Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:26:21 -0500

From: Natalie Maynor maynor[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]RA.MSSTATE.EDU

Subject: Bounced Mail



****************************************************************

REMINDER: WHEN INCLUDING A PREVIOUS LIST POSTING IN SOMETHING

YOU'RE SENDING TO THE LIST, BE SURE TO EDIT OUT ALL REFERENCES

TO ADS-L IN THE HEADERS.

****************************************************************

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:53:03 -0400

From: "L-Soft list server at UGA (1.8b)" LISTSERV[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]uga.cc.uga.edu

Subject: ADS-L: error report from GUVAX.ACC.GEORGETOWN.EDU



The enclosed message, found in the ADS-L mailbox and shown under the spool ID

6474 in the system log, has been identified as a possible delivery error notice

for the following reason: "Sender:", "From:" or "Reply-To:" field pointing to

the list has been found in mail body.



------------------- Message in error (49 lines) --------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:52:53 -0400 (EDT)

From: "Peter L. Patrick" PPATRICK[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]guvax.acc.georgetown.edu

Subject: Re: On those Bobdolisms



Subj: RE: On those Bobdolisms



On the use of 3rd-person self-reference by FN+LN in public speech,

esp. to the media, Chris Brooks wrote about Indonesian:



My feeling here is that--in contrast to the self-promotional or

dispassionate historical attitude toward oneself--the use of the

proper name in place of the pronoun in Indonesian is a humbling

device, at least as far as the speaker goes.



Writing from Washington, though, I suspect the norms here are very

different, at least for the usage by politicians. Unlike the sports

figures, these folks often DON'T do their own scripting; the people

who do write comments for them may be the same ones who write press

releases *about* them; and the pols are used to thinking about their

message in 3rd-p terms, too, I'd bet, from campaign and other promo

experiences. The more distance the speaker has from their public

persona, perhaps the easier it is to project a coherent, fully two-

dimensional portrait composed of only that-which-will-sell. While no

doubt these folks are egocentric, they also are pretty image-aware and

I suspect that they're really NOT referring to their "selves" when

they use the FN+LN reference.

Also, I believe I've noticed-- impressionistically, of

course-- that when politicians comment negatively on each other, they

may use either LN or FN+LN, but when they comment positively they tend

to use TLN or FN+LN predominantly. I wonder if anyone has ever done

such a study in public-affairs discourse? So much has been written

about address, but I know of less on this sort of reference (not

counting syntactic treatments, of course).

(I also found Larry's and Joan's comments very helpful.)

--peter patrick