https://ebookmass.com/product/expressing-the-self-culturaldiversity-and-cognitive-universals-minyao-huang-editor/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
Cultural Anthropology: Appreciating Cultural Diversity 17th Edition Conrad Phillip Kottak
https://ebookmass.com/product/cultural-anthropology-appreciatingcultural-diversity-17th-edition-conrad-phillip-kottak/
ebookmass.com
The Implicit Mind: Cognitive Architecture, the Self, and Ethics Michael Brownstein
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-implicit-mind-cognitivearchitecture-the-self-and-ethics-michael-brownstein/
ebookmass.com
Cultural Diversity: A Primer for the Human Services 5th Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/cultural-diversity-a-primer-for-thehuman-services-5th-edition-ebook-pdf/
ebookmass.com
The Daode Jing: A Guide Livia Kohn
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-daode-jing-a-guide-livia-kohn/
ebookmass.com
Kaufman's Clinical Neurology for Psychiatrists (Major Problems in Neurology), 9e (May 20, 2022)_(032379680X)_(Elsevier) 9th Edition Kaufman Md
https://ebookmass.com/product/kaufmans-clinical-neurology-forpsychiatrists-major-problems-inneurology-9e-may-20-2022_032379680x_elsevier-9th-edition-kaufman-md/ ebookmass.com
The Remnant Chronicles - T3 - The Beauty of Darkness Mary E. Pearson
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-remnant-chronicles-t3-the-beauty-ofdarkness-mary-e-pearson-2/
ebookmass.com
Engineering Management: Meeting the Global Challenges, Second Edition 2nd Edition – Ebook PDF Version
https://ebookmass.com/product/engineering-management-meeting-theglobal-challenges-second-edition-2nd-edition-ebook-pdf-version/
ebookmass.com
Animality in Contemporary Italian Philosophy (The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series) 1st Edition Felice Cimatti
https://ebookmass.com/product/animality-in-contemporary-italianphilosophy-the-palgrave-macmillan-animal-ethics-series-1st-editionfelice-cimatti/ ebookmass.com
Quantitative Methods for Business, 5th Edition Donald Waters
https://ebookmass.com/product/quantitative-methods-for-business-5thedition-donald-waters/
ebookmass.com
Posthumanism in Italian Literature and Film: Boundaries and Identity Enrica Maria Ferrara
https://ebookmass.com/product/posthumanism-in-italian-literature-andfilm-boundaries-and-identity-enrica-maria-ferrara/
ebookmass.com
ExpressingtheSelf ExpressingtheSelf CulturalDiversityandCognitiveUniversals Editedby MINYAOHUANG
ANDKASIAM.JASZCZOLT GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford, OXDP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©editorialmatterandorganizationMinyaoHuangandKasiaM.Jaszczolt ©thechapterstheirseveralauthors
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin
Impression:
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY ,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon, CRYY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Contents Prefaceandacknowledgements vii
Listof figuresandtables viii Listofabbreviations x Thecontributors xiii
Introduction:Theselfinlanguage,inthought,and enroute in-between KasiaM.Jaszczolt
PartI.Theselfacrosslanguages
‘Me’ , ‘ us ’,and ‘others’:expressingtheselfinArawaklanguages ofSouthAmerica,withafocusonTariana
AlexandraY.Aikhenvald
ThepropertreatmentofegophoricityinKathmanduNewari
ElizabethCoppockandStephenWechsler
Self-referringinKorean,withreferencetoKorean first-personmarkers
Hye-KyungLee
ExpressingtheselfinJapanese:indexicalexpressionsinthe serviceofindexicalthoughts
RodanthiChristofaki
Dese marking,logophoricity,and ziji
Hsiang-YunChen
Chartingthespeaker-relatednessofimpersonalpronouns:contrastive evidencefromEnglish,French,andThai
MinyaoHuang, JirantharaSrioutai , andMélanieGréaux
PartII.Self-awarenessandself-expression
Expressingtheselves:subjectsplitsandviewpointhierarchiesin multiple-perspectiveconstructions
SonjaZeman
Referentialvariabilityofgeneric ‘ one ’
MinyaoHuang
Expressingtheself:fromtypesof dese tospeech-acttypes
KasiaM.JaszczoltandMaciejWitek
PartIII. Dese thoughtsandindexicality Theincrementalself
JohnPerry
Onthe essentiality ofthoughts(andreference)
ErosCorazza
Pragmaticindexicals
KasiaM.Jaszczolt
References
Nameindex
Subjectindex
Prefaceandacknowledgements Thebookgrewoutoftheresearchassociatedwiththeproject ‘ExpressingtheSelf: CulturalDiversityandCognitiveUniversals’ pursuedbytheeditorsattheUniversity ofCambridgefrom to .Someofthecontributingchapterswerewrittenby theparticipantsintheproject;somebyauthorswhocollaboratedwithuson thelanguagesandproblemsinvestigatedthere;yetotherswereinvitedasaresultof thediscussionsthatstemmedoutofworkshopsandconferencesessionsweorganized.Finally,somechapterswereinvitedinordertocompletethevisionofthis bookthatisintendedtobringtogetherlinguisticandphilosophicalaspectsof thinkingandspeakingabouttheself orthepropertiesandtheexpressionof dese thought.WeexpressourgratitudetotheLeverhulmeTrustforthegrantawardedto KasiaJaszczolt(PrincipalInvestigator)topursuethisfascinatingtopicfromanovel perspective.WearealsogratefultotheDepartmentofTheoreticalandApplied Linguistics,UniversityofCambridge,andNewnhamCollege,Cambridgeforcreating aperfectworkingenvironmentandofferinginvaluablesupportwhilewewereediting andco-writingthebook.Finally,ourthanksgotoourcolleagueswhoactedas anonymousreviewersandconsultantsduringtheeditorialprocess,toSarahBarrett andJenMoorefortheircarefulcopy-editingandproofreading,toKimBirchallfor compilingtheindex,aswellastoJuliaSteerofOxfordUniversityPressforher advice,guidance,andpatience.Wehopethatwhatfollowswillcontributetothe understandingofwhatexactlywethinkandsaywhenwethinkandspeakabout ourselvesindifferentcontexts,languages,andcultures.
