This paper covered the differences in person-mapping in direct and indirect reported speech in different languages. The main distinction here was between European languages and languages of West Africa, though as the author notes, patterns similar to the ones found in West African languages do occur in other world languages. The initial point was simply disprove the common Euro-centric assumption that all languages map person values in reported speech in the same way as European languages. The author then covers a number of specific examples highlighting the differences in strategies adopted by various African languages in distinguishing direct from reported speech as far as the speaker in each speech-act, as well as distinguishing the addressee in each speech-act. It was interesting to see how much variation there is and to see specific examples of each.
In this paper, the author looked at person alignment in discourse, which is the distinction between speaker, addressee, and others not directly involved. She makes the point that this type of distinction differs across languages, especially between European and non-European languages, West African languages in particular. European languages tend to encode person in speech based on the distinction between the current speaker and addressee (1st and 2nd person) and all others (3rd person). However, in the linguistic systems discussed in this article, person alignment does not distinguish these speakers in the same way. Instead, person is encoded to address to both the interlocutors role in the current “speech event” and in the reported event.
This paper discussed the ways in which different languages encode speakers (1st, 2nd, 3rd person). There is a big difference between European languages and African and Asian languages. Specifically, the articles discussed how distinctions are made between the speaker, the addressee, and other uninvolved people in direct and indirect speech in different languages. English has a different way of constructing “person†than other languages such as West African do. The author explains that in other languages, “person†is construed not only in terms of the participant’s role in the current speech situation, but also in terms of its role in the reported speech-event. The author gave examples of Goemai, Havyaka Kannada, and Golin among others.
The word “deixis” was new to me so that this article was a good chance to know about it. We tend to think that western and European standard is a mainstream in the world, but to see such differences between languages is interesting. It talks about the ways how to encode person in speech comparing European languages and African languages.
Although I kind of got the idea, deixis and indexicality are still a little bit confusing to me being not from a linguistics background. I did not know the linguistic term until I read this article. I was aware, however, of the cross-cultural difference in personal deixis. Through my experience teaching the Indonesian language to native Japanese and English speakers, I became aware of how person values vary across cultures. For example, in Indonesian, we have a personal pronoun that I haven’t found in any other languages so far.
This article was very informative because it shows how other languages use point of view differently. In another class we discussed something a little different but it reminded me of this article because it shows how each culture has their own views on everything. For example in American English we say “the foot of a mountain” to refer to the bottom of a mountain, but in other languages they say “the butt of a mountain”. I find it extremely interesting how we have different concepts of the same objects.
The article was somehow confusing, I had to look at the website for further explanations on the deixis. People may clearly feel the ambiguity in most languages when for example you hear 1st speaker is saying: (he said that he came) the 2nd and 3rd persons here are quite confusing on whom the the speaker is referring to. It is interesting to know that some languages in Africa have Logophoric pronouns that you can easily distinguish the meaning on referring to whom. However, it is clear that logophoricity is not extended to the first person or the speaker, as there is no need for it. And it looks like some languages are complicated enough in having encoding markers for reposted speech-event!
It was interesting to find out that a number of African languages possessed a deictic distinction just like European languages. I didn’t know much about this topic before but I learned a little about the several types of person alignment or language specific correspondences between participant discourse roles and person values.
The cultural relevance of deixis takes on different forms depending on the purpose of speech events and from a functional linguistics perspective, I believe this feature of language serves to develop the personal and cultural pragmatics of discourse. In the sense that this feature also transcends cultural perspectives in reported discourse, its realization highlights academic tendencies to analyze discourse through Eurocentric lenses. As such, African logophoric markers provide rich ground for discourse pragmatics as exemplified in oral African griot traditions, aspects Nikitina argues cannot be replicated in European languages. She asserts that “theatricalâ€, “indexal-referential†and “anaphoric†functions are restricted to first person reporting in European language narratives while giving examples of Wan (Southeastern Mande) examples where first person reporting shifts to performance. As a result of this performance quality, characteristics of reported speakers are transcended in the narrator’s speech through paralinguistic attributes.
