Levinsons's "Pragmatics"

Hi, John.  Thanks for writing back.


John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
[snip]

"overhearers" can be present only without the speaker knowing, so
overhearers *cannot* be referred to as such in direct speech.

[snip]

Actually, I'm pretty sure "overhearers" can be present with the explicit or implicit
knowledge of the speaker and/or the addressee. For example, an arrestee/suspect
might be having non-privileged speech with his girlfriend under the supervision
of police or prison personnel; or, might be having privileged speech with his
spouse or attorney, where they should not be supervised, but might be anyway;
or, during the Cold War, a pair of friends at a cafe behind the Iron Curtain
might say to one another "Please, say that again, clearly -- and please, speak
directly into the flower-vase." So, they might know the over-hearers are there,
or not; and, they might admit they're there, or not; logically independently of
each other. (In the last situation, they could admit they were being overheard
without knowing it, i.e.)

John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
[snip]

 And "actance"
seems to be usually expressed by moods (imperative, subjunctive etc.) rather
than pronouns, but I guess that could still be changed. If I understand
correctly what you mean, that is.

[snip]




Certain "ratified hearers" who might be "non-actants" and "non-interlocutors" and
"non-addressees", in the ordinary way of things, might need to be "ratified
hearers" precisely because they are "contingent actants" and/or "contingent
interlocutors". I may have a little difficulty thinking precisely of a good
example, but, consider the witnesses or notaries or court-reporters or judges
at will-signings or weddings or will-readings or ordinary court proceedings. If
everything goes as planned, these people are expected to just sit and listen;
and, in some of these situations some of the remarks, in others most of the
remarks, in yet others all (unless something happens), will not be addressed to
them. But, if "something happens", they will be expected to object, or to reply
to someone else's objection; or, if, later in life, "something happens" (such
as the will is contested or someone says the wedding was fraudulent), they will
be expected to do something.

You were distinguishing between (roughly) Addressees, Hearers, and Absentees; thus
dividing into three parts that group of people usually divided into just the
two parts, Second Person and Third Person. I was refining that notion, as I saw
Levinson doing it. Let's see if Yahoo Mail will let me draw a tree:
People
+-Non-Hearers (your 4th persons)
|
Hearers
+-Non-Ratified Hearers (your 4th persons)
|
Ratified Hearers (your 3rd persons)
+-Non-Addressees (Non-Actants and Non-Interlocutors, except possibly contingently)
|
Addressees (most everyone's 2nd persons)
+-Non-Actant Non-Interlocutors (so why are you talking to them?) (possibly your 3rd persons?)
+-Non-Actant Interlocutors (your 2nd persons, I think)
+-Actant Non-Interlocutors (your 2nd persons, I think)
+-Actant Interlocutors (definitely your 2nd persons)

John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:[snip]
Those classes are the "logophoric" equivalents of 1P singular, 2P singular
and relative pronouns, right? Why not have "logophoric" 3P or demonstrative
etc. pronouns?
Now, how about logophoric pronouns which incidentally happen to refer to
*me* or *you* or some other entity present during the discussion, from
within S? Consider:
A to B: "C told D that B sporked E"
The usual solution is to refer to B with a normal pronoun (2P if the quote
is indirect, 3P if direct) but maybe special logophoric pronouns could also
exist for this purpose...



Actually, there are more kinds of logophoric pronouns than I thought.
In particular, there are the "Illocutionary Source" and the "Illocutionary Target".
Just as the "inclusive" is an equal mix of 1st person and 2nd person, so the
Illocutionary Source is a mix (not necessarily equal) of 1st and 4th person,
and the Illocutionary Target a mix (n.n.e.) of 2nd and 4th person.
If Rex tells me, "Tom, tell John to write to me." and I tell Rodlox "Rex says
John should write to illocutionary-source" then Rodlox knows it is Rex that
John is supposed to write to.
If I tell Rodlox "I'm supposed to tell John from Rex that illocutionary-target
should write to illocutionary-source" (in real life this would be more like
"I'm supposed to tell John from Rex that he-42 should write to him-41") then
Rodlox will know that he-42 is John and him-41 is Rex. (Here I used he-4* and
him-4* to indicate "fourth person", i.e. logophoric pronouns; I used -41 for
"logophoric 1st person", i.e. illocutionary source, and -42 for "logophoric 2nd
person", i.e. illocutionary target.)

John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:[snip]
>I would love to look at your English-language web-site, even without the
>linguistic information.
Um, go on then. A word of warning tho, it's been nearly two years since I've
updated it, so it's starting to become somewhat outdated...
http://www.geocities.com/omegatransfinito/


Thanks, I looked at it.  I will look more, later.

Tom H.C. in MI

John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
Hello Tom; I'm resuming working thru my email backlog... I still have much
to say on this issue, I've just been too busy lately.


>As I promised, I'm not quoting from Corbett's "Number" this time; I'm not
>even quoting from Siewierska's "Person".
>No, I've got a completely different "Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics"
>book to quote from, this time: Sephen C. Levinson's 1983 "Pragmatics".
>
>(BTW I don't have that many linguistics books "in my possession", either.
>These (and 2 others) were all requested by Inter-Library Loan by/from my
>public library. They all arrived on the same day, they're all due in 3
>weeks, and there are no "renewals" allowed on any of them. So I get to
>practice my "speed-reading".)
I should try that, too.


>The information from Levinson's book "Pragmatics" which, more than the
>rest, prompted me to write to you, is on pp. 72-73. Levinson points out
>that "people", for purposes of any particular "conversational turn" (or
>whatever term is best-chosen), can be divided several different ways; first
>of all, probably, into:
>*those who "can" "hear" vs. those who "can't" "hear" (the conversation).
>Hearers are further divided in more than one way:
>primarily into:
>*ratified vs. unratified hearers, i.e.
>*those who "should"/"are welcome to" "hear" vs. "over-hearers".
>(The next sentence reflects my personal understanding of this book I have
>skimmed, not perused.)
>"Ratified hearers" can still be divided, in three ways:
>1) Those who will probably be expected to take action based upon the
>conversation vs. those who will probably not be expected to take action, or
>might be expected to take no action; (might be called "actants" vs.
>"non-actants", or "participants" vs. "non-participants"? I can't decide
>the terminology).
>2) Those who might be expected to say something during the conversation vs.
>those who will probably be expected to listen mostly in silence;
>("participants" vs. "non-participants" might be bettere here than in 1);
>but also consider "interlocutors" vs. "non-interlocutors". And of course,
>I still don't really know, myself, what the experts actually call them.).
>3) Addressees vs. Non-Addressed "participants" or "hearers".
Interesting analysis.
Some of the distinctions sound unlikely to be grammatical; especially,
"overhearers" can be present only without the speaker knowing, so
overhearers *cannot* be referred to as such in direct speech. And "actance"
seems to be usually expressed by moods (imperative, subjunctive etc.) rather
than pronouns, but I guess that could still be changed. If I understand
correctly what you mean, that is.


>Pronouns within the sentences which are the objects, or at least the
>complements, of verbs of quoting or reporting or saying or telling etc.,
>are, in many languages, different from pronouns occuring in main clauses.
>If I say "X told Y that S", where S is some sentence, a pronoun within S
>might need to have either X or Y as its referent. Even pronouns within S
>that have their antecedents also within S are different, in some languages.
>
>Languages can thus have up to three kinds of "logophoric pronouns":
>the ones that refer to X from within S;
>the ones that refer to Y from within S;
>and the ones that refer to within S from within S.
Those classes are the "logophoric" equivalents of 1P singular, 2P singular
and relative pronouns, right? Why not have "logophoric" 3P or demonstrative
etc. pronouns?
Now, how about logophoric pronouns which incidentally happen to refer to
*me* or *you* or some other entity present during the discussion, from
within S? Consider:
A to B: "C told D that B sporked E"
The usual solution is to refer to B with a normal pronoun (2P if the quote
is indirect, 3P if direct) but maybe special logophoric pronouns could also
exist for this purpose...

Anyway, this is certainly an issue I need to consider, too. Thanks for
bringing it to my attention.


>I would love to look at your English-language web-site, even without the
>linguistic information.
>
>Tom H.C. in MI
Um, go on then. A word of warning tho, it's been nearly two years since I've
updated it, so it's starting to become somewhat outdated...
http://www.geocities.com/omegatransfinito/

John Vertical

_________________________________________________________________
Nopeampi kuin sähköposti. Henkilökohtaisempi kuin chat. Lataa ilmainen MSN
Messenger. http://messenger.msn.fi Lataa nyt koneellesi ilmainen MSN
Messenger.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Reply