Thought De se, first person indexicals and Chinese reflexive ziji
Yingying Wang Haihua Pan* Sun Yat-sen University City University of Hong Kong City University of Hong Kong Beijing Language and Culture University [email protected] [email protected]
Abstract aisle on the other, seeking the shopper with the torn sack to tell him that he was making a mess. In this paper, we make a distinction between the With each trip around the counter, the trail de se and non-de se interpretations of first became thicker. But I seemed unable to catch up. person indexicals and Chinese reflexive ziji. Finally it dawned on me. I was the shopper that Based on the distinction, we discuss the I was trying to catch. relationship between these expressions in a. The shopper with the torn sack is making Chinese, and point out the problems with a mess. Wechsler's (2010) de se theory of person b. John Perry is making a mess. indexicals as well as the inappropriateness of c. He [pointing to a reflection of himself in characterizing Chinese long-distance ziji as a the mirror] is making a mess. logophor. d. I am making a mess.
As Corazza explains, Perry may hold any one of 1. Background and motivation the beliefs in (1a-1c) without realizing that he himself is making a mess, thus without adjusting According to Corazza (2004), the use of the first his behavior and acting accordingly. Only when person pronoun has a special, privileged and he comes to entertain the thought expressed in primitive function among linguistic expressions: (1d) is he likely to straighten the sugar sack in (i) its reference depends on the context of use. his shopping cart. This special mode of When you use the word I, it designates you; presentation of an utterance containing a when I use the same word, it designates me; and first-person indexical is called self-ascription or (ii) this difference cannot be explained away or reference/thought de se in the philosophical replaced by a co-referring term without literature. destroying the cognitive impact the relevant use Although in English the first person pronoun I conveys, i.e., the so-called Irreducibility Thesis is unique in terms of (i) and (ii) mentioned (Lewis 1979; Perry 1979).1 We can use Perry's above, we find that this is not the case in (1979) tale of the spilled sugar as an illustration: Chinese, as, besides first person pronoun wo, (1) I once followed a trail of sugar on a reflexive pronoun ziji also possesses these two supermarket floor, pushing my cart down the properties, when it is in its indexical use with its aisle on one side of a tall counter and back the reference to the speaker of the utterance, even though one does not find its counterpart in * Corresponding Author English. For instance, in Perry's tale of the 1 According to Corazza, the same story can be told about paradigmatic uses of 'now' and 'here'. In this paper, we spilled sugar example, once Perry holds the shall concentrate on the first-person pronoun. 418 Copyright 2012 by Yingying Wang and Haihua Pan 26th Pacific Asia Conference on Language,Information and Computation pages 418–427
419
empathy. speaker's needs
condition licensing its and anaphor, bound long-distance all interpret to appropriate is (3), in shown
a is it for either, , re de interpreted be can't it situation,
as monopoly, self-ascription the that think obligatorily not is report speech a this in and , se de
in used ziji reflexive long-distance Chinese that explain we not do we attractive, seems indexicals person
3.3, Section In . re de mean not does se de non- that Note
2
of theory se de (2010) Wechsler's Although
same. the behave [spk] a question: in self-ascriber the by played
he will content same the have n self-notion be must that roles speech-act the specifies self
Perry
his and n of notion his knows Perry pronoun a of feature person the that proposed named-perry
Perry
if Only (1d). in belief the holds he when sack se is it specifically, More self-ascription). (or
sugar the fix to likely is Perry why explains this de reference indicates pronoun, person second
and latter, the to not but former, the to applies the also and pronoun, person first the wherein
axiom, , )=x] n x[ContentOf( Necessarily, self indexicals, person of theory se de a offers (2010) ∀
x
self-notion the Therefore, . n i.e., on semantics (1979) Wechsler beliefs. se de named-perry
Perry
Perry, named someone of notion the involves Lewis' to according , hungry being of property
example, for (1b), Utterance self-notion. the self-ascribes I that means which mine, of
the involve necessarily not do (1a)-(1c) thought se de a expresses hungry' am 'I utterance
in those as such expressions co-referring other my instance, For 'I'-sentences. by expressed
thought that acknowledged is It se de contrast, In . n self-notion his via referring usually is self
Perry
pronoun for specified grammatically is (1d) in I
se distinction se de /non- distinction de /non- se se se distinction de /non- se se distinction de /non- se
his story, Perry's in instance, For self-notion.
