Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T17:22:50.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What ‘You’ and ‘I’ Mean to Each Other: Person Indexicals, Self-Ascription, and Theory of Mind

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Stephen Wechsler
Stephen Wechsler*
Affiliation:
University of Texas
*
Department of Linguistics 1 University Station B5100 Austin, TX 78712-0198 [wechsler@mail.utexas.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article offers a DE SE THEORY of person indexicals, wherein first- and second-person indexical pronouns indicate REFERENCE DE SE (also called SELF-ASCRIPTION). Long observed for first-person pronouns (Castañeda 1977, Kaplan 1977, Perry 1979, inter alia), self-ascription is extended here to second person as well. The person feature of a pronoun specifies the speech-act roles that must be played by the self-ascribers: the speakers (uttering a first-person pronoun), the addressees (interpreting a second-person pronoun), or both (for first-person inclusive). Other agents who are not among the designated self-ascribers for a given pronoun interpret the pronoun indirectly by inferring the self-ascriber's interpretation, a process requiring THEORY OF MIND, that is, the cognitive ability to impute mental states to others (Premack & Woodruff 1978). This de se theory is supported by convergent evidence from multiple domains: (i) It explains a typological universal: first- and second-person plurals always allow associative semantics (‘speaker(s) plus others’, 'addressee(s) plus others') rather than requiring regular plural semantics ('speakers only', ‘addressees only‘) (Greenberg 1988, Noyer 1992, Cysouw 2003, Bobaljik 2008). (ii) It belongs to a family of approaches that solve the problem of the essential indexical (Perry 1979). (iii) It correctly predicts observed patterns of indexical pronoun production and comprehension by two populations lacking a fully developed theory of mind: typically developing children in the stage before theory of mind has developed, and children with autism. (iv) It correctly predicts the interpretation of second-person pronouns in utterances with multiple addressees.

Keywords

indexicalpersonpronountheory of mindself-referenceacquisitionautism

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 86 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 332 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anand, Pranav. 2006. De de se. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav, and Nevins, Andrew. 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14, ed. by Young, R., 20–37. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas. 1986. Belief in discourse representation theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic 15.127–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron-Cohen, Simon, Leslie, Alan M.; and Frith, Uta. 1985. Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind‘? Cognition 21.37–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloom, Lois, Lightbown, Patsy; and Hood, Lois. 1975. Structure and variation in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 40.1–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. The Linguistic Review 25.203–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castañeda, Hector-Neri. 1977. Perception, belief, and the structure of physical objects and consciousness. Synthese 35.285–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charney, Rosalind. 1980. Speech roles and the development of personal pronouns. Journal of Child Language 7.509–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiat, Shulamuth. 1986. Personal pronouns. Language acquisition, ed. by Fletcher, Paul and Garman, Michael, 339–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 2000. Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1980. Review of Universals of human language, vol. 3: Word structure, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg. Language 56.834–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Robin, and Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. A compositional situation semantics for attitude reports. Logic, language and computation, vol. 1, ed. by Seligmann, Jerry and Westerståhl, Dag, 151–66. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2005. Suppletion in personal pronouns: Theory versus practice, and the place of reproducibility in typology. Linguistic Typology 9.1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville, and Mithun, Marianne. 1996. Associative forms in a typology of number systems: Evidence from Yup'ik. Journal of Linguistics 32.1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crimmins, Mark. 1992. Talk about beliefs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crimmins, Mark, and Perry, John. 1989. The prince and the phone booth: Reporting puzzling beliefs. The Journal of Philosophy 86.685–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, and Kaplan, Ronald M.. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76.759–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, Werner, and Pechmann, Thomas. 1978. Ihr, dir, or mir? On the acquisition of pronouns in German children. Cognition 6.155–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Forchheimer, Paul. 1953. The category of person in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geach, Peter T. 1972. On beliefs about oneself. Logic matters, 128–29. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1970. The resolution of gender conflicts in Bantu conjunction: When syntax and semantics clash. Chicago Linguistic Society 6.250–61.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1988. The first person dual as an ambiguous category. Studies in Language 12.1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1944. Men's and women's speech in Koasati. Language 20.142–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hobson, Jessica A., and Hobson, R. Peter. 2007. Identification: The missing link between joint attention and imitation? Development and Psychopathology 19.411–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huxley, R. 1970. The development of the correct use of subject personal pronouns in two children. Advances in psycholinguistics, ed. by Flores d'Arcais, Giovanni B. and Levelt, Willem J. M., 141–65. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1971. Formal properties of ‘now’. Theoria 37.237–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. Formal methods in the study of language, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen A. G., Janssen, T. M. V., and Stokhof, Martin B. J., 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.Google Scholar
Kanner, Leo. 1943. Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child 2.217–50.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1977. Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. Themes from Kaplan, ed. by Almog, Joseph, Perry, John, and Wettstein, Howard, 481–566. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Building a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40.187–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9.1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1979. A puzzle about belief. Meaning and use, ed. by Margalit, Avishai, 239–83. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Anthony, Hobson, R. Peter; and Chiat, Shulamuth. 1994. 1, you, me, and autism: An experimental study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 24.155–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88.513–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1998. Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Loveland, Katherine A. 1984. Learning about points of view: Spatial perspective and the acquisition of ‘I/you’. Journal of Child Language 11.535–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milne, A. A. 1926. The complete tales of Winnie-the-Pooh. New York: Dutton Children's Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1988. Lexical categories and the evolution of number marking. Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, ed. by Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael, 211–34. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Agreement. Universals of human language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 331–74. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 2003. A semantic analysis of associative plurals. Studies in Language 27.469–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter, and Harré, Rom. 1990. Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nelson, Katherine. 1975. The nominal shift in semantic-syntactic development. Cognitive Psychology 7.461–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1993. Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16.1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, William, Dobrovolsky, Michael; and Aronoff, Mark. 1993. Contemporary linguistics: An introduction. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Perner, Josef. 1991. Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perry, John. 1979. The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs 13.3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1985. Die Ordnung der Personen. Folia Linguistica 19.111–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Premack, David, and Woodruff, Guy. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1.515–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, Mark. 1983. Direct reference and ascriptions of belief. Journal of Philosophical Logic 12.425–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scha, Remko. 1981. Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. Formal methods in the study of language, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen A. G., Janssen, T. M. V., and Stokhof, Martin B. J., 483–512. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003a. Indexicality, logophoricity, and plural pronouns. Research in Afroasiatic grammar 2: Selected papers from the 5th Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Paris, 2000, ed. by Lecarme, Jacqueline, 409–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003b. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26.29–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Wolfgang, Schumann-Hengsteler, Ruth; and Sodian, Beate. 2005. Young children's cognitive development: Interrelationships among executive functioning, working memory, verbal ability, and theory of mind. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shield, Aaron, and Meier, Richard. 2010. Visual perspective taking in sign language: Evidence from deaf children with autism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Features and projections, ed. by Muysken, Pieter and van Riemsdijk, Henk C., 163–232. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Simon, Horst J. 2005. Only you? Philological investigations into the alleged inclusive-exclusive distinction in the second person plural. Clusivity, ed. by Filimonova, Elena, 113–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, T. Cedric. 1974. The plurality split. Chicago Linguistic Society 10.657–72.Google Scholar
Sodian, Beate. 2006. Theory of mind—The case for conceptual development. In Schneider et al., 95–130.Google Scholar
Sokolovskaja, N. K. 1980. Nekotorye semantičeskie universalii v sisteme ličnyx mestoimenij. Teorija i tipologija mestoimenij, ed. by Vardu', I. F., 84–102. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tager-Flusberg, Helen. 1994. Dissociations in form and function in the acquisition of language by autistic children. Constraints on language acquisition: Studies of atypical children, ed. by Tager-Flusberg, Helen, 175–94. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tager-Flusberg, Helen. 2001. A reexamination of the theory of mind hypothesis of autism. The development of autism—Perspectives from theory and research, ed. by Burack, Jacob A., Charman, Tony, Yirmiya, Nurit, and Zelazo, Philip R., 173–93. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tager-Flusberg, Helen, and Joseph, Robert M.. 2005. Theory of mind, language, and executive functions in autism: A longitudinal perspective. In Schneider et al., 239–57.Google Scholar
van Ditmarsch, Hans, van, Wiebe Hoek, der; and Kooi, Barteld. 2006. Dynamic epistemic logic. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Waryas, C. L. 1973. Psycholinguistic research in language intervention programming: The pronoun system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2.221–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, Stephen. 2008. Elsewhere in gender resolution. The nature of the word—Essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, ed. by Hanson, Kristin and Inkelas, Sharon, 567–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wellman, Henry M., Cross, David; and Watson, Julanne. 2001. Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development 72.655–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimmer, Heinz, and Perner, Josef. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition 13.103–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar