Anderson, S. & Keenan, E. (1985). Deixis. In Shopen, T., ed., Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 259–308.Google Scholar

Barron, R. & Serzisko, F. (1982). Noun classifiers in Siouan languages. In Seiler, H. & Stachowiak, F. J., eds., Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen. Teil II: Die Techniken und ihr Zusammenhang in Einzelsprachen [Apprehension: The linguistic representation of objects. Part II: The techniques and their relation in individual languages]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 85–105.Google Scholar

Blair, R. W. & Vermont–Salas, R. (1965–1967). Spoken (Yucatec) Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Anthropology.Google Scholar

Diessel, H. (1999). Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Edmonson, M. S. (1986). Heaven born Merida and its destiny: The book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. The Texas Pan American Series. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. (2003). Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis. Language, 79(1): 82–117.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. & Bohnemeyer, J. (2001). Hidden colour-chips task. In Levinson, S. C. & Enfield, N. J., eds., Manual for the field season 2001. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, pp. 21–28.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. (1997). Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L., eds., Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hanks, W. F. (1984). The evidential core of deixis in Yucatec Maya. In Drogo, J., ed., Papers from the twentieth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 154–172.Google Scholar

Hanks, W. F.(1990). Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hanks, W. F.(2005). Explorations in the deictic field. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 191–220.Google Scholar

Hellwig, B. (2003). The grammatical coding of postural semantics in Goemai (a West Chadic language of Nigeria). Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, N. P. (1996). Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In Fox, B., ed., Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 205–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Mimeo. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Almog, J., Perry, J. & Wettstein, H. K., eds., Themes from Kaplan. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 481–563.Google Scholar

Kita, S. & Walsh Dickey, L., eds. (1998). Annual report 1998. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Klein, H. (1979). Noun classifiers in Toba. In Mathiot, M., ed., Ethnology: Boas, Sapir, and Whorf revisited. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Küntay, A. C. & Özyürek, A. (2002). Joint attention and the development of the use of demonstrative pronouns in Turkish. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S. & Do, A. H. J., eds., Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University conference on language development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 336–347.Google Scholar

Lehmann, C. (1998). Possession in Yucatec. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalised conversational implicatures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C.(2004). Deixis. In Horn, L., ed., The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 97–121.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C.(2006). The language of space in Yélî Dnye. In Levinson, S. C. & Wilkins, D. P., eds., Grammars of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 157–205.Google Scholar

Lewis, M. P., ed. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world, sixteenth edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. (Available online at www.ethnologue.com/).Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Meira, S. (2003). “Addressee effects” in demonstrative systems: The cases of Tiriyó and Brazilian Portuguese. In Lenz, F., ed., Deictic conceptualisation of space, time, and person. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–12.Google Scholar

O’Meara, C. (2010). Seri landscape classification and spatial reference. Doctoral dissertation, University at Buffalo – SUNY.Google Scholar

Özyürek, A. (1998). An analysis of the basic meaning of Turkish demonstratives in face-to-face conversational interaction. In Santi, S., Guaitella, I., Cave, C. & Konopczynski, G., eds., Oralité et gestualité: Communication multimodale, interaction. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 609–614.Google Scholar

PerfilMayaweb (2005). Perfil sociodemográfico de la población hablante de maya [Socio-demographic profile of the Yucatec-speaking population]. Aguascalientes: Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. (Available online at www.inegi.gob.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/poblacion_in digena/PerfilMayaweb.pdf.)Google Scholar

Pfeiler, B. (1995). Variación fonológica en el maya yucateco [Phonological variation in Yucatec Maya]. In Arzápalo, R. & Lastra, Y., eds., Vitalidad e influencia de las lenguas indígenas en Latinoamérica. Mexico City: Universidad Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, pp. 488–497.Google Scholar

PHLI (2009). Perfil sociodemográfico de la población que habla lengua indígena [Socio-demographic profile of the speakers of indigenous languages]. Aguascalientes: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (Available online at www.inegi.org.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/poblacion_indigena/leng_indi/PHLI.pdf.)Google Scholar

Schalley, A. (2012). Many languages, one knowledge base: Introducing a collaborative ontolinguistic research tool. In Schalley, A., ed., Practical theories and experimental practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Senft, G. (2012). Referring to colour and taste in Kilivila: Stability and change in two lexical domains of sensual perception. In Schalley, A., ed., Practical theories and experimental practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Senft, G. & Smits, R., eds. (2000). Annual report 2000. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Vapnarsky, V. (1999). Expressions et conceptions de la temporalité chez les mayas yucateques (mexique) [Expressions and concepts of temporality among the Yucatec Mayans (of Mexico)]. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Paris X, Nanterre.Google Scholar

Wilkins, D. P. (1999; this volume). The 1999 demonstrative questionnaire: “This” and “that” in comparative perspective. In Wilkins, D. P., ed., Manual for the 1999 field season. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar