Spatial Deixis

by

Shingo Imai

February 1, 2003

A dissertation submitted to the

Faculty of the Graduate School of

the State University of New York at Buffalo

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Linguistics

ii

Copyright by

Shingo Imai

2003

iii

Dedication

To my wife, Mitsuko, my daughter Aiko, my son Yu, and another child who will join us soon.

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to my adviser, Dr. Leonard Talmy, for having guided me to

become a cognitive linguist. He has been not only my academic advisor, but has also been my mentor since

I met him in Japan, in 1994. If I were not inspired by his insightful observations on language, I would not

have thought to study cognitive linguistics. I would also like to thank Dr. David Zubin in the Department of

Linguistics and Dr. Charles Frake in the Department of Anthropology for reading my dissertation and

giving me valuable comments. I am also grateful to Dr. Stephen Levinson. His insightful comments on my

dissertation helped me improve it extensively. I wish to thank Dr. Robert D. Van Valin Jr., Dr. Karin

Michelson, Dr. Wolfgang Wölck, Dr. Matthew Dryer, Dr. Jean-Pierre Koenig, and Dr. Jeri Jaeger for

teaching me how to analyze language, how to survive as a graduate student, and how to keep encouraging

myself.

Many thanks also go to my classmates who have supported me in the long way to complete all the

requirements to earn a degree. Special thanks go to Marla Perkins who copy-edited the entire dissertation. I

am grateful for her professional work. Needless to say, the remaining errors are mine.

I am indebted to all the people all over the world, who provided me with precious data. Without their

generous help, I could not have written a single page of my dissertation.

I appreciate the Department of Linguistics, the Center for Cognitive Science, and the Mark Diamond

grant for offering me financial support, which made possible my study and research in Buffalo.

Finally, I must thank my family who have been always with me, who have shared all the difficulties

with me, and who have believed in me even when I, myself, was not sure if I could reach the goal.

v

Table of Contents

Page

Dedication iii

Acknowledgements iv

Table of Contents v

Abstract xi

Abbreviations xii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

1.1. Hypotheses and goals 1

1.2. Definition of “deixis” 5

1.3. Definition of “parameter” 11

1.4. Outline 12

Chapter 2: Parameters in the literature 15

2.1. Introduction 15

2.2. Overview of parameters 15

2.2.1. Anchor 15

2.2.2. Spatial demarcation 16

2.2.3. Referent/Region configuration 17

2.2.4. Function 17

2.3. Anchor 19

2.3.1. Speaker anchor 19

2.3.2. Addressee anchor 20

2.3.3. Speaker and addressee anchor 22

2.3.4. Perspective shift and other anchors 25

2.3.4.1. The third person 25

vi

2.3.4.2. A participant/non-participant 26

2.3.4.3. An object 27

2.4. Spatial demarcation 27

2.4.1. Distance 27

2.4.1.1. Relative distance 27

2.4.1.2. Minimum degrees of distance 29

2.4.1.3. Maximum degrees of distance 31

2.4.1.4. Vowel iconicity 34

2.4.1.5. Iconic lengthening 35

2.4.2. Geometric parameters 36

2.4.2.1. Verticality: up, down, level 36

2.4.2.2 Side 38

2.4.2.3. Behind 39

2.4.2.4. Interior (in), exterior (out) 39

2.4.2.5. Other side 40

2.4.2.6. Distance and geometric parameters 41

2.4.3. Geographic parameters: upriver, downriver, uphill, downhill, inland-ward (up the bush), sea-ward

(down/toward the beach), parallel to a river, away from a river, toward a river, mouth of a river 43

2.4.4. Cardinal directions: North, East, West, South 45

2.5. Referent/region configuration 47

2.5.1. Bounded and unbounded 47

2.5.2 Restricted and extended 49

2.5.3. Precise and vague 50

2.5.4. Motion 50

2.5.5. Posture 53

2.5.6. Invisible 55

2.5.6.1. Mode of access 55

2.5.6.2. Invisible-remote 55

vii

2.5.6.3. Invisible-occlusion 57

2.5.6.3.1. Distance-sensitive sub-type 57

2.5.6.3.2. Distance-neutral sub-type 58

2.5.6.3.3. Invisible-peripheral sense: Auditory and olfactory 59

2.6. Function 61

2.6.1. (Equi-distance) contrast 61

2.6.2. Differentiation 62

2.6.3. Selection 64

2.6.4. Presentative: Directive/Offerative 64

2.7. Summary 67

Chapter 3: Methods 72

3.1. Introductory remarks 72

3.2. Languages investigated 72

3.3. Preliminary checking 75

3.4. Tabletop task setting 76

3.5. Grounding 77

3.6. Distance (speaker anchor) 78

3.7. Contrast 78

3.8. Contact/Control 79

3.9. Addressee anchor 79

3.10. Addressee’s Contact/Control 81

3.11. Bounded/Unbounded and Precise/Broad 81

3.12. Side and Behind 82

3.13. Verticality 82

3.14. Motion 82

3.15. Invisibility 82

3.16. Extended 83

viii

3.17. Alienable/Inalienable 83

3.18. Psychological distance 83

3.19. Presentative (Directive and Offerative) 84

3.20. Peripheral senses 84

3.21. Additional remarks 85

Chapter 4: Data and analysis 86

4.1. Introduction 86

4.2. Anchor 86

4.2.1. Dual-Anchor system 86

4.2.2. Addressee-anchor isolated system 88

4. 3. Distance 91

4.3.1. Distance parameters 91

4.3.2. Degrees of Distance in Malagasy 95

4.3.3. Degrees of Distance in Venda 95

4.4. Verticality 101

4.4.1. Verticality in Mizo 101

4.4.2. Perception of verticality 104

4.5. Side in Luyia 105

4.6. Interior (in), exterior (out) in Luyia 106

4.7. Bounded and unbounded in Malagasy 107

4.7.1. Visible proximal locationals 107

4.7.2. Invisible proximal locationals 108

4.7.3. Distance-neutral demonstrative adjectives/pronouns: 109

4.7.4. Distance-neutral visible locationals 110

4.7.5. Distance-neutral invisible locationals 112

4.8. Motion 114

4.8.1. Motion in Malagasy 114

ix

4.8.1.1. Motion]and unbounded 114

4.8.1.2. Translocation 115

4.8.1.3. Oscillation and rotation 115

4.8.1.4. Fictive motion 116

4.8.1.5. Back-grounding of motion 119

4.8.1.5.1. Visually non-salient motion 119

4.8.1.5.2. Fictive non-motion 119

4.8.1.5.3. Irrelevant motion 120

4.8.2. Imperatives in Apatani 120

4.9. Invisibility 124

4.9.1. Invisible-peripheral sense in Mizo 124

4.9.2. Peripheral sensory constraint 125

4.9.3. Invisible-peripheral sense in Malagasy 126

4.9.4. Invisible-Occlusion 128

4.9.5. Asymmetric invisibility: Invisible to the speaker but visible to the addressee 132

4.9.6. Asymmetric invisibility: Visible to the speaker but invisible to the addressee 133

4.9.7. Conceptual extension 134

4.10. Contact/control 135

4.10.1. Speaker’s contact/control 135

4.10.2. Addressee’s direct contact and direct control in Malagasy 139

4.10.3. Addressee’s indirect contact and indirect control in Malagasy 141

4.10.4. Addressee’s alienable/inalienable referents in Malagasy 141

4.10.5. Addressee in Newari 142

4.11. Equi-distance contrast 144

4.12. Psychological distance 145

4.13. Presentative: Directive and Offerative 146

4.14. Summary 149

x

Chapter 5: Parameter Conflicts 156

5.1. Introduction 156

5.2. The speaker’s [contact/control] overrides [distance] from the speaker 156

5.3. The speaker’s [contact/control] overrides [verticality] 157

5.4. The speaker’s [contact/control] overrides [invisibility] 158

5.5. The speaker’s [control] overrides [motion] 159

5.6. [Distance] versus [motion] 160

5.7. The speaker versus the addressee 161

5.7.1. The speaker’s direct [contact/control] overrides the addressee’s direct [contact/control] 161

5.7.2. The speaker’s indirect [contact] tends to override the addressee’s direct [contact/control] 161

5.7.3. [Proximal] to the speaker tends to override the addressee’s indirect [contact/control] 162

5.7.4. The addressee’s direct [contact/control] versus the speaker’s [proximity] 162

5.7.5. The addressee’s indirect [contact] tends to override [distal] from the speaker 164

5.8. The addressee’s direct [contact/control] overrides [verticality]; the addressee’s indirect

[contact/control] tends to override [verticality]; [verticality] overrides [proximal] to the addressee 165

5.9. Summary 166

Chapter 6: Conclusion 169

Appendix A: List of Languages and Sources 177

Appendix B: Summary of Data of 15 Languages 194

References 219

xi

Abstract

This dissertation investigates the semantics of spatial deixis from a cross-linguistic point of view.

Other researchers collected some parameters in their typological studies of demonstratives. I have

expanded the language samples to more than 400 languages and added additional parameters that have not

been pointed out in previous studies. The list provides an over view of parameters of deixis. The goals of

this study are i) to reveal parameters determining spatial deictic usage in languages, ii) to compare

parameters among languages, and iii) to investigate parameter dominance. Various table-top tasks were

designed in order to collect data and were applied to 15 languages.

Major findings are as follows:

An anchor is the reference basis of deictics. The addressee anchor is an important factor next to the

indispensable speaker anchor. There exist two different types in addressee-anchor systems. They are the

dual-anchor system and the addressee-isolated system. Terms in the former indicate distance from the

speaker as well as proximity to the addressee, while terms in the latter indicate proximity to the addressee.

The [Invisibility] parameter is sub-categorized into [invisible-remote], distance-sensitive [invisible-

occlusion], distance-neutral [invisible-occlusion], and [invisible-peripheral sense].

[Motion] parameter is categorized into three types. The first type encodes [motion] as well as a

direction from the perspective of the speaker. The second type denotes [motion] as well as distance from

the speaker. The last type denotes [motion] without referring to a direction or distance. Malagasy’s

[motion] parameter covers translocation, rotation, and oscillation. It also includes fictive motions.

[Presentative] is divided into [directive], whose function is to draw the attention of the addressee to a

referent/region, and [offerative], whose function is to hand over an object to the addressee.

Contrary to traditional descriptions of deictics based on relative distance, the data indicate that the primary

and universal parameter is the speaker’s [contact/control]. The speaker primarily demarcates space by

judging whether or not a referent/region is within his/her territory or not. Whether the speaker can

contact/control a referent/region is the most influential factor in deciding the speaker’s conceptual territory

in all languages.

xii

Abbreviations

A/Adr addressee/proximal to addressee

Abl ablative

Abs absolutive

Acc accusative

Adj adjective

Ana anaphor

Ani animate

Ina inanimate

Art article

Aud audible

Ben benefactive

Bnd bounded

Cl noun class

CLS Papers form the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society

Com comitative

Cop copula

Dat dative

Def definite

Dem demonstrative

Det determiner

Dist distal

Du dual

Emph emphatic

Erg ergative

Fem/F feminine

Fut future

xiii

Gen genitive

Imp imperative

Impfv Imperfective

Inv invisible

Lk linker

Loc locative/locational/locational adverb

Masc/M masculine

Med medial

Neut/N neuter

Nom nominative

Num number

Obj object/objective

Obl oblique

Part particle

p.c. personal communication

Perf perfective

Pl plural

Prox proximal

Q interrogative particle

Spk/S speaker/proximal to speaker

Sg singular

Subj subject/subjective

Tns tense

Unbnd unbounded

Vis visible

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1. Hypotheses and goals

The present study looks into the semantics of spatial deixis from a cross-linguistic point of view. Fillmore

(1982), Anderson and Keenan (1985), and Diessel (1999) collected parameters mostly from descriptions

recorded in reference grammars. In his latest work, which is the most extensive of this kind, Diessel

examined demonstratives of 85 languages. He reported deictic features, i.e., [distance (neutral, proximal,

medial, etc.)], [visibility (visible, invisible)], [elevation (up, down)], [geography (uphill, downhill, upriver,

downriver)], and [movement (toward the speaker, away from the speaker, across the visual field of the

speaker)] (ibid., 51). In addition to these semantic deixis features, he listed semantic quality features,

syntactic features, and pragmatic features. His study covered a wide range of possible features, what we

call parameters and indicate in square brackets, across languages. In any typological study as we look at

new languages, there is always a chance of encountering phenomena that have not been detected or given

enough attention. The study of semantic parameters of spatial deixis is not an exception. In order to make

the list a step closer to an ultimately complete one, the present study expands the language samples to 432

languages. Although we will not claim it is exhaustive because there is always a chance of finding a new

parameter in further research, the list will provide the best overview of parameters of deixis available at

present. However, this is not the goal but the starting point of the present study of the semantics of deixis.

Anybody who surveys reference grammars will immediately notice that descriptions in phonology and

morphology are the most extensive, followed by syntax. The descriptions in the field of semantics and

pragmatics tend to be short and coarse. Semantic descriptions are often simple labeling of forms. These

simple labels are assumed to be the same across languages by authors working on different languages. If

the labels of parameters and their notions reported in reference grammars are taken for granted without

considering the possible differences among languages, the researchers cannot reveal the fine semantics of

deixis. Such problems have unfortunately been the case in previous typological studies.

2

For instance, Japanese and Korean are described as having a three-way distinction in demonstratives;

however, the very basic questions, such as whether spaces demarcated by the three different forms in

Korean are exactly comparable to those demarcated by the three forms in Japanese, have been unsolved.

Some speakers of American English can refer to an object in one hand with proximal form this and another

object in the other hand with that. Many have noticed this “contrastive” use in English, but it has not been

studied how common such a usage is cross-linguistically. These problems indicate that superficial

descriptions by simply referring to well-known labels such as ‘distance’ are not sufficient. Furthermore,

discrepancies in descriptions among researchers are common in the literature. The gloss, ‘close to the

speaker’, given in a reference grammar of one language need not be identical to the gloss ‘immediate’

given in another language. Anderson and Keenan (1985) say Malagasy distinguishes seven degrees of

distance, while Rajaona (1972) and Hanks (1987) claim five degrees of distinction. Neither of these seems

to be the case (cf. Imai 1999 and chapter 4).

There are a few works in which researchers have paid more attention to semantics. The Croom Helm

descriptive grammars series (Routledge), which follows Fillmore’s (1982) typological frame for field work,

does provide better descriptions than other, simpler reference grammars. Detailed observations of spatial

deixis of some Papuan and Australian languages are reported in Senft (1997) and Weissenborn and Klein

(1982). Authors of the above-mentioned works, however, are concerned with one language and are not in a

position to detect subtle cross-linguistic differences in the notions of semantic labels. As far as we know,

the present study and on-going research at Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen are the

only projects to compare parameters in spatial deixis in detail among languages by using first-hand data

specifically designed for cross-linguistic comparisons.

The preliminary ground of the present study, as mentioned above, is a list of semantic parameters of

spatial deixis based on the reference grammars. The present study, however, examines the semantic

parameters in a qualitatively different manner from previous studies. Various elicitation tasks (see chapter

3) have been designed to reveal fine-grained semantic parameters and have been applied to 15 languages.

Although it is ideal to apply these tasks to as many as languages possible, for practical reasons, experiments

with 15 languages were conducted. The experiments allow us to obtain the details of the semantics of

spatial deixis, which are usually not available in reference grammar books.

3

The goals are; i) to reveal fine-grained parameters determining the meanings of spatial deixis in

languages; ii) to find out what parameters languages have in common and which not by comparing the

parameters among languages; and iii) to find out the preferences or dominance between parameters. The

first goal will be achieved not by labeling with existing categories in the literature but by carefully

examining semantic parameters through well-designed experiments. Each experiment is designed to

highlight the relevance of target parameter(s). It will become clear that some of the well-established

categories in the literature are not fine enough to describe subtle differences in meanings of spatial deixis.

We will further divide these coarse categories in order to describe the variations. This is related to the

second goal. Once we look into the data in depth we will notice that the semantics of deictic forms labeled

with the same term among languages are not necessarily the same. We will show the similarities and

differences in the meanings and uses of spatial deictics by comparing parameters among languages.

Comparison of parameters within a language and among languages will provide us with dominance

between parameters. Potentially relevant parameters may compete with each other in certain situations. By

observing the use of spatial deictics in such situations, we can determine that some parameters are more

dominant than others in a language.

The following are some hypotheses we will defend in this study:

(1) The primary function of spatial deixis is to demarcate space surrounding the speaker. Not only

locational adverbs, such as here and there, but also demonstrative pronouns/adjectives, such as this and that,

manifest a deictic meaning only when a referent is identified in a demarcated region. A locational adverb

refers to a demarcated region, while an adjective and pronoun refer to a referent in a demarcated region. If a

form refers to a referent without pertaining to space demarcation, the form is not deictic, e.g., the

determiner ‘the’ in English.

(2) Demarcation of space may be made based on a distance axis or a non-distance axis. Distance is the

primary axis and other axes are supplementary for demarcation of space.

(3) There exist two different sub-systems in addressee-anchor systems that have been neglected in the

literature.

4

(4) Parameters such as [addressee], [invisibility], [motion], and [presentative] are categorized into several

sub-types.

(5) Minimum degrees of distance are two.

(6) Maximum degrees of distance are yet undecided.

Malagasy and Venda, among other languages, have been reported to have a more than three-way contrast in

distance in the literature. The present study will show that these languages actually distinguish at most a

three-way distance contrast. Nevertheless, we will caution that the issue of maximum degrees of contrast is

still unsolved.

(7) Human beings’ perceptual modes of access to the world, namely vision, audition, and olfaction, are

reflected in the forms and use of deictics.

There is a qualitative and quantitative cline in utilization of these modes in deictics, which reflects

asymmetries of quality of these modes in human perceptions.

(8) Relative distance is generally assumed to be the universal and prima facie parameter of spatial deixis.

We challenge this assumption by arguing that the primary and universal parameter is the speaker’s

[contact/control].

The speaker primarily demarcates space by judging whether or not a referent/region is within his/her

territory or not. Whether the speaker contacts/controls a referent/region is the most influential factor in

deciding one’s conceptual territory in all languages.

(9) The territory of the addressee or a participant in a conversation is sometimes relevant to deictics in

languages even though it is not morphologically encoded in deictics.

(10) There are absolute universal parameters, near-universal parameters, implicational universals,

universally available (or substantive universals), and semantics that are never coded in spatial deixis.

(11) There are dominance relations between parameters.

5

The most significant and crucial contribution to the field of spatial deixis research is the claim that the

primary parameter in spatial deixis is not relative distance, as is assumed in the literature, but is what we

call [contact/control]. This hypothesis is a drastic deviation from the traditional view of spatial deixis based

on relative distance. The notion of territory itself is not totally novel. Kamio (1979, 1987, 1990), in his

territory information theory, applies the notion of territory to discourse analyses; however, he does not

discuss what defines, and how to define, a territory in spatial deixis. The present study proposes that a

territory is determined by the speaker, who conceptualizes that s/he is controlling a certain referent/region.

The most influential factor for the choice of spatial deictic forms is the speaker’s subjective

conceptualization of his/her imaginary territory rather than relative distance between the speaker and the

referent. The notion of territory is not restricted to the speaker. The parameter referring to the addressee,

which is usually glossed as ‘close to the addressee’, should also be viewed as an addressee’s territory

conceptualized by the cognizer, i.e., the speaker.

This hypothesis challenges the traditional view of spatial deixis and all the research that follows the

widely assumed view. Relative distance is a presupposition in virtually all descriptions of spatial deixis.

Other research, such as studies of acquisition of spatial deixis, also depends on the descriptions based on

relative distance. They may be misguided and not attentive to the importance of conceptual territories that

children acquire. A description of spatial deixis by referring to relative distance is insufficient and

imprecise, if not inappropriate. Our hypothesis sheds new light on research on deixis and highlights the

speaker’s subjective conceptualization of the notion of territory. In other words, spatial recognition is

grounded in the speaker’s autonomous interpretation of the world or conceptual interactions with the world.

It is not the speaker’s perception of space in a static and passive manner.

1.2. Definition of “deixis”

The origin of ‘deixis’ is deiktikos (deictic) in Greek, meaning ‘pointing’, which reflects the core function of

deixis. ‘Deixis’ has been called by different names in different approaches. Pure index (Pierce 1932),

Zeigwörter (index) + Symbolwörter (symbol) (Bühler 1934), Indexical symbol (Burks 1948), Indicator

(Goodman 1951), Indexical expression (Bar-Hiller 1954), and Shifter (Jespersen 1965[1924], Jakobson

1971[1957]). Since the Greek period, deixis has been a subject of study in philosophy. In recent years,

6

many studies on deixis have been conducted from the linguistic point of view (Büler 1934, Frei 1944,

Fillmore 1971, 1975, Lyons 1968, 1977b, Levinson 1983, Anderson and Keenan 1985, and Diessel 1999,

among others). The present study focuses on basic functions corresponding to the meaning of deiktikos

mentioned above. However, as a start it will be useful to take a bird’s-eye view of terms and definitions of

deixis in general.

In the literature, there have been three traditionally recognized categories of deixis based on three axes,

namely spatial-socio-temporal axes. Spatial deixis is based on spatio-axes, (e.g., this, that, here, and there).

Personal deixis is based on socio-axes (e.g., I and you). Temporal deixis is based on temporal axes (e.g.,

now, today, and yesterday) but not including before or earlier (Fillmore 1982: 35, 38, Javella and Klein

1982: 2). Levinson (1983) (following Lyons 1968, 1977a, and Fillmore 1975) adds to them, social deixis,

that is honorific and discourse (or text) deixis. Levinson (1983) further argues that visibility (i.e., visible or

invisible) should also be considered another deictic category. He argues that

quite a number of languages of different stocks that encode a basic distinction between objects visible and non-visible to participants. This distinction is often subsumed under place deixis, as it tends to show up in demonstratives, but it is in fact an independent and parallel dimension of deictic organization that ought to be added to the major five categories of deixis. (Levinson 1983: 63)

Among the six categories above, spatial deixis, discourse deixis, and visibility are encoded in

demonstratives. Those encoded in demonstratives have been analyzed and categorized in different ways in

the literature. The following table is a summary of some of the studies that are based mainly on Rauh’s

(1983) study, with additional information from Laury (1997) and Diessel (1999).

7

Table 1. Different uses of demonstratives

Rauh1983

situation-bounddeixis

Type 2 situationfree deixis

text/discourse

deixis

analogousdeixis

Anaphora

Bühler1934/1965

demonstratio adoculos (visual)

deixis amphantasma (deixisin the imagination)

Searle1959

extralinguistic deixis intralinguisticdeixis

Harweg1968

real deixis text deixis

Lyons1973

deixis at its purest deixis pure textualdeixis

impuretextualdeixis

anaphora

Klein1978

echte deixis quasi-local, shifteddeixis

analogousdeixis

Fillmore1971, 75

gestural symbolic discoursedeixis

Brecht1974

exophora endophora endophora

Larjavaara1990

exophora textualexophora

endophora

Himmel-mann1996

situational discoursedeictic

tracking(anaphoric)

recognitional

Diessel1999

exophora endophoric-discourse

deictic

endophoric-anaphoric

endophoric-recognitional

Situation-bound deixis: This is the most basic function of deixis. Rauh (1983: 44) states that

what is characteristic of this type is that the encoder as well as the objects related by means of deictic expressions to be the center of orientation (the speaker in this case) are present at the situation-of-utterance. Utterances in this context therefore are considered as “situation-bound”. On the basis of these pre-requisites, it is possible to accompany utterances of deictic expressions by visual and acoustic gestures.

In the same vein, Himmelmann (1996: 240) defines this type as ‘situational use, which involves the notion

of relative distance to some deictic center and serves to establish a referent in the universe of discourse.’

Fillmore (1971: 223) further divides this type into two sub-types: gestural usage and symbolic usage.

Gestural usage is the most common one that may be accompanied with pointing gestures. An example of

gestural usage is:

(12) This is mine, and that is yours.

8

Symbolic usage is what we call “deictic-center expansion”. In this usage, the deictic center itself, where the

speaker is located, is a referent and it expands as far as the speaker can imagine.

(13) This city stinks.

Type 2 or deictic center is situation-bound, while objects are not: Rauh (1983: 45) states that

the second type of use of deictic expressions differs from the first in that the center of orientation but

not the related objects are part of the canonical situation-of-utterance. It is therefore not possible to

identify the related objects by means of visual or acoustic gestures.

Examples are definite articles and temporal deictic expressions. The following is from Fillmore (1971: 223)

(14) You can save my life if you push the green button. . . right . . . now!

Situation-free deixis: This use of deictic expression is

characterized by the exclusion of the center of orientation and the related objects from the canonical

situation-of-utterance. The encoder gives up his real center of orientation and imagines himself located

within imagined space. (Rauh 1983: 45).

Demonstratives in direct quotations of utterances are examples of this type.

Text deixis, Discourse deixis: Text deixis and discourse deixis are sometimes used interchangeably while

they are distinguished in a narrow sense. Levinson (1983: 62) seems not to distinguish the two types of use.

He states that ‘discourse deixis has to do with the encoding of reference to portions of the unfolding

discourse in which the utterance (which includes the text referring expression) is located.’ The two

examples he gives are:

(15) Puff puff puff: that is what it sounded like.

(16) This (in creaky voice) is what phoneticians call creaky voice. (Levinson 1983: 62)

9

These two examples fall into text deixis in a narrow sense. Text deixis is the literal reference to a physical

text segment (Lyons 1977, Himmelmann 1996, Pederson and Wilkins 1996). Discourse deixis in a narrow

sense is reference to a proposition expressed by the text (Himmelmann 1996, Pederson and Wilkins 1996).

This use is parallel to what Lyons (1977) called “impure text deixis”. Lyons (1977) construed this use as

being located between anaphora and deixis.

(17) I’ve never even seen him. That’s a lie. (Lyons 1977: 668)

Analogous deixis: ‘A local point of orientation is based on an object serving as an analog in such a way

that orientation within the space to be reconstructed is made possible by analogy. Klein (1978), who

identified analogous deixis, presented several examples: a map can function as an analog of a city with the

onlooker’s position indicated by you are here. Also, the body of a person can serve as an analog of that of

another, The bullet hit him here.’ (Rauh 1983: 50)

Anaphora: Lyons’s (1977: 660) definition of anaphor is that anaphoric expression refers to the referent of

the antecedent expression with which it is correlated. Himmelmann (1996: 240) calls it “tracking use” and

defines it as ‘the use of demonstratives for referents which have already been mentioned.’

Recognitional deixis: Another category argued for by Himmelmann (1996) is what he calls

“recognitional” use.

Recognitional use involves reference to entities assumed by the speaker to be established in the universe of discourse and serves to signal the hearer that the speaker is referring to specific, but presumably shared knowledge. (Himmelmann 1996: 240).

This use is well-known in Japanese demonstratives, which is usually considered one kind of anaphoric use.

An example is:

(18) ano jisin kowakat-ta nethat earthquake scary-past isn’t.it‘That earthquake was scary, wasn’t it?’

This utterance can be suddenly introduced to a conversation without previous context. In this utterance, the

speaker assumes that the addressee shared the same experience with the speaker.1

10

In the present study, we restrict the discussion to the situation-bound exophoric use, firstly because

our concern is how languages divide space through spatial deixis. Secondly, we consider exophoric use as

the core function of demonstratives and more prototypical than others, following Brugmann (1904), Bühler

(1934), Lyons (1977), and Diessel (1999). Studying exophoric use is a good starting point for a cross-

linguistic survey of deixis. Diessel (1999: 110) provided three arguments to claim this view against

Himmelmann (1996) who claimed that all kinds of demonstrative use, regardless of whether it is exophoric

or endophoric, should not be considered more basic than others. Diessel says:

First, the exophoric use is prior in language acquisition. Second, exophoric demonstratives are morphologically and distributionally unmarked. And third, the grammaticalization of demonstratives originates from the anaphoric, discourse deictic and recognitional uses; that is exophoric demonstratives are never immediately reanalyzed as grammatical markers.

As mentioned above, we use ‘deictic forms’ or ‘deictics’ in the narrow sense, namely in the sense of

the situation-bound exophoric use or primarily in the sense of Fillmore’s gestural use. We will observe

demonstrative pronouns, demonstrative adjectives, and deictic locational adverbs such as here and there.

We will observe meanings coded in a paradigm (but not necessarily in each form) of demonstrative

pronouns, demonstrative adjectives, and deictic locational adverbs. In English, for instance, proximity is

coded in ‘this/here/these’ and distality is coded in ‘that/there/those’. ‘Distance’ is the main semantic feature

that characterizes deictics in English. On the other hand, number that is marked in deictics is not

characteristic to deictics. It is a property of nouns in general. Therefore, we will include ‘distance’ into our

discussion but not number.

We set up the following working criteria to decide whether a form in question is a deictic in the

narrow sense or not. First, if a morpheme is part of deictic word, then the morpheme and the meaning

conveyed by the morpheme consist of deictics in the narrow sense. If, on the other hand, a morpheme is not

part of deictic word, then the morpheme and the meaning conveyed by the morpheme do not consist of

deictics in the narrow sense. The superiority indicated in a locational adverb ‘above’ in ‘above there’ is

optionally added to a deictic word ‘there’. Therefore, the meaning of superiority is not part of deictics in

English. This criterion, however, is not always easy to apply. Morphological analyses tend to be difficult in

highly fusional languages; nevertheless, the criterion is useful in many instances. Second, as deiktikos

(deictic) in Greek suggests, ‘pointing’ gesture may be accompanied with the utterance of a deictic

morpheme in the sense we use here. Fillmore’s symbolic usage is excluded according to this criterion. The

11

criterion can be paraphrased that deictics in the narrow sense is restricted to situation-bound usage. In other

words, the usage requires origo as a deictic center. It is true that some deictic forms are encoded in terms of

the position of the addressee; however, the notion of the addressee requires the notion of the speaker. The

addressee is defined only when the speaker is defined. It is analogous to the ontological fact that the

meaning of ‘husband’ is only defined by the existence of his ‘wife’. Third, we consider only closed class

forms as deictics in the narrow sense. Open-class forms ‘go/come’ and ‘take/bring’ are excluded by this

criterion. Fourth, we include forms that pertain to space demarcation in one way or another. Not only

distances but also cardinal directions fall into this category. However, cardinal directions in English are not

closed class terms; therefore, they are not deictics. Forms indicating cardinal directions in some languages

will be included to our discussion, provided that they are closed class forms, they demarcate space, and

they may be accompanied with a pointing gesture. They may not be ‘demonstratives’; nevertheless, they

are deictic in the narrow sense as long as they satisfy the criteria described above.

I admit that the criteria are still vulnerable to criticism. The definition of deictics in any sense is fuzzy,

which has evoked a variety of terms and definitions by scholars as we saw in this section.

1.3. Definition of “parameter”

Parameters or features are semantic components of deictics. They may be morphologically overt or covert.

Examples of overt parameters are [proximal] and [distal] encoded in English this/here and that/there,

respectively. In the case of West Futuna spoken in Vanuatu, morphologically segmented suffixes -nei, -na,

and -ra carry meanings of “proximal to the speaker”, “proximal to the addressee”, and “distal from both the

speaker and the addressee”, respectively.

Table 2. West Futuna (Dougherty 1983: 27-32)

Prox Adr DistAdj/Pron Sg te-nei te-na te-ra

Du ru-nei ru-na ru-raTrial taka-nei taka-na taka-raPl e-nei/aa-nei ena/aa-na era/aa-ra

Loc (at) iku-(nei) iko-na iko-raDir (toward) kiku-(nei) kiko-na kiko-ra

12

In English, morphological segmentation corresponding to [proximal] and [distal] is not possible.

Nevertheless, it is clear that this and here carry the meaning of [proximal], while that and there carry the

meaning of [distal]. We consider these cases in both languages as morphologically overt parameters. There

are covert parameters that are not morphologically significant. An example of morphologically covert

parameters is [control]. As we will thoroughly discuss in later chapters, a relatively distal object can be

referred to with a proximal deictic once it is reached with a tool such as a pole or a stick. In such a case, the

parameter of [control] that is not morphologically marked on deictics is a driving force to use the proximal

form.

“Parameter” in Pederson and Wilkins (1996) and “feature” in Fillmore (1982) and Diessel (1999) refer

only to overtly realized parameters; however, we include covert ones in the discussion. Levinson’s (1996)

term “primitive” refers to components of “parameters”, for instance, view point, figure, ground, etc., that

are also relevant to our discussion.

More than one parameter may be combined in one deictic form. Tümpisa (Uto-Aztecan) has a

demonstrative adjective/pronoun form (s)utü (Dayley 1989: 137), which refers to a referent far away and

invisible. In this case, the parameters [remote] (or fourth degree of distance parameters) and [invisible] are

combined.

1.4. Outline

Chapter 2 provides a cross-linguistic overview of spatial deixis by consulting reference grammar

descriptions and typological studies conducted by other researchers. The parameters are divided into four

categories, namely anchor, spatial demarcation, referent/region configuration, and function. Parameters are

examined in this order.

Chapter 3 explains methods of elicitation of data from 15 languages. It illustrates elicitation sessions

conducted by using referents on a table and pictures with questionnaires. Different types of settings are

designed to find out the relevance/irrelevance of each target parameter in the language in question.

Chapter 4 is the main body of the present study. It analyzes data elicited through experiments. The

data provide clues for the investigation of the semantics of spatial deixis in detail, which is hard to obtain

from reference grammar books. Not only overt parameters but also covert parameters are investigated. The

13

close examination of covert parameters provides a better understanding of uses of spatial deixis. The data

will be also compared to descriptions in previous studies in order to examine the accuracy of descriptions in

previous studies.

Chapter 5 observes the cases where parameters compete with each other. Based on the observations,

we discuss dominance or hierarchy between parameters.

Chapter 6 concludes the discussion. Comparison of the fine-grained parameters among different

languages will demonstrate to what extent such parameters are comparable cross-linguistically. It will also

suggest some universal parameters. Finally, we will note that hypotheses in the present study suggest

important factors for not only spatial deixis but also of spatial cognition in general; and that the present

fine-grained study of spatial deixis is a way of investigating a human being’s spatial cognition, which is

one of the most debated issues in cognitive science.

Notes

1. In addition, Rauh (1983) includes locational expressions such as above, below, in front of, behind,

right, left in deixis and calls them non-egocentric deixis. We do not include these terms in English in deixis

because they are not included in the paradigm of deictics, namely demonstrative adjectives, demonstrative

pronouns, and deictic locationals (demonstrative adverbs). We consider that egocentric deixis is really

deictic. ‘Non-egocentric’ expressions is calculated in terms of another referent. They are not deictic in the

sense that calculation takes place in terms of the location of the speaker. ‘In front of the box’ is not deictic

in any sense, while ‘in front of me’ has a deictic connotation; however, ‘in front of’ itself in English is not a

part of the paradigm of spatial deictics because the semantics of anterior is conveyed by morphemes that

are independent from the paradigm of deictics. In a language that does include such semantics in deictic

paradigms, morphological parallelism among deictic forms is evident, as we will see later. In addition,

deictic expressions in those languages that include such semantics in their deictic paradigms are forced to

express these semantics in a deictic form either positively or negatively. ‘Positively’ means that the

semantics is morphologically encoded, while ‘negatively’ means that if one of the semantics is not

14

morphologically encoded, complementary semantics is implied. For instance, if the language encodes

‘above’ in one deictic form and ‘below’ in another deictic form, a third deictic form that does not encode

either ‘above’ or ‘below’ necessarily conveys the meaning of ‘level’.

15

Chapter 2

Parameters in the literature

2.1. Introduction

In this chapter, we review parameters of deictics reported in the literature. The sources are reference-

grammar books of 432 languages and typological studies of demonstratives: Yoshida (1980), Fillmore

(1982), Anderson and Keenan (1985), Diessel (1998, 1999), and Diessel’s personal database of

demonstratives, which he kindly provided to us. In the literature, some languages were reported to have an

extremely complex deictic system. To see how such a complex system works in actual use is one of our

motivations for the present work. Yoshida (1980) reports that the language with the most complex

demonstrative system is Mundari (Austro-Asiatic, Munda), which is said to divide space into 30 respects.

