Owen — Revision of Pronouns. 133 



and incapacity our common point of arrival, from your view- 

 point the latter is to the former a sort of cause, while from 

 mine it is an effect. What to you is ^%r/' to me is ^^hence" 

 and vice versa. 



The interjection may be merely extra-sentential, expressing 

 irrelevant thought. In this activity, it obviously has the same 

 egocentric opportunity as thought which is relevant. And When 

 the interjection is strictly extra-linguistic, being almost a re- 

 flex cry, the associated emotion again may obviously be purely 

 egocentric. 



From what has occasionally appeared in this examination, 

 it is obvious that a given word may be at the same time vica- 

 rious and an egocentric of the particular order now in mind. 

 Thus, imitating the methods of the neo-Latin languages, sup- 

 pose I say: ^'The house and the barn are mine. Tliat (= the 

 house) is of brick. This (= the barn) is of wood.'' In this 

 sentence ''That" and ''This" respectively reinstate "the house" 

 and "the barn." At the same time these reinstatives, being 

 synonymous with "the former" and "the latter," distinguish 

 their principals as the nearer and the further of thought, the 

 thinking self of the moment being the landmark from which 

 their nearness and re-moteness are reckoned. While this simul- 

 taneous occurrence of different values is both familiar and far 

 from difficult in itself, it is perhaps desirable, in view of Gram- 

 mar's confusion, to emphasize their difference and their inde- 

 pendence. Accordingly I note that in "That (meaning yonder 

 schooner) is my yacht," "That" is fully egocentric, but without 

 a trace of vicarious value. On the other hand in "Is your dog 

 a collie ? He is that" I find in "that" a reinstative value, but 

 nothing any longer consciously egocentric. When accordingly, 

 in my example of the house and the barn, I find a "that" which 

 is at the same time vicarious and egocentric, I see no occasion 

 for embarrassment. Looking merely at the nature of the idea 

 presented, I rank my "that" as egocentric or demonstrative. 

 Looking at the method by which the idea is presented, I call 

 my "that" vicarious or pronominal. But I call it egocentric 

 because its idea is what it is, and vicarious because its idea 



