Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T18:44:36.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Introduction: Demonstratives: Patterns in Diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2018

By
Stephen C. Levinson
Edited by
Stephen C. Levinson ,
Sarah Cutfield ,
Michael J. Dunn ,
N. J. Enfield  and
Sérgio Meira
Stephen C. Levinson
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik, The Netherlands
Sarah Cutfield
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Michael J. Dunn
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
N. J. Enfield
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Sérgio Meira
Affiliation:
Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Demonstratives in Cross-Linguistic Perspective , pp. 1 - 42
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

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.)

References

Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. (1994). Classifiers in Tariana. Anthropological Linguistics, 36(4), 407–465.Google Scholar
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
Bangerter, A. (2004). Using pointing and describing to achieve joint focus of attention in dialogue. Psychological Science, 15(6), 415–419.Google Scholar
Bangerter, A. & Clark, H. H. (2003) Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27, 195–225.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. (2004). Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S.(2013). Third person pronouns and demonstratives. In Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M., eds., The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/43, July 20 July 2016.)Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J. (2012). Yucatec demonstratives in interaction: Spontaneous vs. elicited data. In Schalley, A. C., ed., Practical theories and empirical practice. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, pp. 99–128.Google Scholar
Bonfiglioli, C., Finocchiaro, C., Gesierich, B., Rositani, F. & Vescovi, M. (2009). A kinematic approach to the conceptual representations of this and that. Cognition, 111(2), 270–274.Google Scholar
Braun, D. (2015). Indexicals. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Spring edn. (Available online at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/indexicals/.)Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1982 [1934]). The deictic field of language and deictic words. In Jarvella, R. & Klein, W., eds., Speech, place and action. Amsterdam: John Wiley, pp. 9–30. (Translated from Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena, Germany: Fischer).Google Scholar
Burenhult, N. (2003). Attention, accessibility, and the addressee: The case of the Jahai demonstrative ton. Pragmatics, 13, 363–379.Google Scholar
Burenhult, N.(2008). Spatial coordinate systems in demonstrative meaning. Linguistic Typology, 12, 99–142.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1978). From gesture to word: On the natural history of deixis in language acquisition. In Bruner, J. & Garton, A., eds., Human growth and development. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 85–120.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R. & Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 22, 245–258.Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R., Valdés, B., Castillo, A. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2008). Language within your reach: near-far perceptual space and spatial demonstratives. Cognition, 108(3), 889–895.Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R., Griffiths, D. & Hamilton, C. J. (2014). Spatial demonstratives and perceptual space: Describing and remembering object location. Cognitive psychology, 69, 46–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Da Milano, F. (2005). La deissi spaziale nelle lingue d’Europa. Milan: Angeli.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (1999). Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.(2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 463–489.Google Scholar
Diessel, H.(2013a). Pronominal and adnominal demonstratives. In Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M., eds., The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/42, accessed 15 January 2016.)Google Scholar
Diessel, H.(2013b). Distance contrasts in demonstratives. In Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M., eds., The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/41, accessed 16 January 2016.)Google Scholar
Diessel, H.(2014). Demonstratives, frames of reference, and semantic universals of space. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(3), 116–132.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2003). Demonstratives: A cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language, 27(1), 61–112.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2001). ‘Lip-pointing’: A discussion of form and function with reference to data from Laos. Gesture, 1(2), 185–211. doi:10.1075/gest.1.2.06enf.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
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In Jarvella, R. J. & Klein, W., eds., Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics. New York: Wiley, pp. 31–60.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.(1997). Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Frei, H. (1944). Systèmes de deictiques. Acta Linguistica, 4, 111–129.Google Scholar
Gallotti, M. & Frith, C. D. (2013). Social cognition in the We-mode. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 160–165.Google Scholar
Guérin, V. (2015). Demonstrative verbs: A typology of verbal manner deixis. Linguistic Typology, 19(2), 141–199.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.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.(1992). The indexical ground of deictic reference. In Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–76.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F.(2005). Explorations in the deictic field. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, W. F.(2009). Fieldwork on deixis. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 10–24.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F.(2011). Deixis and indexicality. In Bublitz, W. & Norrick, N. R., eds., Handbook of pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 315–346.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (1996). Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In Fox, B., ed., Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 205–254.Google Scholar
Jungbluth, K. (2003). Deictics in the conversational dyad: Findings in Spanish and some cross-linguistic outlines. In Lenz, F., ed., Deictic conceptualisation of space, time, and person. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–40.Google Scholar
