Logophoric reference in Archi
The paper considers the pronoun used in logophoric contexts in Archi, an East Caucasian language of the Lezgic group. Like many other languages of the family, Archi shows a formal connection between logophoric and reflexive pronouns. The latter differs from the former in that it carries an obligatory intensifier particle. This connection questions the suggestion in Culy (1997; cf. also Dimmendaal (2011) to separate Africanstyle ‘pure’ logophoric systems from systems where a long-distance reflexive is used in the same context. Culy (1997), in a typological analysis of logophoricity, argues that longdistance reflexives in logophoric contexts are a secondary extension of the reflexive function. Toldova (1999), in an overview of East Caucasian systems, suggests on the contrary that, in these languages, logophoricity is the primary function and the reflexive function is its extension. In their approaches, neither Culy nor Toldova rely on notions such as focus of empathy (Kuno 1987), and Culy even explicitly disproves its relevance for the typology of logophoric systems. The solution suggested in the present study is discoursebased and is not unlike the focus of empathy. Both logophoric and reflexive uses of the Archi pronoun, corresponding to two clearly different and well established comparative concepts, constitute one descriptive category (Haspelmath 2010). They both are extensions of the core function of the pronoun which is to mark the special pragmatic/discourse role of its referent – extensions that involve grammaticization of the pronoun in specific contexts as reflexives and logophoric.