no fun with pronouns

Wed Dec 8 22:34:31 UTC 2010

Ron said:

<<
Even if we take the quote out of context, as Barbara and Larry do, we =
have nothing more than a case of forward reference (I called it DEIXIS, =
but some would prefer to call it ANAPHORA , aka CATAPHORA), examples of =
which abound in textbooks (as Larry and Barbara acknowledge).
>>

Except this begs the issue, Ron.  Agreed, the problematics of the text
Victor originally posted turn on deixis, but restricting the focus, as you
do here, to the referential side of deixis naturally trivialises it -- of
*course no one was "finally" confused as to the inter-relation of the two
pronouns and the noun phrase.   This was why I said, as I did, that Victor
provided quite enough relevant context to engage with the example of the
three [sic] deictic elements.  But at issue is also indexicality.  I'd also
want to add, that when considering the variety of appropriate contexts  in
which to interpret this utterance, one of these contexts is the medium
itself.

Which brings me to ...

Victor said:

<<
But I have discovered something interesting in an /earlier/ story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40534620/40253386
> Julian Assange's lawyer was arranging to deliver the WikiLeaks founder
> to British police for questioning in a sex-crimes investigation of the
> man who has angered Washington by spilling thousands of government
> secrets on the Internet.

Here's the text I posted earlier:

> His lawyer had earlier arranged to deliver him to British police for
> questioning in a sex-crimes investigation of the man who has angered
> Washington by spilling thousands of government secrets on the Internet.
>>

OK, I called this wrong -- the ineptness/confusion/ambiguity of the first
text as posted by Victor wasn't the result of the transposition of a spoken
text into written form (which was why I initially linked it to the
problematics of the Cynewulf and Cyneheard passage in the Chronicle), but
the progressive introduction of garble -- Chinese whispers.

But I still find it of interest that this particular variety of confusion
emerges when a text is transposed, whether from speech to writing, or
through a sequence of reprintings and revisions, as Victor's latest post
shows to have been the case in this instance.

'Nuff said.

Robin
_________________________________________

The first line is a straight AP pickup. The second came from a story
spliced together by MSNBC, apparently from multiple AP reports. It is
easy to see how one evolved into the other. The AP story was dated
several hour earlier than the one I was initially quoting, which had
just appeared when I picked it up. It has been "updated" several times
since then--to the point that most of the story that I was reading, at
the time, is now gone.

In the original post, I was quite explicit that both pronouns and "the
man" referred to the same person and I identified that person quite
clearly. So the "difficulty" (Ron's words, not mine) I was having with
it were not restricted to the cataphoric reference. It seems the jolt
one receives when reading the sentence (some of us may be more sensitive
than others) may come from the heavy-handed splicing of fragments and
not merely from the anaphora.

Note also that there is a /potential/ anaphoric ambiguity in the
sentence that immediately precedes the one I posted:

> Swedish prosecutors issued the arrest order for the 39-year-old
> Australian who is wanted in Sweden on suspicion of committing sexual
> crimes, which he denies.

However, this one is saved because the subject is plural, so "he" cannot
refer to "prosecutors". Had it been singular, it would read quite
differently:

> A Swedish prosecutor issued the arrest order for the 39-year-old
> Australian who is wanted in Sweden on suspicion of committing sexual
> crimes, which he denies.

But, ultimately, any difficulties are based on individual judgment.
Ron's initial reaction was based on /his/ judgment, which, it seems, he
views as 100% reliable. Perhaps he is right.

I have readily admitted in past posts that I do not consider my judgment
in such cases to be 100% reliable. In some cases, I am in a clear
minority. But I did not realize that such disclaimers may be mandatory
with every post. Either way, I have no intention to continue
contributing to this particular thread. I stand by my original post, but
with an additional disclaimer--YMMV.

     VS-)

On 12/8/2010 1:02 PM, Ronald Butters wrote:
> Even if we take the quote out of context, as Barbara and Larry do, we =
> have nothing more than a case of forward reference (I called it DEIXIS, =
> but some would prefer to call it ANAPHORA , aka CATAPHORA), examples of =
> which abound in textbooks (as Larry and Barbara acknowledge). It is a =
> commonplace observation that forward reference is somewhat more =
> difficult to process than backward reference, and the fact that Barbara =
> briefly felt a bit of confusion is not surprising, nor does it seem =
> likely that the degree of her confusion could have been very significant =
> (a number of people have written to me offline to say that they had no =
> trouble whatever interpreting the sentence).
>
>        Again, however (contrary to Robin=92s assertion that Victor gave =
> =93quite enough=94 context), even the small degree of =93confusion=94 =
> available in the quote stems almost entirely from the fact that Victor =
> quoted the sentence out of context. In the context of the preceding =
> sentences=97see below--it is clear that there is NO FORWARD ANAPHORA =
> WHATSOEVER to cause Barbara any =93shock.=94
>
>       I suppose it is fair to say (even if it is a commonplace of =
> Freshman English 101) that any sentence containing a sequence of several =
> pronouns and pronoun-like noun usages begins to offer the opportunity =
> for reader confusion about what referents are intended, especially when =
> the referring noun is a number of words away from the antecedent. =
> However, in the case of Victor=92s sentences, the (full) context =
> constricts the opportunity for inferring that =93the man=94 refers to =
> anyone other than the antecedent that =93his=94 and =93him=94 refer to =
> (note that it is =93the man=94 and not =93a man,=94 the latter of which, =
> as a more likely introducer of =93new=94 material, would offer some =
> opportunity for inferring that =93man=94 was someone other than =
> Assange).
>
> By the way, the link that VS provided in his original posting did not =
> actually connect to the story that he was quoting. The CORRECT link is
>
> =
> <http://bltwy.msnbc.msn.com/politics/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested-1669117.story>.
>
> =20
>
> (VS=92s tiny url takes you to a different story: =
> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40544697/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/>).=
>
>
> =20
>
> The larger context is as follows:
>
> =20
>
> WIKILEAKS FOUNDER JULIAN ASSANGE ARRESTED
>
> MSNBC Politics, Monday, December 6, 2010, 6:34pm (PST)
>
> LONDON - British police arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange =
> Tuesday on a European warrant issued by Sweden, London's Metropolitan =
> Police said.
>
> Swedish prosecutors issued the arrest order for the 39-year-old =
> Australian who is wanted in Sweden on suspicion of committing sexual =
> crimes, which he denies.
>
> His lawyer had earlier arranged to deliver him to British police for =
> questioning in a sex-crimes investigation of the man who has angered =
> Washington by spilling thousands of government secrets on the Internet.
>
> -------------

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org