User:Atonello/sandbox

The term logophor was introduced by in order to distinguish logophoric pronouns from indirect reflexive pronouns. In particular, Hagège argues that logophors are a distinct class of pronouns which refer to the source of indirect discourse: the individual whose perspective is being communicated, rather than the speaker who is relaying this information. expanded upon this analysis, arguing that indirect reflexives serve the same function as logophoric pronouns, even though indirect reflexives do not exhibit a distinct form from their non-logophoric counterparts, whereas logophoric pronouns (as Hagège defined them) do. For example, the Latin indirect reflexive pronoun sibi may be said to have two grammatical functions (logophoric and reflexive), but just one form. More recent analyses of logophoricity are in line with this account, under which indirect reflexives are considered to be logophors, in addition to those pronouns with a special logophoric form.

Clements also extended the concept of logophoricity beyond Hagège's initial typology, addressing syntactic and semantic properties of logophoric pronouns, as well. . He posited three distinctive properties of logophors:


 * 1) Logophoric pronouns are discourse-bound: they may only occur in a context in which the perspective of an individual other than the speaker's is being reported.
 * 2) The antecedent of the logophoric pronoun must not occur in the same clause in which the indirect speech is introduced.
 * 3) The antecdent specifies which individual's (or individuals') perspective is being reported.

These conditions are for the most part semantic in nature, though Clements also claimed that there are additional syntactic factors which may play a role when semantic conditions are not met, yet logophoric pronouns are still present. In Ewe, for example, logophoric pronouns may only occur in clauses which are headed by the complementizer "be" (which designates a reportive context in this language), and may only have a second- or third-person antecedent (first-person antecedents are prohibited). Other languages impose different conditions on the the occurrence of logophors, which leads Clements to conclude that there are no universal syntactic constraints which must be satisfied by logophoric forms.

Japanese
Prior to the first usage of the term "logophor", analyzed the licensing of the use of the Japanese reflexive pronoun zibun. His analysis focused on the occurrence of this pronoun in direct discourse in which the internal feeling of someone other than the speaker is being represented. Kuno argues that what permits the usage of zibun is a context in which the individual which the speaker is referring to is aware of the state or event under discussion - i.e., this individual's perspective must be represented.

c. Johni wa, Mary ga zibuni ni ai ni kuru hi wa, sowasowa site-iru yo. meet to come days excited is  'John is excited on days when Mary comes to see him.' d. *Johni wa, Mary ga zibuni o miru toki wa, itu mo kaoiro ga warui self see when always complexion bad soo da. I hear 'I hear that John looks pale whenever Mary sees him.'

The a. sentence is considered grammatical because the individual being discussed (John) is aware that Mary comes to see him. Conversely, sentence b. is ungrammatical because it is not possible for John to look pale when he is aware that Mary sees him. As such, John's awareness of the event or state being communicated in the embedded sentence determines whether or not the entire sentences is grammatical. Similarly to other logophors, the antecedent of the reflexive zibun need not occur in the same sentence, as is the case for non-logophoric reflexives. This is demonstrated in the example above, in which the antecedent in sentence a. occurs in the matrix sentence, while zibun occurs in the embedded clause. Although traditionally referred to as "indirect reflexives", logophoric pronouns such as zibun are also referred to as long-distance, or free anaphors.

Although the grammatical usage of zibun is conditioned by semantic factors (namely, the representation of the direct internal feeling or knowledge of an individual other than the speaker), syntactic restrictions also play a role. For example, the usage of zibun in a matrix sentence requires coreference with the subject of the sentence (not the object):

e. John wa Mary o zibun no ie de korosita. self 's house in killed 'John killed Mary in (lit.) self's house.' f. Mary wa John ni zibun no ie de koros-are-ta. by self 's house in kill-passive-past 'Mary was killed by John in (lit.) self's house.'

In the above sentences, zibun can only refer to the subjects of the sentences - "John" in sentence e. and "Mary" in sentence f. As such, the passivized sentence f. is not equivalent in meaning to sentence e. Importantly, that coreferent of zibun need not be aware of the action or state represented in the sentence - for instance, it is not implied in sentence f. that Mary was aware that she was killed in her house. This use of zibun appears to be restricted to a non-logophoric context. In line with Clements' characterization of indirect reflexives, the logophoric pronoun is homophonous with the (non-logophoric) reflexive pronoun.

Ewe
Ewe is a language of the Niger-Congo family which exhibits formally distinct logophoric pronouns. For example, the third person singular pronoun yè is used only in contexts in which the perspective of an individual other than the speaker is being represented. These special forms are a means of unambiguously identifying the nominal co-referent in a given sentence:

g. Tsali gbl? na-e be ye-e dyi yè gake yè-kpe dyi. Tsali say to-Pron that Pron beget LOG but LOG be victor ‘Tsaliii told himj (i.e., his father) that hej begot himi but hei was the victor.’

Notably, logophoric pronouns such as yè may occur at any level of embedding within the same sentence, and in fact, the antecedent with which it has co-referent relation need not be in the same sentence. The semantic condition imposed on the use of these logophors is that the context in which they appear must be reflective of another individual's perception, and not the speaker's subjective account of the linguistic content being transmitted. However, a purely semantic account is insufficent in determining where logophoric pronouns may appear. More specifically, even when the semantic conditions which license the use of logophors are satisfied, they may not appear in grammatical sentences. Clements demonstrates that these forms may only be introduced by clauses head by the the complementizer "be". In Ewe, this word has the function of designating clauses in which the feelings, thoughts, and perspective of an individual other than the speaker is being communicated. Thus, although it is primarily the discursive context which licenses the use of logophoric pronouns in Ewe, syntactic restrictions also play a role in the grammaticality of indirect discourse.