published in Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture, Journal of Dravidic Studies, 1998, 8-2, pp.105-31

On aap and tan forms in Indo-aryan and Dravidian languages: Person, reflexivisation and focalisation (a plausible case of convergence)*

Annie Montaut (INALCO, CNRS)

Summary

The fairly big amount of literature devoted to the question of anaphora in Indian languages during the last ten years has mainly focused on the problems raised by the very nature of the forms used as anaphoric devices1. The Long Distance bound Dravidian form tan indeed appears to be partly pronominal and partly anaphorical. The fact that such a non typical behaviour --similar to Japanese zibun -- also holds true for Marathi aapan , whereas the Hindi form apnaa behaves more like a true A expression, yet not fully, may suggest a general convergence among both Indo-aryan and Dravidian families, Marathi being since long recognised as a contact language. This paper aims at confirming such a conclusion, by embracing the full range of functions of the morphologically related forms in both linguistic groups. Both forms apna and tan have an anaphoric function indeed, respectively strictly reflexive or bound pronoun (section 1), which has been widely studied, but they also share a focalising function, which received comparatively less attention (section 2). The latter seems, specially in Dravidian, to share a number of features with the intensive use of English -self or French -même, which have been convincingly analysed as primarily focus markers, further grammaticalised into reflexives. This raises the question of the origin of the anaphoric behaviour, in connection with intensive or focalising devices. However, both Dravidian and Indo-Aryan show still another use, often considered as homonymous, of similar or related forms, as personal pronoun, ie a person involved in the speech utterance (section 3). Athough such uses are practically never mentioned as a relevant issue to the problem, they seem to have preceded the functional couple reflexive/intensive in Dravidian. We may then wonder if, in the case of Hindi too, where the reflexive function is historically primary, such an homonymy should not be

* Paper presented in an earlier version at the XIIIth European Conference of South Asian Studies (August 1993, Toulouse), French modified version to be published in Zribi-Hertz Les Pronoms , 1998, Publ. Paris VIII-Vincennes, pp. 101-128.1 The International Conference organised by K.V. Subbarao and R.N. Srivastava in Delhi University in 1989 is a good evidence: most of the communications pointed at various difficulties to fit the Dravidian, Indo-aryan or Tibeto-burman anaphora into the classical frame of GB.

considered as more than a fortuitous coïncidence: which invites us to formulate still differently the question of the acquisition of reflexive properties (section 4)2.

1 The reflexives : in the restricted meaning (locally bound SD) in Hindi and in a wider meaning (long distance bound LD) Dravidian

Reflexives3 share with non reflexive anaphorising pronouns the property of not having any proper reference, therefore being referentially unsaturated, taking their referential saturation from an R expression in the linguistic context: hence the term of 'endophore' which defines them in contrast with the 'exophoric' terms like I or you, which have a situational reference (Halliday & Hasan 1979, Zribi-Hertz 1995, Kleiber 19864). Among the endophores, the reflexive exhibits the particularity of being necessarily bound to a c-commanding antecedent, whereas an anaphorising pronoun like 'he' may or may not do so (Bill knows I hate him. Bill is always shouting. I hate him). I will use hereafter the traditional term of 'reflexive', which cannot be ambiguous with other anaphorising forms like 'anaphor', reserving the use 'anaphoric' properties (A) to the restricted meaning attached to it in Chomsky (1981).

1.1 The Hindi facts

1.1.1 the reflexive apnaa

It can occur in an argument position, direct or oblique (1, 2) or in the specifier position (3) functionning as a possessive adjective, since in Hindi the possessive is the genitive form of the pronoun, made into an adjective which varies as such5. (1)-(4) shows the well-known facts of a clear contrast between pronoun (or pronominal possessive adjective) and reflexive, the latter occuring when its referent is the same as that of the main subject, be it marked as an experient (2b) or an ergative agent (3)

(1) raami apnei ko (uskoz) baRaa maantaa hai Ram REFL ACC (3S-ACC) great consider PRST-3MS

2 Given the aim of the paper, obviously many complexities have been deliberately put aside in different languages. On a theoretical level, the purpose was to explore the affinities between person and reflexive/focalising functions, and on a descriptive level, the data is centered on Hindi3 I will use the term 'reflexive' in reference to both categories (short distance bound reflexives stricto sensu , and long distance bound pronouns) which contrast in their binding domain (minimal governing category and governing category respectively, a distinction Everaert (1991) borrows from Chomsky (1981), because both these categories contrast together with the category of pronouns, and because on the semantic level -which I will insist on here-- this class exhibits more unity than heterogeneity. In a similarly general meaning an anaphoric device is an expression which requires an antecedent for its referential saturation.4 Such an opposition amounts to the opposition of opaque and transparent, incomplete and complete (Kleiber 1986). 5 As an argument apna is always in the oblique form since the object argument is always marked in the accusative, being a human entity. As a specifier, it varies in gender number and case, agreeing with its N.

'Ram thinks of himself (of him) highly'(2) a tumi keval apnei (*tumhaare) lie kaam karte ho

2 only REFL (2-GEN) for work do PRST-2M'you work only for yourself'

(2) b mujhko apne (*mere) lie Dar nahiiN hai1s-DAT REFL (* 1S-GEN) for fear-NOM NEG is'I am not afraid for myself'

(3) maiNine apnaai (*meraa) kaam kiyaa 1S-ERG REFL (1S-GEN) work do-PFT'I did my work'

(4) vahi apnei (uskez) dost se baat kar rahaa hai6

3S-NOM REFL-O (3S-GEN-O) friend-O to speech do PROGR PRST-3MS'he speaks to his friend'

2 (a,b) shows a clear contrast between first and second pronouns tum and main, not available if the antecedent is the subject of the sentence, and the reflexive apna requested in such a context. The third person pronoun or possessive adjective instead of the reflexive in (1) and (4) would impose a disjoint reference. Symetrically the use of the reflexive in a dependant clause is acceptable, but rules out the coïndexation with the main subject, whereas the pronoun can be coïndexed with either the main subject or with some other argument, discursively or situationnally recoverable :(5) siitaai ne socaa thaa ki raam apnii*i/z (uskii i/*z/x) gaaRii kii marammat karegaa

Sita ERG think-PPFT that Ram REFL (3S-GEN) car of repair will do'Sita had thought that Ram would repair her car'

apna clearly displays A properties, as well as its urduised or sanskritised counterparts khud or swayam (1') : in a simple clause with finite verb it is bound in its local domain (minimal governing category) contrasting with the pronoun P, free in its local domain (Chomsky 1981, 1986).

(1') raami khud/swayami ko baRaa maantaa hai Ram REFL ACC great consider PRST-3MS

'Ram thinks of himself highly'

1.1.2. Ambiguities : where the picture gets blurred

It is well known that in embedded sentences with non tensed predicates, such a clear-cut purely syntactic contrast does not account for everything. Apna is not only sensitive to tense opaticy (Gurtu 1992), but in such cases, to logophoricity7, since in ambiguous

6 apne the oblique of the masculine singular of the possessive determiner, "his", is homonymous with the pronominal form of the reflexive "himself", always oblique (1, 2). Contrary to the latter, it varies in gender (apnii "her") and number, as well as caes: direct case in (3), oblique in (4). As for the possessive adjective formed on the génitive of the personal pronoun, it also varies in number, gender and case (direct case in (3), oblique in (4)).7 Kuno (1987) defines logophoricity constraint for emphatic reflexive himself as follows: "himself is acceptable in a complement clause only if it belongs to a logophoric clause and its antecedent is logo-1 or

sentences like (6) the minimal governing category is either the strictly syntactical domain or the discursive domain, giving two readings (both argument being logophoric arguments, they are accessible antecedents): (6) raami rameSj se apnei/j choTe bhaaii ke saath khelne ko kahtaa hai

Ram Ramesh to REFL young brother with play to say-PRST"Ram asks Ramesh to play with his young brother"

The logophoricity condition is a well known property of the so called long distance anaphora (Reuland 1991, Hertz 1990b, 1995). In the absence of a logophoric verb, ambiguïty is far less (7a), but other parameters seem to be at stake, like the orientation of higher verbs in more complex sentences. (7b) has a subject oriented verb, 'be angry' and a possible interpretation of apna as coindexed with main subject, whereas (7c) has a non subject oriented verb,'give back' and apna is again preferably coïndexed with object like in (7b):SAP (1c-d).(7)a kusumi ne mohiniij ko apnaaj/??i kurtaa siite hue dekhaa

Kusum ERG Mohini-ACC REFL skirt sewing see-PFT"Kusum saw Mohini stitching her skirt"

(7)b kusumi mohiniij ko apnaai/j kurtaa siite hue dekhkar naaraaz ho gaiiKusum Mohini ACC REFL skirt stitching having seen angry became"Kusum seeing Mohini stich her skirt got angry"

(7)c kusumi ne mohiniij ko apnaaj kurtaa siite hue dekhkar keNcii vaapas diiKusum-ERG Mohini ACC REFL skirt stiching having seen cissors back gave"Kusum seeing Mohini stitching her skirt gave back the cissors"

We can then conclude that Hindi anaphora behaves as a true reflexive in a simple finite sentence, but partly as a LDB pronoun, sensitive to pragmatic and discursive properties, when it occurs in a non tensed dependant clause8.

1.2. The Marathi factsThe related marathi form aapaN (oblique aaplyaa ) is quite clearly LD bound. Verb

"think" and "know" in examples 2 are logo-1, and coreference is only possible with their subject, the main subject of the following sentences, which is distinct from the accessible subject in the minimal domain. aapaN does not occur in the matrix clause9, it is anti local and C-commanded, whereas swataah, also a form correlated to

2 for the logophoric verb which takes the complement [logophoric verbs like "say, think, write" introduce a complement clause which denotes the speech or thought of its subject (logo-1) whereas logophoric verbs like "hear, listen" do the same for their object (logo-2)]. If the complement clause represent the speech /thought of a NP constituant of the main clause, the NP of the complement clause can be realised by himself if it corresponds to the first or second person in the direct discourse: "Mary said to (*about) John that an obscene paper supposedly written by Ann and himself was being circulated".8 Such properties also involve the salience of NPs, first or second person behaving as a more accessible antecedent, all other things being equal, producing slight variations in the ambiguity of 6 type statements. See Montaut 1993.

hindi/Sanskrit swayam obeys the constraint of locality and can occur in the matrix clause, as evidenced in (8, 9) (from Wali 1989, and Wali and Subbarao 1991)

(8) Lilii aaplyaa.laa*i (ti.laa*i/j) (swataah.laai) asteLili REFL-DAT (PRO-DAT) (REFL-DAT)) laughs "Lili laughs at herself"

(9)a Lili samajte ki aapan (swataah*)libral aahotLili thinks that REFL liberal is "Lili thinks that she is liberal"

(8) and (9a) seem to distribute the true reflexive (refl1) swataah and the LD pronoun (refl2) aapaN in a complementary distribution which evokes that of Dutch sichzelf and sich (Everaert 1991). It contrasts with the Hindi facts, where both forms can comute, and none is specified for being LDB. Marathi aapaN, antilocal (9b), may have an antecedent in a still higher clause 9(c), a property it shares with the well-known Japanese LDB zibun, and can accept split antecedents (9d), like other LDB expressions (9)b Lilii samajte ki Susij aaplyaa.laa*j/i haste

Lili thinks that Susi REFL2-dat laughs "Lili thinks that Susi laughs at her"

(9)c Lilii aaplyaa.laa*i/j hasli asa kaLtaa-c Ravij-ni ti-caa-si bolNa soDlaLili REFL2-DAT-laughs that think-as-soon Ravi-ERG she-with speak stopped"As soon as Ravi knew that Lili laughed at him he stopped speaking to her"

(9)d Lili.nii Saamlaaj kaLavla ki aapanij (swataahi/*ij) te kaam karNa yogya naahilili-ERG Saam-ACC informed that REFL (REFL1) this job do proper neg"Lili informed Sam that they or she (he) could not do this job"

It appears that Marathi seems to have distributed both morphological bases in relatively well distinct functions SD and LD. It contrasts with Hindi in associating a specific form to non locally bound positions, and here is closed to Dravidian, whereas it is close to Hindi in maintaining the other form in a strictly reflexive function in simplex sentences, a fact almost ignored, or at least extremely marginal, by Dravidian.

1.3. Dravidian facts

Even if we do not enter the detail of differences between the main Dr. languages and try to schematize the data like we did for the IA facts, the whole group exhibits a

9 With a main argument of the verb. With oblique argument it may occur, with either a reflexive or a non reflexive (egophoric) reading: (10)a raamne aaplyaa vishyi maahiti dili ˆ

Ram erg refl about information gave"Ram gave information about himself / us".

Whereas even an oblique but main argument forbids the reflexive reading (given only by use of swataah instead of aaplyaa)(10)b Raam aaplyaa var rangaavalaa aahe

Ram self on angry was, "Ram was angry against *himself/ us" (Kalamkar 1995 : 75-7)

specificity which has widely been commented in recent literature10. The form tan mentionned as a reflexive (Tam taan obliquetanna , Tel tan tanna, Mal and Kan taan tanna), is used in the third person, may be a subject, and it is only exceptionnally locally bound, in very particular conditions like (11a) in Tamil:

(11)a Sita (tannai) aDitti-koN-DaalSita (REFL-ACC) strike-KOL-past-3fsSita beats herself

First its occurrence is optionnal, as shown by bracketting, then it is licensed only by the presence of the verbal reflexivizer koL, in a similar way as French "lui-même", which does not produces reflexive meaning but somewhat emphazises it.

(11)b Pierre se lave (lui-même)P. refl.voice. wash (him-sefl)Peter washes himself

That is why tan cooccurring with the reflexivizer koL will be treated in next section.Subbarao indicates for the Telugu form tana , which works as an anaphoric device, a behaviour very similar with Marathi aapaN (Wali and Subbarao : 199 to whom I borrow (12). We can compare Telougou (12) and Tamil (13a), from Yadurajan (1991), to Marathi (9) :

(12)[kamalaj tanai*j gurinci ceDDana maaTlaaDindi] ani] Kamala REFL about bad spoke COMPteliseeka Ravii aame-to maaTlaaDaDam maaneeseeDuknow-after Ravi she-to speake stop (Wali&Subbarao1991)"As soon as Ravi knew that Kamala spoke badly about him, he stopped speaking to

her" (13)a [taan uurukku varamuDiyaaDu enru [raaman erudinaan enru]] Siita conna

REFL town-DAT come-can-NEG COMP] Raman wrote COMP Sita said"Sita said that Ram had written that she/he could not come to town"

Kannada (13b), from Yadurajan (1991) is the equivalent for Tamil (13a), and Mohanan (1982) mentions for Malayalam the now famous triple embedded sentence (14), which the antecedent of taan may be any of the three higher subjects, but not the subject of the same clause neither any object

(13)b [[taanuij uurige baruvudakkaaguvudilla endu] raamanui barediddaane endu] refl town-dat can-neg-come COMP Ram wrote COMP Sitaj heelidaluSita said

"Sita said that Ram had written that he/she could not visit his/her hometown"

(14) [taanik/*jl aanaye muLLi ennD] ammai acchanooTj parannu eenD] refl elephant-acc pinched COMP mother to-father said COMP

raajaawinDk toonni ennD] mantriyel raaNi wiswasippiccuking felt COMP minister queen made believeThe queen convinced the minister that the king felt that mother told the father that self (queen/¨*minister/king/mother/*father) pinched the elephant" (Mohanan, 1982)

10 Starting with the two conferences organised in DU by KV Subbarao.

As noticed by Jayaseelan (1996) verbs need not being logophoric to allow for such LDB interpretations, but logophoricity constraint is required to account for the "free" reflexive in (15), which has its antecedent in the previous sentence, clearly behaving as the subject of conscience of the narrative sequence presented in free indirect style

(15) raamamu yoocisutta kuLitukonda. taaneenu tappu maaDiddu?Raman thinking sat. REFL-INTERR wrong do-PASTtanageeke hiigaayitu?REFL-DAT-why happen-PASTRam sat thinking. What wrong has he done? Why have things turned out like this

for him?11

Zribi-Hertz (1989) Koster & Reuland (1991) have shown the importance of discursive focalisation for Enflish self French même and other languages: it is not longer to be proved. However in the case of Dravidian and perhaps also of IA, the copious literature describing tan or apna as reflexives, either locally or antilocally bound, rarely considers associating these functions to the focalising function attached to the same or to a related form, with the noticeable exception of Jayaseelan (1990, 1996). This is the point I will analyse in next section.

2. The focalizing adjuncts : Tamil taan and Hindi apne aap, aap

The descriptions of both series of forms, which are more often available in grammars than really analysed, present a varied terminology: 'clitic' is often used for Dr., whereas IA is described as an 'emphatic' or 'intensive' and more recently an intensive 'reflexive' or 'anaphora'. Let us consider that such forms, when not in a position of argument, are adjuncts, with a focalizing meaning, and let the content of 'focus' be further explained during the analysis.

