Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-14T07:55:22.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demonstratives and Visibility: Data from Ticuna and Implications for Theories of Deixis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Amalia Skilton
Amalia Skilton*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
*
226A Morrill Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, [amalia.skilton@cornell.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many Indigenous languages of the Americas, demonstratives are said to encode whether the referent is visible. Some scholars, however, argue that all visibility meanings in demonstratives are epiphenomenal on spatial, epistemic modal, or nonvision evidential content. Drawing on elicitation, experimental data, and corpus data collected in fieldwork, I argue that two demonstratives of Ticuna (isolate; Brazil, Colombia, Peru) do display visibility meanings. These meanings are encoded and concern the SENSE OF VISION—not space, epistemic modality, or nonvisual forms of evidentiality. These findings support a view of demonstrative meaning as grounded in the perceptual capacities of the human body.

Keywords

demonstrativesdeixisevidentialitypragmaticsAmerican languagesAmazonian languagesTicuna language

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 97 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 793 - 824
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 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

Footnotes

*

This article is dedicated to the memory of Ling Cándido Serra, a Ticuna educator, author, and language activist. One of my first Ticuna teachers, Cándido Serra died of COVID-19 in May 2020. He was only forty-five.

I thank all of the Ticuna speakers who have participated in my research, especially those who contributed data discussed here: Angel Bitancourt Serra, Yaneth Cándido Guerrero, Elvira Coello Guerrero, Marcelo Farías Cayetano, Adriana Farías Gómez, Menris Farías Gómez, Deoclesio Guerrero Gómez, Diandra Rimabaque Witancort, Katia Lucero Salate Cándido, Lilia Witancort Guerrero, Sótil Suárez González, ‘ECP’, and the families in examples 1 and 2. I am especially grateful to Angel Bitancourt Serra for his work transcribing the conversational corpus.

For comments on this work, I thank the Language referees and editors; Pattie Epps, William F. Hanks, Andrew Garrett, Lev Michael, and Line Mikkelsen; and audiences at UC Berkeley, MPI Nijmegen, Leiden University, the 2018 meeting of the Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas, and the 2017 meeting of the Australian Linguistic Society.

This research was supported financially by an Oswalt Endangered Languages Grant from the Survey of California and Other Indigenous Languages, and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-1741751, Grant No. SMA-1911762, and a Graduate Research Fellowship.