Anderson and Keenan (1985: 292) picked Malagasy as the language with the most complex demonstrative

system in terms of distance. They mentioned a series of seven deictics distinguished along distance from

the speaker. According to Ziervogel et al. (1972), Venda (Bantu) has 16 forms in terms of distance

including so-called ‘emphatic forms’. As the start of the study of deixis, we review descriptions in the

literature in this chapter. In chapter 4, we will consider data that were collected through experiments to

detect subtle meanings of deixis in order to examine the feasibility of the descriptions in the literature.

2.2. Overview of parameters

2.2.1. Anchor

Parameters are categorized into four categories, namely anchor, spatial demarcation, reference/region

configuration, and function. Before looking at descriptions in the literature, we will briefly explain

parameters in these four categories.

A reference point is the point to which referents are related. Deixis fixes a reference point and

describes a referent or a region with respect to the reference point. English this fixes the point of the

location of the speaker and designates proximity, which is determined by the relative distance from the

speaker. The base of deixis is, however, not restricted to a point. It can be a base line. Some languages have

16

deictic forms designating [upriver] or [downriver]. In this case, a river is a linear base. Furthermore, strictly

speaking, the punctual point of the location of the speaker is hard to determine. Is it the ground on which

the speaker stands? Is it the corporal epicenter of the speaker? Thus, the term reference “point” is not

sufficient for the description of deixis. We use “anchor” as the base to which referents are related in deixis.

English this and that are both speaker-anchored because [proximal] and [distal] are (assumed to be)

determined by the relative distance from the speaker (i.e., the speaker as a whole without determining a

specific “point” of the body). Japanese kore, ‘this one’, and are, ‘that one’, are also speaker-anchored,

while sore, ‘that one close to the addressee’, is addressee-anchored. “Anchor” should not be confused with

“deictic center”, “origo” (Bühler 1934), or “zero-point” (Fillmore 1982, Jarvella and Klein 1982). We will

use the term “deictic center” to refer to the origin or the “primary” anchor of deixis. Deictic center usually

refers to the location of the speaker. Japanese sore is addressee-anchored; nevertheless, it is also sensitive

to the location of the speaker, namely, the deictic center. Sore means ‘close to the addressee’, but at the

same time it connotes that the referent is not close to the deictic center that is the speaker’s location. (A

modification will be made for this description later, but this crude description suffices for the present

purpose.) Thus, in the use of sore, the speaker as the deictic center and the addressee as the anchor must be

understood as separate notions.

2.2.2. Spatial demarcation

We assume that the basic function of spatial deixis among all languages is demarcation of a space

surrounding the speaker in order to identify a region or a referent in a region. We use the term “region” to

refer to a spatial segment conceptually demarcated by spatial deixes and other locational expressions such

as front, back, above, below, in, out, etc. In most cases, the demarcation line or the border is not

conceptually salient and actually not of concern to the speaker.

Spatial demarcation other than a distance axis refers to geometric axes such as [up, down, side, in

(interior), out (exterior), other side]; geographic axes such as [upriver, downriver, uphill, downhill, inland-

ward, sea-ward, parallel to coastline]; and cardinal axes such as [north, east, west, south].

17

2.2.3. Referent/Region configuration

Deictics may be marked with other parameters that are not related to spatial demarcation. One category of

such parameters, which we call “referent/region configuration parameters”, consists of [direction (to,

from)], [motion], [bounded], [unbounded], [restricted], [extended], [precise], [broad], and [posture]. These

parameters indicate the property or quality of the referents and regions. “Quality” in Diessel’s (1999)

categorization of features of demonstratives consists of ontology (location, object/person), animacy,

humanness, sex, number, and boundedness. Demonstrative pronouns (and adjectives in some languages)

more often than not indicate number, gender, and other grammatical categories such as animate, inanimate,

human, or non-human. However, these are not uniquely found in deictics. These features are marked on

nouns, pronouns, and adjectives in general. Therefore, such grammatical categories are excluded from the

present discussion.

2.2.4. Function

Deictics may involve parameters that are defined by the speaker’s interaction with referents/regions. We

call them “functional parameters”. They are [contact/control] and [presentative], or more precisely,

[directive] and [offerative]. These parameters indicate what the speaker performs with referents. (Equi-

distance) [contrast] and [psychological distance] are also functional parameters. Functional parameters

indicate how the speaker and the addressee interact with a referent/region rather than how they perceive a

referent/region. Perception itself, such as demarcation and characterization of referents/regions, is a

speaker’s conscious and voluntary activity. In this sense, all linguistic activities using deictics are the result

of the speaker’s active interactions with the world. Functional parameters, however, are different from

other parameters. Other parameters mainly serve to identify the referent/region by narrowing down a space

or by profiling the properties of the referent/region. The main function of functional parameters is

indicating what the speaker does by referring to a referent/region, although as long as functional parameters

manifest as deictics, they also pertain to the identification of a referent/region. The speaker acts on a

referent/region or treats it according to his/her purpose, which is more than merely identifying it. The

functional parameters pertaining to manipulation of a referent/region by the speaker may override spatial

demarcation or characterization of a referent/region, depending on the speaker’s perception.

18

A referent touched by the speaker is a prototypical case of [contact], which we call “direct contact”.

When the speaker is touching a distal referent with a long object like a stick, we call it “indirect contact”.

When a speaker pulls a string attached to a cup at the far end of a table, s/he manipulates the cup and moves

it without directly touching it. This is a case we call indirect [control].

Some languages are described as having forms to designate “very near” or “immediate”. Examples are

Bemba (Bantu) with a form glossed as ‘very near to the speaker’ (Hoch 1960: 128) and Toba Batak

(Malayo-Polynesian) with a form glossed as ‘a place in the immediate vicinity of the speaker’ (Van der

Tuuk 1971: 220). None of these descriptions, except one, specifies a distinctive form encoding [contact] by

the speaker’s hand versus proximity of the speaker. The one exception is Satawal (Micronesian). Yoshida

(1981: 103) reports that this language has forms designating “in the speaker’s hand” and forms designating

“reachable by the speaker’s hand”.

Table 1. Satawal (Yoshida 1981: 103)

‘in S’s hand’ ‘reachable by S’s hand’ ‘in A’s hand’ ‘close to A’ Dist[Prox-contact] [Prox-non-contact] [Adr-contact] [Adr-non-contact]

Pron Sg minne minnen minna minimu minnanPl minikei minikken minikena minikomwu minikenan

Satawal forms mark the [contact] parameter. The language distinguishes [contact] and [non-contact] for

both the speaker anchor and the addressee anchor. What Yoshida called ‘in the speaker’s hand’ and

‘reachable by the speaker’s hand’ are construed as having a compound parameter, [proximal-contact] and

[proximal-non-contact], respectively, and ‘in the addressee’s hand’ and ‘close to the addressee’ in

Yoshida’s terms can be construed as having a compound parameter, the [addressee-contact] and the

[addressee-non-contact], respectively. At present, however, we are hesitant to completely admit his

descriptions of the system of Satawal, which morphologically distinguishes the speaker’s contact from the

speaker’s vicinity. Such a distinction is exceptional cross-linguistically (however, cf. chapter 4, especially

the discussion on Newari for an interaction of the parameter of the [contact] and the [addressee]).

Furthermore, Yoshida’s argument is based on a sole informant. Aside from this arguable case, no language

morphologically encodes the speaker’s [contact/control] distinctively from [non-contact]. Nevertheless, it

does not mean that other languages are not sensitive to the [contact/control] parameter. To the contrary, as

19

we will argue in chapter 4, the speakers’ [contact] either direct or indirect [contact], is one of the main

reasons to use proximal forms in all languages.

[Presentative] is subcategorized to [directive] and [offerative]. Here! in the sense of ‘look at this’ is

[directive], and here! in the sense of ‘take this!’ is [offerative].

The use of a [contrast] or more precisely an [equi-distance contrast] may occur, for instance, when two

or more referents are at the same distance from the speaker. In English, the first referent may be referred to

with this and the second one with that. Sequential constraints (Fillmore 1982) may be relevant to a

[contrast]. For some speakers of English ‘this cup is mine; that cup is yours’ may be acceptable, but

reversing the order of this and that, namely ‘that cup is mine; this cup is yours.’ may not be acceptable.

If the speaker is holding something abhorrent, s/he might use a distal form to indicate his/her

[psychological distance] from the referent. [Psychological distance] was called “emotional deixis” in

Lakoff (1974) or “emphatic deixis” in Lyons (1977).

Parameters categorized into functional parameters are often covert, i.e., not morphologically marked.

These covert parameters are hardly mentioned in reference-grammar books; therefore, they will be

discussed fully when we examine data from experiments later.

2.3. Anchor

2.3.1. Speaker anchor

It is unquestionable that the ubiquitous entity in utterances is the speaker him/herself. No other entity is

more accessible than the speaker. Naturally, the speaker, accessible without fail, is the first choice for an

anchor to which other entities are related. All languages anchor the speaker for spatial deixis, and for many

of them, it is the single anchor. In this case, the anchor coincides with the deictic center.

The deictic center usually refers to the location of the speaker. The deictic center may be shifted in

special uses such as in a direct quote or in imaginary speech, in which the deictic center can be any place

where the speaker was before or any imaginary place. If the deictic center shifts to somewhere other than

canonical now/I/here situation, then the anchor that coincides with the deictic center also shifts. Rauh

(1983: 45) called this type 3, or situation free deixis, and Bühler (1934) called it “deixis am phantasma”. As

20

Rauh put it, the encoder gives up his real center of orientation and imagines himself located within an

imagined space.

2.3.2. Addressee anchor

The term “addressee” denotes the person that the speaker is talking to. “Addressee” does not include mere

over-hearers who are at the site of utterance (cf. Fillmore 1982). Mparntwe Arrernte (Pama-Nyungan) and

Korean have a three-way system in deictics. In Mparntwe Arrente, the three-way distinction is solely based

on the distance from the speaker, while in Korean, the forms in the second category in the paradigm

indicate ‘close to the addressee’.

Table 2. Mparntwe Arrernte (Wilkins 1989)

Prox Med DistAdj/Pron/Loc Certain nhenhe yanhe nhakwe

Uncertain nhengkenhe yatange nhawerne

Table 3. Korean

Prox Adr DistAdj i ku cePron i kes ku kes ce kesLoc yeki/(yoki) keki/(koki) ceki/(coki)

We can say that Korean has addressee-anchored forms in addition to proximal and distal forms. Anderson

and Keenan (1985: 282) called the Mparntwe Arrernte type a ‘distance-oriented system’ and the Korean

type a ‘person-oriented system’. However, considering these two types as dichotomous is not correct. Note

that both systems use the speaker as the deictic center, and that it is the primary anchor, namely the

speaker-anchor. The difference lies in whether a language uses the addressee as the secondary anchor or not.

Korean does, but Mparntwe Arrernte does not. We must also be careful about glosses in reference-grammar

books such as ‘close to the speaker’ and ‘far from both the speaker and the addressee’, which give an

impression of so-called person-orientation; these are identical to simpler glosses such as ‘near, close, or

proximal’ and ‘far or distal’, respectively, in terms of the speaker’s position. According to all of the

reference grammars that were examined, if a language has addressee encoding, the language distinguishes

at least two degrees of distance from the speaker in deictics. If a language has a three-way system, it is

21

common that the language is either solely speaker-anchored or involves an additional addressee-anchored

category. There are, however, a few languages with a three-way deictic system that have [proximal],

[distal], and [invisible] parameters. Kashmiri (Indo-Aryan), Dyirbal (Pama-Nyungan) (cf. table 57), Yidi

(Pama-Nyungan), Ute (Uto-Aztecan), and Piro (Arawakan) (cf. table 58) are such examples.

In descriptions from reference-grammar books, 78 languages were described to have a three-term

system referring to distance from the speaker only, and 63 languages were described to have a three-term

system including the reference to the addressee. It shows that about half of the languages with a three-term

system have the addressee as the secondary anchor. We predict that the more we properly analyze the

deictics of languages, the more the number of languages with the addressee anchor will increase. For

instance, Anderson and Keenan categorized Spanish into languages without the addressee anchor (or

distance-oriented in their term); however, the elicited data show that Spanish should be categorized with

the addressee anchor (we will describe the system of Spanish in detail later). Popular languages that are

studied in the literature in more detail than less popular languages tend to be analyzed as being addressee-

anchored: for example, Basque, Finnish, Hawaiian, Japanese, Korean, and Maori. Less popular languages

tend to be described as a speaker-anchored three-degree distance contrast. It is, however, possible that some

researchers failed to correctly detect the addressee anchor in these less-studied languages.

The addressee anchor is the secondary anchor after the speaker anchor because all languages use the

speaker but not necessarily the addressee. There are also cognitive reasons to think of the speaker anchor

as primary and of the addressee anchor as secondary. First, there is a cognitive reason based on saliency in

everyday conversations. Svorou (1993: 11) argued that ‘frequent encounter[s] with an entity provide people

with familiarity and fairly good knowledge of it, which, in turn, makes the entity salient, in the sense that it

is familiar and easily accessible. Salient entities are more likely to be picked out as Landmarks (Grounds)

with respect to which other less salient entities are located.’ In a typical conversation, that is, a canonical

situation of utterance, there are the speaker and the addressee. In different occasions of conversation, the

addressee is not the same token; however, as people are frequently exposed to the canonical situations of

utterance, the addressee as a type becomes salient secondarily to the speaker.

The second reason comes from language acquisition studies. Shirai and Cynthia (2000) reported that

Japanese children acquired proximal forms first, followed by distal forms, and finally addressee-anchored

22

forms. This indicates that children acquire proximal and distal forms based on speaker-anchor more easily

and earlier than addressee-anchored forms. It supports the view that the speaker-anchor is the primary and

the addressee anchor is the secondary parameter.

Third, the asymmetry of complexity of distance demarcation in speaker-anchored forms and

addressee-anchored forms must be a reflection of primary and secondary differences between the two. Two

or three degrees of distance from the point of the speaker are the norm in speaker-anchored systems, while

the addressee anchor usually does not have a distance contrast. In other words, a referent is marked only for

proximity to the addressee but not for medial or distal from the addressee. Only one language, Satawal

(Micronesian), was reported to have a two-way distance distinction from the addressee. According to

Yoshida (1981), Satawal has two categories in terms of the addressee, one glossed as ‘in the addressee’s

hand’ and the other glossed as ‘close to the addressee’ (cf. table 1). Even when there are two categories of

the addressee anchor, asymmetry of complexity still holds because two degrees of distance in terms of the

addressee-anchor are fewer than three degrees of distance in terms of the speaker anchor (i.e., ‘in S’s hand’,

‘reachable by S’s hand’, and distal, cf. table 1).

2.3.3. Speaker and addressee anchor

Some languages encode [proximal to both the speaker and the addressee]. Paamese (Oceanic), Quileute

(Chimakuan), Bemba (Bantu), and some Philippine languages such as Aklanon, Waray, Maranao, Bol-

Anon, Cebuano, and Inati have a four-way system as shown in the example of Waray below.1

Table 4. Waray (Wolf and Wolf 1967: 2-24, 2-27, 5-23)

Prox to S Prox to S & A Prox to Adr DistAdj/Pron adi ini itu adtuLoc (Present/Future) a(a)di a(a)nhi a(a)da a(a)dtu

In such a system, we can construe two degrees of distance for the speaker anchor and one degree for the

addressee anchor and one degree for both the speaker and the addressee anchor. Another Philippine

language, Binukid, as shown in table 5, has a five-way system with four degrees of distance for the speaker

anchor and one degree for both the speaker and the addressee anchor.

23

Table 5. Binukid (Guasa 1991: 63-65)

Prox to S & A Prox to S Med Dist RemoteRoot i ini yan ya enAdj/Pron Nom sai/hai saini/haini sayan/hayan saya/haya saen/hen

Acc/Poss tai taini tayan taya taenLoc -- dint diyan diya duun

In those languages described as having the category [proximal to the speaker and the addressee], it is not

clear whether the category implies something more proximal or more distal compared to [proximal to the

speaker]. For instance, in Binukid grammar, forms of [proximal to the speaker and the addressee] precede

forms of [proximal to the speaker]. The glosses, ‘near speaker and listener’ for the former and ‘beside

speaker but a bit away from listener’ for the latter, suggest that [proximal to speaker and addressee] is more

proximal compared to [proximal to the speaker]. On the contrary, [proximal to the speaker] precedes

[proximal to the speaker and the addressee] in the description of Waray. Glosses given for Quileute ‘near

speaker’ and ‘at a comparatively short distance from both’ imply that [proximal to the speaker] is

comparably closer than [proximal to the speaker and the addressee].

According to Bogoras (1992 cited in Yoshida 1981: 895) Chukchi (Cukotko-Kamchatkan) deictics

mark ‘behind the speaker’, ‘behind the addressee’, and ‘between the speaker and the addressee’ in addition

to six degrees of distance from the speaker.

Bulgarian (Slavic) and Catalan (Italic) have a category that designates proximal to either the speaker

or the addressee.2

Table 6. Bulgarian (Yajima 1984: 124, 126)

Prox/Adr DistAdj Sg M toozi onzi

N tovaa onovaF taazi onazi

Pl teezi oneziPron Sg/Pl tovaa onovaaLoc tuk tam

Forms in the first category refer to [proximal to the speaker] or [(proximal to the) addressee]. Forms in the

second category refer to [distal].

24

Table 7. Catalan (Hualde 1992: 120-122, 282, 293, 294)

Prox/Adr DistAdj/Pron M Sg aquest aquell

Pl aquets aquellsF Sg aquesta aquella

Pl aquestes aquellesPron N això allòLoc aquí allí/ allà

/ll/ = [] ‘dorsopalatal lateral’

Hualde (1992: 120) noted the following:

[A]quest/-s/-a/-es, for referents near the speaker or listener, and aquell/-s/-a/-es, for distalreferents. . . . Notice thus that the meaning of Catalan demonstratives does not correspond to that ofEnglish demonstratives. The proximative [proximal] demonstrative aquest corresponds both toEnglish ‘this’ (referent near speaker) and to English ‘that’ when the referent is near the listener.

The first category seems to be the result of the convergence of the two categories, [proximal to the speaker]

and [(proximal to the) addressee], in a three-way system, which ancestors of these languages used to have.

The following table shows the three-way system of Old Catalan.

Table 8. Old Catalan (Otaka 1987: 125, 126, 283)

Prox Adr DistAdj/Pron M Sg aquest aquiex aquell

Pl aquests aqueixos aquellsF Sg aquesta aqueixa aquella

Pl aquestes aqueixes aquellesPron aò això allòLoc ací aquí allà/allí

The comparison between table 7 and 8 indicates that forms belonging to [proximal to the addressee] of

adjective-pronouns and forms belonging to [proximal to the speaker] of pronouns in Old-Catalan are lost in

present Catalan. Two categories are converged into one category. The same convergence must also have

taken place in Bulgarian from the three-way system observed in Latin.

The convergence could have taken place in another way, namely, toward the [distal (to the speaker)]

category. In that case, convergence of the [(proximal to the) addressee] parameter and the [distal (to the

speaker)] parameter realizes simply as [distal (to the speaker)]; therefore, the new system shows two

degrees of distance from the speaker, [proximal] and [distal], which is observed in some Italic and Slavic

languages such as Rumanian and Russian.

25

2.3.4. Perspective shift and other anchors

2.3.4.1. The third person

Deictic center, which is usually the speaker-anchor, may be shifted to a non-speaker-anchor in quotations

or in an imagined space. Here in the following example means “proximal to John”, where John is a non-

speaker.

(1) John said, ‘I came here yesterday.’

A perspective shift in a quotation or in imagined space are probably common in natural languages. (Asher

1989: 149) reported a perspective shift in telephone conversations in Tamil (Dravidian). Tamil deictics

consist of [proximal] and [distal] forms. In a telephone conversation, the speaker referring to an object in

the same room as the speaker would use a distal form. It indicates that the speaker refers to the object from

the perspective of the addressee.3 It resembles the use of come in English. When the speaker says to the

addressee, ‘I will come to your office tomorrow’, the speaker uses ‘come’ from the perspective of the

addressee provided that we assume the meaning of “come” is “to move toward the deictic center”.

Perspective, which is usually defined with respect to the speaker or the speaker’s location, is shifted to the

addressee’s location in this example. This “perspective shift” was called in the literature, “shift in point of

view” (Fillmore 1975), “deictic projection” (Lyons 1977), or “shifted deictic center” (Pederson and Wilkins

1996) (cf. also Fillmore1977, Levinson 1986, and deixis am phantasma in Bühler 1934). These are

pragmatically conditioned perspective shifts and not encoded morphologically in deixis. According to

Denny’s (1978: 83, 1982: 362) report, however, Inuktitut Eskimo and Kikuyu (Bantu) have

morphologically distinct forms that signal a non-speaker anchor.

(2) Inuktitut Eskimo (Denny 1982: 362, from Diessel 1999: 47).

a. ik-ungaUp.there-to‘up there from my perspective’ (speaker anchor)

b. Field shifting prefix ta-ta-ik-ungaShift-Up.there-to‘up there from your/his/her/their perspective(s)’ (non-speaker anchor)

26

The language has a prefix called “field shifting prefix”. The prefix ta- indicates that the deictic center has

been transferred from the speaker to another person. In (2a), the location ‘up there’ is referred to from the

perspective of the speaker. In (2b), with the prefix ta- added, the location ‘up there’ is referred to from the

perspective of a non-speaker such as the addressee or a third person.

Table 9. Kikuyu (adapted from Denny 1978: 83)

Prox Dist Indefinite/Non-specific Non-Spk/AdrAdj/Loc non-extended ha-ha ha-a-ria ha-ria ha-u

extended gu-ku ku-u-ria ku-ria ku-u

In non-speaker forms in Kikuyu,

[D]eictic field is centered on some other person or thing such as the addressee’s location or previouslymentioned deictic location. The factor “speaker’s/other field” probably is not exactly the same as, but is related to, various “other person” deictic fields referred to by Fillmore (1971). Apparently some systems can shift the deictic focus so that the system centers explicitly on just the 2nd person, or just the 3rd person, or just another 3rd person. (Denny 1978: 83).

In the same way as Inuktitut, the perspective may shift to a non-speaker that may be either the addressee or

the third person in Kikuyu.

2.3.4.2. A participant/non-participant

Samal (Malayo-Polynesian) has four deictic ca

tegories: “near the speaker”, ‘near the addressee”, “near other participants in a conversation”, and “away

from all of the above”. Fillmore (1971: 43) described their uses as follows:

[I]f A is talking to B, and C is a part of their conversational group, A will use one deictic category for locating things that are near C; if C is not a part of the conversational group, as might be the case if he has fallen asleep or if A and B are whispering or if C has picked up a newspaper or has started talking to somebody else, then A must use for the fourth place-deictic category instead of the third.4

The language seems to be sensitive to whether the third person is a participant in a conversation or not. The

language marks a participant-anchor and a non-participant anchor in addition to the speaker anchor and the

addressee anchor.

27

2.3.4.3. An object

Huallaga Quechua has demonstrative pronouns/adjectives indicating verticality of a referent relative to the

speaker such as ura ‘below’ and hana ‘above’; however, once an affix qa is added, these forms indicates a

referent with respect to another object (Weber 1989). A personal affix following the prefix specifies the

anchor.

(3) Huallaga Quechua (Weber 1989: 39)a. ur’qa-yki-chaw ka-yja-: .

below=qa-2p-Loc be-Impfv-1p‘I am down the hill from you.’

b. wasi-ki-pa han’qa-n-chav tiya-n.house-2p-Gen above=qa-3p-Loc live-3p‘He lives up the hill from your house.’

Huallaga Quechua indicates a sub-type of a non-speaker anchor. Unlike Inuktitut Eskimo and Kikuyu in the

previous section, non-participants in Huallaga Quechua are not restricted to persons but may be objects that

function as deictic anchors.

As we have seen, all languages utilize the speaker anchor. Other anchors, namely the addressee, the

third person, the location of an object, a participant, and a non-participant may be optionally utilized in

some languages. The speaker anchor is the primary and universal anchor in spatial deixis. Other anchors

are optional and secondary in some languages.5

2.4. Spatial demarcation

2.4.1. Distance

2.4.1.1. Relative distance

Hanks (1990: 401) said that

[T]he extent of the current frame of reference may be relatively expanded (e.g., here on earth) or relatively contracted (here on the tip of my finger) and any metric statement of the distance values of deictics is meaningless unless paired with a pragmatic frame.

It goes along with Talmy’s (2000a: 24ff.) argument: closed-class forms have a topological rather than

Euclidean character. Specifications that are normally expressed with open-class forms are abstracted away

in closed-class forms. The distinction between this and that does not pertain to absolute distance between

the speaker and the referent.

28

(4) a. This speck is smaller than that speck.

b. This planet is smaller than that planet. (Talmy 2000a: 25)

Scenes described in (4a) and (4b) are the same topologically even though the actual distance or size varies.

He termed such abstraction of distance or size, “magnitude neutral”. It is uncontroversial that relative

distance but not absolute distance (at least) pertains to the [distance] parameter in deictics. Nevertheless, it

is not meaningless to set up a canonical situation of utterance to study uses and meanings of deictics,

because the canonical deictic use takes place in a canonical situation of utterance.

Lyons (1997: 637-8) commented on the use of deictics in his definition of a canonical situation of

utterance as follows:

The grammaticalization and lexicalization of deixis is best understood in relation to what may be termed the canonical situation of utterance: this involves one-one, or one-many, signalling in the phonic medium along the vocal-auditory channel, with all the participants present in the same actual situation able to see one another and to perceive the associated non-vocal paralinguistic features of their utterance, and each assuming the role of sender and receiver in turn . . . There is much in the structure of languages that can only be explained on the assumption that they have developed for communication in face-to-face interaction. This is clearly so as far as deixis is concerned.

Description of spatial deictics should start with the most basic use that is observed in a canonical situation

of deictics, especially for cross-linguistic comparisons of deictics, keeping in mind that such basics can be

easily extended to uses in non-canonical situations. In addition to Lyons’ definition of a canonical situation

of utterance, a canonical situation of the use of deictics is characterized with canonical referents (or

regions) that are not too much expanded or too much contracted, visible to the speaker and the addressee.

The speaker’s pointing gesture to the reference is also involved in canonical situations.

What is relative is a reference frame that may expand as far as the universe or contract as small as a

smear marked on a paper that the speaker points at. In either case, the notion of [proximal] attributed to

here, for instance, remains the same. It is because, in both cases, the location of speaker or the imaginable

epicenter of the speaker and the deictic center coincide. In the phrase, this universe, it is not the proximal

sphere but the deictic center itself that is expanding.

The deictic center is comparable to the term ‘point’ defined in mathematics. A ‘point’ defined in

mathematics is an absolute point with no area. Nonetheless, a point, once it is marked on a piece of paper

with a pencil, has a miniscule but still physical area. The deictic center is the location that includes the

corporal center of the speaker. It may be as large as the earth; however, it is still construed as a point.

29

2.4.1.2. Minimum degrees of distance

Three-degrees of distance in deictics are common and those are usually glossed as ‘near’, ‘far’, and

‘remote’; or ‘near, ‘not far’, and ‘far’. It is impossible to know from such crude glosses whether those

glosses actually reflect semantic differences. Only by comparing uses of languages, ideally by using the

same referents, the same regions, under the same conditions, will the semantic values be revealed; then we

can know whether the descriptions of one language is or is not comparable to those of another language.

Therefore, so far as glosses in reference grammars are concerned, we cannot rely on subtle variations, and

we will simply use parameters [proximal], [medial], and [distal] without commitment to subtle differences

among languages. In addition, we will occasionally use [imm(ediate)] and [remote] to refer to more than

three degrees of distance.

This and the next section look at minimum degrees and maximum degrees of distance coded in

deictics. As far as the reference grammars we consulted are concerned, the minimum degree of distance for

deictic adjectives and pronouns is one degree. Deictic adjectives and/or pronouns of Koromfe (Niger-

Congo), Bambara (Niger-Congo), Supyire (Niger-Congo), Wellamo (Cushitic), Karok (Hokan), Kapauku

(Papuan), Kamoro (Papuan), Cairene Egyptian Colloquial Arabic, Amuesha (Arawakan), and Mam

(Mayan) do not mark a distance contrast: they are distance-neutral. When a language has only distance-

neutral adjectives, these are hard to distinguish from determiners or articles (cf. Anderson and Keenan

1985: 280). Many Indo-European languages such as Afrikaans, Czech, Danish, French, German,

Norwegian, and Russian may use distance-neutral deictics especially in colloquial speech. For instance, in

German, hier is the [proximal], dort is the [distal], and da is the [neutral] locational. The [neutral]

locational may cover both [proximal] and [distal] areas; more accurately; the form refers to an area without

specifying distality. ‘Da can replace both hier and dort. A more appropriate description could be: hier

denotes a subspace that includes the origo, dort denotes a subspace from the complement (i.e., it must not

contain origo) and da may, but need not, include the origo. This is in full accordance with the fact that da is

by far the most general deictic term in German’ (Klein 1983: 296). In Russian, neutral forms such as etot

(masculine, singular pronoun/adjective) may also indicate proximity. These European languages,

nevertheless, have means to indicate a distance contrast, if necessary. In French, locational proximal -ci or

distal -là is added to distance-neutral adjective ce(t) (masculine, singular) to indicate a distance contrast. On

30

the contrary, the non-European languages listed above do not have forms other than distance-neutral forms.

Though languages may indeed lack a distance contrast in deictic adjectives and/or pronouns, locational

adverbs or equivalents usually distinguish at least two degrees of distance. Most of the languages cited

above for distance-neutral adjectives and/or pronouns have locational forms with a distance contrast.6

Koromfe in table 10 is an example of a language whose locational forms show a two-way distinction while

their adjectives and pronouns are distance-neutral.

Table 10. Koromfe (Rennison 1997 and personal communication)

NeutralDet/Adj/Pron Human Sg ho(go)

Pl b(g)Non-human Sg ko(go)

Pl h(g)

Prox DistLoc jere ze

Babungo (Benue-Congo) has two categories in deictics: one for visible referents/regions and the other for

invisible referents/regions, as shown in the next table.

Table 11. Babungo (Schaub 1985: 98, 192, 203)

Visible InvisibleAdj/Pron Noun Class 1 nw wiLoc féen fín

As the following example suggests, the invisible forms seem to refer to a referent/region that is far enough

away that one cannot see. In this sense, invisible forms contrast with visible forms in terms of distance.

(5) Babungo

m nd f fín.I leave from there.Inv‘I am coming from over there (pointing).’ (ibid., 98)

Thus, all languages seem to distinguish at least two degrees of distance in locational adverbs.

31

2.4.1.3. Maximum degrees of distance

Fillmore (1982: 48-49) claimed that a language does not have more than a three-way distance category and

that if a language has more than three-terms in deictics, it is always the case that other factors, such as an

addressee anchor or visibility (i.e., visible or invisible), are involved. Diessel (1999) agreed with

Fillmore’s claim. On the other hand, Anderson and Keenan (1985: 286-295) reported that several languages

have more than a three-way distinction in terms of relative distance from the speaker without involving

other parameters. According to Story and Naish (1973), quoted in Anderson and Keenan (1985), Tlingit

(Muskogean) has a four-way system in terms of distance.

Table 12. Tlingit (Story and Naish 1973: 387 from Anderson and Keenan 1985)

Imm Prox Med RemoteAdj/Pron yáa héi wée yóo

Glosses:yáa ‘this (one) right here, close to the speaker’héi ‘this (one) nearby, moderate distance from the speaker without reference to the addressee’wée ‘that (one) over there, not identified by the location of the addressee’yóo ‘that (one) far off’

Contrary to this, Hanks (1992) argued by quoting Boas (1917: 113) that Tlingit has ‘near the speaker’,

‘near the addressee’, and ‘near the third person’ deictics. It is premature to determine whether the

[addressee] is a relevant parameter or not and whether a four-way distance distinction really holds in

Tlingit.

According to reference grammars, there are a good number of languages distinguishing four or more

degrees of distance. None of them were mentioned in Fillmore (1982) and Diessel (1999). Aghu (Papuan),

Chrau (Mon-Khmer), Djinang (Pama-Nyungan), Lari (Bantu), Northern Tepehuan (Uto-Aztecan) and

Somali (Cushitic) were reported to have four distinctive forms. Some examples are below:

Table 13. Aghu (Drabbe 1957 from Yoshida 1980: 889)

Prox Med Dist RemoteLoc nego ghowo ghogo gho

Uphill Downhill Upriver Downriver Little up Up Little down Downghoto ghüko ghosogho ghüogho ghogosu ghosu ghogosü ghosü

(In/Out?) Other side(ghosu) ghonu

32

Table 14. Chrau (Thomas1971: 60, 99, 139)

Prox Med Dist RemoteAdj/Loc he no t ti

Table 15. Djinang (Waters 1989: 37-42)

Form I Form II Form III Form IVAdj/Pron/Loc Nom djini(ngi) djinimi ngunumi ngunu(ngi)

Loc djili djilimi ngulimi nguli

Glosses:Form I ‘immediate-proximate’Form II ‘near-proximate’Form III ‘near-distant’Form IV ‘distant’

Table 16. Lari (Ganga 1992: 219-223)

Prox Dist 1 Dist 2 Dist 3Class 1 Sg wu wo wuna wune

Pl ba bo bana bane

Glosses:Prox ‘close to the speaker, this’Dist 1 ‘quite far, that’Dist 2 ‘far, that . . . over there’Dist 3 ‘very far, that . . . far over there’

Remo (Austro-Asiatic-Munda) was reported to have four distinct forms in terms of distance and an

additional distance-neutral form. ‘For the most part, demonstratives distinguish between four relative

distances from the speaker: foreground, i.e., near or close by; two middle distance--one closer, the other

farther from the speaker; and one far distance, i.e., farthest from the speaker.’ (Fernandez 1969: 81-82.)

Table 17. Remo (Fernandez 1969: 82)

Prox Med Dist Remote Neutral?Adj gitin gusu ro geta kon

Glosses:gitin ‘indicates foreground distance from the speaker.’gusu ‘indicates nearer middle distance from the speaker.’ro ‘indicates the further middle distance from the speaker.’geta ‘indicates furthest distance from the speaker.’kon ‘points to or refers to persons and things, but does not indicate relative distance.’

33

Forest River (Wororan) and Mansaka (Central Philippines) were reported to have four distinct forms and an

additional form encoding the [invisible] parameter.

Table 18. Forest River (Capell and Coate 1984: 135)

Prox Med Dist Remote InvAdj/Pron root -nji/-ga -gaja -gali gurga -gija

Table 19. Mansaka (Svelmoe and Svelmoe 1974: 47)

Prox Med Dist Remote InvAdj/Pron Topic yani/yadi yaan yadto ngidto ngaong/aadto

Relative nini/nidi naan nadto nidto nong/aadto

Glosses:Prox ‘this, very near’Med ‘that, near’Dist ‘that, distant’Remote ‘that, more distant’Inv ‘that, out of sight’

Fore (Papuan) was reported to encode vertical parameters and distance. Forms encoding [up] and [down]

parameters indicate two degrees of distance, while forms encoding [level] parameters indicate five degrees

of distance.7

Table 20. Fore (Scott 1978: 82)

Imm Prox Med Dist RemoteAdj/Pron/Loc Level máá pí mí maré maró

Up -- -- máe -- mayóDown -- -- mé -- mó

Chukchi (Cukotko-Kamchatkan) (cf. Bogoras 1922) and Kawaiisu (Uto-Aztecan) were reported to

distinguish six degrees of distance. Zigmond (1991) provided Kawaiisu forms and glosses as follows.

Table 21. Kawaiisu (Zigmond 1991: 17)

‘right here’ ‘here’ ‘there’ ‘over there’ ‘way over there’ ‘wa-a-ay over there’Loc hii/išu hiivaana mavaana uweeniyo maaweenu moovaana

ivaana samavaanasiivaana suuvaana

uweenu

34

Anderson and Keenan (1985) cited Malagasy as a language distinguishing six-degrees of distance

from the speaker in adjectives or pronouns and seven degrees in locational adverbs. Ziervogel et al. (1972)

suggested that Venda (Bantu) has 16 forms in terms of distance including so-called ‘emphatic forms’. In

chapter 4, we will examine the degrees of distance of Malagasy and Venda based on the data elicited from

informants and will disclaim the complexity claimed in the literature.

2.4.1.4. Vowel iconicity

Iconicity of vowels of deictics was pointed out by Woodworth (1991). Vowels in distal forms tend to be

lower and wider, while vowels in proximal forms tend to be higher and narrower. Dravidian languages are

textbook examples of this point. High narrow /i/ represents proximity and low wide /a/ represents

remoteness.

Table 22. Dravidian languages

a. Kannada: (Hodson 1859 [1979]: 22, 64, 76; Sridar 1990: 203, 209, 212)

Prox DistAdj ii aaLoc illi alli

b. Malayalam: (Jayaseelan 2000: 115)

Prox DistAdj ii aaLoc ivite avite

c. Malto (Mahapatria 1979: 76)

Prox DistPron Sg M iih aah

F/N iid aadPl iir aar

This iconicity holds as long as it is understood as a tendency allowing some exceptions. Instances of

counterexamples to this iconicity tendency include Jukun (Benue-Congo), Izi (Benue-Congo), Ik (Nilo-

Saharan), Lele (East Chadic), Finnish (Uraric), Jazguljami (Iranian), Gujarati (Indo-Aryan), Lepcha

(Tibeto-Burman, Kuki-Chin), Lealao Chinantec (Otomanguean), Sakao (Vanuatu), and Yatye (Papuan),

35

among others. The following are some examples showing that a vowel in distal forms is narrower than that

in proximal forms.

Table 23. Counterexamples for vowel iconicity

a. Ik (Serzisko 1989: 392)

Prox Med DistAdj Sg na ne ke

b. Finnish (Laury 1997: 52-60, 129)

Prox Adr DistAdj/Pron Nom Sg tämä se tuo

Pl nämä ne nuo

/ä/ = [æ]

c. Lepcha (Mainwaring [1876] 1971: 43, 71, 72)

Prox DistPron Sg áre oreLoc ábá obá

2.4.1.5. Iconic lengthening

Vowel lengthening of distal forms is one of the most common means to emphasize distance. The iconicity

behind this device is clear. An example of vowel lengthening is reported in Nkore-Kiga (Bantu). Some

deictics of Nkore-Kiga are as follows:

Table 24. Nkore-Kiga (Taylor 1985: 135-138)

Prox Adr/Med Dist Vis Dist Inv/AnaClass 1 Sg ogu ogwo oriya ori

5 Sg eri eryo ririya riri

Taylor (1985: 136) noted that ‘when using forms in -riya, the form is for objects removed from speaker and

hearer but not really far away. For very distant objects the final -a may be lengthened on a continuum of

iconic representation.’ Longer vowels represent more distance, but note that lengthening is logically

unlimited; however, degrees of lengthening do not distinctively reflect degrees of relative distance.

Languages in which iconic vowel lengthening is not conventionalized may still utilize lengthening to

some extent. For instance, speakers of English may pronounce [e::r] to emphasize remoteness. English has

36

another device to emphasize remoteness. Modifiers to amplify a degree such as ‘over’ or ‘way’ are added

to a distal form as in over there or way over there. When the speaker runs out of modifiers, s/he resorts to

lengthening the vowel as in waaay [we::i] over there.

2.4.2. Geometric Parameters

2.4.2.1. Verticality: up, down, level

A referent/region that is located in the upper visual field and lower visual field from the perspective of the

speaker’s eye level may be morphologically marked with [up] and [down] parameters in deixis,

respectively. These “geometric” parameters utilize the axis of eye level perpendicular to the axis of gravity;

therefore, encoding of those must always be available to the speaker without depending on a surrounding

landscape, unlike geographic parameters such as [uphill] or [downriver]. The parameter [level] indicates

that a referent is on or close to the horizontal line, and the [up] and [down] parameter indicate that a

referent is off, and above or below the line. Anchors such as the speaker anchor, the addressee anchor, and

the third person anchor are points, while the horizontal line of the speaker’s sight is a linear anchor. [Up]

and [down] parameters are often reported in Papuan and Tibeto-Burman language families. Presumably, the

terrain where these languages are spoken is mountainous. Monitoring and mentioning verticality must be

common in daily conversations in these areas.

Normally, [up] and [down] parameters appear as a pair. Some languages like Miji (Tibeto-Burman)

also encode [level].

Table 25. Miji (Simon 4, 27, 41) (Published year is not given)

Prox DistAdj/Pron Sg hu(-iru)/hi --

Pl hu-na --Level Sg -- phai-tu

Pl -- phai-tsu-naUp Sg -- tha-tsu

Pl -- tha-tsu naDown Sg -- phu-tsu

Pl -- phu-tsu-na

Loc a/ho/aru --Level -- phai(-ya)Up -- tha(-ya)Down -- phu(-ya)

37

In Muna (Malayo-Polynesian, Sulawesi), the parameter [down] can be neutralized.

Table 26. Muna (Berg 1989: 85-98)

Prox Adr Med Dist/(Down) Remote/Up Audible/AnaPron/Adj (Identifying) aini aitu amaitu awatu atatu anaghaAdj (Referential) ini itu maito watu tatu naghaLoc ne ini ne itu ne maito ne watu ne tatu ne nagha

The language has an adjective/pronoun atatu marked for [up] and awatu marked for [down]. Berg (1989:

86) reported that informants would usually say that atatu refers to a high location and awatu to a low

location, but from conversations and texts it was evident that awatu was, in fact, a neutral form which could

even be used for relatively high points. Only in opposition to atatu, awatu meant ‘low’ or ‘level’. In the

same line, Friedman (1996: 316) reported the neutralization of the [down] parameter in Lak (Caucasian).

Table 27. Lak (Friedman 1996: 308)

Prox (Adr)Directive Dist/(Level) (Down)/Neutral Distal UpAdj/Pron va mu ta ga kaLoc i- mi- ti- gi- ki-Manner ukun mukun tukun gukun kukun

In this language, the adjective/pronoun ga and the locational adverb gi- are marked for [down] and the

adjective/pronoun ka and the locational adverb ki- is marked for [up]. Friedman argued that ga had lost its

specificity for ‘lowerness’ in modern Lak. As the result, ga- is distal without specification of verticality

(and ta has become “contrastive” (to use his term)). These statements indicate that if neutralization ever

happens, it is more likely to take place in a [down] parameter than in an [up] parameter. It may be because

a lower vision field occupies less space than a higher vision field; therefore, a less salient [down] parameter

is more vulnerable for neutralization of verticality. It reminds us of the comment by Dixon (1972: 263)

saying that ‘we can only see a short distance down (to the ground); a fair distance up.’ Asymmetry of [up]

versus [down] is also observed in Tolai (Oceanic), which marks ‘straight upwards’ but not ‘straight

downwards’.

38

Table 28. Tolai (Mosel 1982, 1984)

Prox DistDown the beach Up the bush Straight upwards Same level

Loc Non-stative At ati ara arä arama aroGoal uti ura urä urama uroSource (ma)mati (ma)mara (ma)marä (ma)marama (ma)maro

Stative akari akana akanä akanama akanro

Inside Up inside Down inside Other side/Behind

Loc Non-stative At aria arima arika aruaGoal uria urima urika uruaSource (ma)maria (ma)marima (ma)marika (ma)marua

Stative akanria akanrima akanrika akanrua

(‘Straight upwards’ seems to refer to geometric verticality as opposed to geographic verticality such as

‘down the beach’ and ‘up the bush’.)

Verticality based on the gravity axis and (cardinal directions that we will see later) are the only factors

other than the speaker and the addressee anchors that are potentially ubiquitous in every canonical situation

of utterance. Verticality is, however, not a major parameter in languages (nor are cardinal directions). It

may be because verticality is meaningful and useful only in geographic habitats where referents/regions are

arranged vertically, such as in mountainous terrain. (Cardinal directions are not very common in languages

for the same reason.)

2.4.2.2 Side

The parameter [side] is based on the horizontal line of the speaker’s sight. The laterality is marked when a

referent is off the line. Languages that were reported to encode the [side] parameter include Mongolian,

Lepcha (Tibeto-Burman, cf. table 36), Thadou (Tibeto-Burman), Sherdukpen (Tibeto-Burman), Nishing

(Tibeto-Burman), Brokeh (Tibeto-Burman), Chang (Tibeto-Burman), Guugu Yimithirr (Pama-Nyungan),

Ngiyambaa (Pama-Nyungan), Margany (Pama-Nyungan), and Maranungku (Non-Pama-Nyungan). Most of

these languages were reported to distinguish [side-proximal] and [side-distal]. Locationals usually denote

the [side] parameter as in Chang. In Brokeh, pronouns as well as locationals denote the [side] parameter.

39

Table 29. Chang (Hutton 1929, 1987: 15, 46)

Prox DistAdj/Pron Sg ho khwo

Pl hàbu kàbuLoc hani kani

Side hiini thiini

Table 30. Brokeh (Dondrup 1993: 10, 18, 24)

Prox DistPron Sg? o(la)/ot phop(la)

Side otchoh phopchohAdj Sg o(t)la uohla

Pl otbah upbahDown -- mohmilaUp -- yohyila

Loc ola phoplaSide ochola upchola

2.4.2.3. Behind

Among the reference grammars, only two languages were reported to morphologically mark the parameter

of [behind the speaker]. Yoshida (1980) quoted Bogoras’ (1922) report and argued that Koryak and

Chukchi of Chukotko-Kamchatkan mark referents/regions [behind the speaker]. Koryak was reported to

mark [between the speaker and an object] and [behind the speaker] in addition to three degrees of distance

from the speaker. Chukuchi was reported to mark [between the speaker and the addressee], [behind the

speaker], and [behind the addressee] in addition to six degrees of distance from the speaker. A note of

caution is advisable here before we accept these parameters as a part of deictics. It is not clear, in Koryak,

what kind of “object” is taken as an anchor in the alleged parameter of [between the speaker and an object].

Chukchi allegedly marks the parameter designating [behind the addressee]. If it were a part of deictics, we

would expect a more unmarked parameter with respect to the addressee, namely the parameter designating

“proximal to the addressee”. However, the latter is not included in the reported paradigm of spatial deixis

of the language. Therefore, the accuracy of the descriptions of the “peculiar” parameters is questionable.8

2.4.2.4. Interior (in), exterior (out)

Some languages encode referents/regions within a boundary, namely [interior], and outside a boundary,

namely [exterior]. According to Hanks (1990), Yucatec Maya has a form referring to a referent within a

40

region, which includes the deictic center, separated from the outer region by a conceptual perimeter, and

another form referring to the outer region. The boundary can be an imaginary boundary demarcating the

near end and the far end of a hammock, walls of a house, or a boundary between the earth and the sky. Not

necessarily but typically, native speakers of Yucatec Maya associate an exterior region with invisibility. In

Yucatec Maya, [interior] is the region including the deictic center, namely the location of the speaker.

Interior and exterior are defined from the perspective of the speaker; therefore, [interior] and [exterior]

appear in tandem in the deictic system of the language. Inuktitut is similar in this respect. It has forms

denoting ‘bounded in’ on one hand and ‘bounded out’ on the other (Denny 1978, 1982).

There is another type of [interior]/[exterior]. The interior region is defined by the configuration of the

“ground” object or a “container” in a metaphoric sense. [Interior] markings are not necessarily paired with

exterior markings in this case. This type is reported in Tolai (cf. table 28). It has three interior forms. Those

are -ia denoting ‘the interior of something that is neither above nor beneath the speaker’s position’, -ima

denoting ‘inside above the speaker’s position’ and -ika denoting ‘inside underneath the speaker’s position’.

These glosses show that interior regions do not include the deictic center. [Interior] in this type may be

called “enclosure” of referents/regions by a ground object. Northern Tepehuan (Uto-Aztecan) has an

interior and an exterior form. The glosses given to the interior form by Bascom (1982; 328) are ‘in a hole,

in a pipe’ and ‘in the distance’, which suggest that the deictic center is not part of the interior region, and

the gloss given to the exterior form is ‘out there’. [Exterior], whose gloss is ‘out there’, probably excludes

deictic center in the same way as the interior form.

2.4.2.5. Other side

Tolai (cf. table 28) has forms with -ua ending that signify ‘a place as situated behind or the other side of

something’ (Mosel 1982: 127). In example (6), there is a referent on the other side of a road.

(6) Tolai

a-r-ua ra rotLoc-there-other.side Art road‘There on the other side of the road.’ (Mosei 1982: 127)

41

According to Fortescue (1984), qanna in West Greenlandic Inuit refers to an object (or a person) on the

other side (either [interior] or [exterior]) of some intervening surface, usually a wall or a door, from the

speaker.

Table 31. West Greenlandic Inuit (Fortescue 1984)

Prox Med Dist Inv-remoteAdj/Pron Sg manna una innga inna

Dist Dist Dist DistDown/ ‘way’ Down/ Up/ ‘way’ Up/West West/ East/ East

Out to sea Inlandkanna sanna pinnga panna

Dist Dist Dist DistOther side Out there North Southqanna kinnga anna qanna

Example (6) of Tolai suggests that the referent is visible, while the alternative gloss, ‘behind’, for forms

with -ua in Tolai, as well as the uses of West Greenlandic Inuit, suggests that the referent is invisible. Aghu

(cf. table 13) and Lepcha (Tibeto-Burman, cf. table 36) were also reported to have a category encoding the

[other side].9

2.4.2.6. Distance and geometric parameters

Tolai (cf. table 28), Juang (Austro-Asiatic, Munda), and Mizo (as we will see in chapter 4) encode [up] and

[down] parameters in distal regions but not in proximal or medial regions.

Table 32. Juang (Matson 1964 from Yoshida 1980: 880)

Prox Med Dist-Up Dist-DownPron Ani (i)ni ere airi auri

Ina (e)nan era aira aura

Paamese (Oceanic, Vanuatu), Nicobarese (Mon-Khmer), Selepet (Papuan), and Lepcha (Tibeto-Burman)

are examples in which both proximal and non-proximal forms are marked for verticality.10

42

Table 33. Paamese (Crowley 1982: 62, 73, 85, 226)

Prox to S Prox to S/A Adr DistAdj/Pron/Loc -k(e) -- -- -nek(e)Location pronoun kele(e) ekok(e) kaisom(o) akeek(e)Derived Location pronoun

Level keemai -- -- keevaUp kem -- -- kevinaDown kemiita -- -- keviita

Table 34. Nocobarese (Temple 1902 from Yoshida 1980: 888)

Prox DistPron nina aneLoc ita kakakt

Up ngale/(ngalde) koldeDown ngashe ?Inside ngahe ?Outside ngañe koinde

Table 35. Selepet (McElhanon 1972: 16)

Prox Adr Dist RemoteAdj/Pron Sg/Pl yu ya edu eda

Up ewu -- -- ewaDown ebu -- -- eba

Table 36. Lepcha (Mainwaring [1876] 1971: 43, 71, 72)

Prox Dist(Adj?)/Pron Sg áre ore

Du áre nyum ore nyumPl Ani áre sang ore sang

Ani/Ina áre pang ore pangLoc ábá obá

Precise ábi obiSide ábón obónOther side ápyn ?Up átháng/áthú otháng/othúDown áchhú ochhú

No language marks verticality in proximal forms without marking verticality in non-proximal forms. By

observing these languages, we can generalize that if a language encodes verticality in a deictic of a certain

distance, it also encodes verticality in a more distal category. This generalization holds for all other

languages in the data that encode verticality in their deictics. It seems legitimate to say that as a referent or

a region becomes farther from the speaker, the searching domain becomes larger, and then the speaker has

to give more specific descriptions of the referent/region to help the addressee identify it.

43

Such an asymmetry in terms of distance has been observed in the [side] parameter too. There is no

case in which only proximal forms but not distal forms are encoded with the [side] parameter. The

generalization drawn from verticality parameters is applicable not only to the [side] parameter but also to

other geometric parameters. If a language encodes geometric parameters in a deictic category, it also

encodes them in a more distal deictic category.

2.4.3. Geographic parameters: upriver, downriver, uphill, downhill, inland-ward (up the bush), sea-

ward (down/toward the beach), parallel to a river, away from a river, toward a river, mouth of a

river

Examples of languages encoding [upriver] and [downriver] are Yupik Eskimo (cf. table 43), Sedang (Mon-

Khmer), and Aghu (cf. table 13). Examples of languages encoding [uphill] and [downhill] are Aghu, Hua

(Papuan), Idu (Tibeto-Burman, cf. table 38), and Taraon (Tibeto-Burman). Languages encoding [inland-

ward] are Yupik Eskimo, West Greenlandic Inuit (cf. table 31), Manam (Oceanic), Tolai (cf. table 28), and

languages encoding [sea-ward] are West Greenlandic Inuit, Manam, and Tolai.

Table 37. Manam (Lichtenberg 1983)

Prox Dist RemoteAdj/(Pron?) Sg ae/e ara -

Pl aedi/edi aradi -Loc maa marra -

sea-ward -- elau elaurainland-ward -- eta etaraperpendicular -- ene enera

Yupik Eskimo (cf. table 43) is famous for its rich geographic parameters in deictics. It encodes

[inland/inside/upriver], [parallel to a river], [up/away from a river], [down/below/toward a river], and

[downriver/exit/mouth of a river] in addition to parameters of [proximal] to the speaker, [centripetal] (i.e., a

referent moving toward the speaker), and proximal to the [addressee]. (Reed et al. 1977, Miyaoka 1978). In

Yupik Eskimo, a river functions as the tertiary anchor in addition to the primary anchor, i.e., the location of

the speaker, and the secondary anchor, i.e., the location of the addressee. Tolai (cf. table 28) encodes [down

the beach], [up the bush] along with some geometric parameters. It shows that, in this language, the axis

parallel to a coastline functions as an anchor.

44

Idu (Tibeto-Burman) as in table 38 encodes [uphill] and [downhill] that seem to correspond to east and

west, respectively, and the other cardinal directions, north and south, are defined by the axis perpendicular

to the east-west axis. Thus, glosses of cardinal directions are basically geographic directions calculated

based on the landscape. The same is true of Sedang (Smith 1979), whose gloss ‘north’ corresponds to

‘upriver’ while ‘south’ corresponds to ‘downriver’.

Table 38. Idu (Pulu 1978)

Prox DistAdj/Pron Sg eca --

Pl eca-hruji --Level Sg -- ahiya

Pl -- ahiyahruji/ayahrujiUp hill -- atuyaDown hill -- amayaNorth -- alõyaSouth -- apiya

In West Greenlandic Inuit (Fortescue 1984, cf. table 31), a word sanna, was given glosses as ‘out to the

sea’, ‘in the west’, and ‘(way) down there’, while a word pinnga was given glosses as ‘inland’, ‘in the east’,

and ‘up there’. It is clear that the landscape has the sea to the west and the land to the east. Naturally, the

sea is lower than the land and connotes ‘down there’.

In Idu and Yupik Eskimo, there are no distal forms without referring to geographic or geometric

parameters. In other words, all distal forms are obligatorily marked for either a geographic or geometric

parameter. Therefore, it is clear that geographic parameters indeed form parts of the paradigm of spatial

deixes in those languages, although we know that languages that are morphologically fusional languages,

such as Yupik Eskimo, tend to mark more semantic features in a single word (cf. a façade of linguistic

richness of a word ‘snow’ in Eskimo languages). On the other hand, Dyirbal (Pama-Nyungan) (cf. table 57)

marks geographic and geometric parameters only optionally ‘to any noun marker or demonstrative noun

marker’ (Dixon 1972: 48). Dyirbal may use a plain distal form to refer to a distal referent or may be more

specific by adding a geographic or geometric parameter marking. In such a case, those additional

parameters should not be considered parts of deixis but as additional locational specifications at par with

the word ‘up’ in an English phrase ‘up there’. The same is true for Kaeti (Papuan) (Drabbe 1959 from

Yoshida 1980: 882). In this language, morphemes indicating geographic and geometric parameters are

45

optionally infixed to a plain distal form. (A certain phonetic change follows.)11 West Greenlandic Inuit (cf.

table 31), for instance, does have deictic forms to designate [distal] without specifying geographic

characteristics; however, geographically specified distal forms are morphologically independent. They are

not formed by adding morphemes indicating geographic features to a plain distal form. We consider these

deictic forms in these languages also to be parts of the paradigm of deictics.

Distal forms are more likely encoded for geographic parameters than proximal forms. Idu in table 38

is one clear example showing such asymmetry. This asymmetry holds for all other languages encoding

geographic parameters in data, unless deictics irrespective to distance are encoded for geographic

parameters. This asymmetry is parallel to what we observed in geometric parameters. From these

observations, we can make the following implicational universal: if a language encodes geometric and/or

geographic parameters in a certain distance category, it also encodes them in a more distal category.

Geographic parameters [upriver], [downriver], [parallel to a river], [away from a river], and [toward a

river] use a linear anchor, a river. [Uphill] and [downhill] use a linear anchor, that is a line between a

hilltop and the foot of the hill. [Inland-ward] and [sea-ward] use a line perpendicular to a coast line. The

anchor of [mouth of a river] is the end-point of a river.

2.4.4. Cardinal directions: North, East, West, South

As we briefly mentioned in the previous section, cardinal directions may be actually defined by

geographical landmarks. There are languages whose cardinal direction markings are glossed so that there is

no reference to any particular geographic landmarks. Kayardild (Pama-Nyungan) and Guugu Yimithirr

(Pama-Nyungan) are examples of this kind. Cardinal-directional parameters are optional in these languages

even if Haviland (1993: 10) claimed that ‘nearly 60 percent of all cardinal direction tokens co-occur with

inflected forms of such explicit deictic elements as yii “here, this”, nhaa “there, that”, gadaa “come”, and

thadaa “go”. This high proportion suggests that cardinal directions are anchored in the same way as other

deictics.’ Contrary to Haviland’s claim, as long as a language manifests plain deictics without a cardinal

direction on one hand, and additional and optional morphemes indicating a cardinal direction on the other,

we should conclude that cardinal directions are only additional and optional and not part of the paradigm of

deictics in the language, no matter how frequently they are used.

46

Table 39. Kayardild: Spatial deixes and directional nominative forms (Evans 1995)

Prox Dist Inv-remoteAdj/Loc/Pron Nom dan-da dathin-a nganikin-da

Nominative forms:jirrkara ‘north’ra(a)a ‘south’riya ‘east’bada ‘west’

Table 40. Guugu Yimithirr: Spatial deixes and directional forms (Haviland 1979: 72, 1993: 6)

Prox Dist Adj/Pron/Loc Sg Abs yi-(y)i nhaa, nhaa-yun

Erg/Inst yii-man nhaa-muunLocative/All yi-way,yu-way, yii-mu nha-way, nhaa-muAbl/Causal yii-munganh nhaa-munganh, nhaa-wanunPurposive -- nhaa-muuComitative yi-midhirr,yi-mudhirr nha-midhirr, nha-mudhirr

Pl Abs yi-nharrin nha-nharrin(others omitted)

Directional roots:gungga- ‘north’jiba- ‘south’naga- ‘east’guwa- ‘west’

Locative/Allative forms:naga unmarked. ‘east from origo’naga-ar endpoint. ‘to a point east of origo’naga-alu path through ‘east from origo, through a point’

Ablative forms:naga-nun Source ‘from a given point east toward origo’naga-nu-nganh ‘out of point east of origo’naga-almun endpoint ‘from easterly direction to origo’naga-almu-nganh ‘origo east of origo’

The following is a Kayardid example showing that a cardinal marking element is optionally added to a

proximal deictic.

(7) Kayardid

dan-da ri-ya dangka-a daami-jarra ngijin-jinathis-Nom east-Nom man-Nom ask-Past me-Modal.Abl‘This man in the east asked me.’ (Evans 1995: 210)

47

It is not known why these speakers can monitor and keep a sense of cardinal directions even when they are

deprived of their habitat and there are no landmarks visible to the speaker.

Cardinal directions that are primarily based on landmarks, such as the direction of a river or the sea,

are potentially not exactly parallel or perpendicular to the earth-axis. In such cases, glosses of cardinal

directions are mere approximations. It is noteworthy to point out that some divergence from the earth-axis

was reported in Guugu Yimithirr whose cardinal directions are supposedly independent from landmarks.

Haviland (1993: 5) mentioned that ‘the Guugu Yimithirr schema is rotated slightly clockwise from the

corresponding western compass points.’ This at least suggests that speakers are not relying on a magnetic

sense as some birds do, but rather rely on established arbitrary quadrants based on some landmarks in their

habitat (existing concurrently or in the past) and retain the quadrants as a mental map even though the

landmarks themselves may not be available at the moment of utterance. If this speculation is correct,

deictics that are apparently coding cardinal directions are potentially coding geographic parameters.

2.5. Referent/region configuration

2.5.1. Bounded and unbounded

Kiowa (Kiowa-Tanoan) has the following deictics.

Table 41. Kiowa: (Watkins 1984)

Prox Med DistAdj/Pron é- -- óy-Loc éé óó

The three locational deictic stems combine with the following locative/directional suffixes among others:

(8) -ø (zero) ‘narrowly bounded location, prototypical orientation’-y ‘widely bounded location, non-prototypical orientation’

Watkins (1984: 188) reported that the ‘zero suffix indicates a point or narrowly bounded region, the limit of

the bounds being determined to some extent by the context. The presence of -y, in contrast, specifies a more

widely bounded location, somewhere in the vicinity.’ In the following sentences, ‘in a chair’ is an example

of a [bounded] region, and ‘near a chair’ is an example of a “widely bounded location”. Watkins’

48

descriptions of Kiowa deicitcs correlate to Talmy’s (1988: 178, 2000a: 50) definition of boundedness, i.e.,

demarcation and individuation of a unit entity, and unboundedness, i.e., indefinite continuation of an entity.

Watkins’ “widely bounded” is [unbounded] in our term.

(9) a. -h ø-áágyàthere-Def 3Sg-be.sitting‘He was sitting there (in the chair).’ (Watkins 1984: 188)

b. -y-h ø-áágyàthere-General-Def 3Sg-be.sitting‘He was sitting there (in the vicinity of the chair).’ (Watkins 1984: 189)

Finnish (Uralic) demonstratives realize in many distinctive case forms. Among them, there are i)

internal cases, i.e., adessive, ablative, and allative, and ii) external cases, i.e., inessive, elative, and illative.

In addition, there are locative forms.

Table 42. Finnish (Sulkala and Karjalainen 1992: 282, Laury 1997: 52-60, 129)

Prox Adr/Ana DistAdj/Pron Nom Sg tämä se tuo

Pl nämä ne nuo

(External cases)Adessive Sg tällä sillä tuolla/tolla

Pl näillä niillä noillaAblative Sg tältä siltä tuolta/tolta

Pl näiltä niiltä noiltaAllative Sg tälle sille tuolle/tolle

Pl näille niille noille

(Internal cases)Inessive Sg tässä siinä tuossa/tossa

Pl näissä niissä noissaElative Sg tästä siitä tuosta/tosta

Pl näistä niistä noistaIllative Sg tähän siihen tuohon/tohon

Pl näihin niihin noihin

Locative Adessive täällä siellä tuollaAblative täältä sieltä tuolta(Al)lative tänne sinne tuonne/tonne

/ä/ = [æ] ‘low front unrounded vowel’

Laury (1997: 56) cited the arguments of several grammarians about the differences of internal cases,

external cases, and locative forms. According to Östman (1995), internal cases are related to a bounded

area, and external cases are related to an unbounded area. According to Siitonen (1979) and Hakulinen and

49

Karlsson (1979), internal case forms are more exact than locative forms. According to Larjavaara (1990),

internal case forms situate a referent in a particular place within an area, while locative forms refer to

location within the bounds of an area. Laury (1997: 139, 145) summarized these arguments as follows:

[T]he locative forms and the local case forms form a continuum with the external case forms being theleast adverbial, while the locative forms are the most adverb-like, with the internal case forms in the middle. . . I regard them all as manifestation of a more comprehensive distinction that involves the conceptualization and linguistic expression of scenes in terms of figure and ground. Speakers of Finnish use the internal case forms of the demonstratives for referents that are conceptualized as figure, while the locative forms are used for referents conceptualized as the ground.

It seems that being bounded is related to preciseness, exactness, and figure-like conceptualization, while

being unbounded is related to vagueness and ground-like conceptualization. Different researchers regard a

different category as basic and other categories as manifestations of it.

2.5.2 Restricted and extended

Yupik Eskimo has restricted and extended categories.

Table 43. Yupik Eskimo: Deictic roots (from Miyaoka 1978: 14)

Restricted Extended Prox Dist Adr Prox Adr

Speaker (Addressee) reference u- -- tau- ma(t)- tama(t)-Centripetal (toward S) uk-Anaphor im-

In-Out Inland/inside (when S is outside)/upriver kiw- qam- qaw-Outside (when S is inside) kx- qakm- qa-

Level Parallel to river/centrifugal i- am- aw-Across something ik- akm- a-

Up Up (away from river) pi- pam- paw-Up pik- pakm- pa-

Down Down/Below (toward river) kan- cam- un-Downriver/exit/mouth of river u- cakm- un-

Miyaoka (1978: 16-27) explained as follows: a [restricted] form refers to an object or space that is narrow

and point-like and static (or dynamic only within a limited area). Examples of a restricted referent are a

house when the speaker refers to it from outside, a standing tree, a caribou feeding on grass, or a canoe

making a circle within a limited area. An [extended] form refers to an object or space that is neither

restricted nor point-like but horizontally moving, lying, or extended. Examples are a house when the

speaker is inside it, a lying tree, a row of standing trees, or a caribou moving along a river. The parameters

50

of [restricted] and [extended] are similar to [bounded] and [unbounded], respectively, but not identical.

Malagasy (as we will see in chapter 4), which encodes [bounded] and [unbounded], does not distinguish an

extended object, such as a horizontally lying stick on a table, from other non-extended objects.

Blackfoot (Algonquian) was also reported to distinguish [restricted] and [extended].

Table 44. Blackfoot (Taylor 1969: 211,155; Proulx 1988)

Prox I Prox II Med I Med II/Adr DistRestricted/Precise Extended Restricted/Precise Extended Extended

Pron Animate Sg amóo amáa annóo annáa omáaInanimate Sg amóo amíi annóo anníi omíi

2.5.3. Precise and vague

Ewondo (Bantu) was reported to encode [precise/exact] locations and [vague] locations or

“vicinity/somewhere” (Redden 1980). The former may be related to being [bounded] and the latter to being

[unbounded].

Table 45. Ewondo (Redden 1980)

Prox Adr DistAdj/Pron Sg Noun Class 1+2 no no-lo no-ni

Pl Noun Class 1+2 ba ba-la ba-li

Prox Med Dist Remote or Invisible?Loc Precise/exact location á-vá á-vá-la á-vá-lí á-lí

Vague/vicinity/somewhere á-mú á-mú-la á-wóé á-mú-lí

(-á is a locative preposition)

As pointed out earlier in Finnish, preciseness is related to boundedness. In addition, as the glosses in the

Blackfoot table suggest, preciseness is also related to [restricted] and [extended] parameters.

2.5.4. Motion

The parameter of [motion] has three types. The first type denotes motion only. The second type denotes the

motion of a referent and its direction from the perspective of the speaker. The third type denotes the motion

of a referent and the distance of its destination/goal. We will consider the first type in the Malagasy data

later.

51

Yupik Eskimo, which has deictic forms denoting centripetal motion and centrifugal motion (cf. table

43), belongs to the second type. Centripetal motion depicts a referent moving toward the speaker;

centrifugal motion depicts a referent moving away from the speaker. In this type of motion, the direction of

a moving object is defined, but the destination of the referent from the speaker is not. Nunggubuyu, an

Australian non-Pama-Nyungan language, has three directional affixes denoting centripetal, centrifugal, and

transversal motion that may be optionally attached to deictics (Rauh 1983, Heath 1984: 281, Diessel 1999:

45). Transversal motion depicts a referent moving across the speaker’s line of vision. (Strictly speaking,

these directional affixes are not parts of the paradigm of spatial deixes because they are optional.) Mohawk,

an Iroquoian language, does not have spatial deixes but rather has verbal affixes traditionally called

“translocative” and “cislocative”. Translocative corresponds to centrifugal and cislocative corresponds to

centripetal in our terms. The centrifugal or translocative verbal affix y- depicts the occurrence of an event

in a location or direction removed from the speaker or addressee, while the centripetal or cislocative affix t-

depicts the occurrence of an event in a location near the speaker/addressee or in a direction toward the

speaker/addressee (cf. Bonvillain 1981: 61). Atsugewi, a Hokan language, has similar suffixes (p.c. Talmy).

With a centripetal suffix, a main verb, for instance, ‘to hunt’, refers to someone moving along hunting for

game and moving toward the speaker as this process continues. The semantic features of these verbal

affixes are semantically similar to deictics in Yupik Eskimo.

The third type of [motion] parameter was reported in Cebuano (Philippine, Bisayan). Cebuano deictics

are shown in Table 46. The use of forms encoding [motion] ‘indicates a progressive action, that of moving

toward a certain location or destination. It shows motion as going to a place, as in “go, bring, come”’

(Bunye and Yap 1971: 33). They are not sensitive to the direction of motion. In other words, they do not

code centripetal or centrifugal directions. They focus on the goal of referents and indicate the distance of

the goal from the speaker/addressee.

Table 46. Cebuano (Bunye and Yap 1971: 31-36)

Prox S Prox S & A Adr DistLoc Future ari anhi anha adto

Past diri dinhi dinha didtoPresent dia nia naa tuaMotion ngari nganhi nganha ngadto

52

(10) a. lokaw ngari.‘Come here.’

b. dadon nganhi/nganha/ngadto ang pagkaon.be.brought Prox.SA /Adr/Dist Art food‘The food will be brought here/there/over there.’ (Bunye and Yap 1971: 33)

Some notes on labels “future”, “past”, and “present” are as follows: Forms labeled as “future” indicate that

an event has not yet taken place at the location. They signify ‘non-factuality’ (in Bumye and Yap’s term).

As shown in (11), interrogatives also code temporality.

(11) a. asa si Ana?where.Fut Art ‘Where’s Ana going?’

adto sa eskwelahan.Dist Loc school‘Over there in school.’

b. asa ang meeting?where.Fut Art meeting‘Where’s the meeting going to be?’

anha sa kwatro.Adr Loc room‘There in the room.’ (Bunye and Yap 1971: 31)

“Past” class indicates that an event took place in the past.

(12) a. Diin ang meeting?where.Past Art meeting‘Where was the meeting?’

dinhi/dinha/didto sa kwarto.Prox.SA /Adr/Dist Loc room‘Here/there/over there in the room.’

b. diin kamo?where.Past 2Pl‘Where were you?’

dinhi.Prox.SA‘(We were) here.’ (Bunye and Yap 1971: 32)

“Present” class indicates that ‘at the time of speaking, the object or a person talked about is still at a certain

location and the fact that this location has been reached’ (Bunye and Yap 1971: 33)

53

(13) hain ang papel?

where.Pres Art paper‘Where’s the paper?’

dia ra.Prox Emp‘It’s (just) here.’ (Bunye and Yap 1971: 33)

2.5.5. Posture

Mocovi (South America, Mataco-Guaycuru) was reported to mark [motion] and postures of [lying] and

[sitting] in its deictics (Quevedo 1893 from Yoshida 1980: 930).

Table 47. Mocovi (Quevedo 1893 from Yoshida 1980: 930)

Prox Adr/(Med) Dist Lying Sitting Lying Sitting No-motion Sitting No-motion Motion

Adj/Pron Sg M iddissó ennasó iddí inní ennà/addà innissó edasó esó F addissó annasó addí anní annà/addà annissó adassó assó

Pl M yyyoassó ennoassó yyyoá yyyoa ennoà yyyoassó eddoassó essoá F yyyoassó annoassó yyyoá yyyoa addoà yyyoassó eddoassó essoá

Postures of referents are also encoded in the deictics of Papago (Uto-Aztecan). According to Saxton (1982:

195), the specifiers in locationals, namely -m, -n, and -b, indicate the direction of the object facing the

observer, or vice versa. -M denotes that a referent is facing away from or behind the observer, -n denotes

that a referent is facing across from or beside the observer, and -b denotes that a referent is facing toward or

is in front of the observer.

Table 48. Papago (Saxton 1982: 100, 190-197)

Prox -intensified Prox Dist Dist-intensifiedRoot -- a ga --‘specifier’ -- da ga --Loc Behind/Facing away/Centrifugal/Down iimaa amai gamai gaamai

Suppletive im am gam gaamSide/Facing across/Transverse/Level/Up iinaa anai ganai gaanaiSuppletive in an gan gaanFront/Facing toward/Centripetal iiyaa abai gaabai gaaadSuppletive ia ab ga gaa(Neutral?) iiaa amai ? ?

(14a-b) are examples of the -m specifier.

54

(14) a. im o kk ñ-baao.Dem Mod stand me-before‘He’s standing in front of me (facing away from me).’

b. im o kk ñ-wgad.Dem Mod stand me-behind‘He’s standing behind me (thus I’m facing away from him).’ (Saxton 1982: 196)

Nevome, a language closely related to Papago, also encodes postures within its deictics in the same manner

as Papago.

Table 49. Nevome (Shaul1986: 48-51, 77-78)

Prox Med DistLoc Facing away imu/ima ami gamu

Facing sideways ina ana ganuFacing toward Static ‘at’ ia abu ga

Dynamic ay abu ga

(15) Nevome

a. ia an’-igui dac-cadda.Prox.Static.Toward 1Sg-particle be.sitting-past‘I was here.’

b. mia-durhu an’-igui ay himu.near-from 1Sg-particle Prox.Dynamic.Toward go‘I came from nearby.’ (Shaul 1986: 78)

Nevome has static and dynamic locational forms for proximal locatives denoting “facing toward”. Ia in

(15a) is a proximal static deictic locational that presumably indicates ‘facing toward’ the speaker. However,

it is not clear from the example whether the speaker i) intends to show that he was facing toward his current

location in the past, or ii) is simply indicating the location where he was without specifying his present or

past posture. Ay in (15b) is its dynamic counterpart, clearly indicating the speaker’s posture. A dynamic

locative in Nevome encodes the motion initiated by a referent along with the referent’s posture. Encoding

the posture of a referent easily extends to the direction of motion when the sentence describes the motion of

the referent. We can say that ay in example (15b) encodes the centripetal direction as well. The Papago

locational am in (16) encodes a centrifugal direction of the referent.

55

(16) Papagohmahgam titod a-t am wo hii-x.one those men Mod-Tns Prox.centrifugal Fut go-Perf‘One of those men will go there.’ (Saxton 1982: 193)

2.5.6. Invisible

2.5.6.1. Mode of access

Human beings’ primary mode of access to the environment for perception is vision. All languages use

vision to determine the location and properties of referents. Some languages distinguish [invisible] from

[visible] and linguistically encode [invisible] in deictics. Some languages additionally encode [auditory],

which are sub-features of the parameter of [invisible]. [Invisible-remote] denotes an invisible

referent/region because it is too far for the speaker to see and [invisible-occlusion] denotes an invisible

referent/region because of blockage of vision by an obstacle between the speaker and the referent/region.

2.5.6.2. Invisible-remote

Some languages have forms denoting ‘far and beyond the sight of the speaker’. We call it [invisible-

remote], which should be distinguished from [invisible-occlusion] and [invisible-periphery sense].

Although [invisible-remote] belongs to spatial demarcation, while [invisible-occlusion] and [invisible-

periphery sense] belong to referent/region configuration, for the sake of comparison, all [invisible]

parameters are reviewed here in a section of referent/region configuration. In languages of the first type,

[invisible-remote], the most distal category is usually glossed as ‘beyond the vision’ or ‘far and out of

sight’. One example of [invisible-remote] comes from Moroccan Arabic, where the gloss given by Becker

and Mary (1997) for invisible forms was ‘beyond the limit of vision.’

Table 50. Moroccan Arabic (Becker and Mary 1997: 156)

Prox Dist InvisibleLoc (Simple) hna(ya) temma(-ya/k) lhehLoc (Composed) hafayn rah dikžih/dakžžih

Kashmiri (Indo-Aryan) is parallel to the Moroccan Arabic system. Wali and Kowl (1990) called the third

category ‘remote, out of sight’.

56

Table 51. Kashmiri (Wali and Kowl 1990: 197, 201, 203)

Prox Dist Inv-remoteAdj/Pron Nom M Sg yi hu su

Pl yim hum timF Sg yi h s

Pl yim hum tim

The majority of [invisible] parameters belong to this [invisible-remote] type. Kusaiean (Micronesian),

Kadayan (Borneo), West Greenlandic Inuit (cf. table 31), and Jawdjibara (Wororan) are some examples

among more than 30 languages of this type in data collected from reference grammar books. In some

languages of this type, [invisible-remote] forms belong to the third category in addition to [proximal] and

[distal] categories. Tümpisa (Uto-Aztecan) adds an [invisible-remote] category as the fourth category to

three other categories for visible referents/regions.

Table 52. Tümpisa (Dayley 1989: 137-147, 305-308)

Imm Prox Distal Inv-RemoteAdj/Pron Sg Subj (s)itü (s)etü (s)atü (s)utü

Du Subj (s)itungku (s)etungku (s)atungku (s)utungkuPl Subj (s)itümmü (s)etümmü (s)atümmü (s)utümmü

Glosses:(s)itü ‘this right here’(s)etü ‘this nearby’(s)atü ‘that visible’(s)utü ‘that not visible’

If the descriptions are correct, Mansaka (Central Philippine) and Forest River (Wororan) add an [invisible-

remote] category as the fifth category in terms of distance.

Table 53. Forest river (Capell and Coate 1984: 135)

Prox Med Dist Remote Inv ‘out of sight’

Adj/Pron root -nji/-ga -gaja -gali -gurga -gija

57

2.5.6.3. Invisible-occlusion

2.5.6.3.1. Distance-sensitive sub-type

The second type of [invisible] parameter, [invisible-occlusion] per se, belongs to referent/region

configuration. Occluded referents/regions, for instance, behind an obstacle or enclosed in a container, are

indicated by [invisible-occlusion] forms. [Invisible-occlusion] is further divided into two sub-types: one is

distance-sensitive and the other is distance-neutral. The distance-sensitive sub-type is the combination of

the [invisible-occlusion] parameter and a [distance] parameter.

Kwakiutl (Wakashan) belongs to the distance-sensitive sub-type, whose invisible locational forms are

distinguished by three degrees of distance, which are parallel to visible forms.

Table 54. Kwakiutl (Boas 1947; Anderson and Keenan 1985: 290)

Prox Adr DistPron Visible Subject -k -uxw -iq

Object -qk -qw -qInstrumental -sk -suxw -s

Invisible Subject -ga -u -iObject -xga -qu -qi()Instrumental -sga -su -qi()

Anderson and Keenan (1985: 290) noted that ‘the category of invisibility is generally marked by a suffix

[], confirming its status as a dimension orthogonal to the primary one of distance from Speaker.’ If the

number of degrees of distance in visible forms is equal to the number of degrees of distance in invisible

forms, it guarantees that the language is encoding the [invisible-occlusion] parameter but not the [invisible-

remote] parameter.

Upriver Halkomelem (Salishan) is a unique case in which the invisible category has more distance

contrasts than the visible category. There is a two-way contrast of “invisible-proximal” and “invisible-

distal” while there is only one distance-neutral visible category.

58

Table 55. Upriver Halkomelem (Galloway 1993: 385-388, 397-400)

Vis/Neutral Inv-Prox Inv-Dist/Past (deceased)Adj Sg/Pl M t kw kw

Sg/Pl F s/ kws kw/ kws Human Sg M/F -- λ’ λ’

Pl M/F -- y (?) y (?)

(/λ’/ glottalized dental-alveolar lateral affricate)

In Upriver Halkomelem, the forms designating invisible humans lack a distance contrast, therefore they

may be construed as either [invisible] due to remoteness, that is [invisible-remote], or distance-neutral

[invisible-occlusion] (see the next section). Nevertheless, the existence of an “invisible-proximal” category

(in presumably non-humans) guarantees a distance contrast in the [invisible-occlusion] parameter.

2.5.6.3.2. Distance-neutral sub-type

Iraqw (Afro-Asiatic) exemplifies the other sub-type of [invisible-occlusion], namely the one with distance-

neutrality. It uses a derived form. Demonstrative adjective forms of Iraqw are as follows:

Table 56. Iraqw (Mous 1993: 90)

Prox Adr Dist/Ana Remote/Ana Inv-Occlusion/AnaAdj -í/ -ká -síng -qá -dá dádá

The last form dádá is the reduplicated form of the fourth category denoting the third degree of distance.

Mous (1993: 91) noted that ‘the reduplicated -dádá is used with nouns that have been mentioned

previously and that are either invisible or in the past. The invisible referent can be close, for example the

girl’s brother who is hidden in a box next to her is referred to as hhiyawós ku-dádá “that brother of hers”.’

That is to say that the reduplicated form denotes distance-neutral [invisible-occlusion] in addition to its

anaphoric use. Bakwiri (Bantu) may also have a form denoting distance-neutral [invisible-occlusion].

Fillmore (1982: 51) noted that

the investigators were surprised to learn that a category that until then had always been associated withextreme, but gesturally indicatable, remoteness, could also be used to refer to something very close by but obstructed from view.

59

2.5.6.3.3. Invisible-peripheral sense: Auditory and olfactory

Some languages express an audible referent with a distinctive deictic form. There is no language that

expresses a referent with a distinctive deictic form for emitting a smell; however, interestingly, languages

use existing deictic forms to refer to olfactory referents in different ways, as we will see in chapter 4. The

parameter indicating a sound is labeled [auditory], and the parameter indicating a smell is labeled

[olfactory]. These two parameters are parts of the [peripheral sense] parameters.

Mopan Maya (Yucatecan) has -be forms that are appropriate when a referent is audible but not

visible (Danziger 1994: 889). A situation quoted was where the speaker referred to chickens next door,

which were not visible but were making a lot of noise. Muna (cf. table 26) has a deictic anagha, which is

used for an object that cannot be seen by either the speaker or the addressee, but which is audible. Referents

referred to with this form were a crying child and a barking dog, which were not visible but heard

(Danziger 1994: 889). Dixon (1972: 45-46) reported forms indicating an invisible but audible referent in

Dyirbal (Pama-Nyungan).

Table 57. Dyirbal (Dixon 1972: 45, 56, 57)

Visible Prox Visible Dist/Neutral ‘unmarked’ Inv-audible/AnaAdj/Pron/Loc root (Nominal) yala- bala- ala-

Class I Nom giyi bayi ayi Erg yagul bagul agul

Dat yagul bagul agulGen yaul baul aul

Class II Nom gian ba(la)n a(la)nErg yagun bagun agunDat yagun bagun agunGen yaun baun aun

Class III Nom giam ba(la)m a(la)mErg yagun bagum agumDat yagum bagum agumGen -- -- --

Class IV Nom gia bala ala Erg yagu bagu agu

Dat yagu bagu aguGen yau bau au

Loc (Verbal) At yala-y bala-y ala-yAblative ya-um ba-um ala-um

60

An example given in Dyirbal was:

(17) ayi yaa miyandauInv.Aud man laugh‘Man is heard, but not seen, laughing’ (Dixon 1972: 46)

ayi- refers to something that can be heard but not seen. Examples included chickens next door, a crying

child, a barking dog, and a laughing man. Examples and situations where the [auditory] forms were used in

the above three languages suggest that the forms are distance-neutral. Piro (Arawakan) was reported to

have forms indicating ‘distant, heard but not seen’ (Wise 1986).

Table 58. Piro (Wise 1986: 572 based on Matteson 1965:107)

Prox Dist Inv-remote-audible ‘Distant, heard but not seen’(Adj?)/Pron Sg M tye tuxra tuka

F twu toxra toka

Nyêlâyu (New Caledonia) was reported to have forms ‘distant and invisible to the speakers but audible’

(Ozanne-Rivierre 1997).

Table 59. Nyêlâyu (Ozanne-Rivierre 1997: 82-100)

Prox Dist (Vis) Inv-remote-Aud Up Down Across AnaSuffix -ija -êlâ -ili -imiPron Sg Masc aija ayêlâ ayili aiyöda aiyödu aiyök aimi

Forms in the last two languages are bound to distality.

No language has been reported to have a form exclusively encoding something not visible but smelled.

Nevertheless, note that, at present, there is no guarantee that those forms reported above as referring to

‘invisible but heard’ referents are conditioned exclusively with audibility. The forms might be used for

invisible referents generally including ‘an invisible referent whose smell is detected’ or ‘an invisible but

tangible referent’. No specific note for exclusion of such instances was provided in the references.

Forms denoting [invisible-peripheral sense] tend to have anaphoric senses as well. In Mopan Maya,

Danziger (1994: 889) commented: ‘be forms are appropriate when a referent is audible but not visible. As

61

part of its reference to that which is heard, be may refer to prior discourse, thus taking on an anaphoric

function.’ For Muna (cf. table 26), Berg (1989: 86) commented:

[A]nagha is used for an object that cannot be seen by either speaker or hearer, but is audible. The primary usage of anagha, however, is anaphoric.’ The comment on the Dyrbal by Dixon (1972: 45) went: ‘ala- forms are used to refer to something that can be heard and not seen, and when describing something that is remembered from the past.’

In [invisibility] sections, we have seen that invisibility encoding can be categorized into four types.

These are [invisible-remote], distance-sensitive [invisible-occlusion], distance-neutral [invisible-occlusion],

and [invisible-peripheral sense]. Among these types, [invisible-remote] is the most common cross-

linguistically. The last one, [invisible-peripheral sense], encodes a parameter detected by a non-visual

cognitive system.

Deictic force becomes gradually weaker from the first one toward the last. The first two, [invisible-

remote] and distance-sensitive [invisible-occlusion] are distance contrastive, while the last two, distance-

neutral [invisible-occlusion] and [invisible-peripheral sense], are not concerned with distance. Forms

encoding [invisible-peripheral sense] cannot be accompanied with a pointing gesture at all. As deictic force

weakens, the function declines to anaphoric.

2.6. Function

2.6.1. (Equi-distance) contrast

Hanks (1984: 154) reported about Yucatec Maya that ‘héelo [distal] may be used under explicitly

contrastive circumstance (as in, ‘not this one, that one’—with both objects in hand).’ Muna (cf. table 26)

has six deictic categories: proximal, addressee-anchor, medial, distal/down, remote/up, and audible. Berg

(1989: 85) noted that the addressee-anchored forms ‘can also be used for something near the speaker when

a proximal form is already in use, (“not this one, but this one”, when both objects are at the same

distance).’ We call the parameter in these examples [(equi-distance) contrast].

Turkish has three deictic categories (cf. table 63). Underhill (1979: 122) noted that ‘u (in the second

category) may be used in contrast with bu [proximal].’

(18) Bunu mu alyorsun, unu mu?‘Are you buying this, or this?’ (Underhill 1979: 122)

62

The basic function of u is to draw the addressee’s attention (as we will see shortly). This basic function in

(18) shares the similar sense with the [(equi-distance) contrast] parameter. The [contrast] parameter may be

construed as drawing the addressee’s attention to the second referent.

Kannada (cf. table 22) has two categories in deictics, proximal and distal forms. Sridhal (1990: 212)

argued that ‘if two referents are in equal proximity to the speaker and relatively farther from the hearer, one

will be referred to with the proximate form and the other with the remote for contrast.’ Sridhal also noted

that such a contrastive use was available only for two proximal referents; when the referents were both

closer to the addressee than to the speaker, distal forms would be used for both, accompanied by a pointing

gesture.

Bickel (1994: 4) noted that, in Belhare (Tibeto-Burman), the distinction between a proximal term and

a distal term was compulsory for indicating two equi-distal referents. The speaker is forced to treat one of

the referents as conceptually closer than the other even when neither of the two referents is physically

“closer”.

(19) Belhare (Bickel 1994: 4)na -tya-na, yo-naProx -Across-Art Across:Transposed.zero.point-Art‘The one on this side on the same level, the one on the other side on the same level’

Bakwiri (Bantu) was also reported to have a compulsory [equi-distance contrast]. According to Fillmore

(1982: 54), ‘if a speaker identifies two things, each at a distance, which would normally call for a [medial]

identification, it is most natural to use [distal] for the second object.’

Some languages do not allow [equi-distance contrast]. In descriptive grammars, authors on Gulf

Arabic and Nicor-Kiga (Benue-Congo) specifically denied the use of [equi-distance contrast] in these

languages.

2.6.2. Differentiation

So called “contrast” in a different sense was discussed in Anderson and Keenan (1985, cf. Diessel 1999:

40). According to them, Nama Hottentot (Khoisan) has three deictic categories, proximal, distal, and the

last one for a “contrastive” purpose.

63

Table 60. Nama Hottentot (Hagman 1977)

Prox Dist/Neutral Contrastive ‘the other’Adj/Pron nee //na á náúLoc neepá //naápá nãúpáDir nee//i i //nãá!iiManner neetí //nãáti nãáti

(// represents a click)

A form in the third category is contrasted with either a proximal form or a distal form. One interesting fact

is that a distal form cannot be used as a pair with a proximal form. In such a case, a “contrastive form”

must be used in a pair with the proximal form, as in the next example.

(20) Nama Hottentot (Anderson and Keenan 1985: 286)

nee kxòep tsii náú kxòepProx man and Contrast man‘This man and that man’

The meaning of a “contrast” here is different from that of the [equi-distance contrast] in our terms. In this

example, two referents are literally contrasted in terms of distance, although when the “contrastive” form is

used in a pair with a distal form, it does not necessarily connote [proximal]. It simply connotes “the other

one at a distance”. Anderson and Keenan (1985) pointed out a similar function in the system of Sre (Mon-

Khmer) following Manley (1972).

Table 61. Sre (Manley 1972 from Anderson and Keenan 1985: 287).

Prox Adr Distal Remote/Inv/Ana ContrastPron d dn/gn n h da

[T]here is another element da, used solely as the second (farther) element of a contrast. When contrasted with da, d simply designates the relatively closer of the objects contrasted, without commitment as to spatial location relative to the participants in the speech situation. This element da,used only for contrast, is similar to the “third term” of the Nama Hottentot system. . . (Anderson and Keenan 1985: 287).

We label this type of contrast [differentiation].

64

2.6.3. Selection

Berg (1989: 88) said that, in Muna (cf. table 26), ‘identifying demonstratives . . . signal out one among

many.’ We call this functional parameter [selection].

(21) bhai-ku ainifriend-my this‘this friend of mine (but not the others here/there).’ Berg (1989: 88)

Optional affixes (not parts of spatial deixes) manifest the same function in Manam (cf. table 37) and

Woleaian (Malayo-Polynesian). Lichtenberg (1983: 334, cf. Diessel 1999: 54) reported that Manam (cf.

table 37) ‘marks contrastiveness by a particular suffix. Demonstratives being marked by this suffix indicate

that the speaker selects the referent “out of a set”.’

(22) tomóata áe-ni-ø y-ún-aman this-Select-3Sg 3Sg-hit-1Sg.Obj‘This man (out of several) hit me.’ (Lichtenberk 1983: 334)

About Woleaian, Sohn (1975: 82) simply said that an affix -l specifies the location “emphatically”.

Anderson and Keenan (1985: 289, cf. Diessel 1999: 53) called it “contrast” as it is used when ‘pointing out

one member of a group.’ We have distinguished three functions, [equi-distance contrast], [differentiation],

and [selection], which are sometimes used in the literature without distinguishing among them

2.6.4. Presentative: Directive/Offerative

[Presentative] in general (cf. Fillmore 1982: 47, among others) can be more specifically subcategorized into

two parameters: [directive], whose function is to draw the attention of the addressee to a referent/region (cf.

Hanks 1992), and what we would call [offerative], whose function is to designate a referent to hand over to

the addressee. For instance, there! in English in the same sense as voilà in French is [directive], and here!

in the sense of take it ! is [offerative]. [Presentative] is not restricted to sentential demonstratives that can

stand alone as a sentence (cf. Fillmore 1982: 47), but includes forms used within a sentence.

As pointed out by Talmy (p.c.), the same deictic morpheme within a language may mark different

semantic functions depending on different syntactic behaviors. For example, in English, a locational at the

end of a phrase marks basic demonstrativeness as in The bus goes there or The bus comes here. At the

65

sentence initial position, however, the same forms draw the addressee's visual attention to the “figure” as in

There goes the bus or Here comes the bus.12

Croatian (Balto-Slavic), according to Fillmore (1982) and Žic (1996), have special forms marked for

the [presentative] parameter.

Table 62 Croatian (Žic 1996)

Prox Adr DistLoc ovdje tu ondjePresentative evo eto eno

(23) Croatian: Presentative (Žic 1996)

a. evo! ‘Behold/look at this!’

b. evo ga! ‘Here he is! (genitive)’

c. evo ti ‘Here you are ! (dative)’

(23a-b) are examples of the [directive] uses, and (19c) exemplifies the [offerative] use.

Yucatec Maya also has distinctive [presentative] forms (Hanks 1988, 1992, 1996). “Ostensive” forms

in Yucatec Maya are a special series of adverbs whose communicative functions range from [directive] to

[offerative]. Yucatec Maya distinguishes an [offerative] form from two kinds of [directive] forms, one for

visual and the other for auditory.

(24) Yucatec Maya: Offerative and directive (Hanks 1992: 54)

a. heela Offerative: ‘Here it is, Take the one in my hand’

b. héelo Visual Directive: ‘There it is, Look at the one visible to us’

c. héeb’e Auditory Directive: ‘There it is, Listen to the one audible to us’

Lari (Bantu) derives [directives] by adding the prefix e- to ordinary demonstrative forms (Ganga 1992:

223). In this language, for instance, wu is the proximal singular adjective demonstrative belonging to class

1 and wune is the most distal singular adjective demonstrative belonging to class 1. Directive forms derived

from these are ewu and ewune, respectively.13 Czech (Slavic) does the same. The particle hle (often

pronounced [dle] after a vowel), which archaically means something like ‘behold’ can be added to

66

demonstratives to indicate that one is calling special attention to the object being pointed out. (Kirchner

1995 in Linguist List 6.799)

Turkish has three categories of deictics.

Table 63. Turkish (Kornfilt 1977: 311, 315, 316, Underhill 1976: 137, Anderson and Keenan 1985: 285)

Prox Presentative Dist/Ana (Adr’s Attention)

Adj bu u oPron Sg Nom bu(n) u(n) o(n)

Acc bunu unu onuGen bunun unun onunDat buna una onaLocative bunda unda ondaAbl bundan undan ondan

Pl Nom bunlar unlar onlarAcc bunlar unlar onlarGen bunlarn unlarn onlarnDat bunlara unlara onlaraLocative bunlarda unlarda onlardaAbl bunlardan unlardan onlardan

Manner/Kind böyle öyle öyleLoc Adv Sg/Specific bura ura ora

Pl/Unspecific buralar uralar oralar

u- in the second category is described as medial distance (cf. Kornfilt 1997: 311) or proximal to the

addressee (Lyons 1977). Underhill (1979: 121), however, denied this view of a medial distance by u- and

argued for an additional notion in u-. According to him, the meaning of “that there” in the phrase, that

there house is where I live in English is close to the meaning of Turkish u-. The functional parameter

described by Underhill corresponds to [directive] in our terms. Informants we consulted confirmed that the

speaker would use u- when he was holding money in his hand to pay taxi fare to the driver. This is an

example of [offerative] use. Anderson and Keenan (1985: 285) added some interesting historic information.

They argued that ‘historically Turkish had a basic two-term system (bu and ol), each member of which had

a more emphatic form built with a prefix (i.e., u and ol). The form ol has since died out.’ An example of

u- that they cited was:

67

(25) Turkish (Bastuji 1976)

bakn u avu-lar-ma!look.at these hand-Pl-my‘Look at my hands!’

‘Arguably the speaker’s hands are closer to the speaker than to the addressee, and the effect of u here

would be in some way to reinforce the attention drawn to the addressee.’ (Anderson and Keenan 1985: 285)

Ozyurek and Kita (2002) came to a similar conclusion. Wilkinson (1999: 12) put it: ‘Turkish has a form

which functions to draw the addressee’s attention, but is not tied spatially to either addressee or speaker.’

Thus, Turkish u- forms are best analyzed as [presentative] forms.

According to Friedman (1996), the deictic adjective/pronoun mu in Lak (cf. table 27) is usually

described as denoting “close to the addressee”. Friedman (ibid., 313), however, claimed that “close to

addressee” does not account for the use of mu, but “in the sphere of addressee” does, provided that

“sphere” is understood in a sense of “sphere of interest”. He gave the following example and noted that

‘while the speaker’s eyes are obviously closer to him than to his interlocutor, he uses mu because he wishes

to draw the addressee’s attention to his eyes.’

(26) Lak (Friedman 1996: 313 adopted from Xalilov 1976: 214)

Ttun mu ttula jarunnin kkavkkunni, kunu‘I saw it with these my own eyes.’

Obviously, the function of mu in (22) is [directive].

2.7. Summary

We can present table 64 below as a preliminary overview of spatial deictics that were collected from

reference-grammar books. We started our collection of parameters by looking at different type of

anchoring. Then, we examined how space can be divided with spatial deixes. Deictic locationals demarcate

a space. Demonstrative adjectives and pronouns indicate a referent within a demarcated space. A space is

demarcated according to the distance from an anchor, geometric axes, and/or geographic axes. Next, we

looked at how characteristics of referents and regions are encoded in spatial deixes. Parameters categorized

into referent/region configuration do not pertain to a demarcation of space; they profile characteristics and

68

properties of a referent and a region. Finally, we described functional parameters. These parameters

indicate how the speaker interacts with or acts upon a referent/region.

The presentation of the table succeeds Diessel’s (1999: 51) with some modifications. Some semantic

parameters that are not present in his table are added, while some of quality features (in his terms) and

syntactic features in Diessel’s are omitted because we determined that they are not features of spatial deixes

per se but features of pronouns and nouns in general. If a language marks case or gender in demonstrative

pronouns, for instance, it is true of personal pronouns as well. Case and gender are syntactic features of

pronouns (or nouns in general), but not “semantics” in the sense that we have claimed in this chapter.

“Emphasis” in Diessel’s is also removed, because what is emphasized was not clear in his discussion and in

the reference-grammar books that were examined. Some of those so called “emphatic” forms sometimes

correspond to either [bounded], [precise], or [emphatic remote] by our definition. [Bounded] and [precise]

were treated in designated sections in this chapter. [Emphatic remote] will be discussed in chapter 4 and

added to the list later.

Parameters of anchor, spatial demarcation, and referent/region configuration are morphologically

marked in spatial deixes, i.e., overt parameters, except the speaker anchor, which is an unmarked member

of spatial deixes. Functional parameters may or may not be morphologically marked in deictics, i.e., either

overt or covert parameters. Covert parameters have not been given enough attention in the literature. They

are, nevertheless, important factors in the use of spatial deixes. The list will be further modified after we

describe covert parameters in detail in chapter 4.

69

Table 64. Parameters of spatial deixis (Preliminary version)

A N C H O R S P A T I A L D E M A R C A T I O N Distance Geometric Geographic Cardinal direction

Speaker Neutral Level Upriver NorthAddressee Immediate Up Downriver SouthSpk & Adr Proximal Down Uphill EastThird person Medial Side Downhill WestParticipant Distal Behind Inland/ BushNon-participant Remote Interior Sea/ BeachObject Invisible remote +deictic center Parallel to a river

–deictic center Away from a riverExterior Toward a river

+deictic center Mouth of a river–deictic center

Other side

R E F E R E N T / R E G I O N C O N F I G U R A T I O N Quality Motion Posture Visibility

Bounded Motion Lying Invisible-occlusionUnbounded Motion with direction Sitting Invisible-peripheral sensePrecise Centripetal Facing away from S (Behind)Vague Centrifugal Facing across from S (Beside)Restricted Transversal Facing toward S (Front)Extended Motion with distance

F U N C T I O N (Overt/ Covert) Contrast Presentative Psychological distance

Equi-distance contrast DirectiveDifferentiation OfferativeSelection

70

Notes

1. Bemba may have a five-way system. Cf. Welmers (1973: 286f) cited in Anderson and Keenan (1985:

288).

2. Brazilian Portuguese is also in the process of transitioning to this system. Macedonian may also

belong to this system.

3. It is not mentioned in Asher how the speaker distinguishes an object in the speaker’s room and another

object in the addressee’s room in terms of deictics. Both objects would be referred to with a distal form if

his description is applied.

4. No actual form was provided in Fillmore (1971).

5. The secondary anchors in Inuktitut Eskimo and Huallaga Quechua are morphologically secondary, too,

as they are marked with an optional morpheme, namely an affix ta- and qa, respectively. Therefore, strictly

speaking, those secondary anchors in those two languages should be excluded from a paradigm of deictics.

6. Locational forms of Kamoro, Cairene Egyptian Colloquial Arabic, and Amuesha are not available at

the present time; however, there is a chance that they would show a distance contrast in locational forms in

the same vein as other languages. Sanuma (Yanoman) has one locational deictic, while it has three-way

categories for demonstrative adjectives and pronouns (Borgman 1990).

7. It might be the case that the level-immediate form, the level-proximal form, and the level-distal form

are actually a three-way distinction of distance that are neutral to verticality, and only the level-medial form

and level-remote form are sensitive to verticality as the gaps in the paradigm suggest.

8. Six degrees of distance in Chukuchi are also suspicious.

71

9. Kaeti (Papuan) has an optional morpheme denoting [other side], which may be infixed to a plain distal

form.

10. Paamese has forms encoding [level] as well as [up] and [down]. Forms without verticality

specification in addition to verticality specified forms were reported in Nochobarese, Selepet, and Leptua.

It is not clear whether these forms are verticality-neutral or encoding [level].

11. Woleaian (Micronesian) (Sohn 1975) has morphemes corresponding to geographic parameters that

may be attached to verbs.

12. Yiddish has offeratives (but not as members of spatial deixes): na (corresponding with an informal du

‘you’) and nat (corresponding with a formal ir ‘you’). These forms can only be used for something

offered by the first person to a second person.

13. Lari apparently has four terms of deictics; one of those four terms does not derive directive forms for

an unknown reason.

72

Chapter 3

Methods

3.1. Introductory remarks

Elicitation sessions were conducted by using referents on a table, referents in natural settings (i.e., in a

room or outside), and pictures with questionnaires. Cups-on-a-table experiments were conducted with

native speakers of 15 languages. A fieldwork kit developed at the Max-Planck Institute (Pederson and

Wilkins 1996) was helpful for modifying the tabletop tasks. Some pictures were also used to facilitate the

elicitation. The experimental tasks have been developed and modified several times in the course of

research, whenever previously unknown parameters emerged in languages under investigation.

Experiments are applied to languages not only to find out which parameters are relevant, but also to

ascertain which parameters are not relevant to a target language. When a particular parameter was

suspected to be involved, extensive tasks were carried out to check what the parameters were and how

speakers used them. English was the communication medium between informants and the elicitor.

3.2. Languages investigated

Interviews were conducted with speakers of the following languages. Some languages were investigated

intensively and others relatively briefly depending on the complexity of the deictics of the language and

availability of informants. The following are brief descriptions of the languages investigated. The figures

are from Bright (1992).

(i) Santali: A language belonging to the Munda branch of Austro-Asiatic. 3,840,000 speakers were reported

in 1971, in Assam, Bihar, Orissa, Tripura, and West Bengal, India, Bangladesh, and Nepal. It is closely

related to Ho and Mundari but is a separate language. Three main informants were males in their 20’s. Two

of them were from the state of Jahrkand (a new state separated from the state of Bihar in 2000) and one

from the state of West Bengal. Supplementary data were collected from ten other male speakers and one

73

female speaker with ages from 20 to 50. They are also from the state of Jahrkand or West Bengal.

Elicitation took place in New Delhi and Shanti Niketan in West Bengal.

(ii) Mundari: A language belonging to the Munda branch of Austro-Asiatic. 850,000 speakers were

reported in 1987, in Assam, and scattered over northern India, the Andaman and Niobar Islands, Nepal, and

Bangladesh. Six informants provided data. The Hasada dialect was studied at a mountainous village about

100 km from Ranchi City, the capital of the state of Jahrkand, India.

(iii) Ao: A language belonging to the Konyak group of Tibeto-Burman. 80,000 speakers were reported in

1989, in northern Nagaland and Assam, India. Data were elicited from two female informants in their 20’s

from Nagaland who spoke the Mangmetong Mongsen dialect of Ao. They are now staying in New Delhi.

(iv) Apatani: A language belonging to the Mirish group of Tibeto-Burman. Around 13,100 speakers were

reported in 1971, in Assam, Arnachal Pradesh, and Nagaland, India. Data were mainly collected from one

male informant in his 30’s, one female informant in her 40’s and two female informants in their 20’s.

Additional data were provided by two other informants. They were from Ziro in Arnachal Pradesh in India

and staying in New Delhi.

(v) Mizo: A language belonging to the Kuki-Chin group of Tibeto-Burman. The language is an official

language of Mizoram State in Eastern India. It may be also called Lushai. 344,000 or more speakers were

reported in 1989, in Mizoram, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, and Tripura, India, Burma, Bangladesh, and

China. One male speaker in his late 30’s, one female speaker in her late 30’s, and one female speaker in her

20’s were the main informants. Supplementary data were collected from three other informants. They were

all from Mizo in India and staying in New Delhi.

(vi) Newari: A language belonging to the Eastern Himalayan of Tibeto-Burman. 500,000 or more speakers

were reported in 1985, in Kathmandu, Nepal, and scattered locations in the midlands. It is also spoken in

border areas in India. Two dialects, the Patan dialect and the Bhaktapur dialect, were investigated. The two

74

dialects are located about 20 km from each other. According to informants, there are some phonological

and lexical differences between the two languages, but they are mutually intelligible. One female informant

in her 20’s provided most of the data on the Patan dialect, and nine other informants supplemented them.

One male informant in his 40’s provided most of the data from the Bhaktapur dialect, and eight other

informants supplemented them. Data were collected in Nepal.

(vii) Malagasy: A Malayo-Polynesian language. 10,000,000 speakers were reported in 1981, primarily in

Madagascar. Most data were from two female informants in their 30’s. Four other informants provided

supplementary data. Some data were collected from three more informants; however, they were excluded

from analysis because of potential influence from French. Data were collected in the US.

(viii) Thai: A Tai-Kadai language. One male speaker and two female speakers in their 20’s from Bangkok

and one female speaker in her 20’s from Korat provided the main data. Another speaker provided some

additional data. Data were collected in the US.

(ix) Luyia: A Bantu language. 2,882,000 or more speakers were reported in 1987, in the Lake Victoria area,

Western Province, Kenya, and in Uganda. Data were collected from one male speaker in his 30’s. The

informant is staying in the US. Data were collected in the US.

(x) Venda: A Bantu language. 597, 000 speakers were reported in 1987, in north Transvaal, South Africa,

and Zimbabwe along the South African border. Five male speakers and three female speakers in their 20’s,

30’s and 40’s from South Africa provided data. Data were mostly collected in the US. Some data were

collected in South Africa with a help of a linguist.

(xi) Nuer: A language belonging to the Nilotic group of Nilo-Saharan. 840,000 speakers were reported in

1982, in east Upper Nile Province, Sudan, in the Nair region on the upper Sobat River, and extending up

the Sobar River across the Ethiopian border. A male informant in his 40’s from Sudan provided data. Data

were collected in the US.

75

(xii) English: A Germanic language of Indo-European. Five male and two female American English

speakers, ages 20-50, and mainly from New York State were informants.

(xiii) Spanish: A Romance language of Indo-European. One female informant in her 30’s from Spain

provided data. Supplementary data were provided by two more informants from Spain. Data were collected

in the US.

(xiv) Korean: An isolate language spoken in North Korea and South Korea. Three female speakers and two

male speakers in their 30’s and 40’s from southern provinces in South Korea provided data. Data were

collected in the US.

(xv) Japanese: An isolate language in Japan. Three male speakers and four female speakers of standard

Japanese who were in their 20’s and 30’s provided main data. Seven other speakers provided

supplementary data. Data were collected in the US.

Speakers were recruited in the US, Japan, and India. Speakers were native speakers of the language in

question. In other words, they had acquired the language as their first language at home. Speakers who

were bi-/multi-lingual and had better competence in a language other than the target language were

excluded.

3.3. Preliminary checking

In a preliminary checking, informants were asked to translate some English phrases and sentences

containing deictics such as ‘this cup’, ‘this is my cup’, ‘I walked from here to there’, or ‘those are houses,

those are birds’ into their own language in order to collect deictic forms. Occasionally, if necessary, all the

forms collected from the literature were shown and/or pronounced to the informants without telling the

meaning given in the literature in order to examine if forms were recognizable by the informants and if they

actually used those forms. Different grammatical classes, such as pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs were

76

elicited. Naturally, at this stage, semantic parameters were checked only in a very crude manner. The aim

of this preliminary session of the interview process was not to investigate semantic parameters but to list

forms that should be investigated in later sessions. Informants sometimes gave meanings and semantic

differences among forms; however, it was fairly common that the actual use of forms by the same

informant in later sessions failed to meet the meanings given by him/her at the preliminary stage. After this

session, interviews moved on to the following sessions.

3.4. Tabletop task setting

8 cm-tall polystyrene (or Styrofoam) cups were placed on a 75 cm-wide and 160 cm-long table. The same

table was used in most of the interviews. The table was covered by a piece of paper so that any line or

patterns on the table would not affect the data collection. An informant sat at one side of the table, and the

elicitor stood or sat obliquely behind the informant. In some cases, the elicitor sat at the opposite end of the

table. If sitting in a chair is not common in the daily life of the informants, a same-size paper was placed on

the floor or on the ground instead of using the table. Each cup had a number and a character on it, such as

‘1A’, ‘2C’, or ‘9B’ to facilitate the communication between the elicitor and informant. Other objects such

as coins, toys, colored cups, and so on were also used in the course of the interview for investigating

various parameters.

77

Figure 1. Basic setting

160 cm

80 cm

0 cm0 cm 75 cm

Speaker/ Interviewee

Elicitor

In the course of the interview, a set of protocols was used. The protocols were prepared to determine which

parameters were relevant to each language. Forms and whether the speaker touched a cup or pointed at a

cup without touching it were also recorded on the protocol sheets. Locations of cups were not restricted to

the table. They were also located at various places surrounding the speaker. Interviews were audiotaped.

3.5. Grounding

A table of 160 cm x 75 cm was chosen because it was large enough for informants to use distal forms in a

pilot study of Japanese and English. When the table was smaller in size, say 75 cm x 75 cm, some speakers

in Japanese and English had difficulty in referring to a cup at the farther end of the table by using distal

forms. At the beginning of the elicitation, it was made sure that the most distal cup on the table was not

referred to with a proximal form. In other words, the speaker was led to establish ground and conceptualize

the farthest end of the table as [distal]. Speakers may use the same distal form to refer to an object at the

other end of the table as well as an object 100 meters away from them. Some languages, however, had

[remote] forms referring to a referent/region beyond the distance of the length of the table. Special attention

was needed to elicit such forms, not by the table-top interview but in different contexts.

78

3.6. Distance (speaker anchor)

Number and location of cup(s) were changed, starting from one cup. On the plot sheets, the table and

locations of cups were illustrated. Informants were asked to refer to each cup with a demonstrative

adjective and a demonstrative pronoun, and the location of each cup with a locational adverb based on

his/her intuition without thinking about ‘prescriptively grammatical’ forms. This would check how many

degrees of distance a language in question distinguishes. For instance, if a language has two forms to refer

to cups at different locations, then we can infer that those two forms are basic. On the other hand, if a

language has six forms in terms of distance, but only three of those appear to refer to cups at different

locations, then we can infer that the language has three basic forms. The other forms are used only when

parameters other than [distance] are involved.

Figure 2-1 illustrates a setting with a single cup. It shows that a single cup is in the searching domain.

In figure 2-2, a cup is placed at the far end of the table to elicit distal forms of deictics. As illustrated in

figure 2-3, more than one cup may be placed at different locations on the table.

Figure 2. [Distance]

Speaker S SFigure 2-1. Figure 2-2. Figure 2-3.

3.7. Contrast

[Contrast] or more precisely [equidistance-contrast] was checked when two or more referents were at the

same distance from the speaker. In one instance, a cup was in the speaker’s one hand and another one in the

other hand. In another instance, two or more cups were at distal locations that were not at the same location

79

but equally distant from the speaker, as shown in figure 3, one at the right hand side corner of the table, and

the other at the left hand side corner. “Sequential constraint” was also checked in these settings.

Figure 3. [Contrast]

S

3.8. Contact/Control

The speaker could touch a cup or only point at a cup without touching it. [Contact] or [non-contact] was

recorded based on the speaker’s pointing gesture or contact with a referent. Speakers were sometimes asked

to lean over the table and touch a cup in the middle of the table with his or her hand. Deictic forms with

contact (touching) and without contact were compared to find out if the [contact] parameter affects the

selection of deictic forms. Speakers were also asked to touch a cup at a distal location by using a stick or a

stick-like shaped rolled paper to examine if indirect [contact] was relevant for the use of deictic expressions.

When the speaker pulled a string attached to a cup at the far end of the table, the speaker could

manipulate the cup without directly touching it. This is what we call indirect [control]. Such cases were

also examined.

3.9. Addressee anchor

Some languages may have morphologically distinctive forms to denote a referent/region by using the

addressee as an anchor. They may encode closeness to the addressee and distinguish some degrees of

distance from the addressee. Other languages may not have morphologically distinctive forms to encode the

addressee as an anchor; nevertheless, they may be sensitive to what we would call the addressee’s

80

conceptual territory. The elicitor sat at the other end of the table from the speaker, and cups on the table

were put at various locations in order to test if distance from the addressee was relevant to deictic use of the

language in question. In another setting, it was checked how deictics refer to a referent/region between the

speaker and the addressee and a referent/region on the other side of the addressee. The speaker and the

addressee (i.e., elicitor) stood four meters away. Cups on the floor were lined up 50 cm apart on the other

side of the speaker from the addressee, between the speaker and the addressee, and on the other side of the

addressee from the speaker as illustrated in figure 4.

Figure 4. [Addressee] 0 m

Speaker, 4 m

Addressee, 8 m

Pictures such as figures 5 and 6 were also used during an interview. Figure 5 shows that a patient is

touching his own back and figure 6 shows that a doctor but not the patient is touching the patient’s back. If

the speaker (i.e., the patient) uses a proximal form in the case of figure 5 and a non-proximal form for the

situation in figure 6 to refer to one’s own back when touched by the addressee (i.e., a doctor), then we can

infer that the speaker is distinguishing the addressee’s territory from the speaker’s territory irrespective of

distance from the speaker.

81

Figure 5. Speaker’s territory Figure 6. Addressee’s territory

3.10. Addressee’s Contact/Control

The parameter [contact/control] by the addressee may also be relevant in some languages. This was

checked when the speaker and the addressee sat at opposite ends of the table. Both direct contact and

indirect contact were checked.

3.11. Bounded/Unbounded and Precise/Broad

Figure 7. ‘Put it (coin) here (in the circle).’ Figure 8. ‘Put it here (in this area).’(The speaker indicates the area with his/her hand)

S S

The settings of figure 7 and figure 8 distinguish the situation of [bounded] and [unbounded]. Figure 7

illustrates that ‘here’ designates a bounded region indicated by a circle, while figure 8 illustrates an

unbounded region indicated by the speaker’s gesture of moving his/her hand with the palm down from the

82

left corner of the table to the right corner of the table approximately covering the proximal region. In

another setting, the speaker was asked to refer to piled-up coins and coins scattered over the table if the

language was sensitive to the differences of the parameters of [precise] and [broad].

3.12. Side and Behind

The parameter [side] was tested by putting cups on the table to the right and to the left of the speaker, and

by putting cups on the floor to the right and to the left of the speaker. The parameter [behind] was tested by

putting cups on the table behind the speaker and by putting cups on the floor behind the speaker.

3.13. Verticality

By asking the speaker to refer to cups that were stuck on the wall, [up], [down], and [level] parameters

were checked. The speaker sat by a wall. A cup was placed on the floor, at seat level, at eye level, at the

highest point where one could reach, at 20 cm above the limit-of-reach point, 40 cm above it, 60 cm above

it, and 80 cm above it. In another setting, the speaker stood about one meter away from the wall. A cup was

placed on the floor, at knee level, at stomach level, at eye level, at the level of one’s fingertips when

stretching an arm upwards, and 40 cm above that point.

3.14. Motion

The parameter [motion] was tested by using a moving toy on the table. Fictive motion (cf. Talmy 1996)

was checked by asking the speaker, for example, if a distinct form was used when the speaker was referring

to a stative object on the street from the inside of a running car.

3.15. Invisibility

Two types of invisibility, [invisible-remote] and [invisible-occlusion] were examined. The former was

examined by asking the speaker to refer to an object or location that was so far from the speaker (and the

elicitor) that s/he could not see it, and the latter was examined by arranging cups and a box or other objects

as obstacles on the table. Partial invisibility was also tested. A referent was partially visible when part of it

was visible and the rest of the referent was behind an obstacle. Another instance of partial-visibility was

83

when a referent was behind a semi-transparent object. Invisible but still inferable referent by the shape of

the object covered by something (e.g., a tissue) was also tested to see if some kinds of evidentiality were

involved. Another case of evidentiality was checked when the speaker was touching an object to which s/he

did not have visual access, such as an object in an opaque bag. Invisibility to the speaker only, to the

addressee only, or to both the speaker and the addressee were also variants that were checked.

3.16. Extended

Whether extendedness of a referent was relevant or not was checked by asking speakers to refer to

extended objects such as a fishing pole. [Extended] vs. [non-extended] was comparatively checked. It

should be noted that a region/object may be construed as either [extended] or [non-extended] depending on

the speaker’s viewpoint. Intrinsically, an extended region/object, such as a lake, may be easily construed as

[non-extended] as well when the speaker looks at (or imagines looking at) a lake from a distance.

3.17. Alienable/Inalienable

The distinction between [alienable] and [inalienable] was checked by asking the speaker what s/he would

say, for example, ‘this hand vs. this watch’.

3.18. Psychological distance

Figure 9 shows that a person is holding something dirty and abhors it. This picture was used to elicit the use

of [psychological distance].

Figure 9. [Psychological distance]

84

3.19. Presentative (Directive and Offerative)

[Directive] is the usage of deictics to draw the addressee’s attention. The speaker may say ‘here’ to draw

the addressee’s attention to the area close to the speaker. Such expressions in languages were examined.

Figure 10 shows that a passenger is handing over a bill to a driver to pay a taxi fare, which is a typical case

of [offerative].

Figure 10. Offerative

3.20. Peripheral senses

[Auditory]

Something audible may be encoded differently from something visible. This parameter was checked by

asking the speaker what s/he would say in a situation where s/he had auditory access but not visual access.

[Olfactory]

85

The deictic encoding of something invisible but emitting smell was checked.

[Cutaneous sense]

An example of cutaneous sensation is when the speaker is touching a water bag with his/her foot.

3.21. Additional remarks

As described above, in tabletop settings, informants were asked to refer to cups or other objects on a table.

In addition to tabletop tasks, natural setting tasks are occasionally conducted depending upon necessity.

Informants were asked to refer to entities existing in his/her surroundings. Those entities may be a chair, a

door, a building, trees, cars, mountains, or clouds in the sky. The entity could be very far away or invisible.

The tabletop experiments and questionnaires are intended to make it possible to access the native

speakers’ intuitions on deictics as well as cross-linguistic comparisons.

86

Chapter 4

Data and analyses

4.1. Introduction

This chapter analyzes data elicited through experiments. The data and a detailed analysis of the data

provide clues for subtle meanings of spatial deixis, which is hard to obtain from reference grammar books.

The data will also be compared to descriptions in previous studies in order to examine the feasibility of

descriptions in previous studies. The discussion in this chapter is not intended to refer to all possible

parameters in natural languages but rather to highlight parameters that are not fully understood or are

misunderstood in existing studies. Not only overt parameters but also covert parameters are investigated.

The close examination of covert as well as overt parameters provide a better understanding of uses of

spatial deixis. The summary of forms based on the elicited data of 15 investigated languages in this chapter

is provided in appendix B.

4.2. Anchor

4.2.1. Dual-Anchor system

Based on Anderson and Keenan (1985: 282), Spanish, Japanese, Korean, and Mundari (Austro-Asiatic-

Munda) belong to the same category, what they call the “person-oriented” system. Anderson and Keenan

did not reflect the difference of the second categories among those languages. Let us see our data on

Spanish first. The speaker of Spanish sitting by the elicitor at one end of the table used three forms to refer

to a cup according to its distance from the speaker, esta ‘proximal’, esa ‘medial’, and aquella ‘distal’. This

three-term contrast also appeared for locationals, aqui ‘proximal’, ahi ‘medial’, and alli ‘distal’. In table 1,

Spk (abbreviation for the speaker) indicates that a referent is in the speaker’s hand, and the elicitor or the

addressee is behind the speaker so that the location of the addressee does not interfere in the choice of

deictics by the speaker. 0 cm indicates that a referent is at the edge of a table, and 40 cm indicates that a

referent is located 40 cm away from the edge, and so on.

87

Table 1. Three degrees of distance: Spanish feminine singular demonstratives and locational adverbs1

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmesta esta esta esa aquella aquellaaqui aqui aqui ahi alli alli

The language showed a three-way system based on the distance from the speaker. Crucially, the second

category forms esa and ahi were used to refer to a medial distance, where the proximity to the addressee

was irrelevant. This fact is not predictable from the definition of the so-called “person-oriented’ languages.

As shown in table 2, when the addressee (i.e., the elicitor) sat at the opposite end of the table, the

speaker used a proximal form esta for the region close to the speaker, and switched to the second form esa

for the region a little farther from the speaker, and for a farther region, she used either esa or a distal form

aquella, but for a reference in the addressee’s hand she used only esa.

Table 2. [Addressee] parameter: Spanish feminine singular demonstratives

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cm Adr (in Addressee’s hand)esta esta esta esa esa de ahi esa de ahi esa

/aquella /aquella

In table 3, the speaker and the addressee stood four meters apart, and some cups were lined up 50 cm away

from each other, between the speaker and the addressee. More cups were also lined up on the other side of

the addressee from the speaker. (For the sake of simplicity, forms referring to every one meter are shown in

the tables.) The occurrences of esta, esa, aquella for a proximal, a medial, and a distal region from the

position of the speaker, respectively, and esa for the addressee’s territory were observed.

Table 3. [Addressee] parameter: Spanish feminine singular demonstratives

-4m -3m -2m -1m Spk 1m 2m 3m 4m/(at)Adr’s(foot) 5m 6maquella esa esa esta esta esta/esa esa esa/aquella esa aquella aquella

In table 3, it is crucial that the same informant, on the same occasion, could use aquella in addition to esa

for a referent 3 m away from the speaker but switched back to esa for the referent at the addressee’s foot,

which was 4 m away from the speaker, and aquella was not allowed. Our data indicate that the second

category, esa (and probably ahi as well), has a two-fold meaning: one to encode the speaker-anchored

[medial] parameter and the other to encode the [addressee] parameter.

88

Japanese showed the same pattern as Spanish. Deictic roots in Japanese, ko-, so-, and a- represent

three categories. Table 4 indicates that ko-, so-, and a- denote [proximal], [medial], and [distal],

respectively; crucially the second form so- was used for a referent at a medial distance but not necessarily

close to the addressee.

Table 4. Three degrees of distance: Japanese deictic roots2

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmko ko ko/so/a ko/so/a so/a so/a

Table 5 indicates that the second category so- also denotes a referent in the addressee’s hand and a referent

proximal to the addressee.

Table 5. [Addressee] parameter: Japanese deictic roots

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cm Adrko ko ko/so so/a so/a so/a so

In another example, when the speaker was shouting at the addressee who was very far from the speaker,

say 100 meters away, to ask the addressee to pass a ball close to the addressee toward the speaker,

informants used a so- form. This example confirms that so- does denote a referent proximal to the

addressee. The same was observed among Spanish speakers. Esa, one of the second category deictics, but

not aquella, was used in the same situation. In Spanish, if there exists only one ball, a definite article la

sounds the best; however, if identification of the ball is required, such as in comparison with another ball,

then esa is used in such a situation.3 The data in table 6, in the situation where the speaker and the

addressee stood four meters away, indicate that so- designates both [medial] distance from the speaker and

proximity to the addressee.

Table 6. [Addressee] parameter: Japanese deictic roots

-3m -2m -1m Spk 1m 2m 3m 4m/Adr 5m 6m 7m 8ma a so/ko ko ko/so so so/a so so/a so/a so/a a

4.2.2. Addressee-anchor isolated system

The addressee-anchor isolated system should be distinguished from the dual-anchor system. When

Anderson and Keenan discussed “person-oriented”, they must have not been aware of the dual-anchor

89

system. What they meant by “person-oriented” was only what we call “addressee-anchor system”. An

example of this system is Korean. The following tables show forms used by informants to refer to referents

on the table.

Table 7. Two degrees of distance: Korean demonstrative roots and locationals.

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmRoot i i i ce/co ce ceLoc yeki/yoki yeki yeki ceki/coki ceki/coki ceki/coki

In table 7 and below, yeki and yoki, ce and co, ceki and coki, and i and yo are phonological variants that do

not pertain to distality.

Table 8. [Addressee] parameter: Korean: Demonstrative roots and locationals.

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cm AdrRoot i i/yo i/yo i/ce/co ce/ku ce/ku (ce)/kuLoc yeki yeki/yoki yeki/yoki yeki/yoki/ceki/koki ceki/keki ceki/keki (ceki)/keki

Table 9. [Addressee] parameter: Korean demonstrative roots

-3m -2m -1m Spk 1m 2m 3m 4m/Adr 5m 6m 7m 8mce i/ce/co i/ce i i i/ce/co ce/ku ku ce/co/ku ce ce ce

A striking contrast between forms in table 7 versus table 8 and table 9 is the appearance of ku and keki

forms in table 8 and table 9, and the absence of those forms in table 7. It is clear that the second category

terms, ku and keki, encode [addressee]. Unlike the dual-anchor terms, the second category terms of this

system are exclusively addressee-anchored and are not used to refer to a medial distance. One informant

used ce/ceki indicated in parentheses in addition to ku/keki to refer to a referent/region with the addressee.

For this speaker, the parameter of [addressee] seems to be weakening. His deictic system seems to be

changing to a system of three degrees of distance from the speaker. For the moment, we treat it as an

exception.

In Mundari (Austro-Asiatic-Munda), Osada (1992) cites Munda (1979: 16) who reported that there

were nine categories in deictics with a three-distance contrast in three regions: close to the speaker, close to

the addressee, and far from the speaker. Osada (1992: 68-83), following Munda (1979), listed nine

categories, but he argues that some variant forms are allomorphs and there are two sets for each region,

90

which form six categories in total. Our data showed only four categories. One of these encodes the

parameter of the [addressee].4

Table 10. Mundari: Deictics (based on our data)

Prox Adr Med DistAdj/Pron Inanimate Sg nea hoena/hona hena/ena hana

nee hoene hene(e) hane(e)Emphatic neenea hoeneehoena heneehena/eneena haneehana/haneena

Loc I neta(a) hoenta/enta henta(a) hanta(a)

Number is marked by suffixes, null for singular, -kin for dual and -ko for plural. -A of adjectives and

pronouns is replaced by -i to indicate animate referent(s), for example, niy ‘this (animate)’, haniy ‘that

(animate)’. There are several locational adverbs whose endings vary. These endings are -ta(a), -re and -te.

Although semantic differences among these forms did not come out clearly, Cook (1965: 126) describes the

differences as in (1):

(1) -re ‘in, at, on’ (exactly at a point)-te ‘to’ (exactly to a point)-ta ‘near’ (near proximity)-tare ‘near’ (almost at a point)

Hona and its variant hoena forms were observed only when the [addressee] parameter was relevant, as in

table 12 below where the speaker was talking to the addressee who was at the opposite end of the table

from the speaker. Table 11 and 12 show that nea, hena, hana, and those variants designate proximal,

medial, and distal distance from the speaker, while hona and hoena forms designate proximity to the

addressee. It is clear that Mundari has the addressee-anchor isolated system.

Table 11. Three degrees of distance: Mundari demonstratives

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmnea/nee nea/nee nea/nee/henee/hana/hanee hena/hanee hena/hana/hanee hanee/haneena

Table 12. Addressee parameter: Mundari demonstratives

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cm Adrnea/nee nea/nee nea/nee hena/henee/hanee hena/henee hana/hoene hona/hoena

91

In Korean there are two speaker-anchored categories, namely [proximal] and [distal], in addition to one

addressee-anchored category. Mundari showed three speaker-anchored categories in addition to one

addressee-anchored category.

In summation, tasks with the speaker and the addressee sitting at the same end of the table, tasks with

the speaker and the addressee sitting at opposite ends of the table, and tasks with the speaker and the

addressee standing four meters apart revealed that there exist two different systems of the so-called person-

oriented system. Our data indicate that in addition to Japanese and Spanish discussed above, Venda, Thai,

Santali, and Nuer belong to the dual-anchor system, while in addition to Korean and Mundari discussed

above, Mizo, Apatani, and Newari belong to the addressee-anchor isolated system.5 In descriptions of

deictic systems of languages, the two systems discussed here are not usually distinguished in the literature.

Both systems tend to be described as what we call “addressee-anchor isolated system”, and the fact that

forms to refer to the [addressee] parameter actually may also refer to medial distance from the speaker, is

neglected. Among eleven investigated languages, six languages turned out to be the dual-anchor system,

while five languages were the anchor-isolated system. The speculation based on this finding is that a good

number of languages, probably about half of the languages described as having forms encoding the

addressee parameter, may in fact belong to the dual-anchor system.

4. 3. Distance

4.3.1. Distance parameters

Comparison of data collected by various tasks in Thai, Spanish, and Japanese, among other languages,

demonstrates that the semantics of deictic categories vary from language to language. These three

languages are usually described as having a three-way system with an addressee-anchored category. The

addressee-anchored category actually serves double duty in these languages as previously discussed in

section 3.1.2. The second category denotes either medial distance from the speaker or proximity to the

addressee. When there were a few cups on the table and the speaker referred to one of those cups, three

distinctive forms appeared, according to its distance from the speakers in all of these three languages,

which showed no differences among these languages. Kore, sore, and are in Japanese, esta, esa, and

92

aquella in Spanish, and ni, nán, and nóon in Thai denote a three-way distinction in terms of distance as

shown in table 13a-c.

Table 13.

(a) Japanese: Deictic pronouns used for multiple referents on a table

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmkore kore kore/sore/are kore/sore/are sore/are sore/are

(b) Spanish: Feminine singular demonstratives used for multiple referents on a table

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmesta esta esta esa aquella aquella

(c) Thai: Demonstratives used for multiple referents on a table

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmní ní ní/nán nán nán/nóon nán/nóon

When there was a single referent at an elicitation setting, the difference of the semantics of the third

category labeled “distal” was realized. As we can see in the following tables, it was only in Japanese that

three categories appeared. In Spanish and Thai, forms in the third category were not used even for a cup at

the far end of the table.

Table 14.

(a) Japanese: Deictic pronouns for a single referent on a table

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmkore kore -- kore/sore -- sore/are

(b) Spanish: Feminine singular demonstratives for a single referent on a table

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmesta esta -- esa -- esa

(c) Thai: Demonstratives for a single referent on a table

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmní ní -- ní(a)/nán -- (ní)/nán

The data in table 13 and 14 suggest that distal terms in Thai and Spanish are more marked than those in

Japanese. Distal terms in Thai and Spanish are used only when differentiation among references in a search

domain is required, as in the case to single out a designated referent from a set of multiple referents.

93

Otherwise, the terms in the second category in Thai and Spanish cover the region corresponding to the

“distal” region in the sense of the third term in Japanese. Terasaki’s (1998: 85) descriptions accord with our

interpretation of Spanish deictic terms. He says: ‘the designated area by ese “close to the addressee” is

wider than Japanese sore. Things that the speaker and the hearer have commonly experienced, for instance,

a thing they both see can be referred to with ese even if it is rather far from both of them.’ We would call

the third “distal” terms in Thai and Spanish [emphatic remote]. [Emphatic remote] forms are used only

when emphasis on far distality or remoteness is required. The common situation is where there are more

than two referents in a distal region, and the speaker desires to distinguish one contrastively from the other.

A referent that is very far away and hard to identify can also be referred to with an emphatic remote form,

usually along with suprasegmental emphasis such as a stress or lengthening. Unless this is required, the

terms in the second category may designate a distal referent/region. Crucial data for such interpretation,

namely the difference between languages of a non-emphatic remote type and languages of an emphatic

remote type, are forms used to refer to ‘a star’ or ‘a cloud’. Thai and Spanish informants used a form in the

second category to refer to ‘that cloud’ and ‘that star’ that are undoubtedly distal referents. Japanese

speakers have to use the third form to refer to a star or a cloud. Using the second form in Japanese is simply

ungrammatical unless it is used anaphorically in discourse rather than exophorically. Based on the

elicitation data, Santali, Mundari, Newari, Malagasy, and Venda turned out to be non-emphatic remote

types along with Japanese, while Apatani belonged to an emphatic remote type along with Spanish and

Thai.

Table 15. Non-emphatic remote type

(a) Japanese

Prox Med/Adr DistPron kore sore are

(b) Santali

Prox Med/Adr DistAdj/Pron Ina Sg noa/nia ona/in hana/hina

(c) Mundari

Prox Adr Med DistAdj/Pron Ina Sg ne(a) hoena/hona/ena hena/(en(a)) hana

94

(d) Newari

Prox Adr Med Dist (Remote)Adj/Pron Ina Sg/Pl th(w)o am(a) wo hun (hun wo)

(e) Malagasy

Proximal Med Distal Distance-NeutralBounded Unbounded Bounded Unbounded

Adj/Pron Visible Sg ito/itý itsy irý io iny

(f) Venda

Proximal Medial DistalAdj/Pron class 9 hei heyo heila

Table 16. Emphatic remote type

(a) Spanish

Prox Adr/Dist Emphatic RemoteAdj/Pron Masc Sg este ese aquel

(b) Thai

Prox Adr/Dist Emphatic RemoteAdj/Pron/(Loc) ní nán nóon

(c) Apatani

Prox Adr Dist Emphatic RemoteAdj Sg ska- -si hka- -h inka- -si into (daka)--si

Iconic vowel lengthening was observed in Luyia. Remote or “very distal” forms are realized by lengthening

the final vowel of distal forms. In table-top tasks, forms appeared as in table 17, which show that the vowel

/a/ is elongated according to distance.

Table 17. Luyia: Deictic forms for various distances

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmAdj sino sila silaa silaaa silaaaaLoc ano ala alaa ela/ala elaa/alaa

Iconic vowel lengthening was also observed among Thai informants in elicitation. The distal form [no:n] is

lengthened to [nu::n] to emphasize remoteness of a designated referent/region. In this case, the vowel value

also changes slightly.

95

4.3.2. Degrees of Distance in Malagasy

There have been two types of reports regarding the distance contrast in Malagasy deictics in the literature.

The first is by Richardson (1884), then Garvey (1964a, b), followed by Anderson and Keenan (1985),

whose claim is that Malagasy locational deictic adverbs distinguish seven degrees of distance as shown in

table 18.

Table 18. Malagasy: Locational deictic adverbs claimed by Richardson (1884), Garvey (1964a, 1964b),Anderson and Keenan (1985)

Proximal<----------------------------------->Distalety eto eo etsy eny eroa ery

The second type that was claimed by Rajaona (1972) is that the first form ety and the second form eto both

fall into the proximal category; and distance is irrelevant to the two forms eo and eny. Instead, he added

another form etsý distinguishable from étsy only by the stress. In total, he claims five degrees of distinction

in distance as shown in table 19.

Table 19. Malagasy: Locational deictic adverbs claimed by Rajaona (1972)

Proximal<-------------------------------------------------->Distal Distance-Neutraleto (punctual)/ety (extended) étsy etsý eroa ery eo (punctual)/eny (extended)

Our data elicited from informants did not show such diversity in terms of degrees of a distance contrast (cf.

Imai 1999). Three degrees of distance, namely [proximal], [medial], and [distal] forms, were observed

among six out of nine speakers. Three speakers used a two-degree system that is lacking a medial category.

It is possible that speakers who used the two-degree system are influenced by their second language,

French, which is basically a two-way system. Therefore, data of speakers who used the two-degree system

are excluded in the following discussion. Table 20 shows deictics of three degrees of distance.

Table 20. Malagasy: Three degrees of distance

Proximal Medial DistalAdjective/Pronoun itý/ito itsy irýLocational adverb etý/eto etsy erý

(Stress is on penultimate unless specified as in erý)

96

One speaker occasionally used ireroa [irerú:] instead of the distal adjective irý; however, this form ireroa

did not appear constantly, nor was it distinguished from irý in terms of distance. Ireroa, which is a plural

form, was used unexpectedly when we were dealing with singular forms. Other speakers admitted that

ireroa and its singular form ireo[ireu] exist, but those speakers did not use these forms in elicitation.

Deictics in Malagasy, including non-distance parameters, are summarized in table 21.

Table 21. Deictics in Malagasy

Proximal Med. Distal NeutralBounded Unbounded Bounded Unbounded

Adj/Pron Visible Sg ito/itý itsy irý io inyPl ireto iretsy irerý ireo ireny

Loc Visible eto etý etsy erý eo enyInvisible ato atý atsy arý ao any

As the table shows, [bounded], [unbounded], [visible], [invisible], and distance-neutral parameters make up

the rich system of Malagasy deictics that will be discussed in detail in designated sections. Thus, we can

conclude that colloquial Malagasy deictics divide space into no more than three degrees in terms of

distance.

4.3.3. Degrees of distance in Venda

Venda (Bantu) is another language suggested in the literature to have more than a three-way contrast in

distance. Ziervogel, et al., (1972) and Poulos (1990) claim four degrees of distance for this language.

According to them, each of the four basic forms representing four different degrees of distance has four-

way variations showing different levels of emphasis. Poulos (1990: 111) puts it: ‘columns A, B, C, and D

indicate four levels of emphasis within each position, in other words, one can emphasize the exact

location.’ Table 22 shows class 9 forms that may refer to a cup and class 16 or locatives that may be

translated into English ‘here’ and ‘there’. (In the following table, columns in Poulos are presented as rows.)

97

Table 22. Venda: Class 9 and class 16 deictics (Ziervogel et al. 1972: 70, Poulos 1990: 112)

Prox I Prox II Med DistClass 9 (A) ino iyi iyo ila

(B) heino hei heyo heila(C) yeneino yenei yeneyo yeneila(D) yoneheino yonehei yoneheyo yoneheila

Class 16 (A) fhano afha afho fhala(B) hafhano hafha hafho hafhala(C) henefhano henefha henefho henefhala(D) honehafhano honehafha honehafho honehafhala

[d/l] = dental /fh/ = [] /vh/ = []

Poulos (1990: 107) defines four degrees of distance as follows:

(2) Proximal I ‘“this here” or “these here”, referring to objects (or referents) that are immediately next to the speaker.’

Proximal II ‘refers to referents which are relatively close to the speaker.’

Medial ‘“that” or “those” and refers to referents that are further away from the speaker than those expressed by position proximal II’

Distal “that over there in the distance” or “those over there in the distance”, referring to referents that are relatively remote from both the speaker and the person addressed.’

Ziervogel, et al., (1972: 72) note that in modern colloquial speech proximal I and proximal II are often

taken as synonymous; nevertheless, they still admit the basic four degrees (or three degrees in colloquial

speech) of distance and further differentiation within each of the four (or three) basic degrees.

Table 23 shows data elicited from eight informants of Venda. Forms in (a) are predicative

demonstratives meaning ‘it is here/there’. Forms in (b) are class 9 deictics, and forms in (c) are class 16

deictics.

98

Table 23. Venda

(a) Predicative (copulative) demonstratives

Initials ofSpeakers Proximal<--------------------------Medial/Adr----------------------------->DistalKH, KM, SI khei kheyo kheil aMU khei kheino kheilaTP kheino khei kheilaEP, WI, AD kheino khei kheyo kheila

(b) Class 9 deictics

Speaker Proximal<--------------------------Medial/Adr------------------------------->DistalKM hei heyo heilaMU hei heino heilaWI heino hei heyo heil a (heilani)EP heino/ino hei/iyi iyo/heyo ila/heila (heilani)TP ino iyi ila heilaKH hei ino/iyi iyo ila heilaAD hei ino iyi iyo ila heilaSI hei heneyi heyo heila heneila heneheila

(c) Venda: Class 16 deictics (locational)

Speaker Proximal<--------------------------Medial/Adr---------------------------------->DistalKM, AD hafha hafho hafhalaTP hafhano hafha hafhalaMU hafha hafhano hafhala (hafhalani)SI hafhano/hafha/henefha hafhala henefhala henehafhalaEP hafhano hafha hafho hafhala (hafhalani)WI hafhano hafha hafho (hafhalani) hafhalaSI hafhano hafha hafhala henefhala henehafhalaKH hafha afha afho/hafho fhala hafhala(-ni suffix is a general locative marker)

As listed in the tables above, forms used by informants varied widely. Degrees of distance distinguished by

different informants varied from three to six. There was little consistency among forms used by eight

informants. Only one proximal form and one distal form were shared by all informants in each type of

deictic. These are khei for a proximal referent and kheila for a distal referent in predicative demonstratives,

hei for proximal and heila for a distal referent in class 9 deictics, and hafha for a proximal region and

hafhala for a distal region in class 16 deictics.6 Aside from these forms, medial forms, predicative kheyo,

99

class 9 heyo, and class 16 hafho were shared by more than half of the informants. These forms belong to

category (B) in Ziervogel, et al., (1972) and Poulos (1990).

Data show that forms categorized into (B) in Ziervogel, et al., (1972) and Poulos (1990) are the most

frequently used or basic forms. Probably (A) forms are shortened variants of (B) forms. (C) and (D) forms,

which are long forms with reduplications, are kinds of emphatic forms.

Table 24. Venda: Summary of elicited forms

Prox Med/Adr DistPred dem Basic form khei kheyo kheila

Emphatic/known (?) kheino ? ?Adj class 9 Basic form hei heyo heila

Shortened form iyi, ino iyo ilaEmphatic/known (?) heino, heneyi ? heneila, heneheila

Loc Basic form hafha hafho hafhalaShortened form afha afho fhalaEmphatic/known (?) hafhano, henefha henefho henefhala, henehafhala

A couple of informants commented that long forms such as henefhala are used when both the speaker and

the addressee know the place or after the speaker explains where the location is. It may be translated as

‘there, you know’ or ‘right there’.

(3) a. A: paka ni golai hafhalapark 2Sg car there

‘Park car there.’

B: ngafhi?where‘Where?’

A: hafhala/henefhala fhasi ha muriDist.Loc/Dist.Loc.Emp under the(?) tree‘There/there, you know, under the tree.’

b. A: vhea ni khaphu fhala/hafhala put 2Sg cup Dist.Short.Loc/Dist.Loc

‘Put the cup there’

B: ngafhi ?where‘Where?’

A: hafhala/*henefhala phanda vothiDist.Loc/*Dist.Loc.Emp front door‘There in front of the door.’

100

In (3a), henefhala is used because the speaker always parks his car under a tree and he supposes that the

addressee knows it. In (3b) *henefhala is not used because the place is not yet known to the addressee. An

informant also noted that hafhala must accompany a gesture of pointing but henefhala must not. It suggests

that henefhala has less deictic force and the possibility of an anaphoric use.

(4) (The speaker thought he put a book on a shelf.)a i ha hafha. fedzi ndo i vhea henefhait Cop Neg here but 1Sg Cop(?) put Prox.Loc.Emp‘It is not here. But I put it here.’

(5) (Do you see the red mark at the center (of the target) ?’thuntsha ni henefhalashoot 2Sg Dist.Loc.Emp‘Shoot right there.’

In (4), ‘here’ is mentioned twice. The second occurrence is in a longer form. It suggests that the long form

is used because the addressee knows the location ‘here’ once it is introduced to the discourse. In (5), the

speaker draws the addressee’s attention to the red mark, then the speaker supposes that the location of the

mark is shared knowledge between him and the addressee.

(6) A: Where did you put your cup?

B: henefhala Dist.Loc.Emp‘There.’

The informant who gave this example commented that the meaning of henefhala is that ‘there, at the place

where the cup should be, or there at the place where you and I know that the cup should be.’

(7) Police: (Where were you when you saw a man running out of the bank?)Witness: nd-i henefha /*hafha

1Sg-Cop(?) Prox.Loc.Emp/Prox.Loc‘I was right here.’

‘Here’ in (7) is not a shared knowledge of the speaker and the addressee. ‘Right here’, with an emphasis on

the speaker’s intention of showing his exact location to the addressee, requires a long form.

101

It is still premature to decide the exact meanings of the long forms; however, the examples seen above

are suggesting that something like [known/unknown] or [old/new information] and some kind of

preciseness is involved in those forms. Thus, long forms are variants that do not pertain to distality. To

summarize, speakers of Venda make at least a three-way distance contrast even though they do not share

the same deictic forms to divide a space into three. Most probably, short and long variants do not pertain to

distality. We also would like to point out that the data suggest that the [addressee] parameter is relevant in

Venda. Some informants used medial forms to refer to a referent/region proximal to the addressee and other

informants used distinctive forms to refer to the [addressee] parameter. For instance, informant MU used

hei, heino, and heila in class 9 to denote a three-way distance from the speaker, while he used heyo to refer

to the [addressee]. Informants AD, SI, and WI used henefo exclusively to denote the parameter of

[addressee].

As we have seen, the Malagasy and Venda are best analyzed as having a three-way distinction in

distance. Other languages that are described as having four or more degrees of distance in chapter 2 may

also turn out to have a three-way distinction along with other parameters if further research is conducted for

these languages. As we have seen in chapter 2, Fillmore (1982: 48-49) claimed that a language does not

have more than a three-way distance category and that if a language has more than three-terms in deictics,

it is always the case that other factors, such as an addressee anchor or visibility (i.e., visible or invisible),

are involved. However, until we examine other languages, we cannot totally accept Fillmore’s conjecture

and deny the possibility that there could exist languages encoding more than a three-way distance contrast.

It may be true that too many divisions in terms of distance alone are not much help for identifying a

referent or a region. It may even be confusing unless speakers share a very good sense of distance. There is,

however, no a priori reason why three-way division is acceptable while four-way division is impossible in

all natural languages.

4.4. Verticality

4.4.1. Verticality in Mizo

Mizo (Tibeto-Burman) encodes [level], [up], and [down]. Deictic forms are as follows:

102

Table 25. Mizo

Prox Adr Dist-Level Distal-Up Distal-Down Ana/Inv(smell, sound)

Adj Sg hee--hi khaa--kha saw--saw khii--khi khuu--khu chuu no chuEmph hee ta--hi khaa ta--kha saw ta-saw khii ta--khi khuu ta--khu chuu ta--chuPl heng--hi khang--kha sawng--saw khing--khi khung--khu chung--chu

Pron Sg hei/(hee) hi khaa kha saw saw khii khi khuu khu chuu chuPl heng hi khang kha sawng saw khing khi khung khu chung chu

Loc he tah kha tah saw tah khi tah khu tah chu tahEmph hee tah hian khaa tah khan saw tah sawan khii ta khian khuu ta kuan cuu ta cuan

[he: hi] appears in fast speech and [hei hi] in slow speech.

A cup was placed at designated locations, and adjective forms and locational deictic forms were elicited as

follows.

Table 26. Mizo: Adjectives and locational adverbs

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmAdj hee noo hi hee noo hi hee noo hi saw noo saw saw noo saw saw noo sawLoc hetah hetah saw tah saw tah saw tah saw tah

The data show that the language distinguishes two categories in terms of distance [proximal] and [distal].

The root he(e) indicates [proximal] and saw indicates [distal]. When the addressee sat at the opposite end of

the table from the speaker, the third form khaa appeared as shown in table 27. It indicates that Mizo

recognizes the [addressee] as one of the parameters in deictics.

Table 27. Mizo: Adjectives and locational adverb

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cm AdrAdj hee noo hi hee noo hi hee noo hi saw noo saw/ khaa noo kha khaa(ta) noo kha khaa noo kha

hee(ta) noo hiLoc hetah hetah saw tah saw tah khaa tah khaa tah khaa tah

Saw refers to a referent/region at the same level as the speaker. One of the prototypical situations is the

table-top setting described above. According to the informants, the speaker who is outside a building and

looking at a window on the first (or ground floor in British English) of the building would say:

(8) saw tukverh saw‘that window’

A speaker outside a building would say by pointing at a window of the third floor of the building:

103

(9) khii tukverh khi‘that window up there’

Khi(i) indicates that the referent is located higher than the perspective of the speaker. The speaker on the

third floor looking down at trees on the streets would say:

(10) khuu-ng tingkung khuthat.down-Pl tree that.down‘Those trees down there’

Khu(u) is encoding the [down] parameter. Khuu ‘that down there’, hee ‘this’, and khii ‘that up there’

appeared when the speaker sat by a wall and a cup was placed at points on the wall indicated in table 28(a)

below, namely on the floor, at seat level, at the speaker’s eye level, at the highest point that the speaker

could reach, at 20 cm above the limit-of-reach point, 40 cm above it, and 60 cm above it. Khuu ‘that down

there’, saw ‘that at the same level’, and khii ‘that up there’ appeared, when the speaker stood about one

meter away from the wall and a cup was placed on the floor, at knee level on the wall, at stomach level, at

eye level, at the level of fingertips stretched straight upwards, and at 40 cm above that point as indicated in

table 28(b).

Table 28. Mizo: [Up] [down] parameters

(a) The speaker is sitting (b) The speaker is standing60 cm up khii noo khi40 cm up khii noo khi khii noo khi20 cm up khii noo khi/hee noo hiLimit of reach hee noo hi khii noo khieye level hee noo histomach level saw noo sawseat/knee level hee noo hi khuu noo khufloor khuu noo khu/hee noo hi khuu noo khu

In another instance, a cup was placed next to the speaker standing at the top of the staircase, another cup

was located on one of the stairs downward, and yet another cup on one of the stairs down farther. The

informant referred to the first cup with hee noo hi ‘this cup here’, the second one and the third one with

khuu noo khu ‘that cup down there’.

All the examples above show that khii encodes the [up] parameter and khuu encodes the [down]

parameter. On the other hand, proximal hee is elevation-neutral. Informants referred to a fly flying right

over one’s head with hee but not with khii. It indicates that a proximal region is expressed with a

104

verticality-neutral form and cannot be marked for verticality. If the speaker uses a deictic form encoding

verticality, it must accompany the connotation of non-proximity. However, the speaker could use either hee

or khuu to refer to a pen or a cup on the floor. It indicates that the region around one’s head was construed

to be too close to use a form encoding verticality, while the region on the floor was construed to be distal

enough to use a form encoding verticality from the perspective of the speaker. A referent rather close to the

speaker may be marked for verticality as long as the speaker recognizes the referent/region apart enough

from the speaker to use a verticality sensitive form. A non-proximal referent/region is obligatorily marked

for verticality. The form saw ‘that at the same level’ is not verticality-neutral distal but is explicitly marked

for [level] as well as non-proximity.

4.4.2. Perception of verticality

The speaker on the top floor of a tall building pointing at a window of another tall building next to it would

use saw ‘that at the same level’ because the window is at the same level from the speaker’s perspective

even though it is on the top floor of the building. The same is true when the speaker on a hilltop refers to a

tree on another hilltop and the speaker on the hilltop refers to a rising sun at the top of another hilltop.

When the speaker is lying down on the floor, s/he refers to a cup on the floor with saw ‘that at the same

level’ but not with khuu ‘that down there’. This indicates that the speaker’s perspective is based on the eye

level of the speaker. The speaker outside a building would refer to a window on the third floor with khii

‘that up there’. The speaker, however, would switch to saw ‘that at the same level’ once s/he moves away

from the building. It is because, from the perspective of the speaker, the window on the third floor of a very

distal building does not look high. An accompanied pointing gesture also becomes lower once the speaker

moves away from the referent. Thus, the physically elevated window that is conceptually more or less at

the same level is referred to with saw by the speaker. It is the speakers’ perception and not the physical

reality that counts. An interesting case is when the speaker refers to a whole tree or a tall building itself that

is not far from the speaker. Informants used both saw and khii in this case with a gesture pointing upward.

In this case, the speaker’s conceptualization splits. One can use khii because s/he looks up and is pointing

upwards; however, at the same time, a tree as a whole or the trunk of the tree and a building as a whole can

105

also be conceptualized as being at the same level as the speaker, therefore, they can be referred to with

saw.7

4.5. Side in Luyia

Luyia is a Bantu language spoken around the area of Lake Victoria. The elicited data indicated that the

language has forms denoting the [side] parameter. In table 29, column 0 cm (left) represents regions at the

left edge of the table and column 75 cm (right) represents those at the right edge. Regions at both edges

were marked with eno for proximal side, ei for medial side, and eii for distal side, while regions along the

center line of the table were marked with ano for proximal, ala/ela for medial, and alaa/elaa for distal.

Note that eno is comparable to ano, and ei is comparable to ala morphologically. Eno was used when a

referent was touched (represented as “T” in the table) and ei for a referent being pointed at (represented as

“P” in the table), which suggests that ei is more distal than eno.

Table 29. Luyia

0 cm (left) 37.5 cm (center) 75 cm (right)160cm eii elaa/alaa eii120cm eii ela/ala eii80 cm eii alaa eii40 cm ei ala eii0cm ei(P)/eno(T) ano eii(P)/eno(T)Spk

Eno, ei, and eii forms were also used to refer to referents when they were put on the table at the side of the

speaker. These data indicate that eno, ei, and eii forms refer to lateral regions from the speaker’s

perspective.

Bodding (1929: 126, 1952: 42) reports that Santali (Austronesian) has lateral deictics that denote

referents/regions on the side or off a straight line in front of the speaker. The lateral deictics are formed

from those having an initial n by making this n aspirated. Initial aspirated dental nasals are found only in

these demonstratives in Santali. Bodding also explains that ‘demonstratives, other than side are for what is

in front. What is behind has naturally no separate demonstratives; one does not point the way

demonstratively without turning; hence the language for such demonstration makes use of the ordinary

demonstratives with an added statement giving the particular direction’ (Bodding 1929: 118). Ghosh (1994)

106

on the other hand does not mention lateral deictics in his descriptions of Santali demonstratives. Among the

informants, only three out of eight distinguished the lateral parameter by using aspirated nasal forms. The

use of lateral deictics was optional. One informant suggested that laterality is optionally coded only when a

referent at the side is compared to a referent that is not at the side. In our criteria (mentioned in Chapter 1),

optional marking is excluded from the deictic paradigm. The [side] parameter in Santali is semantically

optional but morphologically independent; therefore, it is a marginal case. Furthermore, the use of lateral

deictics seems to be in the process of dying out, and some speakers have already lost the parameter. A

tentative summary of Santali deictics is in table 30, which includes lateral deictic forms.

Table 30. Santali: Deictics with lateral forms

Prox Med/Adr DistAdj/Pron Ina Sg noa/nia ona/in hana/hina

Du noakin onakin hanakinPl noako onako han(a)ko

(Side) Sg? -- -- (nhawa)Loc -de form nonde/nende onde/ende hende/hande

-te form note/nate onte hante-tere form notere (h)ontere/entere hantere(Side) -de form -- (nhonde) (nhande)

-tere form -- ? (nhatere)

4.6. Interior (in), exterior out) in Luyia

According to a small amount of data elicited from one informant, Luyia seems to have locational

forms denoting the parameter of [interior]. For an object in a container, regardless of whether it was visible

or invisible by occlusion, m- forms were used.

Table 31. Luyia: Locational forms

Prox Med/Adr Dist (Remote)Loc ano ao ala/ela alaa/elaaLoc Side eno ? ei eiiLoc Inside mo/muno omu(o) mo/mula ?

As we saw in chapter 2, there are two types of [interior]/[exterior], depending on whether the deictic

center is included in the interior form or not. [Interior] in Luyia seems to mark a region inside a boundary

without reference to the deictic center.

107

4.7. Bounded and unbounded in Malagasy

4.7.1. Visible proximal locationals:

eto [bounded]

etý [unbounded]

Talmy (1988: 178, 2000a: 50) defines boundedness as demarcation and individuation of a unit entity, while

unboundedness is an indefinite continuation of an entity. Boundedness and unboundedness are specified in

Malagasy deictics.

Table 32. Malagasy: Bounded and unbounded deictics

P r o x i m a l Med. Distal N e u t r a lBounded Unbounded Bounded Unbounded

Adj/Pron Sg ito/itý itsy irý io inyPl ireto iretsy irerý ireo ireny

Loc Visible eto etý etsy erý eo enyInvisible ato atý atsy arý ao any

Malagasy has two forms to denote a proximal region. Eto denotes a [bounded proximal] region while etý

denotes an [unbounded proximal] region. In figure 1, the region was bounded by a circle drawn on the table,

while in figure 2, the region close to the speaker was roughly indicated by the speaker, who moved her

hand over the table (in a semi-circle in front of her). In figure 1, where the region was bounded, eto was

used but *etý was denied in a phrase apetraho eto ‘put (it) here’. In contrast, in figure 2, where the region

was unbounded, apetraho etý ‘put (it) here’ was used and *apetraho eto was denied. The difference

indicates that eto is a form for a bounded region, while etý is a form for an unbounded region.

108

Figure 1. Figure 2.

Addressee Addressee

Speaker Speaker (moved her hand over the table)

apetraho eto/*etý. apetraho etý/*eto.‘Put (it) here (in the circle).’ ‘Put (it) here (in this area).’

As additional examples, eto was used to refer to a region bounded by a square on a paper, while etý was

used to refer to a region near a cup that was close to the speaker. In the latter case, the speaker used the

following sentence. The region defined by the proximity to a ground object was not demarcated by a

boundary; therefore etý was used.

(11) etý akaikin’ itý koapy itýhere near this cup this‘This cup is near here.’

4.7.2. Invisible proximal locationals

ato [Bounded]

atý [Unbounded]

(12a) and (12b) were utterances in the setting in which the speaker spoke to the addressee over the phone.

(12) (Over the phone)a. hafana atý

hot Loc.Inv.Prox.Unbnd‘It’s hot here.’

b. hafana atohot Loc.Inv.Prox.Bnd‘It’s hot here.’

109

Atý refers to an invisible proximal unbounded region; ato refers to an invisible proximal bounded region. In

(12a), the speaker referred to a region surrounding the speaker that was not visible to the addressee. Note

that the invisible form was used here because the region was visible to the speaker but invisible to the

addressee (cf. 4.9 for invisibility). A space surrounding the speaker was not demarcated by a boundary;

therefore, an unbounded form was applied. In (12b), in contrast, the region that the speaker referred to was

a bounded space, namely an office room; therefore, a bounded form was applied.

4.7.3. Distance-neutral demonstrative adjectives/pronouns

io/ireo [Bounded-->Static]

iny/ireny [Unbounded-->Motion-->Addressee’s control]

Distance-neutral demonstratives io (singular), ireo (plural), iny (singular), and ireny (plural) refer to

definite referent(s) regardless of the distance from the speaker. Exceptions are referents touched by the

speaker, which requires [proximal] encoding, and very distal referents that require [distal] encoding, for

example, a tree in the distance that is hard to identify. The definiteness is guaranteed when there is only one

referent or one set of referents in a search domain, such as a cup on a table or coins piled on a table.

Io refers to a bounded referent, and iny refers to an unbounded referent. Boundedness of Malagasy

deictic adjectives/pronouns does not imply the physical shape of referents. The bounded io may refer to a

non-extended object such as a ball, or to an extended object such as a fishing pole. Boundedness in deictic

adjectives/pronouns is manifested as static versus dynamic. A static referent, namely a non-moving object,

regardless of its shape, is construed as bounded and may be referred to with io. The unbounded iny refers to

a “moving” referent such as a car or a moving toy on a table. An object staying at a fixed location is a

conceptual extension of boundedness, while an object that is moving and not staying at a precise location is

conceptually construed as an unbounded object. It is not hard to see conceptual continuum between

boundedness and the static state of a referent on one hand, and between unboundedness and the dynamic

state of a referent on the other.

When the speaker refers to a single cup on a table, s/he can use either distance-neutral io or a distance-

sensitive form such as itý ‘this’ and irý ‘that’. The speaker can use io by assuming that the addressee can

110

easily identify a single referent in the searching domain. This use is parallel to a use of the definite article,

the, in English. Nevertheless, s/he has an option to further specify its location by adding the information

about its distance from the speaker by using a distance-sensitive deictic.

Iny denotes [motion] of a referent (see section 4.8 for the parameter [motion]). It also refers to an

object that the addressee is holding. But it should be distinguished from addressee-anchored demonstratives

in other languages. Although addressee-anchored demonstratives in other languages refer to a

referent/location close/attached to the addressee, Malagasy iny denotes a referent that the addressee is

holding or wearing but not a body part of the addressee nor a referent close to the addressee. (As we will

see later, locationals are relaxed on this matter and may refer to the addressee’s unbounded proximity.) We

propose that this use of iny arises by the extension of the [motion] parameter. This extension must be based

on the conceptual continuity between a moving object and an object controlled by the addressee. An object

controlled by the addressee is conceptually “movable” without the speaker’s control. The parameter

[unbounded] encoded by iny/ireny is extended to [motion], and [motion] is, in turn, extended to the

addressee’s [control].

4.7.4. Distance-neutral visible locationals

eo Visible [Bounded-->Precise]

eny Visible [Unbounded-->Vague]

Visible [Unbounded-->Addressee’s unbounded/Addressee’s control]

Eo and eny are distance-neutral locationals. Eo and eny denote a visible region without specifying the

[distance] parameter. Morphologically, eo and erý are parallel to bounded eto and unbounded etý. Eo in

(13a) refers to a region bounded within a square, while eny in (13b) refers to an unbounded region near a

cup.

(13) Bounded versus unbounded

a. eo (in a square far from the speaker)

b. eny akaikin’ io koapy io.Loc.Unbnd near Dem.Bnd cup Dem.Bnd‘There near the cup.’

111

In other instances, the boundedness of eo is realized as a precise location and the unboundedness of eny is

realized as a vague location that may be translated to English expressions such as “hereabout” or

“thereabout”. Examples of precise eo are (14a-b), examples of vague eny are (14c-d).

(14) Precise versus vague

a. eo anatin’ io koapy ioLoc.Bnd in Dem.Bnd cup Dem.Bnd‘There in the cup.’ (A ball in a transparent cup close to the speaker).

b. apetraho eo itý/itoput Loc.Bnd this/this‘Put this there (far from the speaker).’

c. apetraho enyput Loc.Unbnd‘Put it (somewhere) there (the speaker is even not looking at the location, he may keep reading a book).

d. tsy-main-tsy eny ananonanona eny atomus Loc.Unbnd somewhere Loc.Unbnd Loc.Inv.Prox.Bnd

amin’ itý afitrano itý ny kitapo-nao.in this room this Det bag-2Sg‘Your bag must be (somewhere) here in this room.’

The parameter [precise] is semantically related to [boundedness], and the parameter [vague] is

semantically related to [unboundedness]. In other words, [precise] is linked to [boundedness], and we

consider [boundedness] to be a core parameter that is shared by other morphologically related forms. We

assume that [precise] is a conceptual extension of [boundedness]. In the same vein, [vague] is a conceptual

extension of [unboundedness].

In addition, eny encodes the addressee’s unbounded proximal region or controlling location. This

association with the “addressee” probably arises because of parallelism with the demonstrative counterpart

iny that encodes the addressee’s control. The parameter of eny that pertains to the “addressee” is not

restricted to the addressee’s control, as in the case of iny, but may refer to either ‘in the addressee’s hand’,

which is under the addressee’s control, or to the addressee’s unbounded proximity, which is not under the

addressee’s control. Location of a cup on the addressee’s palm, for instance, is referred to with eny. It may

be because one’s palm is movable and easily associated with unboundedness.

112

(15a-b) are examples of eny that refers to [addressee’s unbounded proximal] region.

(15) a. apetraho eny anoloha-nao enyput Loc.Unbnd front-2Sg Loc.Unbnd‘Put it there in front of you.’

b. eny akaiki-nao eny misy iray.Loc.Unbnd near-2Sg Loc.Unbnd exist one‘There is one there near you.’

In (15a), the region was indicated by a large semi-circle near the addressee. An informant commented that

if the region had been narrower (e.g., a small circle), eo would have been used. In (15b), the region close to

the addressee was sufficient to use eny regardless of whether it is right in front of the speaker, toward the

right hand side, or toward the left hand side. The meaning of eny in such cases is similar to thereabout or

somewhere near you in English.

As in the case of an adjective/pronoun io and its proximal counterpart ito and itý, once the region is

contacted by the speaker, the proximal eto is used instead of the precise eo. It implies that the parameter

[contact/control] by the speaker is a strong parameter that does not leave distance unmarked by using a

distance-neutral form eo.

4.7.5. Distance-neutral invisible locationals

ao Invisible [Bounded-->Precise]

any Invisible [Unbounded-->Vague]

Invisible [Unbounded-->Addressee’s unbounded/Addressee’s control]

Invisible ao and any are morphologically parallel to visible counterparts eo and eny, respectively. As this

parallelism holds for their semantics, ao denotes a distance-neutral invisible bounded location and a

distance-neutral invisible precise location. The latter is a conceptual extension of the former. (16a-b) are

examples that ao is referring to an invisible bounded and precise region.

113

(16) a. hita-nao ve itsy building itsy?see-2Sg Q that building that‘Do you see that building there?’

m-isy bus-station ao ambatik’ io building ao/*eo Int-exist bus-station Loc.Inv.Bnd behind Dem.Bnd building Loc.Inv.Bnd/*Loc.Vis.Bnd‘A bus station exists there behind the building.’

b. ao amban’ ny itý/itsy/irýLoc.Inv.Bnd under Det this/that/that‘(Right) there under this/that/that.’

On the other hand, any denotes a distance-neutral invisible location that is unbounded and vague. Although

those parameters tend to be unclear in actual use and hard to detect because a designated location is

invisible, there are some convincing examples. One such example was that any referred to the location of

an invisible balloon that flew away in the sky. Any in this example denotes an unbounded and vague

invisible region of the sky. The following is an example from Garvey (1964a) that denotes a vague location.

(17) any an-trano-ko ny boki-nyLoc.Inv.Unbnd at-house-1Sg Det book Det‘His book is somewhere there in my house.’ (The speaker is far away from the house) (Garvey 1964a: 9.51)

In the same way as visible eny form, invisible any also denotes either the addressee’s proximal region

under the addressee’s control or an unbounded region around the addressee.

In (18) below, any is marking an invisible location of a referent controlled by the addressee.

(18) any anatin’ ny paosi-nao anyLoc.Inv.Unbnd in Det pocket-2Sg Loc.Inv.Unbnd‘There in your pocket’

Any in (19a-c) refers to a region close to or around the addressee without specifying a particular

demarcation of space.

(19) a. (Over the phone)Manao ahoana ny toetr’ andro anydo how Det character day Loc.Inv.Unbnd‘How’s the weather over there?’

114

b. misy tape-recorder any akaiki-nao anyexist tape-recorder Loc.Inv.Unbnd near-2Sg Loc.Inv.Unbnd‘There is a tape-recorder near you.’ (The speaker is in a room. The addressee is in another room.)

c. apetraho any akaiki-nao any itý koapy itýput Loc.Inv.Unbnd near-2Sg Loc.Inv.Unbnd this cup this‘Put this cup near you.’ (The area around the addressee was not visible to the speaker because of a screen between the speaker and the addressee)

In practice, differences between any and ao tend to become trivial.

(20) (Over the phone)A: efa ao ve ilay zana-ko vavy?

already Loc.Inv.Bnd Q Det child-1Sg female‘Has my daughter been there already?’

B: aha efa ato izyyes already Inv.Prox.Bnd 3Sg‘Yes, she is already here.’

A: t-amin’ ny firy izy no tonga t-any?Past-when Det how.many 3Sg Lk arrive Past-Loc.Inv.Unbnd‘What time did she arrive there?’

Speaker A used ao first and switched to any to refer to the same place where her daughter was. The

probable explanation here is that the speaker focused on the location of her daughter at first, thus choosing

to use the precise locational ao. After the speaker’s daughter’s arrival was confirmed, she changed her

focus to the arrival time of her daughter and used any to denote the vicinity of the addressee with no

emphasis on the exactness of the location of her daughter.8

4.8. Motion

4.8.1. Motion in Malagasy

4.8.1.1. Motion and unbounded

Malagasy iny form, a distance-neutral unbounded demonstrative, may refer to a moving referent. As

discussed earlier, the parameter [motion] is considered a conceptual extension of being [unbounded], based

on conceptual continuity between the two. In this section, we will see the notion of [motion] of Malagasy

iny form in detail.

115

4.8.1.2. Translocation

In the following examples, [motion] denotes the physical motion of a referent moving from one point to

another point in a linear translocational manner.

(21) a. mandeha mafy iny tomobilna inyrunning fast Dem.Unbnd.Sg automobile Dem.Unbnd.Sg‘That car is running fast.’

b. tsara tarehy iny tomobilina inygood face Dem.Unbnd.Sg automobile Dem.Unbnd.Sg‘That car is beautiful.’ (The car is passing by)

c. ireny ny anaoDem.Unbnd.Pl Det yours‘Those are yours.’ (At a horse race.)

d. lasa n-anaraka an’ iny renirano iny ny satao-kogone Past-follow at Dem.Unbnd.Sg river Dem.Unbnd.Sg Det hat-1Sg‘My hat floated away on the river.’

The movement of translocation of a referent is encoded by iny or its plural form ireny. Directions of motion

are irrelevant. In (21d), movement of the water in the river is foregrounded.

4.8.1.3. Oscillation and Rotation

[Motion] is not restricted to linear translocation but may include oscillation and rotation. (22a) is an

example in which iny denotes the referent swinging back and forth. (22b) is an example of iny referring to a

rotating object.

(22) a. Oscillation

iny mivezivezy inyDem.Unbnd.Sg swing Dem.Unbnd.Sg‘That is swinging.’

b. Rotation

iny fa mihodina ilay kilalaoDem.Unbnd.Sg and turn Det toy‘That one is the toy that is rotating.’

116

4.8.1.4. Fictive motion

If we are driving a car and see plastic orange road cones lined up along the shoulder of the road, they

appear to be moving from the front toward the back. When we were in a car, we encountered such illusions,

and informants used iny to refer to a single road cone and ireny to refer to lined-up road cones. Illusionary

motion of a referent because of the movement of the observer motivated the use of an unbounded dynamic

deictic. Talmy (2000a: 130) calls such a situation “local frame fictive motion” because ‘the observer is

presented as stationary and her surroundings as moving relative to her from her perspective.’ The uses of

Malagasy iny and ireny exemplify that the local fictive motion is encoded in the same fashion as factive or

actual motion in deictics. (23) is another example of the local frame fictive motion. If there is a very long

fishing line lying straight and the speaker is walking along it, he may say something such as what is shown

in (23).

(23) Local frame fictive motion

tsy misy fiafarany iny adim-pitana inynot exist end Dem.Unbnd.Sg string-fishing Dem.Unbnd.Sg‘There is no end to this fishing line.’

There is no movement of the “figure”, namely the fishing line. What moves is the speaker; however, the

speaker conceptualizes the fishing line as moving and refers to it with iny.

Another case of fictive motion is created by the movement of a “ground” object against a figure. In

this case, as the ground object or the background moves, and the stationary figure object looks as if it were

moving. We call it “ground frame fictive motion”.

(24) Ground frame fictive motion

a. irý bolona irý‘That moon’

b. iny bolona iny‘That moon.’

(24a) illustrates that the moon is usually referred to with the static distal form irý. In the situation of (24b)

there are clouds, ground objects, or background around the figure object, namely the moon. When clouds

117

around the moon move against the moon, the moon itself looks as if it were in motion. Consequently, the

moon is referred to with iny.

So far we have seen cases where dynamic deictics were used because of the illusionary motion of a

referent(s). In the following sentences in (25), either the dynamic deictic iny or the static deictic irý was

used, even though there was no illusionary motion of the referent.

(25) Coextension path fictive motion of an observer

a. araho iny lalana irýfollow Dem.Unbnd.Sg road that‘Follow that road.’

b. araho irý lalana irýfollow that road that‘Follow that road.’

What makes it possible to use the dynamic deictic iny in (25a) is fictive motion, or more precisely, the

imagined motion of a person or an observer who fictively travels along a road. This is a type of fictive

motion that Talmy (2000a: 138) calls “coextension path” (cf. Langacker 1987: 171). In coextension path

fictive motion, an imagined figure moves along a path as if a concrete figure physically travels along it. In

(25), the dynamic deictic iny is more appropriate if a substantial part of the road is seen and trajectory is

easily imagined. The static deictic irý is more appropriate if only a segment of the road is visible and when,

for example, one sees a small segment of the road but not the winding part over the hill. The use of iny

implies that a substantial extension of the road has been perceived and that fictive motion has been

conceptualized.

In (26) below, the speaker is standing by a fishing line lying in front of her. Only the focus of attention

by the observer moves along the fishing line. This type of fictive motion is also called “coextension path”

by Talmy.

(26) Coextension path fictive motion of focus of attention

a. tsy misy fiafarany iny adim-pitana inynot exist end\ Dem.Unbnd.Sg string-fishing Dem.Unbnd.Sg‘There is no end to that fishing line.’

b. tsy misy fiafarany itý adim-pitana itýnot exist end this string-fishing this‘There is no end to this fishing line.’

118

In (26), dynamic iny is more appropriate than static itý when the speaker points at the fishing line with her

index finger and moves her finger along the line. On the other hand, static itý is more appropriate when the

speaker is pointing at a specific part of the fishing line without moving her index finger. The parallelism of

different gestures and the deictic forms reflect the conceptualization of the observer. Other examples of this

type are (27a-d).

(27) Coextension path fictive motion of focus of attention

a. hitanao ve iny lalana iny?see Q Dem.Unbnd.Sg road Dem.Unbnd.Sg‘Can you see that road?’

b. hitanao ve irý lalana irý?see Q that road that‘Can you see that road?’

c. maloto iny lalana inydirty Dem.Unbnd.Sg road Dem.Unbnd.Sg‘That road is dirty.’

d. maloto itý lalana itýdirty this road this‘This road is dirty.’

Iny in (27c) implies that the road from the beginning to the end is dirty, even if the entire road is not

actually seen. Itý in (27d) refers to the portion of the road that is seen.

In English, prepositions such as around in There is a fence around that house and across in There is a

house across the road, manifest fictive motion. The former is another example of coextension paths. The

latter is an example of access paths. ‘An access path is a depiction of a stationary object’s location in terms

of a path that some other entity might follow to the point of encounter with the object’ (Talmy 2000a: 137).

The lack of unbounded dynamic deictics in the following examples indicate that Malagasy’s motion

deictics are more restrictive than English prepositions for encoding fictive motion.

(28) a. misy trano irý/*iny manapaka ny lalana irý/*inyexist house that/*iny across Det road that/*iny‘There is a house across that road.’

b. misy tambaho manodidina an’ itsy trano itsyexist fence around at that house that‘There is a fence around that house.’

119

As pointed out by Talmy (p.c.), in the case of an access path, if the speaker were pointing, he would point

fixedly at the referent. (28a) is an example of an access path. Here, if the speaker were pointing, he would

point fixedly at the house. Here, the entity in fictive motion is not the house but an imaginary person

walking across the street to find the house. In (28b), a coextension path, imagined motion of focus of

attention is less salient than examples in (26). Thus, the Malagasy unbounded form would only be used

where the relevant entity or the focus of attention is in fictive motion, in frame-relative motion or a

coextension path.

4.8.1.5. Back-grounding of motion

4.8.1.5.1. Visually non-salient motion

In one case of table-top settings, a small doll walked slowly across the table. When the doll was close to the

speaker, informants easily used iny to refer to the walking doll; however, when the doll was placed near the

far end of the table, an informant preferred to use a distance-sensitive, non-dynamic form rather than a

distance-neutral, dynamic deictic iny, while another informant used iny without difficulty. The informant

who opted for a static form commented that the movement of the doll was not fast enough. It indicates that

the doll walking at the same speed looked slower as it was put farther away and the motion of the referent

became less salient. Similarly, another informant explained that if a person was running from left to right in

front of the speaker, iny would be used, but if a person was running on a track very far from the speaker,

the static irý would be used. It suggests that translocational motion at a distance is not visually salient,

which makes iny less suitable. Remember that cones on a shoulder of the road seen from a moving car were

referred to with the dynamic deictic ireny. However, houses seen from a car were not referred to with a

dynamic deictic. It must be because when houses are rather distal, their fictive motion becomes less salient.

4.8.1.5.2. Fictive non-motion

The inverse of illusionary local frame fictive motion is illusionary fictive non-motion. It was noted when

the speaker in our car referred to another car moving right next to ours.

120

(29) Fictive non-motion

itsy automobilina itsy‘that car’

The static deictic itsy was used in (29), because the car did not look like it was moving while both cars

were moving side by side at the same speed.

4.8.1.5.3. Irrelevant motion

Visually non-salient motion and illusionary fictive non-motion are cases where the referent looks as if it

were static. There is another case when the appearance of a moving referent does not change, but the

attention of the speaker becomes less and the notion of motion is backgrounded.

(30) a. lasa n-anaraka an’ iny renirano iny ny satao-kogone past-follow at Dem.Unbnd.Sg river Dem.Unbnd.Sg Det hat-1Sg‘My hat floated away on the river.’

b. tsara tarehy irý/??iny renirano irý/??inybeautiful appearance that/??Dem.Unbnd.Sg river that/??Dem.Unbnd.Sg‘The river is beautiful.’

In (30a) (copied from (21d)), the observer profiles the movement of the flowing water in the river. In (30b),

on the other hand, the observer profiles the shape of the river most probably including banks of it or the

color of water without paying much attention to the movement of the water. The sentence describes the

shape or color of the river but abstracts away the motion of the water flow probably because it is not fast

enough to catch the observer’s eyes. Thus the motion of the water is backgrounded and the river is not

referred to with a dynamic deictic. This concludes [motion] in Malagasy. We see a different type of

[motion] in Apatani below.

4.8.2. Imperatives in Apatani

Adding an imperative suffix to a verb root forms imperatives in Apatani. There are two imperative suffixes,

-to and -()e. Abraham (1985) argues that those two forms code proximity and distality in imperative

constructions. ‘When the hearer is in proximity or the proposed place of action is in proximity (with

reference to the speaker), to is added to the verb to form imperative. . . When the hearer is away from the

121

speaker or the proposed place of action is away from the speaker, then e is added to the verb to form

imperative’ (Abraham 1985: 101-102). -()e attaches to a mono-syllabic root and -e to a multi-syllabic root.

Table 33. Apatani imperative forms

suffix -to -e‘Sing!’ gai-to gai-e‘Stand!’ bari-to bari-e

-e‘Dance!’ nasu mu-to nasu mu-e‘Give!’ bi-to bi-e‘Sit!’ du-to du-e

In order to re-examine the meanings of the two types of imperatives, informants were asked to make

appropriate sentences in order to command the addressee to do a designated action in different situations.

When the speaker and the addressee were close to each other, and the speaker commanded the addressee to

do something without changing the addressee’s location, the speaker used a -to form. Examples in (31)

were utterances in such a situation.

(31) a. no bari-to2Sg stand-Imp‘Stand up.’

b. nasu mu-todance do-Imp‘Dance.’

c. sika kitab mi myopi ho atu-tothis book Acc floor Loc put-Imp‘Put this book on the floor.’

In the following examples, the speaker asked the addressee, who was at some distance from the speaker, to

initiate an action. The speaker still used a -to form. It indicates that the distance between the speaker and

the addressee does not bear part of the distinction of the two imperative suffixes. Note that in (32b), a

deictic locational ho denotes a location near the addressee and distal from the speaker; nevertheless the -to

imperative suffix is used.

(32) a. no bari-to2Sg stand-Imp‘Stand up.’

122

b. turla mi ho atu-tocup Acc Adr.Loc put Imp‘Put the cup there (near you).’

It was when the speaker commanded the addressee to move away from the speaker that the -()e imperative

suffix was used as shown in (33). This is a case of centrifugal motion of the addressee relative to the

speaker.

(33) Centrifugal motion

a. so kula inso ing-ngehere from there walk-Imp‘Walk from here to there.’

b. du-esit-Imp

c. gai-esing-Imp

Temporal sequence between motion and an action are either simultaneous or the action followed by motion.

In (33a) the addressee moved to a chair and sat. In (33c), the addressee reached the destination and started

singing, or she moved along singing. It does not mean that the addressee finished singing and started

moving. Thus, centrifugal motion of the addressee is marked with the -()e imperative suffix. The

centrifugal motion of an object, however, is irrelevant for the use of -()e. When an object moved away

from the speaker, -to but not -()e was used.

(34) ska bol mi inso ripa-tothis ball Acc there throw-Imp‘Throw this ball there.’

Centripetal motion is expressed with the -to suffix.

(35) Centripetal motion

so a-to kohere come-Imp now/next‘Now, come (back) here.’

123

In brief, -(g)e encodes an action with centrifugal motion of the addressee relative to the speaker, -to

encodes an action with centripetal motion or non-motion of the addressee relative to the speaker. -()e is

semantically more marked than -to. We call -()e a ‘centrifugal imperative suffix’ and -to an ‘unmarked

imperative suffix’. As in centrifugal motion, centripetal motion of an object seems to be irrelevant in

choosing imperative suffixes.

(36) hka ball-mi so tul-to-peAdr ball Acc Prox.Loc pass-Imp-Ben‘Pass that ball to me here.’

There are two possible reasons for using -to in this example. First, because the object moves centripetally.

Second, because the addressee stayed in the same position. The second reason is consistent with the

example of centrifugal motion above, which indicates that the motion of an object is irrelevant for the

contrast of -to and -()e.

In the case of transversal motion of the addressee relative to the speaker, either suffix was used. In

(37a) the speaker asked the addressee at some distance from the speaker to move to another location that

was equally distant from the speaker and kicked a ball. In (37b), the speaker asked the addressee to move to

a chair and sit on it.

(37) Transversal motion

a. inka bol mi tu-ngethat ball Acc kick-Imp‘Kick the ball.’

b. intoso du-toEmp-remote.Loc sit-Imp‘(Go) and sit there.’

It seems that, in some transversal situations, the speaker feels that the distance between the referent and

himself/herself is widened, which triggers the use of -nge. If the speaker does not feel so, then -to will be

used.

Two informants explained that they can say ha-e ‘run!’ with a gesture of moving one’s hand away

from one’s body, while they can say ha-to ‘run!’ with a gesture of moving one’s hand toward one’s body or

124

from side to side. They also confirmed that they would not use ha-to with a gesture of moving one’s hand

away from one’s body. These gestures agree with the meanings of two imperative suffixes. Grammatically,

these imperative suffixes are neither demonstrative adjectives, demonstrative pronouns, nor deictic

locationals; nevertheless, they are very much deictic, therefore, we treated them as a kind of spatial deixis.

As discussed in section 2.5.4, languages that encode the parameter of [motion] in deictics are

categorized into three types. The first type encodes [motion] without referring to direction, distance, or

destination. The second type encodes [motion] as well as direction from the perspective of the speaker. The

third type encodes [motion] as well as the distance to the goal/destination. Malagasy falls into the first type,

while Apatani falls into the second type. Furthermore, examples in Malagasy involve movement of a

referent at the time of utterance. Malagasy focuses on the motion of a referent at the time of utterance,

which uses motion encoding only for a referent in motion. (The speaker may imagine a fictive movement at

the time of utterance.) Apatani deictic imperatives, on the other hand, may encode a referent that has

already reached a goal and is not in motion at the time of utterance.

4.9. Invisibility

4.9.1. Invisible-peripheral sense in Mizo

Mizo in the data indicates that the language encodes an invisible referent emitting a smell as well as a

sound. Chu and its reduplicated form chuu chu are the forms to refer to a sound or a smell. When

informants heard a sound without knowing the location of the source, they used chu.

(38) engnge ri chuwhat sound that‘What is that sound?’

When they smelled something without knowing its source, they used chu.

(39) chuu chueng rim nge?that that whatsmell what‘What is that smell?’

All informants refused to use chu exophorically to refer to a referent/region that is invisible by occlusion,

such as something behind a box, behind a curtain, under a sheet, or in a box. When informants shook a box

125

and had a guess at the object in the box, they did not use chu. In (40) a proximal hei hi was used to refer to

the unseen object inside the box rather than to the sound made by shaking the box.

(40) hei hi lekhabu ani-mai-theithis this book may.be‘Maybe this is a book.’

These data exemplify that chu encoding the parameter [auditory] and [olfactory] is not used for invisible

referents but for a sound or a smell of an invisible referent, and is distance-neutral. It is for this reason that,

in a conversation over the phone, the speaker would refer to the location of the addressee with khaa lai

‘that place’ but not with chu. Khaa is a form encoding the parameter of the [addressee].

Another informant uttered the following examples when she heard a chirp from behind the addressee.

(41) a. chuu-chu enge?that.Inv what‘What is that (sound)?’

b. khaa-kha enge?that.Adr what‘What is that?’

The choice between chu and khaa depends on the referent that the form denotes. Chu is referring to the

sound coming from behind the addressee, and khaa is referring to a bird that is making a sound.

As we saw in section 2.5.6.3.3, forms denoting [invisible-peripheral sense] tend to have anaphoric

uses. More often than not, chu in Mizo was used anaphorically. For instance, the speaker may refer to a

book store in the next town that both the speaker and the addressee know the location of, or that only the

speaker knows but that has already been introduced to a discourse.

4.9.2. Peripheral sensory constraint

Languages that do not have distinctive forms for a sound or a smell may use one of the forms otherwise

encoding visible referents to refer to invisible referents. Using deictics for olfactory sense seems to have

more restrictions than auditory sense. For instance, in Japanese, both a proximal form and a distal form

may be used in the case of referring to a sound, while only a proximal form can be used to refer to a smell.

Although less precise than vision, people are capable of detecting distance from and direction of the origin

126

of a sound. According to Moore (1989), the direction of a sound source can be calculated by the miniscule

difference in timing that sound waves reach each ear. The accuracy is improved by moving one’s head like

an antenna. Distance from a source may be calculated by the sound pressure and the timing difference

between the direct sound and its reflection; however, accuracy of calculating distance is lower than the

calculation of its direction. In the case of a smell that is perceived by sensory cells in the nose, the location

of the source is not calculable. Olfactory information detected in the speaker’s nose, which is proximal to

the speaker, is coded with a proximal form, and the use of a distal form is excluded. The difference

between deictic forms used for a sound or a smell reflects the difference between auditory perception and

olfactory perception. Data parallel to the case of Japanese were observed in Korean and Apatani. In these

languages, both a proximal and a distal form were used for a sound, while only a proximal form was used

for a smell.9

There are languages that allow non-proximal forms for a smell as well. English is such a language.10

Both proximal and distal forms were used for a smell as well as a sound in English. The conceptualization

of the situations behind these uses may be as follows: a referent that is emitting a smell is construed to be

distal as it is out of the speaker’s field of vision. The smell itself on the other hand can be construed as

proximal; therefore, either a distal form referring to the source of the smell or a proximal form referring to

the sensation of the smell is possible. Thus, superficially, there appears to be no constraint in the use of

distance-sensitive deictics in English conditioned by the mode of access.

4.9.3. Invisible-peripheral sense in Malagasy

Malagasy encodes invisible referents accessible only by a non-visual sense, that is auditory, olfactory,

visceral, or cutaneous sensation. This [peripheral sense] parameter is marked in demonstrative

adjectives/pronouns. Malagasy also encodes invisibility caused by occlusion, irrespective of the peripheral

senses in locationals. Let us see the [peripheral sense] in demonstrative adjectives/pronouns first. There are

two forms denoting this parameter, izao and izany. Izao is morphologically parallel to bounded forms,

while izany is morphologically parallel to unbounded forms. Izao, a bounded form, denotes a sound whose

source is identifiable, but not a smell. Izany, an unbounded form, denotes a sound or a smell whose source

is unknown. This seems to be another example reflecting that auditory sense but not olfactory sense is

127

capable of calculating direction and distance of the source, which we saw in the case of Japanese, Korean,

and Apatani. (42a-d) are examples of referents that were audible but not visible.

(42) Auditory

a. inona izao mitabataba izaowhat Inv.Bnd noise Inv.Bnd‘What’s that noise?’

b. inona izany mitabataba izanywhat Inv.Unbnd noise Inv.Unbnd‘What’s that noise?’

c. inona izao resahi-nareo izao?what Inv.Bnd talk-2Pl Inv.Bnd‘What were you guys talking about?’

d. inona izany resahi-nareo izany ?what Inv.Unbnd talk-2Pl Inv.Unbnd‘What were you guys talking about?’

Izao in (42c) and izany in (42d) refer to physical vocalization, for example, an unclear voice heard from the

next room. In (43), izao refers to the sound itself.

(43) toy izao no feonylike Inv.Bnd Lk sound‘The sound is like this (followed by making a sound).’

(44a-c) are examples referring to a smell. As indicated in (44b), izao was not used for a smell.

(44) Olfactory

a. inona izany fofona izanywhat Inv.Unbnd smell Inv.Unbnd‘What is that smell?’

b.*inona izao fofona izaowhat Inv.Bnd smell Inv.Bnd‘What is that smell?’

c. mantra laoka izy izanygood.smell meat it Inv.Unbnd‘This is a good meat smell.’

The next example shows that izany may also refer to visceral sensations.

128

(45) Visceral sensation

inona áry izany marary izanywhat so Inv.Unbnd pain Inv.Unbnd‘So, what is this pain?’

The following examples show that a cutaneous sensation or a feeling on one’s skin can also be encoded

with izany. The unbounded form izany is applicable in such a case probably because the boundary or the

shape of an object is not felt or concerned.11

(46) Cutaneous sensation

a. (There is a water bag on the speaker’s back.)mangatsika (izy) izanycold (it) Inv.Unbnd‘It is cold.’

b. (The speaker is touching a water bag with his/her feet)mangatsika itý izanycold this Inv.Unbnd‘This is cold.’

4.9.4. Invisible-Occlusion

Malagasy has different means for indicating that an object is invisible because of occlusion and that the

region in which such an object is invisible because of occlusion. Invisible-occlusion is encoded in deictic

locationals for regions but not in demonstrative adjectives/pronouns for objects. Invisible

adjectives/pronouns, as we saw above, indicate a sound, a smell, or a feeling. Other means are used to

indicate an occluded invisible object. (47a) shows that a determiner ilay precedes a noun denoting an

invisible referent. In (47b), a determiner ny marks an invisible referent. (47c) shows that a noun referring to

an invisible object may also be used without a preceding determiner. The ungrammaticality of (47d)

indicates that an invisible object cannot be referred to with i- forms that are reserved for visible objects.

(47) a. n-apetra-ko atsy ilay vola madinikapast-put-1Sg.Obl there.Inv Det money small‘I put the coin there (under the cup).’

b. mangamanga ny koapy anyblue Det cup Loc.Inv.Unbnd.‘A blue cup is there.’

129

c. misy ø vola ao anatin’ itsy horona itsyexist ø money Loc.Inv.Bnd in that bag that‘There is money there in that bag.’

d.*n-apetra-ko atsy itsy vola madinika itsypast-put-1Sg.Obl there.Inv that money small that‘I put the coin there (under the cup).’

Ilay seems to denote a shared knowledge by the speaker and the addressee. The nature of ny is not clear at

present. In the following, we focus on invisible locational forms.

Now we look at locationals encoding [invisible-occlusion]. These locationals indicate an invisible area,

an invisible space, or a location of an object that is behind an obstacle, under something, or in a container.

Malagasy locationals have both distance-sensitive and distance-neutral forms denoting [invisibility] by

occlusion.

Table 34. Malagasy: Invisible-occlusion locationals

Proximal Med. Distal Distance-NeutralBounded Unbounded Bounded Unboundedato atý atsy arý ao any

From ato to arý in table 34 are distance-sensitive forms. In a tabletop task, a coin was placed under a cup.

Sentences like (48) depicted the invisibility of the location at which the coin was placed. Table 35 shows

forms used in this setting.

(48) ato ambanin’ itý kaopy itýhere.Inv.Bnd under this cup this‘Here under this cup.’

Table 35.

Spk 0 cm 20 cm 40 cm 60 cm 80 cm 100 cm 120 cm 140 cm 160 cmato ato ato atsy atsy atsy arý aryy aryy arý

Malagasy has two invisible proximal locationals. One is ato, which denotes a bounded location; the other is

atý, which denotes an unbounded location. No atý form appeared in the above situation. Atý is used, for

instance, when the speaker tells the temperature of where he is to his friend over the phone. In this case, the

130

area where the speaker is may be referred to with atý without any implication of a particular demarcation of

a space surrounding the speaker.

Distance neutral forms encoding an invisible location are ao and any. Ao denotes a bounded or precise

invisible location, and any denotes an invisible unbounded or vague location, usually the vicinity of the

addressee, which may be visible to the addressee but not to the speaker. The notion of [precise] is an

extension of the notion of [bounded], and the notion [vague] is an extension of the notion of [unbounded]

(see section 4.9.7. for conceptual links and extensions of ao and any).

As shown in the figure 3 below, the location of a coin at the bottom of a cup, under a cup, under an

inverted cup, or of a cup behind a screen is marked by ato encoding a bounded invisible region.

Figure 3. Occlusion

ato ato ato ato

In the following, we see other examples of an invisible location enclosed by an object, underneath an object,

or behind an object. The examples in (49) show markings of an invisible location because of enclosure.

(49) Enclosure/Interior

a. (a referent is in a bag)inona ny ao anatin’ iny paoketra-nao inywhat Det Loc.Inv.Bnd in Dem.Unbnd bag-2Sg Dem-Unbnd‘What do you have there in your bag.’

b. (A doctor who is the speaker touches his patient’s back)ato / eto ve?Loc.Inv.Prox.Bnd/Loc.Vis.Prox.Bnd Q‘Is it here?’

If the doctor implies not the surface but the inside of the patient’s body, he uses ato. If the doctor

designates the surface of the patient’s body, he uses eto.

Examples of invisible marking because the designated location is under something are as follows:

131

(50) Inferior

a. n-apetra-ko aopast-put-1Sg Loc.Inv.Bnd‘I put it there.’ (Under the cup, which is definite and precise)

b. misy vola madinika ato ambanin’ itý taratasy itý.exist money small Loc.Inv.Prox.Bnd under this paper this‘There is a coin here under this paper.’

c. apetraho ato/eto ambanin’ ito taratasy ito iny volaput Loc.Inv.Prox.Bnd/Loc.Prox.Bnd under this paper this Dem.Unbnd money

mandinika inysmall Dem.Unbnd‘Put that coin (in your hand) here under this paper.’

In (50c), ato, an invisible form, is used when the speaker designates an invisible region under a piece of

paper. Eto, a visible form, is used when the speaker grabs an edge of the paper and lifts it slightly in order

to show the region under the paper to the addressee. Examples of marking an invisible location because the

designated location is behind something are as follows:

(51) Posterior

a (Referring to the distal location of a ball behind a cup.)ao ambatik’ irý koapy irýLoc.Inv.Bnd behind that cup that‘There behind that cup.’

b. A: aiza ny kaopi-nao?Where Det cup-2Sg?‘Where is your cup?’

B: atsy an-dakozia atsy.Loc.Inv.Med at-kitchen Loc.Inv.Med‘There in the kitchen.’

c. (The speaker is in room A. The addressee is in room B. A blue cup is in room C.)mangamanga ny koapy arýblue Det cup Loc.Inv.Dist‘The blue cup is there (in room C).’

(51b-c) may be construed as examples of either posterior or interior.

There is no distinctive form denoting invisibility because of an extreme distance or meaning ‘far

beyond sight’; however arý denoting a distal occluded region may also be applied to a distal region out of

132

sight. Arý was used in (52) with a pointing gesture toward the direction of a region beyond the speaker’s

sight.

(52) a. (The speaker is telling the addressee where he was waiting for a bus)t-arý amin ny bus stationpast-Loc.Inv.Dist in Det bus station‘There (invisible) at the bus station.’

b. (Answering an inquiry of the location of a JC-Penney)ArýLoc.Inv.Dist‘There! (invisible)’

4.9.5. Asymmetric invisibility: Invisible to the speaker but visible to the addressee

In a situation where a region is invisible to the speaker but visible to the addressee, invisible forms are

usually applied. We have encountered some such instances cited elsewhere. We will repeat some of them

with other examples below. In (53), the region around the addressee was not visible to the speaker because

of a screen between the speaker and the addressee.

(53) apetraho any akaiki-nao any itý koapy itýput Loc.Inv.Unbnd near-2Sg Loc.Inv.Unbnd this cup this‘Put this cup near you.’

In (54a-b), the speaker was in one room and the addressee in another. A referent was in the room with the

addressee.

(54) a. mavomavo (ilay) koapy aoyellow (Det) cup Loc.Inv.Bnd‘The cup there is yellow’

b. misy tape-recorder any akaiki-nao any.exist tape-recorder Loc.Inv.Unbnd near-2Sg Loc.Inv.Unbnd‘There is a tape-recorder there near you.’

Ao in (54a) was used probably because the speaker could specify the particular location of the referent by a

context even if the speaker did not see it.

There was one instance in which a visible form was used for a location visible to the addressee but not

to the speaker. When a doctor was touching a patient’s back, the patient would answer the doctor, ‘yes,

there’, by using eo to designate the area touched by the doctor. The area touched by the doctor was

133

identifiable by the speaker, who was the patient, because of the cutaneous sensation caused by the pressure

of the doctor’s fingers. It seemed that eo was used to refer to a precise location that the speaker could feel

in contrast with ao, which implied a location inside her body.

4.9.6. Asymmetric invisibility: Visible to the speaker but invisible to the addressee

In cases where a region is invisible to the addressee but visible to the speaker, either visible forms or

invisible forms can be applied. Visible forms were used in the following examples. In (55), the speaker told

the addressee over the phone when the speaker’s husband was with her:

(55) eto akaiki-ko eto izyLoc.Bnd near-1Sg Loc.Bnd 3Sg‘He is here by me.’

In (56) below, the speaker was in a room and the addressee was in another room. A white cup was in the

speaker’s room.

(56) misy koapy fitsyfitsy etoexist cup white Loc.Bnd‘There is a white cup here.’

In (57) below, there was a screen between the speaker and the addressee.

(57) apetraho etý akaiki-ko etý ilay koapy any ami-nao anyput Loc.Unbnd near-1Sg Loc.Unbnd Det cup Loc.Inv.Unbnd with-2SgLoc.Inv.Unbnd‘Put the cup with you here near me.’

The following are examples where invisible forms were used to refer to a location that was visible to the

speaker but invisible to the addressee. (58a-b) are examples where the speaker and the addressee conversed

on the phone.12

(58) a. alina ny andro atý. aminy firy izao any?gloss? Det day Loc.Inv.Prox.Unbnd at how.many now Loc.Inv.Unbnd‘It is day-time here. What time is it there?’

b. ho avy atý / *etý veianaoFut come Loc.Inv.Prox.Unbnd/ *Loc.Prox.Unbnd Q 2Sg‘Are you coming here?’

134

In (59) below, the speaker was in a room, and she was holding a cup while the addressee was in another

room.

(59) atý ami-ko atýLoc.Inv.Prox.Bnd with-1Sg Loc.Inv.Prox.Bnd‘(It is) here with me.’

Perspective shift must be the reason that invisible forms were used in the above examples. The speaker

used invisible forms from the perspective of the addressee who did not have visual access to the location of

the speaker. There is a plausible reason why perspective shift is preferable in the situations cited above.

When the addressee cannot see the speaker, visible forms that vary according to the distance between a

referent and the speaker, even sometimes accompanied by a pointing gesture, are of no use for the

addressee to identify the location of a designated referent or region. It is also notable that, among invisible

forms, only proximal forms denoting a region proximal to the speaker, whose location was definable either

by the speaker’s voice or by the knowledge of the addressee, were used in the above situations.

4.9.7. Conceptual extension

There are some complicating instances that require further research before a decisive and detailed account

can be given. An informant explained that ao was used to refer to the region of an object when the object

was inside something, whether it was visible or not. However, forms used in the same situation by the same

speaker alternated between a visible and an invisible form from time to time. It seemed that if the speaker

paid more attention to an enclosure configuration, she tended to use an invisible form.

(60) a. (There is a fence around a blue house. The house itself is visible.)ny trano manga ao anatin’ ny fefyDet house blue Loc.Inv.Bnd in Det fence‘A blue house is there in the fence.’

cf. b. ny trano fotsy etý ivelan’ ny fefyDet house white Loc.Prox outside Det fence‘A white house is there outside of the fence.’

(61) a. (There is a ball in a transparent cup.)eo anatin’ io koapy ioLoc.Bnd in Dem.Bnd cup Dem.Bnd‘There in the cup.’

135

b. (Pointing at a transparent plastic cup.)apetraho erý/arý/ao anatin’ irý koapy irý.put Loc.Unbnd/Loc.Inv.Dist/Loc.Inv.Bnd in that cup that‘Put it there in that cup.’

(62) (The speaker is pointing at a circle drawn on a paper)apetraho ao anatin’ irý boribory irý itýput Loc.Inv.Bnd in that circle that this‘Put this there in that circle.’

The examples above show that both visible and invisible forms may be used to refer to an enclosed but

visible region. A circle drawn on a paper did not block vision; however, the phrase antain’ irý boribory irý

‘in that circle’ may have conjured the image of an enclosure. The enclosure is conceptually associated with

invisibility; in other words, a prototypical enclosure configuration is easily combined with the notion of

[invisibility]. Such a prototypical association or conceptual extension may activate the use of invisible

forms.

Examples of other types of occlusion configuration in (63) and (64) below suggest the same. Both

visible and invisible forms were used to refer to a region partially occluded when an obstacle did not totally

block the speaker’s vision.

(63) (The region under the table is visible.)a. apetraho erý ambanin’ irý latabatra irý itý koapy itý.

put Loc.Unbnd in that table that this cup this‘Put this cup there under that table.’

b. ny saka mainty eo ambon’ ny latabatra, saka fotsy ao amban’ ny latabatra.

Det cat black Loc.Bnd on Det table cat white Loc.Inv.Bnd under Det table‘A black cat is on the table; a white cat is under the table.’

(64) (A referent under a semitransparent plastic board is visible)inona no ato ambanin’ itýwhat Lk Loc.Inv.Prox.Bnd under this‘What is there under this?’

4.10. Contact/control

4.10.1. Speaker’s contact/control

In Japanese, kore ‘this’ is used for a proximal referent, sore ‘that’ for a medial referent, and are ‘that’ for a

distal referent. A cup at in the middle distance of a table, which is 80 cm away from the speaker, may be

referred to with either kore, sore, or are depending on the speaker’s concept of the distance; however, once

136

the speaker leans over the table and touches the cup, only kore is allowed. This is a case of “direct contact”.

All 15 languages investigated showed the same pattern. As long as a referent is touched by the speaker,

regardless of whether the referent is held by the speaker or barely touched by the speaker’s extended arm,

the referent is referred to with a proximal form. If the speaker grabs a cup on the table, one can easily move

it around or control it. Holding a cup is a case of “direct control” that inevitably involves “direct contact”.

The speaker who is touching a huge rock may not be able to move or control it. This is a case of “direct

contact” without “control”.

When a cup is on the table and 160 cm away from the speaker, and the speaker touches it with a long

object like a rod or a stick, Japanese speakers usually use the proximal form kore to refer to the cup. This is

a case of “indirect contact”. Whether the contact is made by the speaker’s hand directly or with a stick-like

object indirectly does not make much difference in Japanese.

When the speaker pulls a sting attached to a cup, the speaker manipulates the cup without directly

touching it. This is a case of “indirect control” without “direct” or “indirect” contact. When the speaker

reaches a cup with a pole and manipulates it by pushing it, it is a case of “indirect control” with “indirect

contact”. As long as the speaker had contact with or control of the referent either directly or indirectly,

many speakers of languages in our data tended to use a proximal form. However, this tendency showed a

slight difference among languages, as we will see shortly. When the speaker directly contacted a referent,

in other words when the speaker touched a referent, every speaker of all the researched languages used a

proximal form (except in cases of the [contrast] parameter).

Let us see more examples of the [contact/control] parameter realized through the data of Nuer. Table

36 shows some of the deictics of Nuer.

Table 36. Nuer singular demonstratives and locationals

Prox Med/Adr DistAdj/Pron Sg (after consonant) m/m m míi

(after vowel/word initial) mm mm mmíi/mmíiLoc I Sg jn jn/jn jníi

(An underlined vowel represents a breathy voice).

137

A speaker used a distal form, jnii ‘it is there”, to refer to a cup 160 cm away; however, once he touched it

with a fishing rod, he switched to a proximal form, jn ‘it is here’. A referent touched by the speaker with

a long tool like a fishing pole was construed in the same way as the one touched with the speaker’s hand.

The tool could be a string. When the speaker was pulling a string attached to a cup located in front of the

addressee and 160 cm away from the speaker, the cup was referred to with a proximal mm rather than

with mm, a form denoting proximal to the addressee. The next example shows that touching with a

tongue was sufficient to be construed as being in the speaker’s control.

(65) a. (A doctor is touching a tooth of a patient and says:)ley m?tooth Prox‘This tooth?’

b. (A patient is touching the tooth with his tongue and replies:)ley mtooth Prox‘This tooth.’

In (66), the speaker is touching an ice bag with his feet. Touching with feet was also construed as being

within the speaker’s control.

(66) mm mi gaProx Cop one(?) good‘This is good.’

Although speakers of all languages tend to use proximal forms to refer to indirectly

contacted/controlled referents, some languages allow distal forms. In table 37, (A) indicates figures of

proximal forms, while (B) indicates the number of instances of indirect contact and indirect control. (The

data include both a single referent and plural referents on a table.)

138

Table 37. Proximal forms in indirect contact/control

Language (A) No. of Proximalforms

(B) No. of indirectcontact/control

(A)/(B) x 100 %

English 70 128 55Mundari 28 39 71Korean 63 80 79Santali 37 44 84Spanish 16 19 84Mizo 13 15 86Japanese 106 115 92Thai 93 96 97Venda 20 20 100Ao 11 11 100

(Languages whose denominator was less than 10 are omitted.)

English is the least sensitive to indirect contact/control, using non-proximal forms approximately half of the

time. In other languages, proximal forms are normally used for indirectly contacted/controlled referents.

The deviation from the normal use of proximal forms is understandable because some speakers may

not equate direct contact/control with their own hands, which is a concrete feeling, to indirect

contact/control without a concrete tactual feeling. Indirect control with a string allowed more deviation

from proximal forms than forms used for indirect contact with a stick. Touching a cup with a stick involves

more controllability than pulling a string. With a stick, the speaker may touch, (i.e., indirect contact), push,

tap on, or manipulate a cup (i.e., indirect control), while with a string (i.e., indirect control without indirect

contact), the speaker can simply pull the cup but nothing else. In the case of indirect contact/control, the

controllability influences the choice between normative proximal forms and deviated distal forms. When

the speaker senses more controllability in indirect control, s/he equates it to direct control more easily. To

summarize, a minimal requirement for using proximal-to-speaker forms is indirect contact. Proximal forms

are more likely to be used as controllability increases from indirect contact to direct contact, indirect

control, and direct control. Because proximal forms are also conditioned by proximity, a big rock that is not

manipulable but directly touched is also referred to with a proximal form. Therefore, so-called “proximal

forms” are more correctly defined as forms for referents/regions where the speaker conceptualizes their

locus within the speaker’s “territory” and the territory, in turn, is defined both in terms of relative proximity

and relative controllability.

139

4.10.2. Addressee’s direct contact and direct control in Malagasy

Malagasy belongs to the dual-anchor system. Table 38 and 39 show forms used when the addressee was at

the opposite end of the table from the speaker. Table 38 shows forms used when there was more than one

referent on the table. Table 39 shows forms used when there was a single cup at each designated location

on the table.

Table 38. Malagasy: Addressee and multiple referents

Spk 0cm 20cm 40cm 60cm 80cm 100cm 120cm 140cm 160cm Adritý itý itý itý/ito itsy/ito irý irý irý iryy/iryy e iryy e/io iny

Table 39. Malagasy: Addressee and single referent

Spk 0cm 80cm 120cm 160cm Adrio/itý io/itsy io/irý io/irý iny

As shown in table 38 and 39, speakers used a demonstrative iny for the cup only when the addressee held it.

When the cup was at a specific location close to the addressee, namely 160 cm from the speaker, which is

right in front of the addressee, either distal irý or distance neutral io, but not iny, was used. Io that refers to

a definite and specifiable object in the searching domain was not used once the addressee held the

reference; instead, iny was used. In another situation, informants used io but not iny to refer to a ball near

the addressee, who was standing far away from the speaker.13 In another situation, a cup 40 cm away from

the edge of the addressee’s side of the table was referred to with io. However, once the addressee held it,

the speaker switched to iny. The data so far suggest that iny is encoding the addressee’s contact. This view

will be refined in due course within the following discussion.

Iny could not be used to refer to a desk, a chair, or a computer keyboard when the addressee was only

touching them. The explanation given by an informant was that these objects were not “movable”. The

informant used iny when the addressee lifted the chair. It is the parameter of [control] rather than mere

[contact] that satisfies the use of iny. [Control] here implies “manipulability” of referents by the addressee.

The addressee must hold an object to manipulate it, and the object must be considered potentially and

prototypically movable. Only touching a typically immovable object is not sufficient for using iny. (67a-b)

also exemplify a manifestation of difference between [control] and [contact]. Iny was used in (67a) where a

140

piece of chalk was controlled by the addressee, while io was used in (67b) where a piece of chalk was

contacted but not controlled by the addressee.

(67) a. itý ve?‘This one?’ (holding a piece of chalk with fingers)tsy iny‘Not the one.’

b. itý ve?‘This one?’ (pointing at or barely touching a piece of chalk with an index finger, but not holding it) tsy io‘Not the one.’

The chalk is not necessarily in motion at the moment of the utterance. As long as it is conceptualized to be

movable, iny is applicable. Here, we see a link between [motion] and [control]. What are controllable and

manipulable must be movable objects. Because of this link, this use of iny to the addressee’s [control] is

considered a conceptual extension of the parameter of [motion].

The form parallel to iny is the locational deictic eny. Eny refers to a region controlled by the addressee.

The control in this case implies the manipulability of a referent by the addressee in the designated region. If

the addressee holds a cup, the speaker can refer to the region of the cup, namely the region within the

addressee’s hand, in this case with eny, because the referent in the region is under the control of the

addressee. Unlike a demonstrative io, its locational counterpart eo can be used in the same situation,

namely to refer to the addressee’s hand. However, eo is used because the region is identifiable by the

addressee and not because the region is under the control of the addressee. The notion of “control” of a

region is less salient than “control” or manipulability of a referent. Consequently, the parameter of [control]

of eo is backgrounded, and the preciseness is foregrounded.

Let us note that locational eny encodes a broader range of parameters. It refers to a region controlled

by the addressee. In addition, it refers to an unbounded region, a vague region, and the addressee’s

unbounded proximal region. The core meaning of eny denotes an unbounded region. Other meanings are

extensions of the core meaning based on conceptual continuity.

141

4.10.3. Addressee’s indirect contact and indirect control in Malagasy

The addressee’s indirect [contact] and indirect [control] are equivalent to the addressee’s direct [contact]

and direct [control], respectively, regarding the choice between io and iny. Precise and static io is used

when the speaker assumes that the addressee can identify a reference, for example, a single referent in the

searching domain. When the addressee reaches a referent with a pole, the speaker can easily assume that

the referent is identifiable by the addressee; therefore, io can be used. Once it moves, for instance, when the

addressee is pulling a string attached to a cup, iny becomes applicable. Here, iny can be used either because

the addressee’s indirect [control] of the cup licenses it or because the actual movement of the cup licenses it.

4.10.4. Addressee’s alienable/inalienable referents in Malagasy

An alienable object such as a hat, a ring, a watch, or an earring that the addressee wears or holds is referred

to with iny. Plural referents such as clothes or socks are indicated with ireny. Iny and ireny are used for

alienable objects. Alienable objects can be detached from the body or “carried” around by the addressee,

which implies the addressee’s controllability.

(68) A: tsara be iny rojo inygood very Dem.Unbnd.Sg necklace Dem.Unbnd.Sg‘That necklace is very good.’

B: taiza no n-ividiana-nao iny rojo inywhere Lk Past-buy-2Sg Dem.Unbnd.Sg necklace Dem.Unbnd.Sg‘Where did you buy that necklace?’

As in the case of direct manipulation or [control] by the addressee, referent(s) are not necessarily moving at

the time of utterance. As long as the speaker construes the referent(s) to be controllable by the addressee’s

intention, iny or ireny is applicable.

An addressee’s inalienable body part such an eye, an ear, a nose, a hand, a foot, a tooth, or hair is

indicated with io, and plural referents such as teeth and nails are indicated with ireo. These parts of the

body are probably considered to be unmanipulable by the addressee. One informant commented that body

parts may be referred to with iny when they are in motion. It may be a case that the [motion] parameter is

marked, but the [control] parameter is not. Teeth and hair are categorized as inalienable body parts in

Malagasy. However, once a tooth is removed and held in the addressee’s hand, it becomes an alienated

142

body part and would be referred to with iny. A tattoo, a Band-Aid, or paint on one’s skin is referred to with

io showing that they fall into the same category as inalienable body parts. An example of a Band-Aid on

the addressee’s hand is (69a). In (69b) when the addressee was walking, both io and iny were applicable.

The speaker used io because she construed a Band-Aid on the addressee’s hand as inalienable and

uncontrolled by the addressee, while the speaker used iny to profile its actual movement caused by the

addressee’s motion.

(69) Inalienable referents

a. inona io bandy amin’ ny tana-nao iowhat Dem.Bnd.Sg Band-Aid on Det hand-2Sg Dem.Bnd.Sg‘What is the Band-Aid on your hand?’ (The addressee is not moving.)

b. inona io/iny bandy amin’ ny tana-nao io/inywhat Dem.Bnd.Sg/Dem.Unbnd.Sg Band-Aidon Det hand-2Sg Dem.Bnd.Sg/Dem.Unbnd.Sg‘What is the Band-Aid on your hand?’ (The addressee is moving.)

4.10.5. Addressee in Newari

Newari demonstratives referring to inanimate object(s) are as follows:

Table 40. Newari: Demonstratives for inanimateProx Adr Med Dist (Remote)

Adj/Pron th(w)o am(a) wo hun (hun wo)

Two dialects, the Patan dialect and the Bhaktapur dialect, were investigated. Both the Patan dialect and the

Bhaktapur dialect encode the [addressee] parameter and belong to the addressee-isolated system. The

addressee forms are exclusively addressee-anchored and do not designate a medial distance from the

speaker. It turned out, however, that the two dialects encode the addressee-anchor in different manners. In a

setting, the speaker sat at one table, the addressee sat at another table, and they faced each other. Two tables

were about two meters apart. Referents used for elicitation were a cup on the table in front of the addressee,

which was not contacted; a cup in the addressee’s hand, which was directly-tactually contacted and directly

controlled by the addressee; a watch on the addressee’s wrist, which was marginally controllable by the

addressee; and a poster or another referent at the right or left hand side on the wall behind the addressee,

which was reached with a stick by the addressee, i.e., a case of indirect contact.

