- •The subjectivity of utterance
- •10.0 Introduction
- •10.1 Refer e n c e
- •296 The subjectivity of utterance
- •298 The subjectivity of utterance
- •300 The subjectivity of utterance
- •302 The subjectivity of utterance
- •304 The subjectivity of utterance
- •306 The subjectivity of utterance
- •308 The subjectivity of utterance
- •310 The subjectivity of utterance
- •312 The subjectivity of utterance
- •314 The subjectivity of utterance
- •316 The subjectivity of utterance
- •318 The subjectivity of utterance
- •320 The subjectivity of utterance
- •322 The subjectivity of utterance
- •324 The subjectivity of utterance
- •326 The subjectivity of utterance
- •328 The subjectivity of utterance
- •330 The subjectivity of utterance
- •332 The subjectivity of utterance
- •334 The subjectivity of utterance
- •336 The subjectivity of utterance
- •338 The subjectivity of utterance
- •340 The subjectivity of utterance
- •342 The subjectivity of utterance
- •Suggestions for further reading
- •Bibliography
- •329 In correspondence with
- •144 Meaning-postulates, 102, 126 7
- •Value, 205 variables, 113
308 The subjectivity of utterance
(7) What's that thing?
The pronoun 'that' in (6), though not in all contexts, is a pure deictic. The noun-phrase 'that thing' in (7), on the other hand, is impurely deictic: it is composed of the purely deictic 'that' (here functioning as an adjective) and the noun 'thing' (which is in implicit contrast with such descriptively non-synonymous words as 'person' and 'animal' and encodes the speaker's cate-gorial, or ontological, assumptions about the entity in question). To be compared with (6) and (7) in this respect are
(8) Who's that?
and
(9) Who's that person?
Once again, the pronoun 'that' (in (8)) is purely deictic and the noun-phrase 'that person' is impurely deictic. It will be noticed, however, that (here is a categorial distinction in the interrogative pronouns 'who' and 'what' in English which encodes the difference between "person" and "thing". It follows that, as whole utterances, (6) and (7) are semantically equivalent; and so, in turn, are (8) and (9).
This apparently simple example illustrates not only the nature of the distinction which I am drawing between pure and impure deixis, but also the gaps and asymmetries which exist in the grammatical and lexical structure of natural languages and the problems which arise, in consequence, when one starts to take seriously the principle of compositionality in relation to the distinction between semantics and pragmatics.
We cannot go into such questions here. But students with a native or near-native command of English will get some sense of the complexity which lies behind or underneath even appar- ently simple examples such as (6)—(9) if they reflect upon the fol- lowing facts:
(i) There is a categorial gap between the interrogative pro- nouns and adjectives 'who' and 'what', such that one would not normally use either (6) or (8) to query the indi- vidual identity of an entity which is presupposed to be
10.2 Indexicality and deixis 309
neither a person nor a thing, but an animal. There is no such gap between the personal pronouns: animals, like babies, can be referred to either with 'it' or, in the appropriate circumstances, with 'he' or 'she'.
(ii) Whereas (8) is non-ambiguous, (6) has both an individual (or entity-referring) and a sortal (or categorial) meaning: "What (or which) individual [thing] is that?" versus "What kind [of thing] is that?".
(iii) The utterance-inscriptions What person is that? and What is that person? are non-ambiguous, the former, like (8) and (9), having only an individual meaning and the latter only a sortal meaning; What animal is that? is in this respect ambiguous, but What is that animal? has only a sortal meaning.
Facts such as these, which any native speaker of English takes into account, for the most part unconsciously, in the production and interpretation of utterances, cannot be discounted by semanticists: they are part and parcel of one's linguistic competence.
Languages vary considerably with respect to the kind of non-deictic information which they combine with deictic information in the meaning of particular expressions. And it is important to note that the non-deictic part of the meaning of impure deictics may be either descriptive (or propositional) or socio-expressive. The latter is very commonly encoded in the meaning of pronouns: notably, and on a scale that is unparalleled in European languages, in Japanese, Korean, Javanese and many languages of South-East Asia. The so-called T/V distinction that is found in many European languages - 'tu' versus 'vous' in French, 'du' versus 'Sie' in German, 'tu' versus 'usted' in Spanish, etc. - which has been much discussed in the sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic literature, exemplifies the phenomenon on a relatively small scale and in respect only of the pronouns used to refer to the addressee. In all languages that have the T/V distinction, the non-deictic meaning that is asso-