This paper covered the differences in person-mapping in direct and indirect reported speech in different languages. The main distinction here was between European languages and languages of West Africa, though as the author notes, patterns similar to the ones found in West African languages do occur in other world languages. The initial point was simply disprove the common Euro-centric assumption that all languages map person values in reported speech in the same way as European languages. The author then covers a number of specific examples highlighting the differences in strategies adopted by various African languages in distinguishing direct from reported speech as far as the speaker in each speech-act, as well as distinguishing the addressee in each speech-act. It was interesting to see how much variation there is and to see specific examples of each.
In this paper, the author looked at person alignment in discourse, which is the distinction between speaker, addressee, and others not directly involved. She makes the point that this type of distinction differs across languages, especially between European and non-European languages, West African languages in particular. European languages tend to encode person in speech based on the distinction between the current speaker and addressee (1st and 2nd person) and all others (3rd person). However, in the linguistic systems discussed in this article, person alignment does not distinguish these speakers in the same way. Instead, person is encoded to address to both the interlocutors role in the current “speech event” and in the reported event.
This paper discussed the ways in which different languages encode speakers (1st, 2nd, 3rd person). There is a big difference between European languages and African and Asian languages. Specifically, the articles discussed how distinctions are made between the speaker, the addressee, and other uninvolved people in direct and indirect speech in different languages. English has a different way of constructing “person†than other languages such as West African do. The author explains that in other languages, “person†is construed not only in terms of the participant’s role in the current speech situation, but also in terms of its role in the reported speech-event. The author gave examples of Goemai, Havyaka Kannada, and Golin among others.
The word “deixis” was new to me so that this article was a good chance to know about it. We tend to think that western and European standard is a mainstream in the world, but to see such differences between languages is interesting. It talks about the ways how to encode person in speech comparing European languages and African languages.
Although I kind of got the idea, deixis and indexicality are still a little bit confusing to me being not from a linguistics background. I did not know the linguistic term until I read this article. I was aware, however, of the cross-cultural difference in personal deixis. Through my experience teaching the Indonesian language to native Japanese and English speakers, I became aware of how person values vary across cultures. For example, in Indonesian, we have a personal pronoun that I haven’t found in any other languages so far.
This article was very informative because it shows how other languages use point of view differently. In another class we discussed something a little different but it reminded me of this article because it shows how each culture has their own views on everything. For example in American English we say “the foot of a mountain” to refer to the bottom of a mountain, but in other languages they say “the butt of a mountain”. I find it extremely interesting how we have different concepts of the same objects.
The article was somehow confusing, I had to look at the website for further explanations on the deixis. People may clearly feel the ambiguity in most languages when for example you hear 1st speaker is saying: (he said that he came) the 2nd and 3rd persons here are quite confusing on whom the the speaker is referring to. It is interesting to know that some languages in Africa have Logophoric pronouns that you can easily distinguish the meaning on referring to whom. However, it is clear that logophoricity is not extended to the first person or the speaker, as there is no need for it. And it looks like some languages are complicated enough in having encoding markers for reposted speech-event!
It was interesting to find out that a number of African languages possessed a deictic distinction just like European languages. I didn’t know much about this topic before but I learned a little about the several types of person alignment or language specific correspondences between participant discourse roles and person values.
The cultural relevance of deixis takes on different forms depending on the purpose of speech events and from a functional linguistics perspective, I believe this feature of language serves to develop the personal and cultural pragmatics of discourse. In the sense that this feature also transcends cultural perspectives in reported discourse, its realization highlights academic tendencies to analyze discourse through Eurocentric lenses. As such, African logophoric markers provide rich ground for discourse pragmatics as exemplified in oral African griot traditions, aspects Nikitina argues cannot be replicated in European languages. She asserts that “theatricalâ€, “indexal-referential†and “anaphoric†functions are restricted to first person reporting in European language narratives while giving examples of Wan (Southeastern Mande) examples where first person reporting shifts to performance. As a result of this performance quality, characteristics of reported speakers are transcended in the narrator’s speech through paralinguistic attributes.