2. de The 2. de first The person first indexical person and indexical the and the 2. de The first person indexical and the 2. de The first person indexical and the
via ascription simply is Self-ascription
5. Section in concluded self-notion. the by DRT of framework
be will paper The issues. these on discussion the in se de reference represent to suggests
our of impacts theoretical and empirical Wechsler (1992), Crimmins Following
the discuss will we 4 Section In observations. addressee.
new our as well as research previous the to applies also same the and himself,
on based respectively, (b) and (a) in qustions speaker the for except pronoun first-person
the answer to try will we sections, two following the use can person other no Therefore,
latter? the in involved ambiguity the In se
2 addressee.
person de /non- se de the Is ? ziji reflexive and wo
or speaker the to refer to used knowingly
first between relationship the is What (b) all? at
be pronoun a can self-ascription specified
interpreted se de non- as used be they Can ? se de
grammatically of consequence a as only
always indexcials person first/second the all
MONOPOLY: SELF-ASCRIPTION THE (3)
Are (a) are: mind to spring that questions The
etc. (2001), Liu & Huang 2001), (1997, Pan following: the by suggested as self-ascription,
by suggested been have reading se de its and via place takes participants speech-act
of use sentence-free a such literature, the In to reference pronominal all Wechsler, for So, ziji
1978). Woodruff, & (Premack mind of theory the
mess'. a making is 'Self
self-ascriber requiring process a interpretation, s ’
mess one-CL make things BA Self
the inferring by indirectly it interpret only
zao. yi-tuan gaode dongxi ba ziji (2)
can pronoun given a for self-ascriber designated
self-ascriber. the as a not is who Anyone (1d). in belief the holds he
context the in addressee the designates ) you when do will he what like just cart, shopping his (e.g.
self-ascriber; the as context in sack sugar torn the fix also will he Chinese), pronoun [addr] a
pronoun (e.g. designates ) I following speaker the (suppose belief the in understands Perry that
420
sentence.
a in describes he that state or event the in participates se de non- interpreted matrix the to respect with
that person/thing a with , degree in vary may which
be to has I embedded the himself, subject speaker the is empathy that definition identification, s ’
(1987) Kuno's adopt we empathy, of notion the to As
belief the - Kaplan be to happens just guy that 3
and , ’ calm remarkably is guy That ‘ is thought
se/ de person reported its since (4b), in However, thought. indicates reports belief se -de non
first the of clause embedded the in pronoun first-person a is which , ’ fire the from distance
person first the of use appropriate the So, safe a at am I ‘ was time the at thought agent the
explained. be can't subject matrix what for , subject matrix the to respect with se de
embedded The se de non- and interpreted be can (4a) in used I the to respect with (empathy) se
as interpretations different possible their then de
calm. remarkably was I that thought I b.
embedded (4), in sentences two the in used 's I
fire.
the analyze to theory Wechsler's using on
the from distance safe a at was I that thought I a.
insists one If correct. really not is self-ascription
fire. on were that pants
specified grammatically the via obtained
own his was it and system camera surveillance
be to has speaker the to pronoun person
the through himself watching was he realized
first the of reference he t that proposal (2010)
yet. it noticing him without he later second A
ler's Wechs that shows thus (4b) in I embedded
fire on were pants whose TV on guy a saw he
the of interpretation se de non- The above.
time the about thinking is Kaplan Scenario: (4)
mentioned as , I embedded the of interpretation
(2009): Maier in mentioned se de non- the is which awareness, his without
calm scenario self-identity mistaken Kaplan's , t at speaker the subject, matrix the to ’ 1
let subject, matrix the to respect remarkably being ‘ property the attribute to t check s ’ 2
with pronoun person first the of interpretations at speaker the by used is I embedded the is, that
se de se de possible the see To non- and , t at speaker the subject, matrix the of awareness 1
other. the on dependent the without subject, matrix the to refer
is neither and directly, context the in speaker the to t speaker the by used knowingly is it (ii) 2
both case, to referring as understood be can s ’ I and ; t speaker the by t at speaker the to refer to 2 2
this in is, That smart'. am I that believe 'I report used knowingly is it (i) readings: two has (4a),
belief person first the of clause embedded the in embedded the cases, two I in not but (4b), in
used I these from een s be can As self-reference. the do pronoun person first the for case the is so
latter the helps former the this, know not does And smart'. am I that believes 'John report belief
t at speaker the though himself, he is fact in person third the of clause embedded the in used 1
pronoun person first the when seen easily that knows t at speaker the Since . t at guy that is I 2 1
3
be can situation latter the that, Note directly. speaker the with empathizes t at speaker the i.e., 2
context the in speaker/hearer the to respect with empathy, speaker's the needs situation a such in
(4b) of licensing the And ). (t (4b) of time speech interpreted being to addition in subject, se de 2
the at speaker the to refers one embedded matrix the through indirectly speaker/hearer
the ; ) (t ' calm remarkably is guy 'that uttering the to reference its get then and subject, matrix 1
interpreted when speaker the to refers subject matrix the the to respect with se de non- or se de
be may report belief a of clause embedded in one the times: different at speaker the to refer
two the above, scenario first/second the in used pronoun person actually (4b) in used 's I
the to according that, Note directly). context the the us, For reports. belief person first/second
interpreted in speaker the to respect with se de the of clauses embedded the in used ones
subject (though possible still is be to it for occurrences person of indexicals, especially the it
421
plural. the in and singular the in both antecedents, person
third and second first, with compatible is It number. or (9):
person for marked not is ziji reflexive Chinese that Note
4 of form reduced a as treated be can (8) instance,
For short. for deleted just is subject the and of interpretation se de the eariler, mentioned As
adverbs, are ziji sentence-free of occurrences sentence. relevant the of meaning the changing
the all that possible is it that think may One without wo pronoun person first by replaced
be can ziji situation, this In speaker. the to
himself.'
refer to used is it when se de thought expresses
by Taipei to went Zhangsan 'Yesterday,
ziji free sentence 1, Section in noted As
Taipei go-PERF self Zhangsan Yesterday,
free free Sentence ziji Sentence 3.1 Taibei. le qu ziji Zhangsan Zuotian, (8) ziji 3.1 free Sentence ziji 3.1 free Sentence ziji 3.1
pronoun. . ziji of uses three these of interpretations
sentence-free the discuss reflexive a not adverb, an is ziji the of distinction se de non- and se de
thinks who (2002) Tsai in suggested as (6), in will we following, the In A. Condition Binding
4
adverb an as treated be not need ziji that Note (1981) Chomsky's observes case former the
Only bound. LD is Zhangsan to referring scenario. above the in him to refer can ziji in ziji
other the and bound locally is Lisi to referring and discourse, the in salient is Zhangsan (7), In
one readings: two has ziji (5), in seen be can As
him!'
him/himself.' near just is chair The lazy. very is 'Zhangsan
hates Lisi that thinks 'Zhangsan Ne near
self hate Lisi think Zhangsan DE self is just Chair lazy very Zhangsan
. ziji hen Lisi renwei Zhangsan (5) ne. pangbian i/j j i
de ziji zai jiu Yizi lan. zhen Zhangsan (7)
below:
sentence the by illustrated be can two latter the way: following
and 1, Section in mentioned was use first The the in Lisi friend my to Zhangsan with
ziji bound (LD) long-distance and , ziji bound . dissatisfaction my express can I situation, this In
ziji sentence-free uses: three following locally , her. help to refuses and game computer his with
the has basically ziji busy is he but her, to him near chair the bring pronoun reflexive Chinese
to him wants mother Zhangsan's that Suppose
se se distinction de /non- distinction se de /non- se se distinction de /non- se se distinction de /non- se
discourse. the in salient party third a to refer to
de and ziji de the and ziji the 3. Chinese 3. reflexive Chinese reflexive de and ziji the 3. Chinese reflexive de and ziji the 3. Chinese reflexive
ziji that illustrate to example another possible is
subject. matrix the give can we Besides, addressee. the to referring
via not i.e., context, the in speaker the to directly form, question a such In ziji as read naturally is
interpreted are that pronouns person second
’ go? (you) self t ’ didn y h W ‘
and first the all to applies only it actually and
Q go not why Self
pronouns, person second and first the of uses
ne? qu bu weishenme Ziji (6)
all to apply not does monopoly self-ascription
2001): (Pan, in provided as point, in case a is (2010) Wechsler's Thus, subject. matrix
Below discourse. the in salient party third a even the via indirect is it and direct, not is speaker
or , addressee the to refer also can ziji speaker, the to reference its that meaning subject, matrix
interpreted the besides that, claims Pan speaker, the to refer the to respect with se -de non se/ de
ziji unbound that view Liu's and Huang possibly is pronoun person first the that is fact to has
to Contrary etc. (2001), Liu & Huang 2001), The . self-ascription context the in speaker the of
sentence free suggested is ziji 'I'-sentences that (1997, Pan by always not do involve the
422
pibao. ziji-de
self see mirror-in at Zhangsan
tou-le pashou renwei Zhangsan
ziji. kan jingzi-li zai Zhangsan (11)
). purse his was it that see t ’ (can ” purse!
below: given that stole thief That “ says, Zhangsan S2:
is ambiguity of type this exemplifying case A ” purse!
where sentences reflexive in my stole thief That “ says, Zhangsan S1: (14) bound. locally is ziji
detected also is ambiguity se de non- se/ de The
second: the in
bound bound Locally ziji Locally 3.2 not but scenario, first the in uttered be only can ziji 3.2 bound Locally ziji 3.2 bound Locally ziji 3.2
(14) in sentence the scenarios, two following the
sentence. relevant the of content se de the losing
se de a gets given say, to is This interpretation.
by replaced be can it speaker, the to without wo
always hence and English, in 1966) eda, ñ (Casta
free sentence when However, refer to used is ziji
LD he* quasi-indicator the to corresponds ziji
discourse. in salient person third a or addressee
him, to According (1997). Pan by proposed first
the to refer sometimes can latter the though
is ziji LD of interpretation se de The . ziji bound
speaker, the than other individual the to refer
LD in research the in often more discussed
to former the for impossible is it that in lies ziji
bound is distinction se -de non se/ de the , ziji
counterpart free sentence from difference its , I
locally and ziji free sentence to Compared
English its like just behaves wo pronoun
bound bound (LD) (LD) Long-distance Long-distance 3.3 ziji 3.3 person first Chinese that given Therefore, ziji bound (LD) Long-distance 3.3 ziji bound (LD) Long-distance 3.3 ziji
pronoun. reflexive a as (6) like sentences
interpreted were it if contradictory . se de
ziji free sentence the of analysis 2001) in
as out come would sentence whole the because
(1997, Pan's follow we paper, this In 1989).
) 3 (1 in se de interpreted not is ziji reflexive that
yourself you like pronoun intensive the (Baker
doubt no is There respectively. interpretations,
of use or reflexive, subject a be to has (9) in ziji
se de non- and se de of susceptible is ziji
the that means which (1997)), Pan (see sentence
bound local that suggest (13) and (12) Clearly,
a in co-occur they when bu marker negation
the follow should ziji himself. recognizing without of use adverb the Besides,
mirror the in himself saw Zhangsan
’ agree. people
self recognize
three only myself, besides idea, this for As ‘
no but self see mirror-in at Zhangsan
agree people three-CL
ziji. renchu
only self besides idea, This-CL
mei dan ziji, kan jingzi-li zai Zhangsan (13)
zancheng. ren
naked. was himself he realized san-ge zhiyou ziji, chule xiangfa, Zhe-ge (10)
and mirror, the in himself saw Zhangsan
. adverb
clothes wear no self realize
an not is chule to complement a as ziji that
and self see mirror-in at Zhangsan
obvious is it sentence, following the in example,
yifu. chuan mei ziji yishi-dao
For positions. other in ziji with cases for
bingqie ziji, kan jingzi-li zai Zhangsan (12)
with cases for not but position, subject the in ziji
free sentence point: harmless be may adverb an as ziji
of analysis the for true, not is this However, this illustrate sentences two following The not.
or himself recognizes Zhangsan whether matter
go?' (you) self didn't 'Why
no situations in sentence this utter can We
Q go not why self You
Zhangsan himself saw mirror. the in weisheme ziji Ni (9) ne? qu bu
423
intensional.
that out points (2006) Anand claim, s ’ Pan with
is report speech a in context the therefore and sentence,
whole the of value truth the s affect speech reported consistent not are examples these Although
a in extension same the with another by expression
attitude. se de relevant the
one of replacement the that means This star'. morning the
is star morning the that said ''John from star' evening the ziji of holder the be not need LD of antecedent
is star morning the that said 'John infer can't we instance,
the that again shows sentence this Clearly,
For ones. extensional than rather contexts intensional
provides speech reported that see to difficult not is It
5
’ life. his saved
who person the again see t ’ didn Zhangsan ‘ definitely is reports speech in ziji of reading se
person that-CL DE life self save-PERF de obligatory the think not do we interpretation),
see-PERF have not again Zhangsan re de a with he pronoun person third the
ren. na-ge de ming ziji jiu-le replace to has speaker the one, second the by ziji i
jian-guo meiyou zai Zhangsan is scenario the (if scenario first the in uttered be i
passerby. a by saved was fact only can (17) in speech reported the that (2006))
in but lucky, was he thinks He outside. safely Anand (2001), Liu & Huang (e.g., literature
is he up, wakes he When faints. and building the in held generally is it Although (14).
burning a in trapped is Zhangsan Scenario: (16) in as (think) renwei predicate epistemic the of
predicate speech the using by instead , (say) shuo
example: following the giving by point similar a
utterance Zhangsan's reports speaker the (17), In
make (2001) Xue and d r Polla . se de interpreted
purse. ziji LD that claim (1997) ’ obligatorily is
his stole pickpocket the that said Zhangsan ‘ Pan to contrary is This himself. about speaking s ’
purse self-DE if even is he that know not does Zhangsan
steal-PERF pickpocket say Zhangsan acceptable is sentence this above, indicated As
pibao. ziji-de
’ him. criticize
tou-le pashou shuo Zhangsan
who people those like not does Zhangsan ‘
). purse his was it that see t ’ (can ” purse!
person
that stole thief That “ says, Zhangsan S2:
DE self criticize those like NEG Zhangsan
” purse!
ren.
my stole thief That “ says, Zhangsan S1: (17)
de ziji piping naxie xihuan bu Zhangsan i i
below): (17) as them repeat (we diver. the is himself he him, to Unbeknownst
(14) in earlier mentioned scenarios the Check ” diver. that criticized who people those
. either like t ’ don I “ neighbor, his tells and over leans
5
, se de He form. s ’ diver the at snickering back the in interpreted obligatorily not is speech,
people some notices but best, the diver one likes reported in especially contexts, intensional
LD He aquaintances. some with dives the of video ziji LD that observe we for , ziji in used
se de non- and se de of distinction the watching is Zhangsan Scenario: Diving (15) the on claim
(2006) Anand's endorse not do we However,
(1991): Tang and Huang by
counterexamples. so-called two above the away
provided originally is which example following
explains apparently description This . contexts
the Consider literature. the in criticism
extensional in so necessarily not while contexts,
with met has proposal Pan's However,
se de intensional in interpreted definitely
purse. his ziji generalization ’ LD that be should is
interpretation Pan Anand, to According moot. stole pickpocket the that thought Zhangsan ‘ s ’
of issues making thus above, sentences se de purse self-DE
there attitude no is predicate two the in Zhangsan think pickpocket steal-PERF
424
However, predicates. other with possible we and us, to clear very not still is Japanese)
is it though , say with associated be never (e.g., language other and Chinese in mode se
can mode se de de non- the Mapun, in instance, For non- of availability the concerning hierarchy
hierarchy. the on higher class every in predicates the between difference the of explanation the
non- the in reports predicate knowledge the (some) do so mode, se de now, For . (know) zhidao
allows class one in predicates (some) language to (think) renwei predicate epistemic the change
given a in if that, generalization cross-linguistic we if even better getting not is it and scenario,
the to conforms this Oshima, to According second the in false as judged likely very
predicates. speech with contexts in mode is (14) in sentence the of utterance the instance,
se de non- the use to harder is it while predicates, For opposite. the see we contexts, belief the
non- knowledge with contexts in mode se de in But this. know not did himself he though son,
the use to easier is it that suggests (18) Sentence Zhangsan's actually is Lisi know we as view, of
point Zhangsan's taking namely Zhangsan, with
Predicates
empathize we if (19) in sentence the utter to
Knowledge < Predicates /Psychological
appropriate is it think we above, scenario the In
Predicates Epistemic < Predicates Speech (18)
happy.' very
hierarchy: following the with though predicates,
Zhangsan made prize the won son his 'That
knowledge and predicates, psychological
happy very Zhangsan
predicates, epistemic predicates, speech below:
make news DE win-the-prize son Self
predicate attitude the of type any for available is
gaoxing.
non- the (2006), Oshima Japanese in mode se de
hen Zhangsan rang xiaoxi de dejiang erzi Ziji
to According mode. se de non- the of availability
met.
their of terms in predicates attitude of hierarchy
never has he that family another by adopted was
the in differ languages two these that find
then and old, years three of age the at lost was
we Nevertheless, speech. indirect in possible
son his because this, know not does he though
empathic se de non- a with ziji is interpretation
son, Zhangsan's is actually Lisi However,
the speak, to So anaphor. se de a always not
news. this hear to happy very was teacher,
is reports attitude in ziji Chinese that believe we
Lisi's as Zhangsan, painting. his for prize
Japanese like Just excluded. totally not is , zibun
a won Lisi class, Zhangsan's In Scenario: (19)
interpretation se de non- the preferred, strongly
example: is reading se de obligatory requires which zibun
following the consider verbs, psychological of use logophoric the although reports, attitude
with contexts in ziji LD of reading in and empathic, and logophoric uses: two has
non- possible the of illustration an as point, LD Japanese (2006), Oshima to se de basically zibun
this support further To According 2006). 2004, Oshima, 1987; (Kuno, (17). in example the
Japanese as such languages other in detected using by speech reported in ziji LD of reading
se de been already has reflexives long-distance of non- possible the out pointed already
use empathic the literature, the to According have we as predicates, knowledge or predicates
view. of point epistemic with contexts in occurs marginally
non- the allow predicates Zhangsan's taking Zhangsan, with empathizes se de mode this mode,
psychological and predicates speech while then and lost, got that purse Zhangsan's is it
intuition, our to According Chinese. in holds that knows he/she if scenario second the in (17)
generalization this think not do we data, Chinese in sentence the utter to speaker the for problem
according judgment our to relevant the of required. According intuition, our to no is there
425
ziji tingshuo na John cong Bill (21) i/*j i i
by uttered smart' am I that believes 'Lisi clause
(22)). (see pronouns person embedded an with report belief the However,
second and first the by induced effect blocking
self (Zhangsan)) ' ' smart >, n ' '
z
the involves ziji LD second, and (21)); (see
smart, i < (Zhangsan, Conceives speaker: (20)
z zibun subject-oriented always is ziji LD First, .
follows: LD of use logophoric the from distributions
as characterized be can Zhangsan by uttered different has ziji LD because suspicious
smart' am 'I sentence single-clause the instance, is ziji LD of use logophoric purely the think we
For sentences. single-clause for well works it However, empathic. and logophoric uses: two
though clauses, embedded the in pronoun person LD Chinese that propose may one has also ziji
LD Japanese of treatment split Oshima's first/second the involving reports belief the , zibun
following Second, sense. Sells' in logophor characterize to inadequate is indexicals person
LD Chinese treat to inappropriate a as ziji for framework DRT Wechsler's Second,
also is it Therefore, binding. in roles distinct contexts. reporting belief in interpretation
play empathy and logophoricity that show data se de a favors strongly latter the that fact the
Japanese Actually, misleading. is view/empathy to due used, be to preferred is , ziji reflexive the
of point of notion the incorporates wo, than rather pronoun person first the Chinese,
first-person a of clause which logophority of notion (1987) Sells' 2006), re de in report belief
embedded the In (c) ones. third-person are (2004, Oshima to according first, At problematic.
reports relevant the if speaker, the or believer be may 2006) Anand, 2001; Liu, & Huang
the to refer to clause embedded the in course) of LD Chinese of analysis (e.g., logophor a as ziji
pronouns, person third (or ziji pronoun reflexive prevailing the that find we , ziji reflexive
use to need we reports, attitude in use shifted Chinese the of interpretation the of distinction
the given Third, pronoun person a have not does Chinese in wo se -de non and se de
issue. this on light some first the Since (b) se. de interpreted obligatorily
reflexive Chinese of uses three the nor shed may thoughts complex of analysis DRT on ziji is
indexical person first the Neither (a) forward. work (2011) Kamp's believe We reports. attitude
put be can implications following the First, se de non- and se de the in used I embedded
section. this in findings our of impacts se de non- and se de (i.e., readings the of )
theoretical and empirical the discuss we ziji, different possible the distinguish cannot one
reflexive Chinese and indexical person first the framework DRT Wechsler's in now, For future.
of interpretation the of distinction se de non- and the in solve to us for problem a still is situation
se de former the with deal to how way, Wechsler's the about above observations our on Based
in interpreted still be can situation latter
Discussion Discussion 4. 4. Discussion Discussion 4. 4.
the Although directly. context the in speaker
predicates. knowledge se de as interpreted being to the to respect with
or predicates epistemic with contexts in than addition in subject, matrix the through indirectly
predicates psychological or predicates speech speaker/hearer the to reference its getting thus
with contexts in acceptable more is ziji LD sentence, the in subject matrix the to respect
as interpreted be also non- the that se de se de interpretation empathic but se de of with non- or
may pronoun person first/second the 2, Section believe we addition, In contexts. extensional
in mentioned as Besides, paper. his in cases or intensional either in anaphor se de obligatory
such ignore himself Wechsler But way. same an not is ziji LD that observe we up, sum To
Zhangsan apparently analyzed be can't the in future for it leave thus research.
426
requirement.
kasi-ta -ni zibun boku-ga -wa *Taro (26) i i
LD empathy an with anaphor an but logophor, a not is ziji
Chinese that paper another in length at argued have We
6
’ designed. /*she he j i
which house a in Hanako met Taro ‘ j i
meet-Past house-Acc design-Past
self-Nom Hanako-Dat Taro-Top
through for accounted be can interpretation
at-ta. ie-de sekkei-si-ta
preferred its and requirement, se de
zibun-ga -ni Hanako -wa Taro (25) j i
empathy the with anaphor an is it that
is conjecture our , ziji LD Chinese of properties (26)). and (25) in as properties, two these has
LD of use empathic the (e.g., requirement special the Given appealing. not is logophor zibun
empathy the with anaphor an for required also LD Chinese of analysis prevailing a as ziji
are effect blocking the and subject-orientation The (e) subject. matrix the to respect with se
embedded as such properties its as requirement, I/you de non- or se de express to used
with reports belief person first/second to empathy the with anaphor an is it instead, and
LD turning when troubles has theory his pronouns; use, logophoric purely a have not does ziji
Chinese that is conjecture our reason, this For person second and first the of occurrences the
all to apply not does monopoly self-ascription
’ . him hit I that resents still Taro ‘ i i
non- speaker's (2010) Wechsler's (d) beliefs. se de
resent-Asp-pres still fact-Acc
the express to clause embedded the in used be to
hit-Past self-Acc I-Nom Taro-Top
preferred is ) ziji (not wo pronoun person first the
urande-i-ru. mada koto-o
non- first-person Chinese, in reports belief se de
but-ta -o zibun boku-ga -wa Taro (24) i i
In (c) ones. third-person are reports relevant
’ won. had he that John from heard Bill ‘ the if speaker, the or believer the to refer i i
hear-Past fact-Acc to clause embedded the in course) of pronouns,
win-Past self-Nom John-from Bill-Top person third (or ziji pronoun reflexive use
kii-ta. koto-o to need we reports, attitude in use shifted a have
Kat-ta -ga zibun -Kara John Bill-wa (23) pronoun person first not does Chinese in wo i i
ziji the Since (b) se. de interpreted obligatorily is
pronoun. person first the with
reflexive Chinese of uses three the nor indexical
co-occur also can and non-subject a to bound
person first the of Neither (a) observations.
be can zibun logophoric Japanese that illustrate
theoretical and empirical following the have
we Below use. logophoric purely a has it if
reflexive Chinese and pronoun person ziji we ,
ziji LD Chinese by possessed be to unexpected
first the of interpretation the of distinction
LD are properties two above the , zibun
se de se de non- and the making by paper, this In
Japanese of use logophoric the of properties the
5. Conclusion 5. Conclusion 5. Conclusion 5. Conclusion of analysis (2004) Oshima's to according But,
’ myself/yourself/*him. pragmatics.
6
criticizing am I/you that thinks Zhangsan ‘ through for accounted be can interpretation
obligatory) not (but preferred its And self criticize at I/you think Zhangsan se de
. ziji piping zai wo/ni juede Zhangsan (22) *i/j j i
’ . him i
lent I money the lost Taro that seems It ‘ ’ won. had he that John from heard Bill ‘ i i/*j j i
lose-end.up-Past money-Acc seem-Pres win-Perf
lend-past self-Dat I-Nom Taro-Top self hear-from there John from Bill
okane-o nakusite-simat-ta rasi-i. ying-le.
427
trigger indexicals and names Proper 2009. E. Maier,
513-543. 88: Review Philosophical
Attitudes 1979. D. Lewis, The . se de and dicto de
Press. Chicago
of University Chicago: . Empathy and Discourse
1987. S. Kuno, Anaphora, Syntax: Functional
p_2011.pdf
http://nasslli2012.com/files/kam reports, their
Representing 2011. H. Kamp, and thoughts se de
mind. of theory 332-365 86(2): Language
Press.
and self-ascription, indexicals, person other:
University Cambridge Cambridge: 263-282.
each to mean ’ I ‘ and ’ you ‘ What 2010. S. Wechsler,
(eds.), Reuland E. and : Anaphor Long-distance
Chinese). 357-362. 289: Zhongguoyuwen
Koster J. In Chinese, in reflexives distance long
in adverbials reflexive on - nature and selfhood,
the of nature local The 1991. Tang. J. & J. ang, u H
(Self, zhuangyu fanshen de zhong hanyu
York.
tan ziran: yu zixing Ziji, 2002. . Dylan W.-T. Tsai,
New : Press Academic 195. – 141 33, Semantics
Inquiry 445-479. 18:
Reflexives and Syntax (eds.), al. et Cole P. ,
Linguistic Logophoricity. of Aspects 1987. P. Sells,
Distance Long interface, the at ziji and
Sciences Brain and Behavioral 515-526. 1:
Attitudes, Logophoricity, 2001. Liu. L. & J. Huang,
mind? of theory a have chimpanzee The
Press. MIT MA:
the Does 1978. Woodruff. G. and D Premack,
beliefs. about Talk 1992. M. Crimmins, Cambridge,
279-316. pp. Press,
341-374.
Academic York: New Hermon, G. and Huang,
In quasi-indicators. Semantics of Journal 21:
Reflexives, Distance James Cole, Peter by edited
and indexicals Essential 2004. E. Corazza,
Long 33, Vol. Semantics and Syntax binding.
Foris. Dordrecht: Binding.
long-distance on constraints non-syntactic
1981. N. Chomsky, and overnment G on Lectures
& C. Polland, and Syntactic 2001. Xue. P.
130-157. 8: Ratio self-consciousness.
3-21. 12: s û No
of logic the in study A : ” he “ 1966. H-N. eda, ñ Casta
indexical. essential the of problem The 1979. J. Perry,
63-101. 71: Language
279-316.
English. British in reflexives free locally
pp. Press, Academic York: New Hermon, G. and
to reference special with intensification, and
Reflexives, Huang, James Cole, Peter by edited
prominence, discourse Contrast, 1995. L. C. Baker,
Distance Long 33, Vol. Semantics and
MA. Cambridge,
Syntax effect? blocking the Why 2001. Haihua. Pan
, Anand MIT thesis, Ph.D. . se de De . 2006 P.
York. New
References: References: References: References: Inc., Publishing, Garland . Chinese Mandarin
. 1997 Haihua. Pan in Reflexivization on Constraints
University.
conference. 26 PACLIC the of reviewers Stanford Dissertation. Ph.D. Discourse.
anonymous the by made comments and Reported in Perspectives 2006. D. Oshima,
suggestions the appreciate also We . Kong Hong France. Nancy, Theory, Binding to Approaches
, ouncil C Grants Research by funded , 148610 Semantic on Workshop of Proceedings binding.
CityU grant GRF the by supported is paper This logophoric and empathic On 2004. D. Oshima,
253-315.
Acknowledgments: Acknowledgments: Acknowledgments: Acknowledgments: presuppositions. rigid Journal Semantics of 26, .