Abstract
It is well known that the notions of “logophoricity” and “point of view” are crucial factors for the licensing of certain anaphoric expressions. These terms, however, have had varied definitions and often have been confounded with each other. In this article, I argue that the three types of linguistic point of view: (1) empathy (à la Kuno), (2) logophoricity, and (3) spatio-temporal (“deictic”) perspective must be kept apart, and that the empathic and logophoric perspectives play important but separate roles in binding. I also discuss implications of the logophoric/empathic distinction on the general typology of anaphora, and propose a preliminary formal analysis of anaphora based on empathy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abe, J. (1997). The locality of zibun and logophoricity. Technical report 08CE1001, Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba.
Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, XIV (pp. 20–37). Cornell: CLC Publications.
Clements G.N. (1975). The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10:141–177
Cooper R. (1983). Quantification and syntactic theory. Dordrecht, Reidel
Culy C. (1994). Aspects of logophoric marking. Linguistics 32:1055–1094
Culy C. (1997). Logophoric pronouns and point of view. Linguistics 35:845–859
DeLancey S. (1981). An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3):626–657
Fillmore C.J. (1997). Lectures on Deixis. CSLI Publications, Stanford
Hirose, Y. (2000). Siten to chikakukûkan no sôtaika (Point of view and relativization of cognitive space). In S. Aoki & K. Takezawa (Eds.), Kûkanhyôgen to bunpô (pp. 143–161). Tokyo: Kurosio Publisher.
Huang, C.-T. J., & Liu, C.-S. L. (2001). Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface. In P. Cole, G. Hermon, & C.-T. J. Huang (Eds.), Long-distance Reflexives, Vol. 33 of Syntax and Semantics (pp. 141–195). New York: Academic Press.
Huang Y. (2000). Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Study. Oxford University Press, New York
Hyams N., Sigurjónsdóttir S. (1990). The development of ‘long-distance anaphora’: A cross-linguistic comparison with special reference to Icelandic. Language Acquisition 1(1):57–93
Iida M. (1996). Context and Binding in Japanese. CSLI Publications, Stanford
Kameyama, M. (1984). Subjective/logophoric bound anaphor zibun. In Proceedings of the 20th annual meeting of chicago linguistic society (pp. 228–238). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–564). New York: Oxford University Press.
Keller, F. & Asudeh, A. (2001). Constraints on linguistic coreference: Structural versus pragmatic factors’. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 483–488), Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuno, S. (1978). Danwa no bunpô (grammar of discourse). Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kuno S. (1987). Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kuno S., Kaburaki E. (1977). Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8:625–672
Levelt, W. J. M. (1984). Some perceptual limitations on talking about space. In A. J. van Doorn, W. A. van der Grind, & J. J. Koenderink (Eds.), Limits in perception (pp. 323–358). Utrecht: VNU Science Press.
Levinson S.C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Maling J. (1984). Non-clause-bounded reflexives in modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7:211–241
Manning, C. D., & Sag I. A. (1999). Dissociations between Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. In G. Webelhuth, J. -P. Koenig, & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 63–78.
Nariyama, S. (2003). Ellipsis and Reference Tracking in Japanese, Vol. 66 of Studies in Language Companion Series, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Oshima, D. Y. (2004), ‘Zibun revisited: empathy, logophoricity, and binding’. In Proceedings of the 20th NWLC, Vol. 23 of University of Washington Working Papers (pp. 175–190). Seattle: University of Washington.
Oshima, D. Y. (2006a). Perspectives in Reported Discourse. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Oshima, D. Y. (2006b). GO and COME revisited: What serves as a reference point? In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California
Oshima, D. Y. (to appear), Syntactic direction and obviation as empathy-based phenomena: A typological approach. Linguistics.
Percus, O., Sauerland, U. (2003). On the LFs of attitude reports. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, Vol. 7 (pp. 228–242). Konstanz: University of Konstanz.
Pollard C., Sag I A. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23:261–303
Pollard C., Sag I.A. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Reinhart T., Reuland E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24:657–720
Schlenker P. (1999). Propositional Attitudes and Indexicality: A Cross-categorial approach. Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge: MIT.
Schlenker P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26:29–120
Sells P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18:445–479
Sigurðsson H. (1990). Long-distance reflexives and moods in Icelandic. In: Maling J. and Zaenan A. (Eds). Modern Icelandic Syntax, Vol 24 of Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 309–346
Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. In: J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.4 (pp. 181–238). New York: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Oshima, D.Y. On empathic and logophoric binding. Research Language Computation 5, 19–35 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-9020-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-9020-0