2.1. Subject AdjunctThe Dravidian clitic is made on the basis of taan (+e, e being itself an intensive

particle). So in Kannada, taane, adjoined to a subject pronoun or proper noun more often, means 'in person', 'Xself', and tanne in Malayam too:

(16)a avan-taane banda Kannada 3MS-EMPH come-PAST

'he came personnally'(16)b naan-taane avnig ii viSya heeLiddu

1S-EMPH 3S-DAT cette chose say-PAST'I told him myself, it is me who told him'

(17) raaman (awar, naan) -tanne poyiMalayalam

Raman (3S, 1S) EMPH go-PAST'Raman (he/I) went there himself (myself)'

In Tamil, the simple form taan (or taane ) can adjoin to a subject, this use being quoted

11 Yadurajan 1991 : 236. Jayaseelan quotes a similar sequence in Malayalam (1996 : 209 n.2, ex i).

by Caldwell (1856) as the illustration of the most current values of the term (naan-taan 'I myself', nii-taan 'though thyself', avaan-tann 'he himself', etc.).

(18) niingka-taan pasT kesTyou-taan first guest 'you are the first guest to come'12

As an adjunct to the subject, Hindi systematically uses swayam (khud in the urduised register) and aap 13,apne aap , the latter a reduplicated form, sometimes called "strong form":

(19)a maiN apne aap (aap) jaauuNgaa "I shall go myself"I apne aap (aap) go-future

(19)b maiN apne aap (khud/swayam) apnaa kapRaa dhotii huuNI apne aap khud . swayam refl clothe wash "I wash my clothes myself"

Yet as can be seen from (19c) to (19), both forms are not really interchangeable. What apne aap focalizes is not exactly the entity (the clitic particle hii does the job), but the subject function itself, as a dynamic relation between subject and verb: it is not allowed with static predicates (19c,e), whereas swayam or khud is, and can adjoin to inanimate only if they are (metaphorically) endowed with autonomous motion or action capacity :

(19)c ve swayam /*apne aap/ khaRe haiN they standing up are

"they themselves are standing up"(19)d Ramesh swayam / apne aap/ khaRaa ho gayaa

Ramesh stand up became "Ramesh have stood up by himself"

(19)e maiN swayam /*apne aap/ dakTar huuN I doctor am "I myself am a doctor"

(19)f maiN apne aap DaakTar ban jaauuNgaa I doctor will become "I will become a doctor by myself"

(19)g gaaRii apne aap calii gaiicar left "the car left by itself"

Emphasizing the relation to the process and not the entity itself, it receives according to the context various interpretations and translations (himself, by himself, of his own will, alone, etc). In other words it is not exclusively a marker of restricted focus. (19d) is natural in the situation where a paralytic miraculously stands up, or baby Ramesh walks his first steps, or any less extreme but special context which implies the difficulty in the autonomous accomplishment of the process, since otherwise it is but natural to stand up 'one self' and does not need emphasis. (19e) underlines such an autonomy (like "clothes wash by themselves" in say, a super washing machine kapRe apne aap dhulte haiN). It is not the entity but the semantic role of a dynamic and autonomous subject which is here focalised. Apart from the meaning of exclusivity, also shared by swayam, that König (1990) associates to German selbst in similar statements14, apne aap emphasises

12 Example from Chevillard (1997), who gives the preceding context: answer to Raja who arrives at a birthday party and enquires where are the other guests.13 Less frequent, only in writing, to-day slightly archaïsing, or literary.14 "Der Hund öffnet die Tür selbst", the dog opens the dor himself, "Der Direktor wäscht sein Auto nicht selbst" the Director does not wash his car himself" (König 1990 : 89 "non head-bound selbst")

the involvment of the subject, and its involvment into an action process, that is, as a dynamic autonomous actor (even metaphorically) and not as a the undergoer of a state.

As for swayam (khud) when it does not introduce, as is most often the case, a contrastive focus ("restrictive dominance"), it marks the crucial role of the focalised entity in a given situation. (19c) requires, to be natural, some situation where a wounded needs urgent care (actual context of the example), or a conversation rolling on medicine, which allow the subject to assume a crucial role in that context. Then how are we to precise this notion of crucial role? Contrastive examples themselves (!) show that they do not only amount to emphasise any one of the entity listed. Only one of them can be focalised by swayam in the following pair:

(20)a raam ke bhaaii se hamaarii baat huii. Raam swayam vilaayat calaa gayaa thaaRam of brother to our speech was. Ram swayam abroad had gone'We spoke with Ram's brother. Ram himself had gone abroad'

(20)b raam se hamasrii baat huii. uske bhaaii *swayam vilaayat calaa gayaa thaa'We spoke with Ram. His brother *swayam had gone abroad'

The contrast (20a) and (20b) shows that the focalised entity can only be that which is presented in a dependance relation vis à vis the other, or in different terms, must be the one which is presented as a localiser or the pivot of the relation (here in a lower position in the syntagm). We could speak like Kuno & Eburaki (1977) of a rupture of the empathic continuum: the presentation "Ram's brother" implies that the speaker is more in empathy with Ram since the other person is presented in relation to Ram. The empathy focus on which is built the first segment of (20a) is 'Ram' and not 'brother'. Reversely, swayam introduces a focalisation which drives the empathic view-point towards this second person, initially left out of the 'camera angle' and would be promoted to the foreground, contradicting the first camera view point and empathy continuum. Hence the empathy conflict and the resulting inacceptability of (20b).

Such a notion of empathy focus comes close here to the notion of hierarchisation. For the speaker who represents two entities as X and X's brother, we can infer that X his more important than his brother. The marker of focus can only attach to the most important entity, the higher on some hierarchy, which is here that of personal affinities and private knowledge.

In a non explicitely contrastive environment, swayam always marks the element which is in a hierarchic superiority, some culminant point in a scale specified by the context, "the most prominent entity within a set of related values", the entity being promoted as the "center attached to a periphery, a surrounding, of alternative values", according to König (1990 : 87-91). For instance, if Richard Wagner himself attends the inauguration of the Bayreuth Festival, it is because his notoriety and prestige ensure that he has an eminent position among all the spectators. Whereas if the technician himself has failed to find the origin of the electricity break down, the selection of 'technician' for highlighting results from his high technical competence in the relevant problem. Starting from this analysis, Baker (1995) associates the use of free intensive himself to the entity

"more likely to play a significant role" in the context, like the custodians in an illegal trash deposit (21a), but not in an episode of check-kiting (21b)

(21) All the employees of that Company will have to appear before the grand jury, where they

will be asked what they know about the alledged illegal trash disposal. The custodians themselves will testify late thursday afternoon, the other employees on Friday(...what they know about the alledged check kiting. The custodians *themselves...)

In the same way in the context of academic performance, swayam can adjoin to the term which refers to the erudite pandit, but not to some weak student, weakly significant in intellectual prowess.

(22)a savaal baRaa mushkil thaa. paNDit-jii swayam (*apne aap) use kar nahiiN paae15

question very difficult was ; pandit-ji swayam (*apne aap) it-ACC do NEG could'the question was very difficult; the great pandit himself could not solve it'

Only in such a context swayam and not apne aap can have a scalar meaning, which is (Zribi-Hertz 1990b, Ducrot 1980) linked to the argumentative value. In (23) the French focus marker même (23a) can comute with the discursive connector même (23b) with not much semantic change:

(23)a L'Année dernière à Marienbad ennuie Alain Robbe Grillet lui-mêmeL'Année dernière à Marienbad bores Alain Robbe Grillet himself

(23)b L'Année dernière à Marienbad ennuie même Alain Robbe Grillet L'Année dernière à Marienbad bores even Alain Robbe Grillet (ex from Zribi-Hertz)

Being the director of the film, Alain Robbe-Grillet is the least probable person to get bored at it, and then the best proof of the boring quality of it, or at least a decisive argument. Significantly, French "jusque" ("up to, till"), more transparently evoking a graduable scale, is a possible substitute for "lui-même" in such a context:.23c L'Année dernière à Marienbad ennuie jusqu'à Alain Robbe Grillet This notion of decisive argument in a discours aiming at proving something underlies such uses of même in French, and of swayam in Hindi, also commutable with the scalair particle tak (up to, till) :

(22)b savaal baRaa mushkil thaa. paNDit-jii tak use kar nahiiN paaequestion very difficult was ; pandit-ji tak [till] it-ACC do NEG could'the question was very difficult; the great pandit himself could not solve it'

Swayam contrasts with apne aap by its contrastive or scalar meaning, depending on whether the focus is restricted or open. apne aap cannot be argumentative and focalises the role of a dynamic subject rather than an entity. Why? We will try to answer this question after commenting the other focalizing functions of the form apnaa.

2.2. Adjunct to the reflexive2.2.1. Hindi

In locally bound positions (1.1.1.) the form apne aap is considered as a strong or reinforced, or emphatic, form, optionnal in relation to the simple form apne, somewhat

15 apne aap would have the "exclusif" meaning of (18) : ''by himself', 'by his own means'.

like German sich selbst in relation to sich. We can then have (24) in the same meaning as (1)

(24) raam apne aap ko baRaa maantaa haiRam apne aap ACC great considers'Rams thinks highly of himself'

Aap in (24) in relation with apne , the simple reflexive form, plays the same role as selbst in relation with sich, and as apne aap in relation with NP in (18-19). However it is not always an emphatic stylistic variation since (25) shows it is obligatory and (26, 27) shows it as a preferred variant

(25) apne aapko jaano (?*apne ko jaano)refl-EMPH know-imper: "know yourself"

(26) baar-baar apne aap se kahatii rahii aur apne ko samjhaatii rahii ki... again and again refl EMPH to said-DURAT and REFL ACC persuaded-DURAT that "She kept repeating to herself (emph) and persuading herself that..." (M. Garg)

(27) maiN to apne aap se juujhne lagii huuN I partcl REFL EMPH with struggle have started"I have started struggling with myself"

With a verb like jaannaa "to know", which usually implies a knower distinct from the known object, it is hardly conceivable to have the simple form (12a). Besides, the meaning is necessarily subjective, hence obeying internality constraint16, since the objective knowledge in case of a joint reference is already given and cannot undergo imperative mood (which would imply a not-yet state).

Similarly, with verbs which require more or less exclusively disjoint reference of subject and object, like "speak", "struggle with" (26, 27), the presence of the emphasizer is practically required: even writers who are very parcimonious in the use of this supposedly "free" emphatics, like Krishna Sobati and Mridula Garg, (as opposed to sensasionalist novelists like Gulshan Nanda, who is very generous with it), always use it with verb "say" and "struggle". Such cases of constrained distribution shows that the focalizer apne aap emphasizes a weakly plausible joint reference. And this echoes the behaviour of French "-même". Significantly, this semantic class of verb is the same that requires the adjonction of même in French to get a joint reference interpretation (28), like the true reflexive se produces a joint interpretation (28c)17

(28)a Pierrei bavarde avec luii-même (lui*i/j) "Pierre is chatting with himself (him)

16 Or endophoricity, two terms coined by A. Hertz in a study of French "même" as a focaliser. Some idiomatic uses of Hindi long forms seem to confirm this hypothesis: apne aapko dekho "look at yourself" (before condeming others: start judging yourself), apne aapko kyoN maar rahe ho, "why do you worry so much" (and not factually give blows to yourself).17 Zribi-Hertz 1990a. Similarly, est jaloux de lui-même, is jealous of himself, vs est fier de lui , is proud of him. The conjoint reference reading in Hindi, as opposed to the French examples, is constrained by the use of the simple reflexive. It is not produced, but only given plausibility by the intensive adjunct in (24) - (27), where the weak plausibility of coïndexation requires the "underlining" of the intensive.

(28)b Pierrei est en bagarre avec luii-même (avec lui*i/j) "Pierre is struggling with himself (him)

(28)c Pierre se regarde vs Pierre le regarde "Pierre is looking at himself vs Pierre is looking at him"

We can then conclude that aap, the intensive of the reflexive, when it is not simply intensive, appears typically in cases where coïndexation is marked, because weakly plausible on the semantic level.

2.2.2. The locally bound tan in Dravidian: reflexive or intensive?The situation in Tamil, Telugu and Kannada is at this level comparable, since

taan can only occurr in locally bound positions (third person) if there is a reflexive verb: the non pronominal morpheme koL, integrated in the verbal paradigm, is the real reflexivizer, since it transforms a verb like hoDe (Kannada : 29, 30) or aDitti (Tamil : 31), 'beat', into 'be beaten' (hoDekoL-, aDittikoL-)

(29) naanu nannannu hogaLikonDe (*hogaLide) Kannada I me-ACC praise-koL-PAS-1 (praise-PAS-1) "I praised myself"18

In the third person the use of taan , simple or reduplicate, is impossible in the absence of the koL element

(30)a raamanu tannannu (tannanu taanu) hoDedukonDanu Ram REFL-ACC (REFL-ACC EMPH) beat koL-past-3s "Ram has beaten himself"(30)b raamanu avanannu (*tannannu) hoDedanu Ram 3S-ACC (*REFL-ACC) beat-past-3, "Ram has beaten him /*himself"

So that we might interpret this tan , rather than as a bound pronoun, as a simple focalizer emphasising the entity to be interpreted as coïndexed with the subject, be it expressed in a pronominal form or unexpressed. In Tamil, the statement without object pronoun nor taan has already the reflexive meaning (31a), and the reduplicated taan (-ai marks accusative, -e the intensive emphatic) produces the same meaning as the duplicate pronoun: (31e) corresponds to (31c), only adding a vague emphasis supplement according to the speakers to the pair with no reduplication (31d, 31b).-I use French translation because of the better correspondance of reflexive voice

(31)a Sita aDitti-koN-DaaL tamilSita beat-kol-PAST-3FS'Sita s'est battue' (Sita beat herself)

(31)b Sita avaLai aDitti-koN-DaalSita 3fs-ACC beat-kol-PAST-3FS'Sita s'est battue elle-même' (Sita beat herself)

(31)c Sita avaLai avaLe aDitti-koN-DaalSita 3fs-ACC 3fs-INT beat-kol-PAST-3FS'Sita s'est battue elle-même' (Sita beat herself)

(31)d Sita tannai aDitti-koN-DaalSita REFL-ACC beat-kol-PAST-3FS

18 tannannu is the accusative of the reflexive, taanu the intensive. A similar example in Telugu (Subbarao) : nannu neenu koTTu-konn-annu [I me-acc beat-koL-prst-1] "I beat myself".

'Sita s'est battue elle-même' (Sita beat herself) (= 31)b(31)e Sita tannai taane aDitti-koN-Daal

Sita REFL-ACC REFL-INT beat-kol-PAST-3FS'Sita s'est battue elle-même' (Sita beat herself) (=31)c

In all Dravidian languages except Malayalam, it is koL a verbal formant, which has the reflexive force. The use of "reflexive" taan in the matrix clause has to be licensed bykoL, and is not compulsory. Only in Malayalam19, a language without kol , the tanne form (accusatif is homomorph to intensive -e) is required for the reflexive reading, but only in the reduplicated form (32a) or as the secund element adjunct to a pronoun (32b,c). Notice that the pronoun can be of any person and not only third person. Its use alone (as a true reflexive) is as much ruled out as the use of a B pronoun, as noted by Jayaseelan (1990, 1996), (32d,e), and there is no equivalent for (31a) since koL lacks.

(32)a raaman tanne tanne sneehikkunnu, Ram REFL-ACC EMPH loves "Ram loves himself"

(32)b raaman awane-tanne sneehikkunnu, Ram PRO-3 EMPH loves "Ram loves himself"

(32)c naan yenne tanne aDiccuu I 1S-ACC REFL-ACC/EMPH beat "I beat myself"

(32)d *raaman tanne sneehikkunnu, Ram REFL-ACC loves "Ram loves himself"

(32)e *Raamani awanei sneehikkunnuRami himi loves

Series 32 shows both that tan, far from being a strict anaphora, behaves as a pronoun when it is the first constituant of a reduplicated (emphatic) sequence or when it is single, and as a focaliser when it is the second constituant. It is noticeable that in the absence of verbal reflexivizer, focalization is required, and that the first constituant of the reduplicated (emphatic) sequence allows for the free commutation of the tanne form (third person only) and the pronominal form (all persons). If tanne is allowed only when duplicated or emphasizing a pronominal, this indicates that it does not behave as a reflexive but, if we admit that reduplication in itself is a focalizing device, that object focalization produces the required linguistic device for joint reference interpretation of both arguments in Malayalam. Jayaseelan 1988 invites to consider a possibly fundamental relation between reflexives and emphatics.

We may then hypothesis that Dravidian tan , already recognised as a pronominal rather than a true anaphor (Subbarao), is essentially a marker of focus. This is particularly clear in Malayalam where the absence of 'reflexive voice' is obviated not by the use of taan but by its reduplication or by the reduplication of the pronoun or even by the emphatic adjunction of tanne to the pronoun. But Tamil too, Kannada and Telugu, which do have a 'reflexive voice' (koL), exhibit paradigms in which the simple form of tan alternates with its reduplicated form or the reduplication of the pronoun. So that we sometimes find analysis of the simple form tan analysed as ajunct to an empty

19 See Jayaseelan 1990, 1996 to whom I borrow the examples.

pronoun for statements like (31a). The synchronic data of Dravidian is then a good illustration of the process of

grammaticalization of the so-called intensive forms in reflexive uses. Baker (1995) gives the following account of the genesis of reflexivisation: initially used to mark jont reference when it is highly unprobable, and refering to a mark index, the intensive forms have later come to be used for emphasizing any argument in joint reference with the subject (which is not (yet?) the case in Dravidian, but is observable in standard Hindi). This process has resulted in the association of more and more A properties to the form, to the point that they have been perceived and analysed as reflexives. Zribi-Hertz (1995) shows that French lui-même must not be analysed as an A expression but as an unspecified bound expression (UBE) which came to acquire more and more A properties because of paradigms like (28). Both the history and the morphology of the form confirm this analysis.

Besides, Baker (1995), after König (1991), indicate that this is the situation of languages which do not have two distinct forms for reflexive and emphatics, as opposed to languages like Dutch and German which have two distinct forms for both functions (selbst is the emphatic, sich the reflexive, so that we can have the sequence sich selbst refl emph). In cases when the emphatic form is specific, it has been less contaminated by A properties. In the other case, the fact that A properties are not clear, and at variance according to languages, would reflect the various degrees of grammaticalisation of the initially focalising form. Dravidian languages have indeed a single form for both uses 20, and if Hindi has several, they are not distributed as German selbst and sich . Khud is Persian, swayam is Sanskrit, apna is the stylistically and sociologically neuter form, and the only one to behave as a possessive adjective. Besides each of the three forms have both A properties and focalising properties. We may then consider that the same form (with flexional differences) is used for both functions. Dravidian and Hindi then come in the category of languages analysed by Baker where there is a single form available, basically intensive, secundarily reflexive. But intensive of what? The analysis of the marker of focalisation of the possessor will give an element of answer, and allow us to characterize apna in its specificity in contrast with the other Hindi forms21.

3.3.Adjunct to the possessor

The reason why the focalizer is often analysed as a reflexive (and why one seeks

20 The particle -ee (like Hindi hii) does not prevent taan (or apna ) to work also as a focaliser.21 Marathi hardly uses aapaN as focalizer, only in contrastive contexts, but uses instead swataah, the form of the anaphora in matrix clause (Wali 1989):

Lili kaahihi kaa karenaa, aapan buvaa cinemaalaa jaanaar Lili whatsoever will do aapaN person cinema shall go "Lili may do whatever she wants, I myself will go to the movies"

[to swataah kaam kareNar, he Emph job will do," he will do the job himself"]

to find A properties in the intensive forms) is that it tends to be particularly often adjoined to the reflexive pronoun in Hindi, to the bound pronouns in Dravidian, and to subject in general22. However there is a very common use in Hindi where it behaves as an adjunct to a possessor NP or pronoun, the latter never a reflexive: it is most often not C-commanded, since in simple sentences pronouns must be free, and seems very far from anaphora23. Apna when focalising a possessor is antilocal, although it forms with the pronoun an expression morphologically similar to French lui-même or English his own:

(33) ye merii apnii kitaabeN haiNthese my apna books are "these are my own books"

Yet it shares properties usually associated with LD reflexives, like the constraint of minimal viewpoint for its governing category, a logophoric constraint, when it is a marker of contrastive focus24. This seems to be the relevant constraint, the order of clauses being clearly irrelevant in (34), a sentence describing a visit of George Sand to a place where she previously lived with Chopin, and her suden discovery of a portrait of both of them:

(34)a ...aur gusse meN unhõne citr do hissõ meN phaR diyaa. and anger in 3s-HON-ERG picture two pieces in tear gave.

Ek meN uskaa apnaa citr thaa , duusre meN SaapaaN kaa one in her apna picture was, other in Chopin of

"....and in anger she tore the picture into two pieces. On one of them was her own picture, on the other Chopin's"

(34)b ek meN SaapaaN kaa citr thaa, duusre meN uskaa apnaa one in Chopin of picture was, other in her apna

(34)c *ek meN sapaaN kaa apnaa citr thaa, duusre meN uskaa one in Chopin ofapna picture was, other in hers

(34)d *ek meN uskaa citr thaa, duusre meN sapaaN kaa apnaa one in her picture was, other in Chopin of apna

In this narrative sequence, centered on George Sand, she is the subject of conscience of the second sentence in (34a), that is why the focalisation of Chopin, whatever the order of both sequences, is bad (34c, 34d). Apna is acceptable only when it refers to the

22 In general. But Dravidian too provides for many examples where taan focalises a non c-commanded entity (atukku-t-taan anaacin koTuttu-irukkeen-ee : for this-taan aspirin gave-ee, it is for this that I gave him aspirin. Ex. from Chevillard 1997).23 Alice Davison (Paper read in the Hyderabad CIEFL linguistic symposium 1993) is well aware of the difficulty, and manages to account for similar sequences in keeping the analysis of apnaa as anaphora, hence sometimes unbound. I prefer to analyse such forms as adjuncts which should be described in the same way whether the term they adjoin is a proper name, a full NP or a pronoun.24 For the concept of minimal view point, pertaining to the minimal subject of consciousness, see Zribi-Herz 1990 and Ruwet 1991. See also Kuno's examples: in "John's face turned red despite of himself", face, not being a subject of consciousness cannot be a governor even if a syntactical subject, and the antecedent of the reflexive is the first accessible subjet of consciousness John, whereas in "John's father walked out despite of himself", being the first accessible subject of consciousness and accessible syntactic subject, is the antecedent for the reflexive.

subject of conscience, which is always the case in the first person (33); but with the third person it requires special discursive strategies like free indirect speech. In (35) like (34) it would be hardly understandable if the statement had presented some external objectiv viewpoint and not the character subjective viewpoint. In (35) the character expresses her own feelings regarding her name, otherwise its first sentence, in an objective impersonal narration, from the author's viewpoint, would be hardly acceptable:

(35) yah uskaa apnaa naam hai. uskaa talluk na jiten raay se hai, this her apna name is. Its relation NEG Jiten Ray with is,

na madhukar nagpaal seNEG Madhukar Nagpal with

'this is her own name, neither in relation to Jiten Ray nor to Madhukar Nagpal'(35) also manifests an important property of apnaa when it focalizes a possessor, comparable to own (Zribi-Hertz 1995) : it enhances an intimate relation, a feeling of empathy with the possession, more than an objective possession. When used as a marker of open focus (non restrictive dominance), it does not focalise the entity (the possessor), a job the clitic hii would do, but the relation of possession itself in its subjective and inner meaning. In (36a) this relation can even be opposed with the objective factual possession

(36)a yah baccaa meraa nahiiN hai. Us ko maiNne god le liyaa this child my neg is. He-acc I-erg adopted. Par ab vah puurii tarah meraa apnaa ban gayaa hai But now he completely my apna has become "This child is not mine. I have adopted him. But now he has become completely my

own" Whereas actual possession is a radical category (one has or has not), the intimate feeling of empathy is graduable, being subjectively constructed, as shows the possibility of adding a mark of degree in the apna statement (36b), a possibility ruled out with the simple possessive meraa (36c).

(36)b vah isse zyaadaa meraa apnaa ho nahiiN saktaa he this-than more my apna be NEG can "he cannot be more my own"

( 36)c *vah isse zyaadaa meraa ho nahiiN saktaa 3s this-than more my be NEG can

The availability of verb bannaa "get created, made", with perfectivizing vector, in (36a) is, like the comparative degree in (36b), an evidence for the graduability of such link created by apnaa, distinct from factual possession. The morphologically related verb apnaanaa "to integrate, make one's own", echoes this subjective, graduable property of "innerization" or inner intimate integration. The process of "apnaisation" can stand in blank contradiction with the real relation of belonging. For instance in (37), the play is Brecht's masterpiece, but the actors feel totally unconcerned with Brecht and his writings, they feel the play as their own, not as his:

(37) Brecht ne kuch bhii likhaa ho, ham se kyaa ? jo naaTak ham kar rahe haiN,"Whatever Brecht might have written, we don't care. The play we are acting, vah hamaaraa apnaa hai aur hamaarii tarah ebsarDit our (1PL-GEN) apna is and our way absurde

it is our own, and absurd as we are"It is "our own", although it is objectively Brecht's creation, because the relation here indicated by the use of the emphatic apnaa is a subjective, and not a factual relation.

We may conclude from section 2 that apna, when it is an adjunct and not a reflexive argument, emphasize a semantic role more than an entity. This semantic role is linked to the definition of subjectivity as a specific dimension of the autonomous subject (2.1), of the reflexive relation agent-patient (2.2), and of the possessor as an active conscious constructor of the possessive relation (2.3). It is only natural that, as a focaliser of a role, it cannot associate with the scalar meaning (a question raised in 2.1): only an entity and not a role, can be evaluated as crucially important among other related entities of the same type, and can express this valuation by being focalised. The focalisation of the entity is realised by swayam / khud and not apna . As for the relation between the functions of focalisation and reflexivisation in Hindi, it better appears, synchronically, with the intensive swayam, which indeed emphasises an entity and not a role. Swayam alone has both functions in Sanskrit, whereas aatmana (> apna) is exclusively a reflexive in Sanskrit. Its present function of focalising a role is then a secundary one, historically acquired.

3. tan and apna forms in the paradigm of personal pronouns and their lexical correlates

3.1. The hindi personal pronoun

In the same way, its function of personal pronoun, in the restrictive meaning of person involved in the speech act (Benveniste) is acquired. It is remarkable that the direct form aap (which besides functions as an emphatic of the reflexive and of subject NP) is also a personal pronoun fully integrated in the pronominal paradigm to mark respect, in the plural and in the singular (comparable to French vous ). All IA languages have a related form for indicating deference, at the top of a paradigm which usually has 3 levels for second person (Beng apni, Marathi aap, Punjabi aap). Originally the form marked a very strong respect and commuted with periphrases like 'your majesty', 'your highness' (see plural third person agreement even to-day): significantly in Old Hindi it freely commutes with rau, rauvam ('king'), and in Eastern dialects such forms are still used as reflexives (Kellogg, Tiwari, Saxena). There is then a link between both functions, and if both forms are now considered as homonyms in modern languages, their semantic and the history of their semantic may very well be relevant for an appreciation of the bound pronouns to-day.

If the function of respectful second person is mentionned in every grammar, and is extremely vivid, that of respectful third person is less so, being in a process of

archaïsation25 , but still common in Premchand's novels and commented in Varmma's acchii hindii, from which I borrow (40) and adapt (39)

(39) aajkal hamaare zile ke praSaasak baabuu k.varmaa haiN. nowadays our district of administrator Babu K. Varma is

aap baRe milaNsaar tathaa nyayapriya haiNhe-hon very convivial and law abiding is

Even less commented is the use of aapan, apan as a fist person pronoun (singular and plural) in non standard Hindi, a use which has been standardised in Marathi aapaN in the meaning of inclusive first plural person, a distinction absent in IA but present in Dravidian26. If only non standard Hindi has the meaning of the first person pronoun, standard Hindi has a possessive adjective apna very little described, and formally similar to the reflexive possessive, although not analysable as such: in (40b) it commutes with the non reflexive pronoun hamaare of (39):

(40)a awadh apnaa desh haiOudh apna country is "Oudh is our country"

(40)b apne zile ke praSaasak baabuu k.varmaa haiN apna district of administrator Babu K. Varma is.

Apnaa in such cases commutes with meraa, hamaaraa, nut never with the third person uskaa27. We could even consider it as an allomorph of first person if it were not also commutable with tumhaaraa or aapkaa second person pronouns as in (41)

(41) apnaa hii beTaa hai kyaa?apna only son is interr"it is your son, is it?"28

The only convincing expanation of this versatility in personal reference is that the form is characterised by its link with the empathy sphere of the speaker: it behaves as a dialogue pronoun (Benveniste's coining of the Speech Act Participant) which is not specified for either dimension of the utterance (first or secund person) whether it is adjectival (40, 41) or pronominal (42)

(42) laRkiii bhale hii gariib ho, (uskiii) jaat-biraadrii apnii*i*z honii caahiegirl indeed poor BE-SUBJ, (her) cast-fratrie apna be must'no matter if the girl is poor, she must be of our cast (the same cast as us)'

If we observe the other uses as pronominal person, well established in the paradigm, we find that they all belong to the speaker's emphatic sphera. Even honorific use,

25 More and more substituted by the third person plural person ve , a regular use of the plural as an honorific device.26 Mini, aapaN (aamhi) udyaa cinemaalaa jaau Mini, we-incl(we-excl) to-morrow cinema shall go (Wali 1989)

27 apne paas TikaT nahiiN hai , REFL at ticket neg is, "I don't have ticket", where the reflexive is never interpreted as refering to a third person, even present in the immediate preceding context. 28 See also in Nagarjun kitne Dher saare! kyaa apne ghar ke haiN? -haaN, piichevaalii khyaarii se tuRvaakar laii huuN"what a lot! Are they from your house? -Yes, I plucked them from the garden and brought them"

particularly in the third person, is something else than the scalar hierarchy of social positions. It is mainly a personal subjective relation of ego towards a third person, who is thus not exactly any third person. It is usual that a wife refers to her husband with aap , the peasant may refer in this way to the good district administrator, but the use of aap would be as strange for designing the Pope (except of course among christian communities) or the President of the USA whatever their dignity and the honorific distance the speaker confers to them, because they are external to the empathy sphera, to the clan, family or community of the speaker.

3.2. Lexical and stylistic correlatesThe stylistic options suggested by 'good use' in Hindi (Varmma 1980) also

denote a predilection for the 'reflexive' form (43) or the intensive form (44) in contexts of subjective intimity where empathy meets the dimension of speech act participation (enonciation). Consequently the pronominal form is advised when the antecedent is in an adversative relation with the anaphorising device, and the reflexive form in the contrary case, within the same syntactic frame:

(43)a meraa man apnii pustak meN lagaa thaa (rather than merii ) my mind refl book in was stucked

"My mind was absorbed in my book"(43)b meraa man meraa virodh kartaa thaa. (rather than apnaa )

my mind my opposition did"my mind was in contradiction with me"

The justifications provided by Varmma for such stylistic choices are significant: apnaa is good when there is a feeling of harmony and connivence, bad otherwise. In different terms, the use of the (emphatic) reflexive is suitable for a rather "egopete" relation, but unsuitable if the relation lacks subjective empathy, like hostility, a rather "egofuge" relation.

(44)a vah meraa apnaa dost hai 29

he my EMPH friend is "he is my own friend, my very friend"

(44)b *vah meraa apnaa duSman hai*he my EMPH ennemy is

(44b) would mean something only in the (ambivalent) context of some intimate ennemy, to parody the title of a famous recent book about the relations of Indians and British ex-colonisers, a situation where both ennemies see themselves as a sort of couple achieving some kind of union beyond individual disjunction, because for instance history made them an inseparable part of a unique event, or the fight created a passion of hatred exclusive of other personal feelings of separate belonging. The link constructed by apnaa is a link of belonging.

The lexicalisation of apnaa in verbal or nominal bases echoes the feeling of belonging to ego's empathy sphera.The derived substantive apne (oblique apnõ ) means

29 my example.

family relatives, kins, or metaphorically people considered as belonging to the same group or clan. Apnaa as a qualifying adjective, "own, belonging", is the antonym of paraayaa "alien", "non related to ego". It is the term used to describe the relation of the daughter in law when given to her inlaws: she integrates the new home and husband family, becoming their own, part of their empathic sphere, and symetrically ceases to belong to her parents, becoming their alien (paraaii ). This does not mean she belongs to her inlaws as a possession as much as it means that she has become an intimate part of their relational sphera. Similarly, the verb apnaanaa "integrate, make one's own" denotes a subjective interiorisation and intimate conscious appropriation rather than a factual possession, like in this classical hope of the newly married:

(45) ve mujhe puurii tarah apnaaeNgethey I-ACC full manner will appropriate/integrate'they will take me as one of their owns' (film git)

3.3. the personal pronoun taan in Dravidian

As for taan, it is only marginally used as a respect pronoun. Still its use as an honorific has been noticed by Caldwell (1856 : 397), who mentions it as an oddity of the Dravidian languages: "one use to which the reflexive is put is peculiar to these languages, -viz., an honorific substitute for the pronoun of second person". Its other various uses in language are even more relevant to the sphere of empathy of ego: The base itself has been derived into various substantives which all emphasize the subjective relation to ego: tannor "one's kith and kin", tanatu "friendship, personnal affinity", tamar; "one's own relatives"30. Prefixed in the oblique form to nouns of kinship or personal relations, it produces the following honorific meanings: tamappan (taan + appa, father), "his fatherhood, his fathership", tambiraan (< taan + piran "lord"), malayam tamburan ) "his lordship". As a base itself wiith the suffix -mei or -am, used to derive abstract nouns, tan means "proper own's quality", "specific nature, own's nature", "specificity" (like Hindi apnaapan ). Used itself as a suffix with nouns of quality, it produces the meaning of N-self, the very-N, which amounts at centering the notion: mey-taan, "it is really true, the very truth", saari-taan, "quite right". With the adverbial suffix -aagi , it forms a word meaning "spontaneously" (like Hindi apne aap se ). All these examples join under a common form the designation of the sphere of empathy, and the intensive function (the very X, X itself).

The examples from the series tamappa "his fathership", conjoigning both the honorific mark and a privileged relationship with a person part of the intimate group, probably represent the freezing of a third person possessive, but the constraints in its use suggest that this pronoun should be considered as a different pronoun than the regular third person pronoun. In fact, the observation of ancient texts makes it clear that taan is never used as a reflexive but only as a third person pronoun.

