The literature says third-person pronouns are not deictic. But Yule (1996) says they are, and he gives an example of impersonalisation in social deixis as:
Somebody didn't clean up after himself.
Please, can somebody clarify?
They can be deicitic. You can say
"We have all eaten meat, but HE refuses to do so" (pointing to a person outside the group.
I can't think of a category of words that fits the definition of deictic better than third-person pronouns: words that require contextual information to convey meaning. We know who you and I are, independent of time and space and without pointing, but not he, him, she, her, they or them.
I have a friend who constantly aggravates me by using deictic terms without contextual information or when the context is ambiguous, assuming that I should be able to read her mind. This becomes especially aggravating when the sentence contains only singular context, or both a singular and a plural context, but the speaker maddeningly uses only plural pronouns for everyone. The editors here at RG do this. They speak of "a researcher" who wants an answer to "their question." Whose question should we answer, the researcher's or the question of unnamed persons? This is not only maddening, but destructive of the English language and sets a bad example, especially for those here to whom English is a second language. I see this in legal writings, especially trusts, where the mixup can be dangerous.
In many languages, the demonstratives are used as third person pronouns, so yes. They absolutely can be deictic.
Many languages have deictic pronouns (or demonstrative forms) which refer to the 3rd person. The Southern African languages are good examples of this. The 3rd person may be referred to by deictic pronouns in different classes. So, for example, if the 3rd person noun that is being referred to is a noun of class 7, then the deictic pronoun of that class will be used accompanied by some form of gesture, for example, pointing. Furthermore, depending on the context, there is the additional component of deictic position that can be considered, namely that of position 1 (this one), position 2 (that one), and position 3 (that one over there in the distance). For example: isitshudeni lesi (1st pos.), leso (2nd pos.) and lesiya (3rd pos.)
Third person pronouns (singular or not) are deictic, as evidenced in Yule. Which literature says they are not, btw?
Dear Weifeng, all the other books I've read, written on pragmatics, say third person pronouns (in English) are not. And please colleagues, I know of many languages, including my native Yoruba, whose third-person pronouns are deictic. My question isonly specific about English.
Hi Akin, thank you! My understanding is that deictic expressions are those whose interpretation is depenent on contextual information. In this sense, third person pronouns, along with the first and second ones, are deictic in language use. Although, exceptions may be found in idiomatic or constructionalized expressions. But that should not change the story. I am surprised that all the books you've read on pragmatics said the third person pronouns in English are not deictic. Do they say it is so particularly in English, or on a more universal basis? How do they define deixis/deictic? Are first and second person pronouns also not deictic in these books? What deictic examples do they have for English? Thank you! Just curious.
@Charles Gardner
Your example:
"The editors here at RG do this. They speak of 'a researcher' who wants an answer to 'their question.'"
In this case, they, their, them are illustrations of a third person singular neutral sex pronoun. There is no confusion between singular and plural.This is an innovation of English over the last 40-50 years (although there are some references much earlier) to answer the (grammatically bogus) accusation that people who used the third person masculine as a generic term were insensitively excluding women. Several competing methods of answering this social concern failed to stick. (S)he is unpronounceable. He/She is too violent with all that slashing. He or she is extremely cumbersome if needed more than once in a sentence. And why isn't she first? And the neuter seems harsh: "...a researcher who wants an answer to its question."
Objections do not hold up. Almost all pronoun systems are asymmetrical, so this disparity is not an issue. They uses are as the verb form of to be in the present tense, but so does the singular second person and the first person negative interrogative contracted form. (I am right, amn't I?) Some say we can't tell the singular from the plural if they have the same form, but all the second person forms are the same, and we are not generally confused. So although the 3rd person plural has only one form, the third person singular has a separate form for masculine, feminine, neuter, and neutral sex.
This innovation of English now permeates the language, and is not appropriate in only the most formal of reports.
copied from http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Pragmatics/PragmaticsPersonDeixis
Third person pronouns are only deictic when they are free, if they are bound, their reference is known from linguistic context. In deictic terms, third person differs from first and second person with regard to basic interactions. While the first and second person pronouns (I-you) are direct participants in a basic interaction, this is not the case for third person pronouns, since they refer to outsiders and thus suggest distance. Consequently, if a third person form is used in cases where a second person form would be possible, distance is communicated. In English this is sometimes done for ironic or humorous purposes. The following sentence
Would his highness like some coffee?
could be uttered by a person, who is very busy cleaning the kitchen, to an addressee who is very lazy. The distance communicated through third person can also be used to make accusations like in
Somebody didn’t clean up after himself.
http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Pragmatics/PragmaticsPersonDeixis
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching