GO and COME Revisited: What Serves as a Reference Point?

Abstract

N/A

On empathic and logophoric binding

“…In English, there are no specific forms for secondary agent indexicals (like logophoric pronouns), nor do reflexive forms have a use as secondary indexicals (like in Japanese and Icelandic). A report with a regular pronoun like he (e.g., John believes that he is a criminal), however, can be interpreted de se (Percus & Sauerland, 2003); a case can be made, thus, that pronouns like he occurring in utterance/attitude reports are ambiguous between the regular and "logophoric" uses (see also Oshima, 2006b). …”

“…(c) De se interpretation: Only logophoric zibun induces a de se interpretation (Schlenker, 2003;Oshima, 2004Oshima, , 2006b.…”

“…Such expressions are called all-purpose indexicals (Schlenker, 1999(Schlenker, , 2003Anand & Nevins, 2004). 11 In certain languages, under certain attitude verbs, a logophor must be used to describe Situation 1 in (26) (a report must be in the de se mode); Japanese is not subject to this constraint (see Oshima, 2006b). …”

“…12 Semantically, the empathy relation (the relative degree to which entities are empathized with by the speaker) can be treated as a contextually provided partially ordered set (poset) of individuals. In Oshima (2006b), I proposed to add this poset, which is named Empathy Relation (ER), to the tuple of context; accordingly, empathy-loaded expressions (like Japanese yaru/kureru) can be treated as instances of indexical expressions.…”

Deictic Verbs in Modern Linguistics

“…Malsch and Lant are skeptical of Clark's account for the way come and go are used to describe changes of states. In (9) and (10) it seems the acceptability of come and go is just reversed as opposed to Clark's designation of normal state. They argue that if we followed Clark that come indicates a change of state from being abnormal to the normal one, then we would assume that objects in their disassembled, nonfunctioning or broken state would have to be considered normal.…”