<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Claude, dear colleagues,
<p>let me briefly come back to Claude's intereresting remarks. Although
it seems rather useful to distinguish between 'free' pronouns and markers
of 'personhood' on verbs, nouns etc., I dare to ask whether the term 'indices'
really is appropriate. We should recall that the problem of how to account
for the 'semantics' of a 'personal pronoun' is often related to the Peircean
triade 'symbol-icon-sympton/index'. It was Apollonios Dyskolos who stated
in Perí antOnomías: pâsa antOnumía (= pronoun)
È deiktikÈ 'stiv È anaphorikÈ ('Every pronoun
either is deictic or anaphoric'). It is this alleged deictic nature of
pronouns that is referred to for instance by Peirce when labeling personal
pronouns as an 'indexal subclass' of the set of linguistic signs (also
compare Russel's 'indexals', Bühler's 'Zeigewörter', Lyons' 'person
deixis' etc.). It not always comes clear whether an author refers to an
'indexal' in terms of is use as a terminus technicus in mathematics (stressing
the functional aspect of associating a figure etc. with another to indicate
an operation to be performed etc.) or in terms of a more general
meaning (pointer, indicator, item listed to fasciliate reference). Etymologically,
'index' means to 'pointing into s.th.' etc., hence has relational properties.
<p>The problem is that both pronouns and 'personal affixes' can be described
in terms of this function. The pronoun would direct the attention of a
hearer to the speaker (EGO), the hearer himself (TU) or something erlse
(IS/EA/ID), to put it into simple and admittedly trivial terms. This is
basically what Peirce, Bühler and others refer to when talking of
'personal indices' etc. 'Affixes' (which, by the way, should be termed
'clitics' is case they are not word class-specific) can be said to endophrically
point towards an overt or covert pronominal constituent or again exophorically
to the conceptualization of a (non-)Speech Act Participant.
<p>There are many arguments that speak against the indexal nature of either
pronouns or 'personal affixes/clitics' (see the well-known discussion of
the 'nouniness' of pronouns). Still, in case we stick to the indexal function,
we should make clear whether we use 'indexal' in terms of grammatical (better:
endophoric) 'cross-reference' or in terms of exophoric deixis. The term
'personal index' makes sense only if we build our analysis upon the first
assumption.
<p>Whatever the nature of personal pronouns might be: The term 'personal
index' used for bound elements that are 'sensitive' for personhood brings
us to additional problems: First, what to do with 'consistent' (or even
persistent) pro-drop strategies? Here, bound elements usually play the
role of 'pronouns' without neceassily being derived from former pronouns.
Are they indices or 'disguised' pronouns? Second: we have to decide whether
the function of the so-called indices to 'indicate' properties of personhood
is the primary or 'basic' function of a given element. For instance, in
Udi, an East Caucasian language, there is a clitic -a that cross-references
a third person singular in WH-questions. Else, the 3sg clitic is -ne ~
-e. Note that such a Q-clitic occurs with the 3sg only. Now, how to describe
this element? Is it a 'person index' (because it cross-references a non-personne)
or is it a pragmatic marker (questions) that has specialized for WH and
later for the 3sg? As for Udi, arguments clearly go in favor of the second
assumption, although the clitic -a is usually glossed '3sg:Q' (as if it
where a 'person index'). In quite a number of other so-called 'personal
paradigms', the 'person indices' turn out to have 'usurped' the function
of person marking, too. In fact, the hypothesis that person markers (to
use Cysouw's terminology (Cysouw 2003)) primarily encode 'person' is far
from being evident. It is a well-known fact that such markers may have
a rather different background (e.g. deixis, focus, reflexes of specific
constructional patterns etc.) and not necessarily stem from 'personal pronouns'.
<p>Third: The term 'personal index' suggests that an affix/clitic subcategorizes
a given paradigm according to features of 'personhood'. However, does this
mean that the paradigm necessarily reflects the subcategorization of person
as represented in a corresponding pronominal system? Sure, from a historical
point of view, we can relate many so-called homophonous systems (such as
German geh-t '(s)he/it goes ~ you (pl go' (present tense) to paradigms
ordered for 'person'. However, does this necessarily mean that categorially
'unmotivated' homophonous elements reflect 'person' from a synchronic /
cognitive point of view? Perhaps, they do quite other things....
<p>In sum, I have to admit that I have serious difficulties to use the
term 'personal index' is Claude's sense. Maybe that there are paradigms
for which such a term is useful (e.g. some Turkic languages). However,
from a more 'semantic' perspective, it seems doubtful whether the exclusion
of personal 'pronouns' (itself a rather problematic term) from the indexal
domain (if given) really helps to fix the functional conditions of either
paradigms.
<p>Best wishes,
<p>Wolfgang
<br>
<br>
<p>claude-hagege schrieb:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Matthew's
interesting remark on Hausa <i>ya</i> makes me think that it all depends
on how we define "pronoun". If we admit, as Matthew does, that <i>ya </i>is
a separate word, then I would consider it as a pronoun, because being a
separate word seems to be one of the main defining features of elements
that we call personal pronouns, knowing that their other defining features
are that they inflect for person (and, in various languages, mentioned
by several members of LINGTYP in this discussion, also T or A or M) and
may function as subjects or complements. To that extent, they should be
distinguished from <i>indices</i>, which are personal (and often tensed)
affixes on the nominal (cf. Akkadian or Bugis) or verbal predicate (for
the distinction I propose between personal <u>pronoun</u> (free or separate
word) and personal <u>index</u> (affix), let me take the liberty of referring
to <i>La structure des langues</i> (Paris, PUF), 2001 (6th ed.): 98). Here
is, among many others, an example, taken from Aymara, in which we have
both a personal pronoun and a personal affix in the same sentence:<i>xuma-Xa
tluqatla-a-ta-wa </i>(2SG-TOP boy-PRED-2SG.IND-FOC<i>)</i> "you are
a boy".We see here that "2SG" is expressed both by <i>xuma </i>(a separate
word which is a person marker and to which the topic marker is attached)
and <i>-ta- </i>(an inflectional (person) affix that also encodes the mood;
by the way, and to come back to Roland Hemmauer's query, this example shows
that in some languages, like Aymara, nominals, in order to function as
predicate, need a special predicative marker (<i>-a- </i> in the example
above) ). Although Hausa <i>ya </i>in Matthew's example encodes COMPL,
in my opinion it behaves as an index rather than a pronoun.All best,Claude.</font></font></blockquote>
--
<br>Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze
<br>Institut für Allgemeine und Typologische Sprachwissenschaft
<br>Department 'Kommunikation und Sprachen' (Dep. II) - F 13/14
<br>Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
<br>Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
<br>D-80539 München
<br>Tel.: ++49(0)89-2180-2486 (Sekr.) / -5343 (Büro)
<br>Fax: ++49(0)89-2180-5345
<br>Email: W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
<br>Web: <a href="http://www.ats.uni-muenchen.de/wschulze">http://www.ats.uni-muenchen.de/wschulze</a>
<br>
</body>
</html>