Cambridge
February
Figures
Listof figuresandtables ThedistributionofextantArawaklanguages,withapproximatelocations
HierarchyofpreferredevidentialsinTuyucaandTariana
. Screencaptureofthesearchfor first-personpronounsin SDK
Asketchofpossiblefacetsoftheself
. DRSforexample()
DRSforexample()
. DRSforexample()
DRSforexample()
.
DRSforexample()
Fourtypesofspeaker-relatedreadingsofanimpersonalpronoun
. ComparisonofthefourtypesofreferenceinEnglish
ComparisonofthefourtypesofreferenceinFrench
. ComparisonofthefourtypesofreferenceinThai
Overallfrequencyofthefourtypesofreference
. Conceptualizingtheself
Automaticityinperception
. Σ forexample()
Σ forexample()
. Σ forexample()
Tables
. A/Sa/possessorprefixes,O/So suffixes/encliticsinproto-Arawak
Minimal-augmentedpersonsysteminPalikur
. Minimal-augmentedpersonsysteminCarib
Personalcross-referencingprefixesandpronounsinTariana
. Schematicparadigmforegophoricsystems
Finitepastformsof ‘togo’ (perfective/imperfective)
. Discoursemodel
PersonalpronounsincontemporaryKorean
. FacetsexpressedinEnglishandJapanese
Theresultforexample()
Theresultforexample()
. Possiblecombinationsofthepredicateassignment
DistributionofthefourtypesofreferenceinEnglish
. DistributionofthefourtypesofreferenceinFrench
DistributionofthefourtypesofreferenceinThai
. Twodimensionsofcontextualvariationsinthefourtypesofreference
Distributionofthefourtypesofreference
ResponsesinTypeCcases
ResponsesinTypeBcases
ResponsesinTypeAcases
ResponsesinTypeDcases
Contextualvariationsinthefourtypesofreference
. Context-dependentdimensionsunderlyingthefourtypesofuse
Consultants’ choicesincategories+S G,+S+G,and S+G
.
Consultants’ choicesincategory+S+IEM
Distributionofresponsesannotatedforsituations,moves,goals, andexpressedaspectsoftheself
Listofabbreviations +G/–Gexpressing/notexpressingspeaker-basedgeneralization
+IEMaconstructiondisplayingimmunitytoerrorthroughmisidentification
+S/–Sexpressing/notexpressingspeaker’sperspective
/ first/secondperson
Atransitivesubject
ACaccusativeparticle
Accaccusativecase
AHaddresseehonorific,suffix
ANIManimate
Approxapproximative
ARTarticle
AUGaugmentative
BPbareproposition
CDcognitivedefaults
CLclassifier
COMPcomplementizer
COMPLcompletive
CoTContextofThought
CoUContextofUtterance
CPIconsciouspragmaticinference
Ddemonstrative
Datdativecase
DCdeclarativesentence-typesuffix/DiscourseCommitment
DECLdeclarative
DIMdiminutive
DOdirectobject
DRSDiscourseRepresentationStructure
DRTDiscourseRepresentationTheory
DSDefaultSemantics
EGOegophoricform
EREmpathyRelation
ERGergative
Evid,EVIDevidentialexpression
exclexclusive
f,FEMfeminine
FIDfreeindirectdiscourse
FoF ‘futureoffate’ structure
Formformulaicexpression
FRUSTfrustrative
FUTfuture(foranyperson)
FUT.CERTcertainfuture(firstpersononly)
FUT.UNCERTuncertainfuture(firstpersononly)
Gengenericform
HABhabitual
Hedgehedgingexpression
IEMimmunitytoerrorthroughmisidentification
Imp,IMPimpersonalform
INindicativemoodsuffix inclinclusive
LFlogicalform
LDAlong-distanceanaphora
LOClocative
MASCmasculine
MDpre-nominalmodifiersuffix
MPCmultiple-perspectiveconstruction
NCLnounclass
NEGnegation
nfnonfeminine
NMnominativeparticle
Nomnominalexpression
NOMnominalization/nominative
NOM.PASTnominalpast
OBJobject
PASTpasttense
PERFperfective
pl,PL,Plplural
posetpartiallyorderedset
POSSpossessive
PPlepastparticipleform
PRES.VISpresentvisual
PROemptycategory ‘bigpro’
PROHprohibitive Listofabbreviations
PSTpasttensesuffix
QUquestion
QUDquestionunderdiscussion
REC.P.NONVISrecentpastnonvisual
REC.P.REPrecentpastreported
REC.P.VISrecentpastvisual
RECIPreciprocal
Refl reflexiveform
REM.P.NONVISremotepastnonvisual
REM.P.VISremotepastvisual
Sintransitivesubject
Sa subjectofintransitiveactiveverb
SCTSemanticCorrelationThesis
SCWDsocioculturalandworldknowledgedefaults
SEQsequentialmarker
sg,SG,Sgsingular
So subjectofintransitivestativeverb
SUBsubordinator
Subjsubjunctive
TCtopic-contrastparticle
Toptopicalization
TOPtopicmarker
TOP.NON.A/Stopicalnon-subjectmarker
UQuniversalquantifierexpression
Vverb
VPverbphrase
WSwordmeaningandsentencestructure
Thecontributors A LEXANDRA Y.A IKHENVALD ,DistinguishedProfessor,AustralianLaureateFellow,andDirectoroftheLanguageandCultureResearchCentre,JamesCookUniversity,Australia
H SIANG -Y UN C HEN ,AssistantResearchFellow,AcademiaSinica,Taiwan
R ODANTHI C HRISTOFAKI ,PhDstudent,UniversityofCambridge,UK
E LIZABETH C OPPOCK ,AssistantProfessor,BostonUniversity,USA
E ROS C ORAZZA ,Professor,CarletonUniversity,Ottawa,Canada;IkerbasqueResearchProfessor,ILCLI,UPV-EHU,Donostia,theBasqueCountry;Ikerbasque,BasqueFoundationof Science,Bilbao,theBasqueCountry
M ÉLANIE G RÉAUX ,Graduatestudent,UniversityCollegeLondon,UK
M INYAO H UANG ,ResearchFellow,SunYat-senUniversity,China
K ASIA M.J ASZCZOLT ,ProfessorofLinguisticsandPhilosophyofLanguage,University ofCambridgeandProfessorialFellow,NewnhamCollege,Cambridge,UK
H YE -K YUNG L EE ,ProfessorofLinguistics,AjouUniversity,Korea
J OHN P ERRY ,ProfessorofPhilosophyEmeritus,StanfordUniversityandtheUniversityof California,Riverside,USA
J IRANTHARA S RIOUTAI ,AssistantProfessor,ChulalongkornUniversity,Thailand
S TEPHEN W ECHSLER ,ProfessorofLinguistics,UniversityofTexas,Austin,USA
M ACIEJ W ITEK ,ProfessorofPhilosophy,UniversityofSzczecin,Poland
S ONJA Z EMAN ,InterimProfessor,Otto-Friedrich-UniversityofBamberg,Germany
Introduction Theselfinlanguage,inthought, and enroute in-between KASIAM.JASZCZOLT
In Nutshell,IanMcEwan ’slatestnovel(,London,JonathanCape),theworldand itsintriguesandhorrorsarepresentedfromtheperspectiveofanine-month-old foetus.Helistens,imagines,deduces,makesplans,andalsofears,hates,loves,and feelselated:anarrayofintentionalandnon-intentionalmentalstatesandcorrespondingspeechacts.Hebeginsbytellingthereaderabouthis firstconceptand, directlyandindirectly,aboutthemeaningofselfhood:
Letmesummonit,thatmomentofcreationthatarrivedwithmy firstconcept.Longago,many weeksago,myneuralgroovecloseduponitselftobecomemyspineandmymanymillion youngneurons,busyassilkworms,spunandwovefromtheirtrailingaxonsthegorgeous goldenfabricofmy firstidea,anotionsosimpleitpartlyeludesmenow.Wasit me?Tooselfloving.Wasit now?Overlydramatic.Thensomethingantecedenttoboth,containingboth,a singlewordmediatedbyamentalsighorswoonofacceptance,ofpurebeing,somethinglike this?Tooprecious.So,gettingcloser,myideawas Tobe.Orifnotthat,itsgrammaticalvariant, is.Thiswasmyaboriginalnotionandhere’sthecrux is.Justthat.(McEwan : )
McEwantalkshereabout firstconcepts, firstthoughts,andtheoriginoftheself, which,arguably,consideringthepertinentstageofthedevelopmentofthisunusual protagonist,stillunquestionablyfollowsuniversalpatterns.Butwhathappenstothe ego aftertheinputfromtheenvironmentreachesit?Istheconceptofthe ego affected bytheacquiredlanguage(s)andculture(s)?Isthe ego essentiallyculture-and language-relative(Whorfian)orinsteadessentiallyuniversal?In TheLanguage Hoax:WhytheWorldLookstheSameinAnyLanguage,JohnH.McWhorter ()emphasizesthesignificanceofthisunderlyinguniversalismandconcludes thattheappealofWhorfianismisshallowandemotional:we want tobelievethat speakingacertainlanguagemakesusacertainkindofperson,orthatspeakinga certainlanguagegivesusinsightsintophysicalandconceptualrealitythatsomeother
ExpressingtheSelf.Firstedition.MinyaoHuangandKasiaM.Jaszczolt(eds) Thischapter©KasiaM.Jaszczolt .Firstpublishedin
languageswouldnotafford(seee.g.Everett onaseminaldefenceofthisview).
Ifwedon’tbelieveit, ‘anelementoftheromanticislost’ (McWhorter : ).But ifwedobelieveit,weruntheriskofconfusingthedifferencebetweenthespeaker’ s degreeof fluencyina firstandsecondlanguagewiththedifferenceinprojected worldview.McWhortersubscribesheretothewidelysharedstancethatevery languagecanexpresseverything:
Itcannotbedeniedthatsomelanguagespackmoreobservationintothetypicalsentencethan others:thedifferencebetweenwhatatypicalNativeAmericanlanguagerequiresyoutosayand whatatypicalMandarinChinesesentencedoesisobvious.However,inanylanguageonecan, ifnecessary,sayanything,anditismiraculoustoobservehowvariantlylanguagesaccomplish thispossibility.(McWhorter : ) Inthedomainofspeakingaboutoneself,languagesuseamyriadofexpressionsthat cutacrossgrammaticalandsemanticcategories,aswellasawidevarietyofconstructions.LanguagesofSoutheastandEastAsiafamouslyemployagreatnumberof termsfor first-personreferencetosignalhonorification.ExamplesareKorean, Japanese,Burmese,Javanese,Khmer,Malay,orVietnamese.Thenumberand mixedpropertiesofthesetermsmakethemdebatablecandidatesforpronounhood, manygrammar-drivenclassificationsoptingtoclassifythemwithnouns(seeHeine andSong ;Lee,Chapter thisvolume;Jaszczolt aandChapter this volume).Somemakeuseofegophors(CoppockandWechsler,Chapter this volume),logophors(Chen,Chapter thisvolume),andmanyexhibitaninteraction betweenexpressingtheselfandexpressingevidentiality qua theepistemicstatusof informationheldfromthe ego perspective(Aikhenvald,Chapter ,andCoppockand Wechsler,Chapter thisvolume).
ButthereisaslightequivocationorslipperinessinMcWhorter’sdefenceofuniversalism.Itisindeedtrue,ashesays,that onecan sayanythinginanylanguage,butthisis notthesameassayingthat ‘verydifferent languagesexpress thebasiccognitiveprocesses calledhumanity’ (: ).1 Itisindeedtruethatspeakerscanexpresstheirthoughts equallypreciselyinalanguagewithorwithouttenseoraspect,withorwithoutafull systemofquantifiers,orwithorwithoutcertainbasicsententialconnectives.Itisso, however, not becauselanguagesthemselvesachievethiscommunicativesuccessbut becausespeakersemploylanguagealongsideothervehiclesofconveyingthoughtssuch asnonlinguistickinesicsandproxemics,socialdefaults,andstereotypesconcerning whatisnotexplicitlysaid,aswellascognitivedefaultsconcerningsuchimportantmatters astheprincipleofoptingforaninterpretationwithhigherinformativenessvalue(dere over dedicto,referentialoverattributive,presupposingovernon-presupposingreading, futurevsnon-futurereferenceintenselesslanguages,andsoforth).Languagewith itsstructuresandmeaningsteamsupwithpragmaticmechanismsofinferenceor defaultexploitationtoachievethisperfectstateofexpressivity.2
Thechoiceofthethemeofthisbook,expressingtheself,washowevernotdirectly motivatedbytheinterestinthegrammarorlexicon.Itstemsfromphilosophical
1 Myemphasis.
2 ThisiswhatIcallelsewhere ‘lexicon/grammar/pragmaticstrade-offs’ (Jaszczolt a).
discussionsonthespecialstatusofthoughtsaboutoneself,knownas dese thoughts. KnowingthatKasiaJaszczoltwrotethisintroductiondoesnotnecessarilymakeme awarethat I wroteit;the first-personperspectiveiscrucial thecomponenttheorizedbyPerry()astheindexicalelementofthoughts(nottobeconfusedwithan indexicalcomponentintheirrepresentation),3 andbyLewisasself-ascriptionof propertieswhere ‘[s]elf-ascriptionofpropertiesisascriptionofpropertiestooneself undertherelationofidentity’ (Lewis a: ;seealsoFeit ).Newdesiderata forcognitivelyplausiblesemanticsfollowedsuit,inthatcognitivesignificance ofsentences(or,better,utterances)thatexpresssuch dese thoughtsoughttobe consideredandtruthconditionsoughttobemadetoworkintheserviceofthisaim. Theliteratureonthistopicisvast,andnobriefintroductioncandoitjustice.Suffice ittosaythatbothphilosophy bywhichImeanherephilosophyoflanguageand metaphysics andlinguistics bywhichImeanheresemanticsandpragmatics haveincreasinglyemphasizedtheneedtoattendtothiscognitivesignificance,asis evidentinthedominanceofcontextualistaccountsofmeaningoversemantic minimalism.4 Although I referstoKasiaJaszczoltwhenIthinkaboutwritingthis text,twoutterancesthatdifferonlyintheuseofoneortheotherreferringexpression maydifferincognitivesignificance,andthereisnogoodreasonforwhysemantic theoryshouldignorethisimportantfact.5
Now,therelationbetweenexpressingtheselfandbelief dese isnotsimple.First, arguably,weexpressandexternalizetheselfthroughallouractsofcommunication, notmerelytheoneswithovertself-reference.WhenIsay, ‘Brexitnegotiationswillbe difficultbutshort ’,Iexpressmyownview,orperspective,onthecurrentpolitical situationintheUK.Someoneelsemayholdadifferentopinion say,thatthe negotiationswilltakealongtimeorthattheywillnotbedifficultatall.Next,even whenIutteranovertlyuncontroversialutterancesuchas ‘TodayisThursday’ (utteredonThursday),Istillexposemyselfasthespeaker,forexamplebecausethe propositionthatIintendtogetacrossis ‘TodayisThursdaynotWednesday’ or ‘Thereisapragmaticsseminarthisafternoon’.Post-Griceancontextualisminpragmatictheoryhasmulledoverthetruth-conditionalstatusofsuchunsaidinformation sincethe s,andthisisnottheplacetorehearsethedebatesoversaid/implicated, truth-conditional/non-truth-conditional,orsemantic/pragmatic.Manyofthemare, inanycase,terminological.Oneisfreetoassume,forexample,thatatheoryof meaningoughttotacklethemain,principalmeaningintendedbythespeakerand recoveredbytheaddressee,thattruthconditionsaremerelyausefultoolwithwhich
3 Perry(,andthisvolume)hereuseslinguistically(butnotepistemologically)noncommittal ‘element’,andfamouslypinsthe ego perspectiveonself-locatingthoughts.
