End of ADS-L Digest - 14 Apr 1996 to 15 Apr 1996 ************************************************ There are 16 messages totalling 471 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. the athlete/politician's third-person 2. LaCroix (4) 3. Your help needed 4. On those Bobdolisms (7) 5. 6. the politician's third person 7. Writers wanted: American National Biography ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:16:35 -0400 From: "Joan C. Cook" Subject: Re: the athlete/politician's third-person On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, Larry Horn taxed us with the Bob Dole construction: > My own hypotheses are > that it occurs primarily to mark a character-defining (rather than accidental > or "stage-level" property) of the individual in question [cf. the unlikelihood > of 'I'll have to take a break because Bob Dole needs to use the bathroom'] Looking at these through a narrative trope, I'm reminded of Charlotte Linde's observation that personal narrative "creates a distinction between the narrator and the protagonist of the narrative, and interposes a distance between them." (Life Stories, Oxford UP, 1993: 105) One thing that strikes me about most of these quotations is that the narrator is referring to something not just character-defining but also defensible or admirable that the protagonist has done or will do, so Linde's idea of interposing distance (which makes a great deal of sense in her data) doesn't seem useful for these speakers. And yes, they're clearly producing information at the wrong level on Prince's scale, so they're violating the Quantity Maxim and, if they're cooperating, ;-) they're generating some implicature. If the implicature is that the speaker is not in a position to use a deictic pronoun, perhaps it's because he's being his own spokesman -- i.e., instead of the guy's press secretary or agent or somebody answering questions about the guy, the guy is put(ting himself) in that role. In that case, he *would* need to interpose distance between the speaker and the spoken-about (narrator and protagonist). And if he's addressing the press (and these are all cases of that, right?), then it would make sense for the speaker to refer to the spoken-about with the name the audience is accustomed to hearing used by a spokesman. And if the guy's talking about something character-defining, defensible, and/or admirable about himself, maybe being principal and animator concurrently seems to throw the spotlight too much on him (yeah, like any of these guys have problems with that). What I'm thinking (fuzzily) is that maybe these cases are something like "Chris and myself," which also violates binding. Although, of course, if BD the spokesman is different from BD the principal, there's no binding violation, right? Kinda like Lynne's split-personality theory. :-) --Joan *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Joan C. Cook Imagination is Department of Linguistics more important Georgetown University than knowledge. Washington, D.C., USA cookj[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]gusun.georgetown.edu --Albert Einstein *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*