in three villages (Cegob, Ratlub and Tljanub) of the Šamil’kij Rajon (formerly Sovetskij Rajon). The analysis of Akhvakh intensifiers, reflexives and logophorics proposed in this paper is entirely based on a corpus of narrative texts I collected in Axaxdərə between June 2005 and June 2007.1 I will be concerned here by the uses of the pronoun ži-CL (CL = class marker) in its simple form and in the form enlarged by the addition of the intensifying particle -da. The use of identical or related forms in intensifying, reflexive, and logophoric functions is attested in many languages of the world, and pronouns cognate with Akhvakh ži-CL fulfilling similar functions are found in the other Andic languages, but in some details of its use, Akhvakh ži-CL shows features which deserve to be examined. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 summarizes basic information about Akhvakh morphosyntax.
  • Nominal Internal and External Topic and Focus: Evidence from Mandarin

    Nominal Internal and External Topic and Focus: Evidence from Mandarin

    University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 20 Issue 1 Proceedings of the 37th Annual Penn Article 17 Linguistics Conference 2014 Nominal Internal and External Topic and Focus: Evidence from Mandarin Yu-Yin Hsu Bard College Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation Hsu, Yu-Yin (2014) "Nominal Internal and External Topic and Focus: Evidence from Mandarin," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 20 : Iss. 1 , Article 17. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/iss1/17 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/iss1/17 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Nominal Internal and External Topic and Focus: Evidence from Mandarin Abstract Taking the Cartographic Approach, I argue that the left periphery of nominals in Mandarin (i.e., the domain before demonstrative) has properties similar to the split-CP domain proposed by Rizzi (1997). In addition, I argue that the nominal internal domain (i.e., under demonstrative but outside of NP) encodes information structure in a way similar to the sentence-internal Topic and Focus that has been put forth in the literature. In this paper, I show that identifying Topic and Focus within a nominal at such two distinct domains helps to explain various so-called “reordering” and extraction phenomena affecting nominal elements, their interpretation, and their associated discourse functions. The result of this paper supports the parallelisms between noun phrases and clauses and it provides a new perspective to evaluate such theoretical implication, that is, the interaction between syntax and information structure.