Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:26:21 -0500 From: Natalie Maynor Subject: Bounced Mail **************************************************************** REMINDER: WHEN INCLUDING A PREVIOUS LIST POSTING IN SOMETHING YOU'RE SENDING TO THE LIST, BE SURE TO EDIT OUT ALL REFERENCES TO ADS-L IN THE HEADERS. **************************************************************** > Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:53:03 -0400 > From: "L-Soft list server at UGA (1.8b)" > Subject: ADS-L: error report from GUVAX.ACC.GEORGETOWN.EDU > >The enclosed message, found in the ADS-L mailbox and shown under the spool ID >6474 in the system log, has been identified as a possible delivery error notice >for the following reason: "Sender:", "From:" or "Reply-To:" field pointing to >the list has been found in mail body. > >------------------- Message in error (49 lines) -------------------------- > Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:52:53 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Peter L. Patrick" > Subject: Re: On those Bobdolisms > > > Subj: RE: On those Bobdolisms > > On the use of 3rd-person self-reference by FN+LN in public speech, > esp. to the media, Chris Brooks wrote about Indonesian: > > > My feeling here is that--in contrast to the self-promotional or > > dispassionate historical attitude toward oneself--the use of the > > proper name in place of the pronoun in Indonesian is a humbling > > device, at least as far as the speaker goes. > > Writing from Washington, though, I suspect the norms here are very > different, at least for the usage by politicians. Unlike the sports > figures, these folks often DON'T do their own scripting; the people > who do write comments for them may be the same ones who write press > releases *about* them; and the pols are used to thinking about their > message in 3rd-p terms, too, I'd bet, from campaign and other promo > experiences. The more distance the speaker has from their public > persona, perhaps the easier it is to project a coherent, fully two- > dimensional portrait composed of only that-which-will-sell. While no > doubt these folks are egocentric, they also are pretty image-aware and > I suspect that they're really NOT referring to their "selves" when > they use the FN+LN reference. > Also, I believe I've noticed-- impressionistically, of > course-- that when politicians comment negatively on each other, they > may use either LN or FN+LN, but when they comment positively they tend > to use TLN or FN+LN predominantly. I wonder if anyone has ever done > such a study in public-affairs discourse? So much has been written > about address, but I know of less on this sort of reference (not > counting syntactic treatments, of course). > (I also found Larry's and Joan's comments very helpful.) > --peter patrick >