Cover not available

Article In: International Journal of Chinese Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Empathy, logophoricity and the nature of Chinese long-distance reflexive Ziji

ORCiD logo with link | Hunan University
 | The Chinese University of Hong Kong
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
In this paper, we explore an explanatory theory for the Long-Distance Reflexive (LDR) ziji in Chinese from the semantic-pragmatic perspective. Although it is generally held that LDR ziji has the properties of de se interpretation, subject-orientation and the blocking effect, we discover some of its novel characteristics such as the possible non-de se readings in attitude reports, the backward binding phenomenon in extensional contexts, and in addition the blocking effect induced by the second person pronoun ni ‘you’ in sentences with the first person matrix subject wo ‘I’ which cannot be readily captured under the previous accounts. In the spirit of the empathy account originally due to Kuno and his colleagues ( (1987). Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Kuno, S., & Kaburaki, E. (1977). Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(4), 627–672.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), we propose a new empathy-based account of LDR ziji. Our main claim is this: LDR ziji is always an anaphor with the empathy requirement such that it requires the speaker to empathize with its referent in both intensional and extensional contexts; and in intensional contexts, it also tends to be a de se anaphor, or logophoric, though there are exceptions in some particular cases, e.g., indirect speech. In our account, we demonstrate that the distribution and properties of LDR ziji can receive a plausible explanation by resorting to a series of empathy constraints ( (1987). Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; (2007b). Syntactic direction and obviation as empathy-based phenomena: A typological approach. Linguistics, 45(4), 727–763. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) as well as its nature as the objective-self projection ( (2002). Viewpoint and the nature of Japanese reflexive zibun. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 357–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, (2014). The conceptual basis for reflexive constructions in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 681, 99–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Finally, comparing Chinese LDR ziji with Japanese LDR zibun, we point out the different pragmatic effects on them.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Properties of Chinese LD ziji
    • 2.1The de se interpretation
    • 2.2Subject orientation
    • 2.3Blocking effects
  • 3.Theories on empathy
    • 3.1Kuno’s empathy analysis
    • 3.2Empathy and logophoricity
    • 3.3The nature of the empathic and logophoric uses of LDRs
  • 4.An empathy-based account of LD reflexive ziji
    • 4.1Our proposal
    • 4.2Accounting for the properties of LD ziji
      • 4.2.1De se interpretations
      • 4.2.2Subject orientation
      • 4.2.3Blocking effects
  • 5.Comparison with Japanese LD zibun
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
References (72)
References
Anand, P. (2006). De de se [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
Battistella, E. (1989). Chinese reflexivization: A movement to Infl approach. Linguistics, 27(6), 987–1012. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Castañeda, H.-N. (1966). ‘He’: A study in the logic of self-consciousness. Ratio, 81, 130–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1968). On the logic of attributions of self-knowledge to others. Journal of Philosophy, 651, 439–456. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1989). Anaphora and attitudes de se. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expression (pp. 1–31). Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chou, C.-T. T. (2012). Syntax-pragmatics interface: Mandarin Chinese wh-the-hell and point-of-view operator. Syntax, 15(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1975). The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. The Journal of West African Languages, 10(2), 141–177.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G., & Huang, C.-T. J. (2005). Long-distance anaphors: An Asian perspective. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp. 21–84). Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G., & Lee, C.-L. (2001). Grammatical and discourse conditions on long-distance reflexives in two Chinese dialects. In P. Cole, G. Hermon, & C.-T. J. Huang (Eds.), Long-distance reflexives (Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 33, pp. 1–46). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G., & Sung, L.-M. (1990). Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(1), 1–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cole, P., & Sung, L.-M. (1994). Head movement and long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 355–406.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cole, P., & Wang, C. (1996). Antecedents and blockers of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry, 27(3), 357–390.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corazza, E. (2013). Empathy as a psychological guide to the de se/de re distinction. In N. Feit & A. Capone (Eds.), Attitudes de se (pp. 211–234). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culy, C. (1994). Aspects of logophoric marking. Linguistics, 32(6), 1055–1094. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Logophoric pronouns and point of view. Linguistics, 35(5), 845–859. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1981). An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language, 57(3), 626–657. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. (2006). From temporal anchoring to long-distance anaphors. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 24(4), 1009–1047. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). On the nature of long-distance anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(2), 321–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagège, C. (1974). Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 691, 287–310.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirose, Y. (1995). Direct and indirect speech as quotations of public and private expressions. Lingua, 951, 223–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Public and private self as two aspects of the speaker: A contrastive study of Japanese and English. Journal of Pragmatics, 321, 1623–1656. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Viewpoint and the nature of Japanese reflexive zibun. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 357–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). The conceptual basis for reflexive constructions in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 681, 99–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, J. (2019). Prominence and locality in grammar: The syntax and semantics of wh-questions and reflexives. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 151, 531–574.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J., & Liu, C.-S. L. (2001). Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface. In P. Cole, G. Hermon, & C.-T. J. Huang (Eds.), Long-distance reflexives (Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 33, pp. 141–195). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J., & Tang, C.-C. J. (1991). The local nature of the long-distance reflexives in Chinese. In J. Koster & E. Reuland (Eds.), Long-distance anaphora (pp. 263–282). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1975). On belief-contexts. Linguistic Inquiry, 61, 53–93.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1972). Pronominalization, reflexivization, and direct discourse. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 161–195.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, S., & Kaburaki, E. (1977). Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(4), 627–672.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1996). Sorry, I’m not myself today: The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar (pp. 91–123). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1985). Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 109–150). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review, 88(4), 513–543. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Y. (1993). What makes long-distance reflexives possible? Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 2(2), 135–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, C.-S. L. (2001). Antilogophoricity, sympathy, and the sympathetic antilogophor renjia. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 101, 307–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & Wexler, K. (1987). Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 413–444.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nariyama, S. (2003). Ellipsis and reference tracking in Japanese (Studies in Language Companion Series, Vol. 66). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. (2014). Reflexive binding: Awareness and empathy from a syntactic point of view. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 231, 157–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 143–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oshima, D. Y. (2004). Zibun revisited: Empathy, logophoricity, and binding. University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics, 231, 175–190.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Perspectives in reported discourse [Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University].
(2007a). On empathic and logophoric binding. Research on Language and Computation, 5(1), 19–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007b). Syntactic direction and obviation as empathy-based phenomena: A typological approach. Linguistics, 45(4), 727–763. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pan, H. (1995). Locality, self-ascription, discourse prominence, and Mandarin reflexives [Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin].
(1997). Constraints on reflexivization in Mandarin Chinese. Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Why the blocking effect? In P. Cole, G. Hermon, & C.-T. J. Huang (Eds.), Long-distance reflexives (Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 33, pp. 279–316). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pearson, H. (2015). The interpretation of the logophoric pronoun in Ewe. Natural Language Semantics, 231, 77–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pica, P. (1985). Subject, tense, and truth: Towards a modular approach to binding. In J. Guéron, H. G. Obenauer, & J.-Y. Pollock (Eds.), Grammatical representation (pp. 259–291). Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollard, C., & Xue, P. (2001). Syntactic and non-syntactic constraints on long-distance binding. In P. Cole, G. Hermon, & C.-T. J. Huang (Eds.), Long-distance reflexives (Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 33, pp. 317–342). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Progovac, L. (1993). Long-distance reflexives: Movement-to-Infl versus relativized SUBJECT. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(4), 755–772.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 241, 657–720.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reuland, E. J. (2011). Anaphora and language design. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional attitudes and indexicality: A cross-categorial approach [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
(2011). Indexicality and de se reports. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 21, pp. 1561–1604). De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 445–479.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speas, P. (2004). Evidentiality, logophoricity, and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua, 114(3), 225–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speas, P., & Tenny, C. (2003). Configurational properties and point-of-view roles. In A. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in grammar: Vol. 1. Syntax and semantics (pp. 315–344). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stirling, L. (1993). Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tang, C.-C. J. (1989). Chinese reflexives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 71, 93–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Y. Y., & Pan, H. H. (2012). Thought de se, first-person indexicals, and Chinese reflexive ziji. [URL]
(2014). A note on the interpretation of non-de se attitude reports. Language, 90(3), 746–754. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Empathy and Chinese long-distance reflexive ziji: Remarks on Giorgi (2006, 2007). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 33(1), 307–322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, L. (1993). The long-distance binding of ziji. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 211, 123–141.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xue, P., Pollard, C. J., & Sag, I. A. (1994). A new perspective on Chinese reflexive ziji. In Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 432–447). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, D.-W. (1983). The extended binding theory of anaphora. Linguistic Research, 191, 169–192.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue