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).