Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 77–118 | Cite as

The interpretation of the logophoric pronoun in Ewe

  • Hazel PearsonEmail author
Open Access
Article

Abstract

This paper presents novel data regarding the logophoric pronoun in Ewe. We show that, contrary to what had been assumed in the absence of the necessary fieldwork, Ewe logophors are not obligatorily interpreted de se. We discuss the prima facie rather surprising nature of this discovery given the assumptions that de se construals arise via binding of the pronoun by an abstraction operator in the left periphery of the clausal complement of an attitude predicate, and that logophors are elements that are obligatorily bound by such abstractors. We show that this approach can be reconciled with these facts given the additional assumption that elements that are ‘de se’ bound can interact with the concept generator variables posited by Percus and Sauerland (Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, 2003a; Proceedings of NELS 33, 2003b) to derive de re interpretations of embedded nominals. The proposed set-up has consequences for our understanding of puzzles raised by Heim and Sharvit concerning binding-theoretic effects with de re elements, and for the derivation of the obligatorily de se interpretation of controlled PRO.

Keywords

Attitudes de se Attitudes de re Logophoric pronouns Crosslinguistic semantics Obligatory control Ewe 

References

  1. Abusch, D. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anand, P., and A. Nevins. 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. In Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. R. Young, 20–37. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Anand, P. 2006. De de se. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  4. Arregui, A. 2007. Being me, being you: Pronoun puzzles in modal contexts. In Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung 11, ed. E. Puig-Waldmάler, 31?45. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
  5. Castañeda, H. 1968. On the logic of attributions of self-knowledge to others. Journal of Philosophy 54: 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charlow, S., and Y. Sharvit. 2014. Rethinking the LFs of attitude reports. Semantics and Pragmatics 7: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chierchia, G. 1990. Anaphora and attitudes de se. In Semantics and contextual expression, ed. R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas, 1–32. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  8. Clements, G. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10: 141–177.Google Scholar
  9. Deal, A.R., and M.C. O’Connor. 2010. The perspectival basis of fluid-S case-marking in Northern Pomo. In Proceedings of SULA 5, ed. S. Lima, 173–188. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  10. Frajzyngier, Z. 1985. Logophoric systems in Chadic. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7: 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hagège, C. 1974. Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 69: 287–310.Google Scholar
  12. Haida, A. 2009. (Proto-)logophoricity in Tangale. Handout of talk given at NELS 40, MIT.Google Scholar
  13. Heim, I. 1994. Puzzling reflexive pronouns in de se reports. Handout of talk given at the University of Bielefield.Google Scholar
  14. Heim, I. 2001. Semantics and morphology of person and logophoricity. Handout of talk given at the University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  15. Heim, I. 2002. Features of pronouns in semantics and morphology. Handout of talk given at USC.Google Scholar
  16. Hintikka, J. 1969. Semantics for propositional attitudes. In Philosophical logic, ed. J.W. Davis and D.J. Hockney, 21–45. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hyman, L. 1979. Aghem Grammatical Structure. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 7. Los Angeles: USC.Google Scholar
  18. Hyman, L., and B. Comrie. 1981. Logophoric reference in Gokana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 3: 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaplan, D. 1968. Quantifying in. Synthese 19(1–2): 178–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kratzer, A. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2): 187–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kusumoto, K. 1998. Tenses as logophoric pronouns. Handout of talk given at the MIT/UConn/UMass Semantics Workshop.Google Scholar
  22. Lakoff, G. 1970. Linguistics and natural logic. Synthese 22(1–2): 151–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis, D. 1979. Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88(4): 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morgan, J. 1970. On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion. Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the CLS, 380–389. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  25. Ninan, D. 2012. Counterfactual attitudes and multi-centred worlds. Semantics and Pragmatics 5: 1–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Orita, N. 2009. Syntax and semantics of logophoricity in Ewe. MA thesis, Kobe Shoin Graduate School of Letters.Google Scholar
  27. Pearson, H. 2013a. A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. Journal of Semantics 30: 103–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pearson, H. 2013b. The sense of self: topics in the semantics of de se expressions. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  29. Percus, O., and Sauerland, U. 2003a. On the LFs of attitude reports. In Proceedings of ‘Sinn und Bedeutung 7’, 228–242. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
  30. Percus, O., and Sauerland, U. 2003b. Pronoun movement in dream reports. In Proceedings of NELS 33, 347–366. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Perry, J. 1979. The problem of the essential indexical. Nous 13: 3?21.Google Scholar
  32. Quine, W.V. 1956. Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 53: 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roberts, C. 1989. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 683–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlenker, P. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality: A cross-categorial approach. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  35. Schlenker, P. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sharvit, Y. 2011. Covaluation and unexpected BT effects. Journal of Semantics 28: 55–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stephenson, T. 2007a. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 487–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stephenson, T. 2007b. Towards a theory of subjective meaning. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  39. Stephenson, T. 2010. Control in centred worlds. Journal of Semantics 27: 409–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas, E. 1978. A grammatical description of the Engenni language. SIL Publication No. 60. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  41. von Stechow, A. 2002. Binding by verbs: tense, person and mood under attitudes. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  42. von Stechow, A. 2003. Feature deletion under semantic binding. In Proceedings of NELS 33, ed. M. Kadowaki, and S. Kawahara, 133–157. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Voorhoeve, J. 1980. Le pronom logophorique et son importance pour la reconstruction du proto-bantou. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 2: 173–187.Google Scholar
  44. Yanovich, I. 2011. The problem of counterfactual de re attitudes. In Proceedings of SALT 21, ed. N. Ashton et al., 56–75. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Schützenstrasse 18, 10117BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations