Logophoricity is a phenomenon of binding relation that may employ a morphologically different set of anaphoric forms, in the context where the referent is an entity whose speech, thoughts, or feelings are being reported. This entity may or may not be distant from the discourse, but the referent must reside in a clause external to the one in which the logophor resides. The specially formed anaphors that are morphologically distinct from the typical pronouns of a language are known as logophoric pronouns, originally coined by the linguist Claude Hagège. The linguistic importance of logophoricity is its capability to do away with ambiguity as to who is being referred to. A crucial element of logophoricity is the logophoric context, defined as the environment where use of logophoric pronouns is possible. Several syntactic and semantic accounts have been suggested. While some languages may not be purely logophoric (meaning they do not have logophoric pronouns in their lexicon), logophoric context may still be found in those languages; in those cases, it is common to find that in the place where logophoric pronouns would typically occur, non-clause-bounded reflexive pronouns (or long-distance reflexives) appear instead.
Definition Logophoricity is characterized as a binding relation which distinctly co-references a clause-external antecedent with a clause-internal anaphor which, under certain conditions, may surface with different morphological forms. Those morphological forms have been called logophoric pronouns, and, if they occur, they must be used in a clausal environment known as the logophoric context. Although logophoricity may be indicated by the difference in morphology, more importantly, it is marked by the logophoric context. Meanwhile, logophoric context does not necessitate the occurrence of logophoric pronouns. Logophoric pronouns may not exist in the lexicon of some languages, but in those languages, elements of logophoricity may still occur underlyingly in the form of logophoric contexts. Notably, linguists have discovered that in those cases, non-clause-bounded reflexive pronouns (or long-distance reflexives) are often found in place of logophoric pronouns. While it is often the case that the referent of the logophor is situated in the matrix clause while the logophor itself resides in the subordinate clause, a logophoric referent does not necessarily need to stay within the same complex sentence as the logophor. A logophor may refer to an entity mentioned beyond that sentence, such as earlier in a paragraph or anywhere in the discourse.
Other terms commonly used include logophoric markers/logophoric markings, which many later researchers preferred to use; it was found that the distinction between simply logophoric pronouns and reflexive anaphora in logophoric context was not sufficient. This is because logophoricity may manifest under different conditions cross-linguistically, which entails more than simply whether a language employs explicit logophoric markers or not. While it is common for a language with a logophoric system to employ logophoric pronouns, this does not mean explicit logophoric markers consist only of logophoric pronouns. For instance, a logophoric marker may surface as an affix – a morphological change is still present, but not all purely logophoric languages have logophoric pronouns.
In terms of the role of logophoricity in languages, the existence of logophoric markers allow for the reduction of referential ambiguity. For instance, him in English may be used in a logophoric context, but cannot be called a logophor. In a context such as the one below, there is ambiguity as to who the pronoun him is referring to: (1) a. Mr. Smithi said that Lucy had insulted himi.
b. Mr. Smithi said that Lucy had insulted himj. In the first example, the pronoun him references the subject, Mr. Smith, whose speech is being reported and who resides in the matrix clause. In the latter example, the pronoun him references some other individual.
Specifically, referential unambiguity is achieved by logophoricity through: An explicit logophoric marker (such as a logophoric pronoun), which allows for reference tracking (being able to keep track of who/what is being referred to during a discourse), and An absence of any explicit logophoric marker to any entity that is not the target referent, showing disjoint reference (when an anaphor is deliberately shown not to refer to an entity).
Although according to the originator of the term, logophoric pronouns are considered a type of anaphora, and although it does embody a binding relation with an antecedent, logophoricity cannot be accounted for by Chomsky's Binding Theory as other anaphora may be, because of its necessity to take on the perspective of an individual external to the event, and not the speaker. As such, logophoric contexts occur when anaphors refer to nominals in higher clauses (in other words, not locally); in that situation, the anaphor may either surface as a typical anaphor, an indirect reflexive, or a logophoric pronoun. The matter of indirect reflexives in logophoric contexts in particular, has been much debated.
While it has been noted that logophoric markers may be used typically when they reside in clauses introduced by verbs that reflect speech, thought, and feelings, there are no universal syntactic conditions for logophors. However, there is semantic commonality across languages; the introduction of logophors through mainly verbs of saying or reporting is cross-linguistic. Even so, many languages may extend their lexicon of logocentric verbs. In every language, the lexicon of logocentric verbs is determined semantically; clauses that contain logophoric markers are mainly introduced by verbs of saying and reporting, while logophoric contexts may also be introduced by verbs depicting mental or psychological state.
Stirling provided a logocentric verb hierarchy:
Communication > Thought > Psychological State > Perception
If a verb of a certain semantic category in a language is shown to trigger a logophoric context, then from its spot on the hierarchy, it and all the verb kinds to its left will also trigger a logophoric context.
Background
Origin The coinage of the term logophoric pronouns (also called logophors) came from Claude Hagège. Through the study of certain languages from the Niger-Congo family (such as Mundang, Tuburi, and Ewe), Hagège discovered a distinct set of pronouns being used to refer to an external, secondary speaker, rather than the primary speaker. Moreover, Hagège studied indirect reflexives (also called long-distance reflexives, non-clause-bounded reflexive pronouns, or free anaphors in later research) in Latin and Japanese, and noted that the African set of pronouns were also morphologically different from those reflexives, even though they were similar in function – both types of anaphors were used to refer to an individual other than the speaker currently relaying the information. Thus, he declared that those pronouns, while seemingly related to indirect reflexives, were a separate phenomenon, and gave them the name logophors. Subsequently, he concluded that logophors were a subcategory of anaphora (of the broad, traditional sense). Hagège was the first of many researchers to make the comparison between indirect reflexives and logophors, and to figure out how to differentiate them.
While the concept of logophoricity originated from Hagège's work, he explicitly focuses on logophoric pronouns, and how they may differ from indirect reflexives. George N. Clements' research, a year later, is considered an extension of Hagège's initial work, and gives a more expanded account of logophoricity, including going into more detail about the difference between indirect reflexives and logophoric pronouns. Clements, in his work, talked about logophoric pronouns as well, but he also went further and helped to provide a more cohesive concept of logophoricity as a general phenomenon. This allowed many other linguists to build on his account in the future.
According to Clements, logophoric pronouns are morphologically distinct from personal and reflexive pronouns as well, in addition to indirect reflexives. He delved into the concept Hagège posited that there are two different perspectives that may be referred to: the actual speaker of the discourse, or someone else whose speech, thoughts, or feelings are being reported. The latter perspective is used for an individual who maintains a distance from the events being reported. This distinction in perspective may lead the anaphor of a clause, in some languages, to take on different morphological forms – in other words, if meant to depict the perspective of an individual whose speech, thoughts, and feelings are reported, then languages like the one studied by Clements – Ewe – will have logophoric pronouns to explicitly refer to that individual, and no other possible person. These were the basic characteristics of logophoricity, which served as an important foundation for future research in the field. However, Clements did not provide much discussion on the semantic and pragmatic aspects of logophoricity.
Cross-linguistic variation Notably, Lesley Stirling, in 1993, found it important to clarify that a language having explicit logophoric markers is not equivalent to having logophoric pronouns. In her writing, she gave Gokana as an example. In Gokana, there is no full, entirely morphologically distinct word to depict logophoricity. Instead, a logophoric marker is suffixed to the verb, while the ordinary pronoun would be left as is. This is possible as, besides Gokana's semantic and structural restrictions on where logophoricity appears, logophoric markers, when they do occur in a clause, may take on any grammatical function (subject, object, etc.). With that said, grammatical function also differs from language to language – in contrast to Gokana, some allow logophoric markers to take on only one role. In all languages with a logophoric system, however, it remains true that some change in morphology is used to distinguish between logophoric forms and personal and reflexive pronouns. Stirling also provided more semantic background on logophoricity by pointing out the role semantics had in choosing which verbs could trigger logophoric contexts. Describing them as logocentric verbs, he developed a hierarchy as a guide to which types of verbs languages may employ as logocentric verbs.
Syntactic restrictions on logophoric contexts In 2001, Gerrit J. Dimmendaal discussed the syntactic constraints on logophoric contexts which had been posited by linguists; it was widely assumed that whether a context was logophoric or not depended mainly on where the domain of the logophoric marker was within the boundaries of the complex sentence that contained it. Saying that the logophoric marker and its referent must occur within a single complex sentence implies that any potential logophoric reference must reside either within the root clause or the external clause. At the time, this constraint was not questioned, and it was assumed that as long as a language employs distinct pronouns that co-refer with an entity in an adjacent clause, then it meant that the language has logophoric markers. Dimmendaal argues that this provides an incomplete account of logophoricity, and shows that, as long as reference tracking is made clear, environments for logophoric marking go well beyond bi-clausal contexts, and may extend to the paragraph, or even to the entire discourse.
Indirect reflexivization