References

Anderson, Stephen R., and Keenan, Edward L.. 1985. Deixis. Grammatical categories and the lexicon, ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 259–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1911. Kwakiutl. Handbook of American Indian languages, vol. 1, ed. by Boas, Franz, 425–557. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Brandão, Ana Paula Barros. 2014. A reference grammar of Paresi-Haliti (Arawak). Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/24847.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 2013. First language acquisition. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17. 463–89. DOI: 10.1515/COG.2006.015.10.1515/COG.2006.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, Ryan, and Ward, Gregory. 2017. Distal demonstratives licensed by culturally-familiar scenarios. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 2. DOI: 10.3765/plsa.v2i0.4047.10.3765/plsa.v2i0.4047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2003. Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis. Language 79. 82–117. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2003.0075.10.1353/lan.2003.0075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2018. Lao demonstrative determiners nii4 and nan4: An intensionally discrete distinction for extensionally analogue space. Levinson, In et al., 72–89. DOI: 10.1017/9781108333818.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1973. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Roque, Lila San; and Majid, Asifa. 2018. Smell is coded in grammar and frequent in discourse: Cha'palaa olfactory language in cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 28. 175–96. DOI: 10.1111/jola.12190.10.1111/jola.12190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillon, Carrie. 2009. Deictic features: Evidence from Skwxwú7mesh. International Journal of American Linguistics 75. 1–27. DOI: 10.1086/598201.10.1086/598201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Peña, Patricia, Doherty, Martin J.; and Guijarro-Fuentes, Pedro. 2020. Acquisition of demonstratives in English and Spanish. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1778. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01778.10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01778CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grenoble, Lenore A., McMahan;, Hilary and Petrussen, Alliaq Kleist. 2019. An ontology of landscape and seascape in Greenland: The linguistic encoding of land in Kalaallisut. International Journal of American Linguistics 85. 1–43. DOI: 10.1086/700317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William F. 1990. Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. 2005. Explorations in the deictic field. Current Anthropology 46. 191–220. DOI: 10.1086/427120.10.1086/427120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William F. 2009. Fieldwork on deixis. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 10–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.003.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William F. 2011. Deixis and indexicality. Foundations of pragmatics, ed. by Bublitz, Wolfram and Norrick, Neal R., 315–46. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110214260.315.Google Scholar
Haviland, John B. 1996. Projections, tranpositions and relativity. Rethinking linguistic relativity, ed. by Gumperz, John J. and Levinson, Stephen C., 271–323. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und definitheit. Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. by Stechow, Arnim von and Wunderlich, Dieter, 487–535. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110126969.7.487.10.1515/9783110126969.7.487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, James. 1995. Phonology and grammar of Yele: Papua New Guinea. (Pacific linguistics B-112.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Instituto Socio-Ambiental. 2017. Introdução: Ticuna. Online: https://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/povo/ticuna.Google Scholar
Khetarpal, Naveen, Majid, Asifa; and Regier, Terry. 2009. Spatial terms reflect near-optimal spatial categories. Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2396–2401. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/41n1k53g.Google Scholar
Küntay, Aylin C., and Özyürek, Aslı. 2006. Learning to use demonstratives in conversation: What do language specific strategies in Turkish reveal? Journal of Child Language 33. 303–20. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000906007380.10.1017/S0305000906007380CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landau, Barbara, and Gleitman, Lila R.. 1985. Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2004. The language of space in Yélî Dnye. Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity, ed. by Levinson, Stephen C. and Wilkins, David, 157–205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486753.006.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2018a. Demonstratives: Patterns in diversity. In Levinson et al., 1–42. DOI: 10.1017/9781108333818.002.10.1017/9781108333818.002.10.1017/9781108333818.002.10.1017/9781108333818.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2018b. Yélî Dnye: Demonstratives in the language of Rossel Island, Papua New Guinea. In Levinson et al., 318–42. DOI: 10.1017/9781108333818.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., Cutfield, Sarah, Dunn, Michael J., Enfield, N. J.; and Meira, Sérgio (eds.) 2018. Demonstratives in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781108333818.10.1017/9781108333818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul, Simons, Gary F.; and Fennig, Charles D. (eds.) 2014. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 17th edn. Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar
Majid, Asifa. 2011. A guide to stimulus-based elicitation for semantic categories. The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork, ed. by Thieberger, Nick, 54–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70. 369–415. DOI: 10.1086/429207.10.1086/429207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meakins, Felicity, Green, Jennifer; and Turpin, Myfany. 2018. Understanding linguistic fieldwork. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203701294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meira, Sérgio. 1999. A grammar of Tiriyó. Houston: Rice University dissertation. Online: https://scholarship.rice.edu/handle/1911/19417.Google Scholar
Meira, Sérgio. 2018. Tiriyó: Non-contrastive exophoric uses of demonstratives. In Levinson et al., 222–41. DOI: 10.1017/9781108333818.011.10.1017/9781108333818.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1993. Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16. 1–43. DOI: 10.1007/BF00984721.10.1007/BF00984721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peeters, David, Hagoort, Peter; and Özyürek, Aslı. 2015. Electrophysiological evidence for the role of shared space in online comprehension of spatial demonstratives. Cognition 136. 64–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quine, Willard V. O. 1971. The inscrutability of reference. Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, ed. by Steinberg, Danny D. and Jakobovits, Leon A., 142–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Regier, Terry, Kay, Paul; and Cook, Richard S.. 2005. Focal colors are universal after all. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102. 8386–69. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0503281102.10.1073/pnas.0503281102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Méndez, Rodrigo. 2009. A reference grammar of Ayutla Mixe (Tukyo'm Ayuujk). Buffalo: State University of New York dissertation. Online: https://arts-sciences.buffalo.edu/content/dam/arts-sciences/linguistics/AlumniDissertations/Romero-Mendez%20dissertation.pdf.Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni, Floyd, Simeon; and Enfield, N. J.. 2020. Recruitments and pragmatic typology. Getting others to do things: A pragmatic typology of recruitments, ed. by Floyd, Simeon, Rossi, Giovanni, and Enfield, N. J., 1–23. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4017493.Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Kendrick, Kobin H., Norcliffe, Elisabeth, Brown, Penelope, Defina, Rebecca, Dingemanse, Mark, Dirksmeyer, Tyko, Enfield, N. J., Floyd, Simeon, Hammond, Jeremy; et al. 2015. Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics 26. 31–60. DOI: 10.1515/cog-2014-0089.10.1515/cog-2014-0089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos Angarita, Abel Antonio. 2005. Hacia una dialectología ticuna del Trapecio Amazónico colombiano. Leticia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia dissertation. Online: https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/9728.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2012. Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Natural Language Semantics 20. 391–429. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-012-9085-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schupbach, Shannon Scott. 2013. The Blackfoot demonstrative system: Function, form, and meaning. Missoula: University of Montana thesis. Online: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/964.Google Scholar
Skilton, Amalia. 2019. Spatial and non-spatial deixis in Cushillococha Ticuna. Berkeley: University of California dissertation. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/50w177t6.Google Scholar
Soares, Marília Facó. 2017. A análise de tempo em ticuna (tikuna) revisitada: Questões sobre anáfora temporal e sequenciamento temporal. Revista Linguíʃtica 13. 263–85. Online: 10.31513/linguistica.2017.v13n2a14035.10.31513/linguistica.2017.v13n2a14035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, James, and Zhang, Yang. 2013. Relative distance and gaze in the use of entity-referring spatial demonstratives: An event-related potential study. Journal of Neurolinguistics 26. 31–45. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.02.005.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, Beaver, David, Roberts, Craige; and Simons, Mandy. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89. 66–109. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2013.0001.10.1353/lan.2013.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David. 1999. The 1999 demonstrative questionnaire: This and that in comparative perspective. Manual for the 1999 field season, ed. by Wilkins, David. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. DOI: 10.17617/2.2573775.Google Scholar
Wolter, Lynsey. 2006. That's that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.Google Scholar