Jungbluth, K. & Da Milano, F., eds. (2015). Manual of Deixis in Romance Languages. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kemmerer, D. (1999). ‘Near’ and ‘far’ in language and perception. Cognition, 73, 35–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kita, S. (2003). Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Oxford: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kita, S. & Essegbey, J. (2001). Pointing left in Ghana: How a taboo on the use of the left hand influences gestural practice. Gesture, 1, 73–95.Google Scholar
König, E. (2012). Le role des deictiques de manière dans le cadre d’une typologie de la deixis. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 107(1), 11–42.Google 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
Küntay, A. C. & Özyürek, A. (2006). Learning to use demonstratives in conversation: What do language specific strategies in Turkish reveal? Journal of Child Language, 33(2), 303–320. doi:10.1017/S0305000906007380.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Cross-linguistic evidence. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L. & Garrett, M., eds., Language and space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 109–169.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.(2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalised conversational implicatures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.(2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University 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. & Burenhult, N. (2009). Semplates: A new concept in lexical semantics? Language, 85, 153–174. doi:10.1353/lan.0.0090.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. & Wilkins, D. (2006). Grammars of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liszkowski, U., Brown, P., Callaghan, T., Takada, A. & De Vos, C. (2012). A prelinguistic gestural universal of human communication. Cognitive Science, 36, 698–713. doi:10.1111/j.1551–6709.2011.01228.x.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
Meira, S. & Terrill, A. (2005). Contrasting contrastive demonstratives in Tiriyó and Lavukaleve. Linguistics, 43(6), 1131–1152.Google Scholar
Naruoka, K. (2006). The Interactional functions of the Japanese demonstratives in interaction. Pragmatics, 16(4), 475–512.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
Pagel, M., Atkinson, Q. D., Calude, A. S. & Meade, A. (2013). Ultraconserved words point to deep language ancestry across Eurasia. PNAS, 110, 8471–8476.Google Scholar
Peeters, D. & Özyürek, A. (2016). This and that revisited: A social and multimodal approach to spatial demonstratives. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, article 22 (February 2016).Google Scholar
Peeters, D., Chu, M., Holler, J., Hagoort, P. & Özyürek, A. (2015). Electrophysiological and kinematic correlates of communicative intent in the planning and production of pointing gestures and speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(12), 2352–2368. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00865.Google Scholar
Peeters, D., Hagoort, P. & Özyürek, A. (2015). Electrophysiological evidence for the role of shared space in online comprehension of spatial demonstratives. Cognition, 136, 64–84.Google Scholar
Peeters, D., Snijders, T. M., Hagoort, P. & Özyürek, A. (under review). The neural integration of pointing gestures and speech in a visual context: An fMRI study. Ms.Google Scholar
Peeters, D., Zeynep, A. & Özyürek, A. (2014). The interplay between joint attention, physical proximity, and pointing gesture in demonstrative choice. In Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1144–1149.Google Scholar
Perkins, R. D. (1992). Deixis, grammar and culture. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Piwek, P., Beun, R.-J. & Cremers, A. (2008). ‘Proximal’ and ‘distal’ in language and cognition: Evidence from deictic demonstratives in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 694–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redcay, E. & Saxe, R. (2013). Do you see what I see? The neural bases of joint attention. In Terrace, H. S. & Metcalfe, J., eds., Agency & joint attention. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 216–237.Google Scholar
Rosés Labrada, J. E. (2015). Grammaticalization of lexical elements as deictics: Evidence from Sálibani. Talk to MPI Nijmegen Grammar Group, 27 August 2015.Google Scholar
Schapper, A. & San Roque, L. (2011). Demonstratives and non-embedded nominalisations in three Papuan languages of the Timor-Alor-Pantar family. Studies in Language, 35(2), 380–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Senft, G. (1996). Classificatory particles in Kilivila. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Senft, G.ed. (1997). Referring to space: Studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Senft, G.ed. (2004). Deixis and demonstratives in Oceanic languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Smith, N., ed. (1982). Mutual knowledge. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. & Zhang, Y. (2013). Relative distance and gaze in the use of entity-referring spatial demonstratives: An event-related potential study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26(1), 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanz, C. (1980). Studies in the acquisition of deictic terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T. & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675–691.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M. & Liszkowski, U. (2007). A new look at infant pointing. Child Development, 78, 705–722.Google Scholar
Umbach, C. & Gust, H. (2014). Similarity demonstratives. Lingua 149, 74–93.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. & Sahoo, K. (2015). On comparative concepts and descriptive categories, such as they are. Acta Linguistica Hafniensa, 47(2), 136–173.Google Scholar
Weissenborn, J. & Klein, W., eds. (1982). Here and there: Cross-linguistic studies on deixis and demonstration. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P. (1999a; 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
Wilkins, D. P.(1999b). Eliciting contrastive use of demonstratives for objects within close personal space (all objects well within arm’s reach). In Wilkins, D. P., ed., Manual for the 1999 field season. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, pp. 25–28. (Available online at http://fieldmanuals.mpi.nl/volumes/1999/eliciting-contrastive-demonstratives-personal-space/.)Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P., Kita, S. & Enfield, N. J. (2007). ‘Ethnography of pointing’: Field worker’s guide. In Majid, Asifa, ed., Field manual volume 10. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, pp. 89–95. (Available online at http://fieldmanuals.mpi.nl/volumes/2007/ethnography-of-pointing/.)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×