4 SeePerry(),KortaandPerry(),andPerry,thisvolume,andforthesemantics,e.g.Discourse RepresentationTheory,seeKampandReyle(),esp.Maier()onrepresenting dese,orforDefault Semantics,seeJaszczolt(, ).
5 Arguably,twoself-reportsusingthe st-personindexicalcanalsodifferinananalogousway,say, whenonereferstoa ‘temporalslice’ ofoneself aswhenIreportonmypastactionsinthecourseofwhich IwasnotawareIwastheagent(althoughherenativespeakers’ intuitionsdiffer).Cf. ‘Ibelieved,inasense, Iwasmakingamess’ asadescriptionofPerry’s()shopperscenario.Iprovideacognitivelyoriented accountforsuchcasesinJaszczolt(b),andesp.().
wecantacklesuchmeaning(amongothermeanings),andthatallthisfallswithinthe domainofsemantics.Equally,oneisfreetoassumethattherearedifferentkindsof meaningsandthattruthconditionscanbeemployedforthemall.Orthatthereare twodifferentkindsofsemantics:oneminimalandonecognitivelyinformed.Orthat semanticsoughttoconcernitselfmerelywiththelanguagesystemratherthanwith itsutilizationindiscourse,asintheoldendays.Andsoforth.
Thisinterdisciplinaryunderstandingofexpressingtheself,comprisingphilosophy ofmindatoneendofthespectrumandcross-culturalpragmaticsofself-expression attheother,doesnotyetfullydefinetheprojectinthisbook.Wezoomfurther,into thinking and speaking aboutoneself.Herewecancommunicatedifferentkindsof dese beliefs.Therearebeliefsthatarealwayserror-freebecausetheyarereflexive, formedbyself-ascriptionofpropertiesor,asRecanati(: )says,withthe benefitoftheconceptofthe ego.Inotherwords,a dese beliefcanbeimmuneto errorsabouttheactualreferent.Thelatterisknownintheliteratureastheproperty of ‘immunitytoerrorthroughmisidentification’:whenIaminpain,my dese thought isimmunetomisidentifyingtheexperiencer.ButwhenIseemyselfinamirrorand thinkIamwearingabluecoat,Imayhavefallenpreytomistakenidentity:themirror mayinfactbeasheetofglassandthepersonontheothersidemyidenticaltwin (Shoemaker ;seealsoProsserandRecanati ).Thesetopicsaretouched uponinthisvolumebyZeman,JaszczoltandWitek,Perry,andCorazza(Chapters , –).Whatisnoveltotheproposedcollectionisthatwestartwiththepresentation ofthe externalizationof dese thoughtinlinguisticcommunication,whichmakesthe readerawareofthemethodologicaloptionlurkingbetweentheactualchaptersbut emergingfromthecollection:tolookforanswerstophilosophicalquestions bylookingatwhatlanguagesdowith dese thoughtintheirexternalization and bythatImeanlanguage systems aswellaslanguagein discourse,addressedby Aikhenvald,CoppockandWechsler,Lee,Christofaki,Huang,Srioutai,andGréaux, andHuang(Chapters –, ,and )andalsodiscussedinalesssystematicwayinall theremainingcontributions.Ononehand,itistruethatlinguisticindexicalityand mentalindexicalityareseparatedomainsofresearchthatoughtnottobeconfused; eachcanbeinstantiatedwithouttheother(seeCorazza,Chapter ).Ontheother, thelattershowsthedepthoftheuseoftheformerwhereithappenstoberelevant.6
Theimportanceofthisjuxtapositioncannotbeoveremphasized.Therecently published OxfordHandbookoftheSelf (Gallagher )collectsresearchontheself acrossthedomainsofpsychology,philosophy,neuroscience,orsociologyinover pages,butlinguisticsisdiaphanouslyabsent.Thepresentvolume,onthecontrary, makesastatementthatlinguisticresearchon first-personreferenceisalegitimate contributortoresearchontheself toutcourt,byexploringthewaystheselfis expressedandassuchaidingtheinsightsinto dese thoughtsexploredthrough questionsidentifiedinphilosophy,psychology,orcognitivescience.Onedoesnot needtobeaWhorfianrelativisttopursuethatpath.Neitherdoesonehaveto embracelinguisticphilosophyàlaViennaCircle.
6 SeealsoRecanati()foracomprehensiveoverview.
Suchamatchofthelinguisticandthephilosophicalisnotwithoutpotential glitches,though.Icanthinkaboutmyselfunderdifferentguisesandequallyspeak aboutmyselfusingtermsofdifferentsemanticstatus,indexicalornon-indexical. Equally,Icanuseindexicaltermssuchasthe first-personpronoun I toreferto myself,butIcanalsousesuchtermstoperformotherfunctionssuchasthatinthe bound-variableuse(Kratzer ).7 Thereisagrowingawarenessamonglinguists thatmorelanguagesthantheoriginally flaggedAmharic(seeSchlenker , ) canshiftthereferenceofthe first-personpronouninnon-quotativeconstructions (seee.g.Roberts ).So,togetthemethodologyright,wehavetostarteitherwith (i)theinventoryofdedicatedtermsusedforself-referenceandconductalinguistic analysisofthese,possiblyincludingtheirquirkynon-self-referringuses,orwith(ii) thephilosophicalquestionofthepropertiesandsignificanceof dese thought,bearing inmindthatthenourlinguisticinventorywillbedictatednotbyagrammaticalor semanticcategoryofexpression and,possibly,thatsearchingforanysuchinventorywouldonlymuddleupthecorephilosophicalproblem.Kaplan(a)triedto do(ii)bydelineatingthedifferencesbetweenindexicalandnon-indexicalexpressionsinrelationtotheirlinguisticmeaning(character)andthepathtotheirtruthconditionalcontent,but(arguably)atmostcapturedtendencies,asdemonstratedby recentaccountsof(a)languagesallowing ‘monster’ contextsand(b)contextswith non-conventionalusesofindexicals.8
Thechaptersinthiscollectionamounttoaveryencouragingpictureforpursuing theinquiryintotheself.Theyshowthatadoptingdifferentgoalsandmethodscan sumuptopushingforwardonecommongoal.Whenoneinvestigatesthesemantic propertiesof first-personmarkersinaparticularlanguage,say,asininventory,apart ofalanguagesystem,oneinevitablycomesacrosstheindexical/non-indexicaldistinctionpredicatedeitherofconceptsoroflexicalitemsthemselves.Thismaynot directlychallengethephilosophicaldiscussionsonindexicals,butitmayshakethem alittle:whatcriteriaoughtwetousewhenwesaythatacertainfunctionofan expressiontypeisstandardordefault?Whatistheadvantageofanglocentrismin suchdebates?Whatcriteriadoweusewhenwedubsomecontextsproperandothers quirky?Next,whenoneinvestigatestheuseofsuchexpressionsindiscourse,one addsmorequestions,suchashowmuchinformationconveyedbyutterancesabout theselfoughttobemodelledandformalizedinatheoryofmeaning.Should processingconsiderationsbereflectedintherepresentationofthemeaningofsuch utterances(thequestionofpsychologisminsemantics)?Andmanyothers.Philosophicalquestionsconcerningthetypesandpropertiesof dese thoughts,therelation between dese and dere,or dese and dedicto,andthesignificanceofindexical thoughtingeneralcannoweitherstartwithlinguisticfacts,ignorethem,orincorporatethemasandwherethey fit,dependingonthequestion,andsometimes dependingonsomepertinenttheoreticalassumptions.Buttheoptiontoconsult linguisticfactsoughttobeavailabletophilosophers,justastheoptiontoconsultthe
7 SeeJaszczolt,Ch. thisvolume.
8 Newliteratureonthistopicisvast.Seee.g.Roberts()on(a)andmy ‘PragmaticisingKaplan’ (Jaszczolt b)on(b).
KasiaM.Jaszczolt
philosophyof dese thoughtsoughttobeopentolinguists.Thisbookisasmallstep towardsachievingjustthat.
Beforeroundingup,oneterminologicalassumptionisinorder. ‘Self-referring’ isa confusingterm.Ineverydayparlance,UKcitizenscan ‘self-refer ’ forhealthchecks, i.e.book,change,orcanceltheirhospitalappointmentsonline;inlinguisticpragmatics,speakersrefertothemselvesindiscourse;inphilosophy,an x canreferto itselfwherewecansubstitutefor x somerelevantobjectofanalysis.Andananalogous broadeningofthetermappliesto,say,self-representing.Inthebuoyant fieldofresearch onphenomenalconsciousnessinphilosophyofmind,self-representationalismconcerns mentalstates:astateisconsciousinvirtueofrepresentingitself(seeKriegel ; McClelland ).Whenself-referring,self-ascription,self-attribution(say,ofpropositionsorstates),andsoforthareusedinwhatfollows,theyaretobetakenas substitutingthe ego,initsguiseofaspeakeroraholderofmentalstates,forthe x. Thebookisdividedintothreethematicparts.However,thetitlesofthepartsand theallocationwithineachpartareonlyroughindicatorsoftheprimaryresearch questionsaddressedbytheauthors,inthatreferenceto first-personmarkersin naturallanguagespermeatesmostchapters,asdoesthephilosophicalquestionof thespeci ficityofthe first-personperspectiveandpropertiesof dese thought(orat leastitslinguisticexternalization).PartI, ‘Theselfacrosslanguages’,focusesonthe semanticandpragmaticpropertiesofdevicesusedfor first-personreferenceina varietyoflanguagesthatareofsometheoreticalinterestinthisrespect.Thecontents ofthechaptersisasfollows.InChapter , ‘“Me” , “ us ”,and “others ”:expressingthe selfinArawaklanguagesofSouthAmerica,withafocusonTariana’ , Alexandra Aikhenvald offersanin-depthanalysisofformsusedforself-expressioninArawak languages,pointingoutsuchaspectsastheroleofimpersonalconstructions,the interactionbetween firstpersonandepistemicmodality,thecaseoffuturepredicates, expressingtheselfthroughevidentials(andtheassociated ‘first-personeffectof evidentials ’),thequestionof first-personnarration,evidentialsinreportedspeech, andself-quotation,concludingwithcommentsonsocialconventionsforselfexpression.Intheprocessshealsoaddressescontrastiveanalyseswithinthislanguage familyandthequestionofborrowing.Chapter followswith ‘Thepropertreatment ofegophoricityinKathmanduNewari’ by ElizabethCoppockandStephenWechsler. Theauthorsdiscusstheegophoricformof first-personstatements,second-person polarquestions,andspeech dese reportsinaSino-Tibetanlanguage,Newari.They proposethatthesemanticfunctionofthis ego-markingistoself-ascribeaproperty, andtheyanalysethisfunctionusingthetoolsofcenteredworldsandspeechact theory.Intheprocess,theyalsoaddresstheinteractionofegophoricmarkingwith markingofevidentiality.InChapter , ‘Self-referringinKorean,withreferenceto Korean first-personmarkers’ , Hye-KyungLee offersacorpus-basedanalysisofthe above-mentionedtermsthatleadstoanin-depthdiscussionofthecontext-and discourse-typedependenceoftheiruse.Sheaddressesthequestionofhowpragmatic (andsociopragmatic)aspectsof first-personmarkersinKoreaninteractwiththeir semantics,andtakesastanceintheongoingdebateconcerningtheirstatusas pronounsornouns,concludingthattheyoughttobeclassi fiedaspronounsinthat theyfulfiltheessentialfunctionalcriteriaofpronounhood.Thisanalysisalsomakes
thechapterrelevantforthediscussionsinPartIII.InChapter , ‘Expressingtheself inJapanese:indexicalexpressionsintheserviceofindexicalthoughts’ , Rodanthi Christofaki offersananalysisoftermsusedfor first-personreferenceinJapanese, addressingthequestionofhow dese thoughtisexpressedinalanguagewitha multitudeofsuchexpressions,andinparticularwhataspectsoftheselfsuch expressionsreveal.ShepointsoutthatinadditiontothedirectreferentialitypredicatedofpersonalpronounsinlanguagessuchasEnglish,thesetermsalsoconveyrich conceptualandexpressivecontent,andassuchdefythestandardKaplanianclassification.Shethenmovestoassessingtheplausibilityofarelativisticpictureofselfreferenceasanaturalcorollary,buteventuallyoptsforauniversalistviewonwhich, ononehand,differentaspects(orfacets)oftheselfaredistinguished,butonthe othertheysumuptoacross-culturallycomparableself.Next,inChapter , ‘Dese marking,logophoricity,and ziji’ , Hsiang-YunChen arguesthatlong-distance ziji (‘self ’)inChinesedoesnotautomaticallyconvey dese meaningevenifitisregarded asclearlylogophoric.Shecriticallyassessesanumberofaccountsthatlinklogophoricityand dese reading,andconcludesthatalthoughinthecaseof ziji longdistanceanaphora,logophoricityand dese readingarerelatedissues,theyarealso separate:bothsyntaxandpragmaticsmustplayapartintheinterpretation.Finally, inChapter , ‘Chartingthespeaker-relatednessofimpersonalpronouns:contrastive evidencefromEnglish,French,andThai’ , MinyaoHuang,JirantharaSrioutai,and MélanieGréaux exploreselectedsetsofimpersonalpronounsandconstructions usedforself-referenceinEnglish,French,andThaiinordertoquestiontheviewthat theyconveydetachmentandgeneralizingfromthespeakerto ‘otherswhoarelikethe speaker’.Theypresentanddiscussempiricaldataobtainedfortheselanguages throughaquestionnaire-basedmethod,andconcludethattheproposalofspeakerbasedgeneralizationhasnotbeencorroborated,inthatimpersonalconstructionsare usedinawidevarietyofwaysthatdifferonbothdimensions:speakerorientationand generalization.
WemoveprogressivelytothedomainofcognitivescienceinPartII, ‘Selfawarenessandself-expression’,whichfocusesonthelinguisticexternalizationof certainphenomenaassociatedwith first-personreferencesuchasgeneralization beyondtheself,kindsof dese thought,andtheassociatedproblemofimmunityto errorthroughmisidenti fication,appealingtoavarietyofrelevantlanguages.In Chapter , ‘Expressingtheselves:subjectsplitsandviewpointhierarchiesin multiple-perspectiveconstructions’ , SonjaZeman approaches ‘thelinguisticself ’ as acoverconceptforvariouslinguisticdimensionsbywhichtheselfcanbeconceptualized,andanalysesso-calledmultiple-perspectiveconstructions,forexamplethe epistemicuseofmodalverbs,freeindirectdiscourse,andthe ‘futureoffate’ construction.Sheaskshowtheunityofthe firstpersoncanbecomesplit,andhowthis splitcanbecompatiblewithaholisticpictureoftheselfindiscourse.Shediscusses theexternalandtheinternalperspectiveontheselfwithrespecttomentalcontent andcommunicativeroles.In ‘Referentialvariabilityofgeneric “ one ”’ (Chapter ), MinyaoHuang arguesagainstthethesisthatgeneric ‘ one ’ standardlyconveyswhat Moltmanncalls ‘generalizingdetachedself-reference’,orinotherwordsthatit expressessubject-based,addressee-orientedgeneralization thetopicalsodiscussed
KasiaM.Jaszczolt
fromacross-linguisticperspectiveinPartI.Onthebasisofempiricalevidence collectedthroughapurpose-designedquestionnaire,sheconcludesthatgeneric one inEnglishcanrefertoanyofthefourpossiblecombinationsofthefeatures ‘+/ speaker-based’ and ‘+/ generalization ’.Sheproposesthatthevariabilityinthe useofgeneric one reflectstwocontext-dependentdimensionsofmeaning:foregroundingandrestrictionongeneralization.Extendingthetopicoftypologiesof expressionsusedforself-reference,inChapter , ‘Expressingtheself:fromtypesof dese tospeech-acttypes’ , KasiaM.JaszczoltandMaciejWitek discussthecognitive significanceofthedevicesusedtocommunicate dese thoughts,andargue(andalso partiallyempiricallydemonstrate)that, pace someextantproposalsand pace the dominantpresumptioninsemanticsandphilosophyoflanguage,thereisnoevidencethatnaturallanguagesusedifferentkindsofexpressionsforexternalizing differentaspectsofself-reference.OnthebasisoftheirempiricalresultsfromPolish, aswellasevidencefromarangeofotherlanguagesandsometheoreticalargumentation,theysketchapossiblefuturemodelfoundedonacorrelationbetweenspeechacttypes,interlocutors’ goals,andassociatedlinguisticconventionsontheonehand andanexpressiontypeontheother.Anadditionalcorollaryofthisresearchis furtherjustificationfortheclaimoffunctionalindexicalitydefendedamongothers byJaszczolt(Chapter ).
PartIII, ‘Dese thoughtsandindexicality’,bringstogetherphilosophicaldiscussionson dese thoughtsandthephilosophicalandsemanticquestionstodowith referenceandreferring. JohnPerry in ‘Theincrementalself ’ (Chapter )presents histheoryofso-calledincrementaltruthconditions,immersedinhisreflexivereferentialtheoryandcriticalreferentialism(Perry ;KortaandPerry ), accordingtowhichpropositionsarenolongerobjectsofbeliefsorobjectsof expressionsofbeliefsbutratherareconstruedassomewhatmalleabletoolsused forrede finingandexploringthewaysinwhichtruth-conditionalitycanbeexploited foranalysingvariousaspectsofmeaning.Thepurposeofincrementaltruthconditionsistoshedlightonthecognitivesignificanceof dese thoughtsandreports thereon.Inthiscontext,hearguesagainsttheExpressionpictureofutterances dese andtheRelationpictureofreports dese.Finally,heattendstothedistinctionbetween beliefsabouttheselfandbeliefsconcerningtheself,emphasizingthedifference betweenperspectivalbeliefsandbeliefs dese thatIdiscussedearlierinthisIntroduction.Next,inChapter , ‘Onthe essentiality ofthoughts(andreference)’ , ErosCorazza takesonboardtheso-calledirreducibilitythesis,namelythatindexicals suchas ‘I’ , ‘ now ’,and ‘here’ comewiththecognitiveimpactthatisnotthereinthe caseofcorrespondingnon-indexicalterms.Hediscussesthe ‘viewpoint-based’ natureof dese thoughts,anddefendstheviewthathumansaredesignedtoperceive thesurroundingsinan ‘indexical’ mannerthatstemsfromthisviewpointdependence.HebeginsbydiscussingDonnellan ’sreferentialusesofdescriptionsas ‘having anobjectinmind’,andjuxtaposesinthiscontexttheindexicalembeddingof thoughtswithPolyshyn’stheoryofsituatedvisionas(sotospeak)atheoryofmental indexicals.Hecontinuesbydiscussingtheautomaticandthereflexivemind,andas suchthefundamentalnatureof(subdoxastic)viewpointdependencevis-à-visthe derivativenatureof(conceptual) dese thoughts.Finally,inChapter , ‘Pragmatic
indexicals’ , KasiaM.Jaszczolt offersapragmatic,contextualistaccountofthe meaningofdevicesusedfor first-personreferencethatmakesuseofthepostGriceanideaoftop-downmodi ficationoftruth-conditionalcontent.Onthisview, theindexical/non-indexicaldistinctionbecomesblurredbecauseexpressionsoneach sideofthedichotomycanhaveindexicalaswellasnon-indexical functions Shedemonstrateshowindexicalitycanbe ‘pragmaticized’,andhowtheresulting ‘functionalindexicals’ canberepresentedinherradicalcontextualisttheoryof DefaultSemantics.
PartI Theselfacrosslanguages 