According to Vaijayanthi & Patnaik (1995) it occurs in a bound position only in 30 with the distinctive -m of the pronominal flexion, see infra.

a second century text (the Tirukkural ) and only once, in a dependant clause with a significantly logophoric higher verb31. This may be the first sign of its transformation into an anaphor according to the authors, who interpret the binding in a higher clause to-day as a memory of the ancient pronominal status. In fact, not only the history of the form shows that it is a pronoun, but that this pronoun belonged to a very special category, not represented in European and IA languages. A very illuminating study from Gurov (1991) on the reconstruction of ancient Dravidian shows that there were four, and not three personal pronouns, one for first person (yân ), one for second person (nîn ); and two for third person. Of these, the third person pronoun tân marks relation to I, whereas the other form av/iv , marks an entity non related to I, alien, and sensitive to the distinction proximate / non proximate, and animate / non animate. Then the real distinction does not, like in most languages (like European languages, IA languages) oppose on one side first-second person, SAP, on the other side third or "non" person (Benveniste), but on one side 1.2.3a. and on the other side 3b as personal vs non personal pronouns Morphology enhances this cut line, since tân , the first of third person pronoun, behaves as a real personal person32: as the other personal pronouns yân and nîn , it had a specific plural in -m (naam, niim, taam ), and a specific oblique form made by the shortening of root vowel (nan(a), nin(a), tan(a) ). As opposed to that, the real third person pronoun (alien) had a suffixed plural and no specific oblique form.. Even modern paradigms bear some traces of this primary morphological distinction, which amounts to a deep semantic distinction, ultimately related to the general organisation of the representation of the world. Clearly the base taan which later became a bound pronoun and an intensive in modern Dravidian, did not denote the same person as our modern languages he/she/it, vo, avaan/avaaL.

Dravidian taan exhibits an evolution which does not confirm the emergence of the reflexive function out of the focalizing function (in spite of the appearances presented in 2.2), but out of a third person pronoun belonging to the restricted paradigm of persons involved in the speech act (enonciation).

4. General conclusion

The situation evidenced by the morphology of such forms indeed strongly evokes the situation described by Milner (1982) for Latin se, from which is derived the French reflexive se used in the third person. Se (sui sibi se), a bound pronoun, specially used in indirect speech and exclusively for refering to the third person, belongs

31 "the woman who hears say that her (tan) son is good feels more happy than at the moment she gave birth".32 For the morphology of personal pronouns in Dravidian languages, see Bh. Krishnamurti (1968), a very detailed comparative paper with a study of the origin of the forms.

morphologically to the dialogue pronouns, ego for the first and tu for the second person: me mei mihi me, te tui tibi te )33, and is clearly distinct of the simple third person is, a deictic base, which is the equivalent of our modern third person, and "does not manifest any properly personal dimension nor any implication in the speech act"34. The corresponding possessive is suus, which similarly contrasts with the third person possessive (genitive form of is, ejus ) by a meaning quite comparable to "his own". The Indo-European theme sw-, which is the origin of se, the third member in the series of personal pronouns, represents the third dimension of the speech act (énonciation), which, according to Milner, had three dimensions in Indo-European and not two like in modern European languages35. This third dimension refers to "the speaking person engaged in the speech act in the same way as the speaker and hearer", with the only difference that he is not represented as an active partner of speech exchange but only "in mention"36, the person who is present by mention. In other words, Latine se, Dr. taan , originally represent the third person as the speaking subject involved in as much as it is mentionned in the speech act. In the same way as the other true personal pronouns ego is distinguished through its very relation to the speech act as the speaker, and tu as the hearer, similarly se/ tan are distinguished through their relation to the speech act as the mentionned person. Later, since the relevant speech act relation is defined according to the phrastic unit, the distinguished term (nom distingué) of this phrastic unit is the higher subject, specially in indirect style, and the pronoun refering to it comes to acquire more and more bound properties.37

Although Benveniste (1969 : 332) does not accredit the hypothesis of an IE theme -sw for third person --may be because he considers the reflexive specialisation according to a definition of self as an individuality--, he relates this theme to an "subjectivity which defines itself as belonging [qui s'énonce comme appartenance]. The notion of -sw is not limited to the very person itself, it originally sets a restricted group, closed around the self". Which "implies both the distinction from all the rest [...], an effort to separate from all which is not -sw, and also, inside such a discrimative circle, a close relationship with all the people belonging to it." This accounts for the specificity of the reflexive possessive suus (see above), even in its technical uses: the 'intestat' is described as the one who has no heres suus , that is to say, not the man without heres heritor, a notion that Latin would have expressed without possessive, but without an

33 Respectively for accusative, genitive, dative and ablative case, a special paradigm for personal pronouns (the ordinary third person pronoun is, has for instance a genitive case ejus, ablative eo, etc.).34 "ne manifeste aucune dimension proprement personnelle ni implication dans l'énonciation" (Milner 1982 : 234).35 It is a well known fact since Benveniste that the speech act participants have a special status, and are strictly speaking the only persons, the third one being called by Benveniste a "non person".36 "l'être parlant engagé dans l'énonciation au même titre que l'énonciateur ou l'allocutaire", mais seulement "en mention" (Milner 1982 : 234).37 The case where the "distinguishing relation" is the possessive relation itself, the adjective suus for the possessor assumes the meaning of "his own" (Milner 1982 : 242).

heritor who is a suus .Such analysis invite to consider the IE theme -sw as denoting the person 'in

mention', leaving room for two possible evolutions: either this definition may suit all persons so far as they are involved by their mention in a statement, and this leads to the reflexive function in the restricted meaning (Sanskrit swayam, French se, slav svoj), or it is limited to the person who is the non active partner in the speech act, and this leads to Latin se which partially covers /identifies with the third person (Milner : 234-5). We may easily translate this analysis to Dravidan: as in Latin reflexivisation is a property which has been secundarily acquired by the form designing the third participant in the speech act dimension. Taan functions as a bound pronoun in the third person only, and may be in the process of acquiring reflexive properties.

The case is altogether different in Hindi apnaa < aatmana , which is originally a reflexive, and beside does not originate from a pronominal but from a substantive38. As for swayam <sw- its meanings got restricted with the development of apnaa's. Since the term aatmana never behaves as a focaliser in Sanskrit but as a reflexive, the modern Hindi data do not confirm the genesis of reflexivisation out of intensive forms, but, like Dravidian also, they do confirm a corelation between both functions. Besides, the use of aap as a pronoun distinguishing a third person respected entity in the group (39), the nominal or verbal derivations refering to this empathic sphera of the intimate group, the use of the possessive adjective as referring to the speech act participants (40-42), show that Hindi has associated to the Sanskrit form the meaning of 'person involved in the speech act'. This second affinity --between reflexive and partner of the speech act-- far rarer than the first affinity --between reflexive and focaliser-- may be interpreted as a fact of areal diffusion from Dravidian to IA, or, more carefully, as a fact of convergence39. It nevertheless gives evidence for a relation that needs being considered, since Latine too exhibits it, like Dravidian, between enunciative pronoun and sphere of empathy on one side, reflexive and focaliser on the other side40.38 The meaning of which was 'center of the body, trunk', then vital principal, soul, spirit. aatmana was not used neither for respectful mention or address (bhavan implemented the function, for second person).39 A similar calque has been suggested by Emeneau (1974), for Sanskrit api , borrowing the values attached to the equivalent dravidian form -um . Although part of the connexions he mentions are universal, the maintenance of the global constellation of uses in Indo-aryan and Dravidian may well be an areal specificity, certainly catalysed by convergence, like retroflexion at the phonological level40 The history of the word tan itself is another matter of investigation. It is well known that OIA has a reflexive tanuu (Rig Veda) which also means "the body of a person" (Avestic tanuu , old Persian tanuuS , with the same meanings of body and self). The word has been re-integrated in modern Hindi from Persian with the only meaning of "body". Its etymology has never been clearly established. Southworth (1979) suggests that may-be Indo-Iranian has had a word for "body" which accidentally ressembled the Dravidian reflexive, and so its use as a reflexive in Vedic was influenced by the Dravidian use. The use as a reflexive of an item meaning "body" is however very current cross-linguistically, and need not require contact for an explanation. But the very origin of this Indo-Iranian word may also be attributed to an Indo-aryan borrowing from Dravidian. This too Southworth claims as a highly plausible hypothesis. If it gets confirmed, it will be an argument for very deep contacts, since the borrowing of pronouns is quite rare even for languages in close contact. It will also be an argument for very ancient

ANSCOMBRE, Jean-Claude (1973). Même le roi de France est sage. Communications 20 : 40-82.BAKER, C.L. (1995). Contrast, discourse prominence and intensification. with special reference to locally-free reflexives in British English. Language 71-1 : 63-101.BENVENISTE, Emile. 1956 [1966]. La Nature des pronoms. in Problèmes de Linguistique générale 1, Paris : Gallimard : 151-67BENVENISTE, Emile (1969). Vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Paris : Minuit.CALDWELL, Robert Rvt. (1856).A Comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian family of languages (réed. 1974). Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal.Chevillard Jean Luc (1997). Les particules énonciatives -EE et -TAAN en tamoul. In Montaut. A. (ed.)L'Aire linguistique indienne . Paris : OphrysCHOMSKY, N., 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht : ForisCHOMSKY, N.(1986). Barriers. Cambridge : MIT PressDUCROT, Oswald (1980). Echelles argumentatives. Paris-Minuit.EMENEAU, Muray B. (1974). The Linguistic Area Revisited. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics III-1, 92-134.EMENEAU, Muray B. (1980). Language and linguistic area. Stanford : Stanford University Press.EVERAERT, Martin, (1991). Contextual determination of the anaphor/pronominal distinction. In Koster & Reuland (eds.). 77-118.GIORGI, Alessandra (1984). Toward a theory of long-distance anaphors: a GB approach. The Linguistic Review 3 : 307-321.GUROV, Nikita (1991). Some remarks on the basic structures of proto-dravidian. Dans LAKSHMI BAI B. & RAMAKRISHNA REDDY B. (eds.) : 13-26.GURTU Madhu (1992). Anaphoric Relations in Hindi and English. Delhi : Munshiram ManoharlalHALLIDAY, M.A.K. & HASAN. R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Londres : Longman.JAYASEELAN K.A. (1990). Malayalam anaphora and binding principles. CIEFL Occasional papers in linguistics 5 : 1-46.JAYASEELAN, K.A. (1996). Anaphors as pronouns. Studia Linguistica 50-3 : 207-255Jayaseelan K.A., 1988, "Emphatic and reflexive X-self", Hyderabad, CIEFL Working Papers in Linguistics 5, 1-20KALANKAR, Y.S. (1995). 'Swataah and Aapan' in Marathi. Dans P.N. PARANJAPE, M.

contacts, probably in the region of the Indus, since tanuu appears in the early Veda

APTE, M.S. MALSHE & K.G. VIJAYAKRISHNANK.G. (eds.). Explorations in Linguistics , Pr. Nadkarni Felicitations Volume, Puna : Shubada Saraswat Prakashan : 69-81.KELLOGG, R.S. (1972 [1875]). A Grammar of the Hindi Language. Delhi : Oriental Book ReprintsKLEIBER, Georges (1986). Deictiques, embrayeurs, 'token reflexives', etc. : comment les définir. L'Information Grammaticale 30 : 3-22. KÖNIG, Ekkehard (1991). The meaning of focus particles. A comparative perspective. London/New-York : Routledge.KOSTER, Jan & REULAND, Eric (eds.) (1991). Long distance anaphora. Cambridge : CUP.KRISHNAMURTI, Bh. (1968). Dravidian personal Pronouns. Studies in Indian Linguistics : Professor M.B.Bmeneau Sastipurti Volume. Poona/Annanalainagar : Center of advanced Study in Linguistics. 189-205.KRISHNAMURTI, Bh. & GWYNN, J.P.L. (1985). A grammar of modern Tlugu. Delhi : Oxford University Press.KUNO, Susumo & KABURAKI, Etsuko (1977). Empathy and Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8-4 : 109-38.KUNO, Susumo (1987). Functional syntax (anaphora, discourse, empathy). Chicago : Chicago Univ. Pr.LAKSHMI BAI B. & RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, B. (eds.) (1991).Studies in Dravidian and general linguistics : a festschrift for Bh. Krishnamurti Hyderabad : Osmania University Center For Advanced Linguistics.LEHMANN, Thommas (1989). A Grammar of Modern Tamil. Pondicherry : Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.MILNER, Jean-Claude (1982). Ordre et raisons de langue. Paris : Seuil.MOHANAN, K. P. (1982). Grammatical relations and anaphora in Malayalam. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 4 : 163-190.MONTAUT , Annie (1996). Accord et cas : la postposition accordée en hindi. Faits de langues 9 : 141-150.MONTAUT, Annie (1993). Reflexivisation and Anaphora in Modern Hindi. South Asian Language Review III-2 : 17-45.MONTAUT, Annie (1991). Voix, aspects et diathèses en hindi moderne. Louvain : Peeters.SILVERSTEIN, Michael (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Dans Dixon R.M.W. Grammatical categories in Australian languages (ed.).Canberra : Australian Center for Aboriginal Studies: 112-171.RUWET, Nicolas (1991). Syntax and Human Experience. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.SOUTHWORTH, Franklin C. (1979). Lexical evidence for early contacts between Indo-aryan and Dravidian. Dans DESHPANDE, M. & P. E. HOOK (eds.) Aryan and non Aryan

in India , University of Michigan, Center of South and South East Asian Studies 14, Ann Arbor : 191-233.TIWARI, U.N. (1960) The Formation of Bhojpuri. Calcutta : Royal Asiatic SocietyVAIJAYANTHI, R. & B.N. PATNAIK (1995). On some uncharacteristic properties of the Tamil anaphor tan: an explanation. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics : 82-89.VARMMA, Ramchandra (1980). Acchi: hindi:. [le bon usage]. Allahabad : Lokbharati Prakashan.WALI Kashi, & SUBBARAO K.V. (1991). On Pronominal Evidence from Marathi and Telugu. Linguistics 29 : 1093-1110WALI, Kashi (1989). Marathi syntax : a study of reflexives . Patiala : Indian Institute of Language Studies.YADURAJAN, K.S. (1981). The reflexive construction in Dravidian. Dans LAKSHMI BAI, B. & RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, B. (eds.) : 233-244.ZRIBI-HERTZ, Anne (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative view point, Language 65-4: 695-727.ZRIBI-HERTZ, Anne (1990)a. Lui-même argument et le concept de pronom A", Langages 97: 100-127.ZRIBI-HERTZ, Anne (1990)b. 'NP lui-même', dans KLEIBER G. & TYVAERT J.-E. (eds.). L'anaphore et ses domaines, Recherches Linguistiques XIV : 377-402, Université de Metz : Centre d'Analyse Syntaxique.ZRIBI-HERTZ, Anne (1995). Emphatic or reflexive? On the endophoric character of French lui-même and similar complex pronouns. Journal of Linguistics 31: 333-374.

25 August 1997

Pr. Annie Montaut36 bld de Reuilly75 012 ParisFax (inalco) 01-49-26-42-99

to

Pr. L. RamamoorthyPondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture19 Chinna Subbaraya Pillai RoadPondicherry 605 001 Inde

Dear Sir,

Since I have no news from the PILCs since I sent you the revised version of my paper "On aap and tan forms in Indo-aryan and Dravidian languages: Person, reflexivisation and focalisation (a plausible case of convergence)" after it had been accepted providing some material corrections, I wonder if you received the final draft (with floppy, Mc Intosh Word 5). Could you please tell me if there has been any problem ?

With my best regards,

1 September 1997

Pr. Annie Montaut36 bld de Reuilly75 012 ParisFax (inalco) 01-49-26-42-99

to

Pr. L. RamamoorthyPondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture19 Chinna Subbaraya Pillai RoadPondicherry 605 001 Inde

Dear Sir,

I thank you very much for your letter from March 4th 1997, and apologize for not having answering earlier. I first wanted to have a concret answer to send you, that is, a paper since the letter was asking me for a contribution --which I felt honoured, since I always read with much interest the various issues of PILC.

I send you here enclose a first draft of a paper which has been presented a few years ago in a far less elaborated version at the European Conference for South Asian Modern Studies, parts of it at the Institute of Advanced Syntax in Hyderabad (1993), then further elaborated and presented in the research group of A. Zribi-Hertz in Paris. I am conscious that the English needs some polishing, and your commitee may give suggestions and ask for other revisions. That is why I do not send the floppy with it, waiting for your answer,

With regards,

Paris 1 september 1997

A.Montaut 36 bld de Reuilly 75 012 Paris

ToPr. Jayaseelan,Linguistics DepttCIEFL Hyderabad500 007 India

Dear Jay,

I fell years have passed since we last met in January in Delhi. I am planning sending this paper to the PILC, who is asking me the findings of my present research. Athough I am now more involved in aspect and diachrony as you know, I am not finished with pronouns, and your last paper was a real relish, which gave me further wish to go on with this, we can well say, infinite quest ! I would appreciate very much your comments, specially since I dare quote Malayalam date (from you). Please do not hesitate to tell me where my English is too poor, and, of course, where you disagree with the data or their interpretation (a number of Dravidian speakers here in Paris have gone through it and we had discussed it, and of course same for Hindi, which is far easier for me).

I am sorry we have not yet e-mail in my university (incredible, true. But, since a year or two, 'going to have it'). Only a fax number 01 49 26 42 99. But there is written mail too, fortunately.

How are things for you ? How is the CIEFL ?Please tell Amrita all my best memories

most friendly