143

All 18 speakers of both dialects referred to a cup held in the addressee’s hand with the addressee-

anchored am(a). All of the speakers in both dialects except three speakers of the Patan dialect used am(a) to

refer to a watch on the addressee’s wrist. A clear contrast appeared when they referred to a cup in front of

the addressee but not touched by the addressee. While all eight speakers in Bhaktapur kept using the

addressee-anchored am(a), all 10 speakers of the Patan dialect switched to the medial wo. This contrast

suggests that, in the Patan dialect, the [addressee] parameter requires the addressee’s [contact] with a

referent, but [proximity] or vicinity is not counted. For a poster that the addressee reached with a stick,

eight speakers of Patan used am(a), while two speakers used the medial wo. It indicates that the majority of

speakers expressed indirect [contact] with am(a). We previously defined the speaker’s territory as a

combination of [proximity] and [contact]. The meaning of “territory” differs from that definition in the

Patan dialect. [Contact] whether it is direct or indirect counts, but [proximity] does not.

In the Bhaktapur dialect, a cup in the addressee’s hand, a watch on the addressee’s wrist, and a cup in

front of the addressee were unanimously referred to with am(a). At first glance, this use of Bhaktapur

appeared to be a straightforward case of encoding the [addressee], that is to say that referents receive the

[addressee] encoding on the basis of both [proximity] and [contact]. However, a referent by the addressee’s

side with no contact but relatively close to the addressee was referred to with the medial wo form, but not

with am(a). A referent at the addressee’s left-hand side, which was relatively far, was referred to with wo,

even if the addressee touched it with a stick. In the Bhaktaphur dialect, direct [contact] by the addressee or

[proximity] restricted to the front region of the addressee determines the addressee’s territory.

It is usually presupposed that “closeness to or in the vicinity of the speaker” is the meaning of the

parameter of [proximal] to the speaker. In addition to relative distance, the parameter of [contact/control]

by the speaker functions as an important factor for using proximal forms denoting the speaker’s territory. It

seems that all languages are sensitive to the speaker’s [contact/control]. In the same vein, although it is

usually presupposed that “closeness to or in the vicinity of the addressee” is the meaning of the parameter

of the [addressee], the addressee’s territory is also conditioned with respect to the addressee’s

[contact/control]. Unlike the case of the speaker’s territory, which is more or less conditioned by

[proximity] and [contact/control] throughout languages, the manner of conditioning the addressee’s

territory has some variations among languages as observed above. In Malagasy and the Patan dialect of

144

Newari only [contact] or [control] by the addressee but not [proximity] to the addressee is conditioning the

use of addressee-anchored forms.14

4.11. Equi-distance contrast

English is famous for its contrastive use of this and that. One can refer to a cup in one’s right hand with this

cup, and the other cup in one’s left hand with that cup, where both cups are “proximal” to the speaker. The

use of [contrast] or, more precisely, [equi-distance contrast], was examined in settings where two or more

referents were at the same distance from the speaker.15

When English informants were asked to refer to a cup in his/her right hand and another in his/her left

hand, five informants out of seven referred to the first referent with this, and the second referent with either

this or that. Two informants used this but not that for both referents. When informants were holding one

cup right in front of their chest and another cup away from their body by extending thier arm, they used this

for the closer one and either this or that for the cup away from their body. One informant used this for the

closer cup and that for the other one. Three informants used this for both cups. When there was one cup at

the right-hand corner and another one at the left-hand corner at the near end of a table, four informants

pointed at and referred to the first cup with this and the other cup with either this or that. Two informants

pointed at and referred to both cups with this. This pattern, namely some speakers using this for the first

referent and using either this or that for the second referent, while other speakers use only this for both the

first and the second referent, went on for other settings as follows. Informants touched one cup at the right-

hand corner and another at the left-hand corner at the near end of the table. Informants touched one cup at

the right-hand corner and another cup at the left-hand corner at the far end of the table by using a long stick.

Informants sequentially touched two teeth in their mouth. The same two informants kept using this for two

contrastive referents throughout all settings. Other speakers used this and this; this and that; or that and

that; but not that and this for the first and the second referent, respectively. In sum, the data showed that i)

some speakers use this and that for two equi-distant referents in the speaker’s territory, that is, in a

proximal region or indirectly contacted in a distal region, ii) some speakers use this for the first referent and

that for the second referent if they use those terms contrastively in sequence, and iii) contrastive usage is

available for some speakers but not for all speakers of American English.

145

In the English data, there were 39 pairs of instances of demonstratives referring to one cup touched in

one hand and the other cup touched with the other hand. Out of 39 tokens, 15 tokens or 38% showed the

contrastive usage. Data from other languages were collected under the same settings. Table 41 shows the

number of instances and the rate of occurrence of contrastive usage.

Table 41. Contrastive usage

Language (A) No. of contrastive uses (B) No. of pairs of demonstrativesfor two referents

(A)/(B) x 100 (%)

English 15 39 38Santali 9 29 31Korean 1 18 6Thai 1 21 5Japanese 0 21 0Mundari 0 15 0

English and Santali used two different deictic forms contrastively for equi-distant referents, while other

languages usually do not. One instance of a contrastive use in Korean and Thai is negligible. Japanese and

Mundari did not have a single occurrence of contrastive use. Languages whose denominator in the data is

smaller than 10 instances are not included in this table; nevertheless, those languages did not show a

contrastive use. Those are Ao, Apatani, Malagasy, Mizo, Newari, Nuer, Spanish, and Venda. In Malagasy

and Santali, two proximal variant forms were occasionally used. Those forms are semantically identical in

terms of distance; therefore, they are not regarded as [equi-distance contrast].

The use of an [equi-distance contrast] in English, Santali, and examples in other languages as shown

in reference grammar books (cf. chapter 2), is under the same constraints. First, an [equi-distance contrast]

takes place only in a proximal region but not in a distal region. Second, it follows the sequential constraint,

i.e., a proximal form is used first to refer to a proximal referent/region followed by a non-proximal form,

which also refers to a proximal referent/region.

4.12. Psychological distance

The choice between a proximal form and a distal form in English is influenced by the speaker’s emotional

preference toward an object, namely [psychological distance] (cf. Lakoff R. 1974). When an English

speaker is holding an object, it is usually referred to with this because the direct [contact] by the speaker

selects for a proximal form, unless the object is contrasted with another directly contacted object. However,

146

when the speaker is barely holding a filthy object between his/her fingers, s/he may say ‘that one really

stinks’. In such a case, the speaker’s abhorrence of the object makes the speaker construe the object as

being at distance psychologically (cf. figure 9 in chapter 3).

This use was examined in 10 languages. A few speakers of English (two out of seven informants) and

Santali (three out of eight informants) used a non-proximal form. (There was one instance of Venda, out of

six informants. It might be accidental.)

4.13. Presentative: Directive and Offerative

When the speaker draws the addressee’s attention to a designated region, for instance by saying ‘look over

here’, Malagasy speakers use invisible forms as well as visible forms. Because there is no distinctive form

for this directive function in Malagasy, visible forms are used in the case of adjectives/pronouns as in (70).

(70) jereo ito‘Look at this.’

Rajaona (1972) enumerates the following forms as invisible demonstrative adjectives/pronouns: izato,

izaty, izatsy, izatsý, izaroa, izarý, izao, izay, izany, izatony, izatsony, izarony. Among these forms, as we

saw above, informants used only izao and izany for invisibility. Other forms were occasionally used as

directives.

(71) a. (Introducing people at a party)izato Mr. Baker, izaty kosa Mr. Smith.

other‘This is Mr. Baker, on the other hand, this is Mr. Smith.’

b. (Pointing at a portrait.)izato lahilay izato no namoana ny jiro.

man Lk found Det light‘This is the man who invented light.’

This directive use might be diachronically an extension of invisible forms. One informant said that izato is

polite when introducing people, whereas the visible ito ‘this’ is derogatory if it is used for people. This

politeness implication may be a case of euphonic use of invisible forms that has lost its invisible use in

contemporary Malagasy.

147

In locationals, however, Malagasy uses invisible forms as well as visible forms for directive. The most

likely explanation is as follows: the speaker supposes that the addressee is not looking at the designated

region before the speaker’s utterance, even if the region is visually accessible to the addressee if s/he

intends to look at it. Based on this conjecture, the speaker uses invisible forms from the addressee’s

perspective in a similar fashion as the perspective shift described above. This does not happen for

adjectives/pronouns because there is no invisible form for them in the first place. The following are

examples of invisible locationals for drawing the addressee’s attention.

(72) a. avy atý izay zana-ko ohcome Loc.Inv.Prox.Unbnd Ana(?) child-1Sg oh‘lit. Come here that my child.’ (In a children’s song.)

b. jereo atý/etýlook Loc.Inv.Prox.Unbnd/Loc.Prox.Unbnd‘Look here (about).’

c. apetraho atýput Loc.Inv.Prox.Unbnd‘Put (the books) here.’

d. ento any io koapy iotake Loc.Inv.Unbnd Dem.Bnd cup Dem.Bnd‘Take the cup there (near you).’

e. ento any ito koapy itotake Loc.Inv.Unbnd this cup this‘Take this cup there (near you).’

f. jereo arý/atsylook Loc.Inv.Dist/Loc.Inv.Med‘Look there.’

Unbounded atý as in (72a) is the most common in directive use. In (72b), the teacher drew students’

attention to her vicinity without specifying a particular object or area; both visible and invisible forms were

used. In (72c), the speaker asked the addressee to bring a book to a place near the speaker. As the rest of the

examples show, forms denoting the vicinity of the addressee and distance-marked forms were also possible.

In no case were bounded forms used.

Mizo data include no distinctive form for presentative use but still show that the [offerative] parameter

comes into play in the use of deictics. Mizo morphologically distinguishes [proximal], [addressee], [distal-

level], [distal-up], and [distal-down] parameters. Khaa refers to a referent/region close to the addressee. For

148

instance, the speaker may shout at the addressee very far from the speaker in order to ask the addressee to

throw a ball located close to the addressee toward the speaker, and s/he would use khaa.

(73) Mizo

khaa bool kha min ron pas rawthat.Adr ball that.Adr me to pass Imp‘Pass me that ball.’

Table-top tasks also confirmed that a referent/region close to the addressee is marked with khaa. The data

showed that a referent/region proximal to the speaker is marked with hee. A prime instance of proximity is

a referent within the speaker’s hand. Informants referred to a cup in their hand with hee noo hi ‘this cup

here’ without fail. However, when informants were handing over a referent to the addressee, informants

used khaa. It indicates that khaa has the [offerative] use. The crucial point for this use is that a referent is

still in the speaker’s hand when s/he utters this sentence.

(74) Mizo: Offerative

khaa la rawthat.Adr take Imp‘Take it.’

Unlike Turkish (cf. section 2.6.4.), khaa in Mizo is used as [offerative] but not as [directive]. In the use of

[directive], [distance] is the determining parameter, as is evident from the following examples, which show

that a proximal form is used for drawing the addressee’s attention to a proximal referent, while a distal

form is used for drawing the addressee’s attention to a distal referent.

(75) Mizo

a. hei hi en raw(h)this this look Imp‘Look at this.’

b. khii khi en raw(h)that.up that.up look Imp‘Look up there.’

4.14. Summary

149

In this chapter, we have analyzed data collected through elicitation and discussed parameters in detail.

Some of the poorly understood parameters in the literature are now given fuller accounts.

We started with the discussion about anchoring and pointed out that there exist two different systems

of the so-called person-oriented system. These are what we call the addressee-anchor isolated system and

the dual-anchor system. Addressee-isolated system languages have forms that indicate proximity to the

addressee but cannot indicate some distance from the speaker. In the dual-anchor system, a deictic term that

indicates proximity to the addressee can also indicate some distance from the speaker.

In the analysis of distance, the data showed that “distal” terms in Thai, Spanish, and Apatani are more

marked than those in Japanese. We called the third “distal” terms in Thai, Spanish, and Apatani [emphatic

remote]. [Emphatic remote] forms are used only when emphasis on far distality or remoteness is required.

Degrees of distance were examined in Malagasy and Venda, which have been reported to show many

degrees of distance contrast. The data clearly showed that Malagasy has a three-way distinction in distance,

and parameters other than distance are involved in various forms. The Venda data suggested that the

language also has a three-way distinction in distance. The data were suggesting that parameters other than

distance parameters, namely [known/unknown] parameters, are involved in so-called emphatic forms.

There is a chance that other languages that have been claimed, in reference grammar books, to have four or

more degrees of distance may actually distinguish no more than a three-way distinction in terms of distance.

There is, however, no a priori reason why three-way division is acceptable while four-way division is non-

occurring in any natural language. The maximum complexity of distance in deictics is still an open question.

Mizo obligatorily marks verticality for a distal referent/region. They are [up], [down], and [level]. The

form saw, ‘that at the same level’, is not verticality-neutral distal but is explicitly marked for [level]. Data

from Mizo indicated that the speaker’s perspective is based on the eye level of the speaker. It is the

speakers’ perception that decides the parameter of verticality.

In Malagasy, we saw that the parameters of [bounded] and [unbounded] may be realized as related

parameters, such as [precise] and [vague], respectively. Malagasy has distance-neutral demonstratives. The

singular form io and the plural form ireo denote static referent(s). The singular form iny and the plural form

ireny denote dynamic or moving referent(s). We argued that “static” is an extension of the [bounded]

parameter, and “dynamic” or [motion] is an extension of the [unbounded] parameter. We also argued that

150

the [addressee] parameter, or more precisely the addressee’s [control] parameter, in Malagasy is an

extension of [motion], which is in turn an extension of [vague], which is yet another extension of

[unboundedness]. Malagasy also has distance-neutral locationals eo and eny. Eo denotes a bounded region

as well as a precise region. We argued that [precise] is an extension of [boundedness]. The other distance

neutral locational eny denotes an [unbounded] region, a [vague] region, a region [controlled by the

addressee], or the [addressee’s unbounded proximal] region. To summarize, the parameters of [bounded]

and [precise] on one hand, [unbounded], [vague], [motion], [addressee’s control], and [addressee’s

unbounded proximal] on the other, are linked to each other by conceptual extensions based on semantic

continuity. Superficially unrelated parameters are thus linked to each other and interwoven to create a chain

of deictic semantics.

We have seen that Malagasy’s dynamic deictics denote [motion]. The motion of a referent can be any

type, including translocation, rotation, and oscillation. Fictive motion, where a static object is perceived as

if it were moving, makes no difference in encoding [motion]. Fictive motions found among examples are

local frame fictive motion, ground frame fictive motion, coextension path fictive motion of an observer,

and coextension path fictive motion of focus of attention. The parameter of [motion] may be foregrounded

or backgrounded, which affects the use of motion deictics. The choice depends on how the observer

interprets real world events. The parameter of [distance] is relative but not absolute; in the same fashion,

the parameter of [motion] is also relative.

Grammatically, Apatani imperative suffixes are not demonstrative adjectives, demonstrative pronouns,

or deictic locationals; nevertheless, they are still deictic, and they are discussed as a kind of spatial deixis

denoting [motion].

Languages that encode the parameter of [motion] in deictics are categorized into three types. The first

type encodes [motion] without referring to direction or distance. The second type encodes [motion] as well

as direction from the perspective of the speaker. The third type encodes [motion] as well as the distance of

destination/goal. Malagasy falls into the first type. Apatani falls into the second type.16

Malagasy manifests two types of [invisibility] marked on locationals. One is distance-neutral

invisibility. In this type, modes of access are peripheral senses including audible, olfactory, visceral, and

cutaneous senses. The other type is distance-sensitive invisibility by occlusion. Invisibility by occlusion is

151

realized as invisible regions behind, enclosed by, or under some object. Invisibility is primarily based on

the speaker’s perspective. In general, a region invisible to the speaker is marked as invisible regardless of

whether the same region is visible or invisible to the addressee. On the other hand, a region visible to the

speaker is marked with a visible form regardless of whether the same region is visible or invisible to the

addressee. However, there are some cases where perspective shift is involved and the invisibility from the

addressee’s perspective is encoded. As one function of invisibility forms, there is the function of drawing

the addressee’s attention. It seems that the motive of this function is based on the speaker’s conjecture that

the addressee has NOT looked at the designated region until the speaker directs the addressee to look at the

region. We observed some instances where the invisible distance-neutral locational ao occasionally denoted

a visible enclosed region. Conceptual extension from an enclosure configuration of a visible region to a

more typical invisible enclosure configuration seems to be an explanation for such cases.

Determining the parameters of the speaker’s territory, or determining the conditions under which a

form denotes a referent/region proximal to the speaker, is based on both the [contact/control] by the speaker

and [proximity] to the speaker. The increase of controllability facilitates construing a referent/region to be

within the speaker’s territory. The way to determine the addressee’s territory varies among languages.

Some languages define the addressee’s territory in terms of [proximity] to the addressee and [contact] by

the addressee, in parallel with the determining condition as the speaker’s territory. Other languages have

different conditions for defining the addressee’s category. Malagasy determines the addressee’s territory in

terms of [control]. The Patan dialect of Newari does so in terms of [contact] and the Bhaktapur dialect does

so in terms of [contact] and [proximity], restricted to the frontal region of the addressee.

Some languages that do not morphologically mark the [addressee] may still be sensitive to the

[contact/control] by the addressee. There are languages indifferent to the addressee’s [contact/control].

[Equi-distance contrast] is not unique to English. This use was observed in Santali. We have already

seen other languages showing this use in chapter 2. In these examples, we can find the same constraints.

First, an [equi-distance contrast] takes place only in a proximal region but not in a distal region. Second, it

follows the sequential constraint, i.e., a proximal form is used first to refer to a proximal referent/region

followed by a non-proximal form, which also refers to a proximal referent/region in this case.

152

The distinction between proximal forms and non-proximal forms is usually bound to within and

beyond the speaker’s territory, respectively. However, languages sometimes allow deviation from this

prototypical use. Degrees of such deviations vary from language to language. The use of an [equi-distance

contrast] and the use of a [psychological distance] are reflections of deviations because forms in such

instances are not conditioned by the speaker’s territory defined by [proximity] and [contact/control].

Among languages in elicited data, English exemplified the widest repertoire of deviations. It indicates that

English deictics are not tied to the sense of the speaker’s territory as tightly as in other languages.

Speaker-anchor is the prime anchor cross-linguistically. Determining parameters for the speaker’s

territory seem to be universal, though different degrees of sensitivity to indirect [contact] by the speaker

have been observed. Definitions of the addressee’s territory vary among languages. As we saw (in this

chapter and chapter 2), the way of anchoring also varies among languages. Such varieties or instability

among languages may be because the addressee is the secondary anchor, unlike the speaker.

We argued that the parameter of [contact/control] is an important factor for determining a territory.

Aside from [proximity], the parameter of [contact/control] affects the speaker’s cognition of the territory or

sphere of the speaker (and his/her conversation partner, the addressee).

The parameters discussed above sometimes compete with each other, and one parameter may be

overridden by the other. We will see such cases in the next chapter.

Notes

1. This is the result of an informant on the same occasion. The informant gave no alternative forms for

any referent.

2. This is the result of forms given by seven different informants as below. Actual forms may be

pronouns such as are ‘that one’, adjective forms such as ano ‘that’, or directional forms such as

acchi/achira ‘that way’. Differences in grammatical categories are abstracted away in table 4, by only

showing deictic morphemes.

153

Spk 0 cm 40 cm 80 cm 120 cm 160 cmInformant 1 kono kono sono sono/ano ano anoInformant 2 kore kore sore are are areInformant 3 kono kono ano acchi ano achiraInformant 4 kore kore kore/sore kore/sore sore sore/areInformant 5 kore kore kore are are areInformant 6 kono kono sono ano ano anoInformant 7 kono kono kono sono ano ano

Note that the general pattern of changing forms from proximal to distal is in accordance with increasing

distance from the speaker, although forms used by different informants may differ at each point. Some

tables (actually most tables) have alternative forms for the same distance. Forms shown in table 4 and

others in main texts are a summation of all forms used by all informants. Multiple forms in the format of

X/Y/Z at a specific distance may be a case where either the same informant gave those different responses

on different occasions, or different informants gave different responses in the same situation, or different

informants gave different responses in different situations. In table 4, three forms ko/so/a are given at 40

cm and 80 cm; however, it does not imply that the same informant used a more distal form for a referent at

40 cm and a more proximal form for a referent at 80 cm on the same occasion. What we are trying to infer

from the data are general patterns of deictic uses but not individual uses on individual occasions.

3. Three additional speakers agreed on this matter.

4. One informant Osada (p.c. 2001) consulted suggested that variants ending with -a, namely nea, hana,

and others, may mean something like ‘over here’ or ‘over there’. In one instance, nea but not nee could be

used in a phrase ‘come here’ when the addressee had to walk around an obstacle between the speaker and

the addressee. In another instance, the speaker used hana, but denied hane, to refer to a mountain behind

another mountain.

5. The [addressee] parameter encoded in Newari involves the parameter of [control] by the addressee

rather than [proximal] to the addressee. We will discuss this point later in detail.

154

6. There was one exception. One informant represented by TP never used hei; instead she used iyi.

7. It is also possible to use a verticality-neutral form hee ‘this’ with an upward pointing gesture, provided

that the speaker construes the referent to be proximal enough.

8. Any in data were mostly used anaphorically, which is beyond the scope of the present study.

9. Some other languages also seem to show the same pattern; however, it requires more data to come to a

conclusive argument. Among those languages, for instance, speakers of Mundari, Spanish, and Santali

pointed out that non-proximal forms could be used to refer to a smell that had been experienced in the past.

However, such anaphoric functions are outside of the scope of the present study.

10. There are some languages that follow the pattern of English according to the little data that were

collected; however we need more extensive data to say something decisively about those languages.

11. The mechanism of co-occurrence of izy, the third person singular pronoun, izany in (45b), and ity and

izany in (45b), is unknown at present.

12. Izao is a homonym, which is an ‘invisible’ deictic and an adverb meaning ‘now’.

13. Iny could also be used when the ball was still rolling. This was not because the ball was near the

addressee but because its motion was encoded.

14. The above-mentioned language has a single category for addressee-anchored forms. As we saw in

chapter 2, Yoshida (1981) argues that Satawal has two categories for addressee-anchored forms, one for a

referent in the addressee’s hand, and other for a referent close to the addressee. Existence of two

morphologically distinct addressee-anchored categories for “contact” and “non-contact” is exceptional

among languages.

155

15. Note that we used the term [differentiation] in section 2.6.2. [Differentiation] exclusively indicates

that a referent/region is more distal or proximal in comparison with another referent/region.

16. See section 2.5.4 for other languages in the literature, which are categorized into each type.

156

Chapter 5

Parameter conflict

5.1. Introduction

There are cases where two parameters are possible candidates to determine a deictic form, and they may

conflict with each other. In these cases, the speaker chooses one parameter against the other in order to

determine a suitable deictic form. The hypothesis here is that the choice of a certain parameter, in situations

where two parameters are conflicting with each other, is not arbitrary. There must be dominance between

conflicting parameters. It is not hard to imagine that there are cases where three or more than three

parameters are competing. However, we limit our study to the cases where two parameters are involved.

Studying all combinations of more than two parameters is a benefit for a better understanding of parameter

competitions. However, it is competitions of two and no more parameters that will provide a clearer view

of dominance between the parameters in question. The examples of dominance between two parameters

that will be discussed below are not intended to be exhaustive, and some of them could be language-

specific. There may be other instances that did not come to our attention. We propose that these hierarchies

of dominance are potentially universal until further research finds counter-examples.

5.2. The speaker’s [contact/control] overrides [distance] from the speaker

As we saw in chapter 4, when the speaker touches a cup with a long object, such as a fishing pole, s/he uses

a proximal form regardless of the distance of the cup from the speaker. This has been attested as a very

strong tendency in all 15 languages and any other consulted languages. We state this fact: the speaker’s

[contact/control] overrides the encoding of relative [distance] from the speaker. A non-proximal form

designating a referent in a relatively medial or distal distance always switches to a proximal form once the

speaker stretches out his/her arm and touches it. This is a case of direct [contact]. There was no exception

for this phenomenon in the data, unless [contrast] is involved. Indirect [contact] by touching a medial or

distal referent with a long tool or indirect [control] such as pulling a string attached to a distal referent also

leads to the use of a proximal form for not all but most of the speakers of all the languages examined.

157

It is usually presupposed that “closeness to or in the vicinity of the speaker” is the meaning of the

parameter of [proximal] to the speaker. In addition to relative distance, however, the parameter of

[contact/control] by the speaker functions as an important factor for using proximal forms denoting the

speaker’s territory. It seems that languages are universally sensitive to the speaker’s [contact/control].

5.3. The speaker’s [contact/control] overrides [verticality]

As we have seen, Mizo has proximal deictics that are verticality neutral and distal deictics that are distance

sensitive, either [up], [down], or [level]. In elicitation, one speaker, who was pointing down at a pen near

his feet on a floor without reaching it, could use either the verticality sensitive, distal khuu ‘that down

there’ or verticality neutral, proximal hee ‘this’. When pointing at a lamp on the wall, two speakers used

verticality sensitive khii ‘that up there’. By pointing at an outlet near the floor on a wall, one speaker used

verticality sensitive khuu ‘that down there’, while another speaker could use either verticality sensitive

khuu or verticality neutral, proximal hee. Three speakers admitted that they would use only the verticality

neutral, proximal hee if a fly were flying right over the speaker’s head, while if a fly were flying right

under a ceiling, distal khii ‘that up there’ is appropriate. The data show that as long as the speaker perceives

a referent/region very close to him/her, s/he may use a verticality neutral form. The language becomes

indifferent to verticality in a proximal region. Data also indicate that the speaker’s territory that is defined

with proximity is vulnerable when verticality comes into play. A referent in a region that is not very close

to the speaker can be easily encoded with a verticality sensitive form, which accompanies the meaning of

[distal].

A lamp and a picture higher on a wall and a fan on the ceiling were referred to with khii ‘that up

there’; and a stone in a pond was referred to with khuu ‘that down there’; however, once the speaker

touches those referents indirectly with a long tool such as a stick, a fishing pole, or a rolled paper, the

speaker switches to the proximal, verticality neutral hee. It is also true, when the speaker touches, for

instance, a picture on a wall directly with his/her hand. It indicates that indirectly contacted (needless to say

directly contacted) referents are construed to be within the speaker’s territory. In other words, the

[verticality] parameter is indicated only when a referent is considered to be out of the speaker’s territory.1

158

Some languages such as Paamese (Oceanic), Nicobarese (Mon-Khmer), Selepet (Papuan), and Lepcha

(Tibeto-Burman) are reported to encode [verticality] parameters for both proximal and distal regions. It

would be interesting to study whether a referent/region contacted or controlled by the speaker is still

marked with a proximal form encoding verticality or a verticality-neutral proximal form in those languages.

The answer is left for further research.

5.4. The speaker’s [contact/control] overrides [invisibility]

Malagasy has invisible locationals but not invisible adjectives or pronouns. Therefore, an ‘invisible’ object

itself is not marked with its adjectives/pronouns, but the location of the invisible object is marked with

locatives. (An anaphoric word may refer to an invisible object.) There are cases, however, in which an

invisible object is referred to with a “visible” adjective/pronoun as below.

(1) misy rasufutr ato anatin’ itý. anganba kasseto itýexist something Loc.Inv.Bnd in this think cassette this‘There is something in there. I think this is a cassette.’

In (1), ato refers to an invisible space, i.e., inside a bag that holds an object. The first itý refers to the bag.

When the speaker put her hand into the bag and touched the object without looking at it, she used the

otherwise “visible” itý to refer to the invisible object in the bag. It indicates that invisibility was overridden

by the speaker’s [contact/control] parameter. In (2) below, the speaker felt the contour of a coin under a

piece of paper by touching the paper.

(2) inona ito ambanin’ itýwhat this in this‘What’s this under this?’

Itý at the end refers to the visible paper. Ito, on the other hand, refers to an invisible object under the paper.

This instance of ito indicates that [control] is not restricted to direct, tactual sense. Feeling the contour of an

object is considered [contact/control] and allows the speaker to use a so-called visible form. Remember that,

izany, an invisible, unbounded form, was used when the speaker’s foot or arm happened to touch a referent

as shown in example (46b) in chapter 4 (repeated as (3) below), which we called cutaneous sensation.

159

(3) (The speaker is touching a water bag with his/her feet)mangatsika itý izanycold this Inv.Unbnd‘This is cold.’

The use of an invisible form in such a case is probably caused by the speaker’s diminished control over the

referent. In (4) below, the speaker used a pole and reached a cover under which an invisible object was

located.

(4) inona itý/ito ambanin’itý/itowhat this/this in this/this‘What is it under this one?’

The second itý or ito refers to the visible cover itself. The first itý or ito refers to an invisible object under a

cover. This use of the first itý/ito indicates that indirect [contact] with a pole is also sufficient to use a form

denoting the speaker’s [contact/control].

5.5. The speaker’s [control] overrides [motion]

In Malagasy, informants referred to an object moving on one’s hand with the static, proximal form itý or ito

but not with the dynamic iny. Some informants clearly expressed that the use of iny is odd in such a

situation. Compare this with (5) where an insect was crawling on the speaker’s arm and either the static itý

or the dynamic iny was possible.

(5) inona áry iny/itý vivy iny/itýwhat so Dem.Unbnd.Sg/Prox.Sganimal Dem.Unbnd.Sg/Prox.Sg‘So, what is the animal/insect?’

The difference between an object in the speaker’s hand and an insect on the speaker’s arm suggests that a

moving object in the speaker’s hand was construed to be under the speaker’s [control], so the proximal

form was used, while a crawling insect on the speaker’s arm was construed to be either under the speaker’s

[control] or out of the speaker’s [control]. In (5) when the referent was considered to be out of the speaker’s

control, the [motion] parameter was encoded with iny; when the [control] parameter overrode the [motion]

parameter, the static, proximal itý was used. This interpretation was reinforced by the use of itý and denial

of the use of iny when the speaker was pulling a cup toward himself/herself by means of a string. In this

160

case, the indirect control by the speaker overrides the [motion] parameter. When the speaker construes a

referent to be under his/her control, the [control] parameter overrides the [motion] parameter, and the

[motion] encoding is removed.

5.6. [Distance] versus [motion]

In the following examples of Malagasy, there were two moving toys on a table, and one is closer than the

other.

(6) a. mihodina irý kilalao irý, mandeha itsy kilalao itsyturn Dist.Sg toy Dist.Sg walk Med.Sg toy Med.Sg‘That toy is rotating, that toy is walking.’

b. mihodina irý kilalao irý, mandeha *iny kilalao *iny.turn Dist.Sg toy Dist.Sg walk *Dem.Unbnd.Sg toy *Dem.Unbnd.Sg‘That toy is rotating, that toy is walking.’

The use of the motion encoding iny was denied in this setting; rather, static, distance-sensitive deictics were

used. The same speaker used iny when there was a single moving toy on the table. We can construe this as

follows: in a case where two moving referents are contrasted, the [distance] parameter is foregrounded to

distinguish those two referents with respect to distance, and consequently, the parameter of [motion] is

backgrounded. However, as in (7) below, if motion is foregrounded, a dynamic form may be used even

when two referents are compared.

(7) mandraisa an’ iny lalana iny fa tsy irýfollow at Dem.Unbnd.Sg road Dem.Unbnd.Sg and not Dist.Sg‘Follow this road but not that one.’

In this example, a fictive motion was foregrounded by the verb that profiled linear translocation mandraisa

‘to follow’, and by a dynamic gesture when the speaker moved her index finger along the line of the road.

If necessary, Malagasy resorts to a device to mark both distance and motion. Distance is encoded with

an adjective, and another adjective encoding motion may be used adverbially and appear in the same

sentence. In the next example, iny is not used adnominally, but precedes a verb.

161

(8) iny misy kadradraka irý alavitra irý, iny koa misyDem.Unbnd.Sg exist cockroach Dist.Sg far Dist.Sg Dem.Unbnd.Sg also exist

vitsika itsy akaiky itsy, iny koa kakana ito akaiki-ko itoant Med.Sg near Med.Sg, Dem.Unbnd.Sg also worm Prox.Sg near-1Sg Prox.Sg‘There is a cockroach over there, there is also an ant there nearer, and there is also a worm here nearme.’

5.7. The speaker versus the addressee

5.7.1. The speaker’s direct [contact/control] overrides the addressee’s direct [contact/control]

In Japanese, an addressee-anchor language, when the addressee holds something, the speaker will point at it

and refers to it with sore, a form encoding the [addressee] parameter. In daily conversations, it is natural for

the speaker to use the proximal form kore to refer to an object in the addressee’s hand if the addressee is

sitting by the speaker. Once the speaker points at it, kore, a proximal form, sounds more natural, and once

the speaker touches it, kore is obligatory. When both the speaker and the addressee make direct contact

with a referent, not only Japanese but also all other languages use a form denoting proximal to the speaker.

5.7.2. The speaker’s indirect [contact] tends to override the addressee’s direct [contact/control]

In a case where the speaker and the addressee sit at opposite ends of a table and the speaker touches a

referent in the addressee’s hand by using a long tool, the addressee’s direct [contact/control] and the

speaker’s indirect [contact] compete against each other.

In Nuer, the location of a referent in the addressee’s hand is usually referred to with a deictic

locational encoding the [addressee] parameter. However, when the speaker touches the referent in the

addressee’s hand with a fishing pole, the speaker switched to a locational encoding [proximal]. It indicates

that the speaker’s indirect [contact] is a stronger parameter than the addressee’s direct [contact/control]. In

such a situation, all speakers of Ao, Apatani, Malagasy, Nuer, Santali, and Thai used only proximal forms.

English speakers used proximal forms and distal forms. Venda speakers used proximal forms and medial

forms. Japanese, Mizo, Mundari, and Spanish speakers used proximal forms and addressee-anchored forms.

Korean speakers used proximal forms, addressee-anchored forms, and distal forms.2

There was no language whose speakers unanimously used non-proximal forms, which suggests that

the speaker’s indirect [contact] absolutely dominates the addressee’s direct [contact/control] in some

languages, and the dominance is a tendency in other languages.

162

5.7.3. [Proximal] to the speaker tends to override the addressee’s indirect [contact/control]

One situation where the parameter of the addressee’s indirect [contact/control] and the speaker’s

[proximity] compete with each other is when the addressee at the other end of a table from the speaker uses

a long tool such as a rolled paper or a fishing pole to touch a cup in front of the speaker. In this case, the

cup is in the vicinity of the speaker, but the speaker is not touching the cup directly or indirectly. In such a

situation, all speakers of Ao, Malagasy, Mizo, Spanish, Santali, Thai, and Venda used only proximal forms.

The majority of speakers of English, Japanese, Korean, and Mundari used proximal forms, and a few

speakers of those languages used non-proximal forms, i.e., addressee-encoding forms in addressee-

anchored languages and distal forms in non-addressee-anchored languages. The data suggest that, as a

tendency, [proximity] to the speaker wins over the addressee’s indirect [contact/control].3

5.7.4. The addressee’s direct [contact/control] versus the speaker’s [proximity]

In Japanese, when a doctor touches a patient’s back and asks the patient and if the area that he is touching

hurts, the patient would answer:

(9) hai, soko desu.yes there Cop‘Yes, it’s there.’

Soko ‘there’ encodes the [addressee] parameter. Koko ‘here’ encoding [proximal] is not possible. Even

though the referent, namely the speaker’s body part, is not physically distal from the speaker, the speaker’s

body is out of the speaker’s control or out of the speaker’s territory. It is within the addressee’s territory.

Therefore, encoding the [addressee] parameter is required. All speakers of addressee-anchored languages,

Apatani, Japanese, Korean, Mizo, Mundari, Nuer, Santali, and Spanish used an addressee-encoding form in

such a situation. One speaker of Thai used a proximal form, but the other five speakers used an addressee

encoding form (there is no data in Luyia). In Imai (1995), it was observed that informants of other

addressee anchored languages, such as Fijian, Sinhalese, and Tagalog, also gave an addressee-encoding

form in the same situation. We can assume that the addressee-encoding in addressee-anchored languages is

the norm in such a situation.

163

Another situation in which the speaker’s body part is out of the speaker’s control and under the

addressee’s control is as follows. A dentist touches a tooth of the speaker and asks whether it is the one that

aches, while the patient, i.e., the speaker, is not touching his/her own tooth. Although one or two speakers

of Apatani, English, Japanese, Mundari, Nuer, and Thai used proximal forms in this case, most of the

speakers of addressee anchored languages used only addressee encoding forms. The speaker of Nuer

explained that he could use a proximal form because he could touch his tooth with his tongue. Except in the

case where the speaker can feel his tooth under his control, the use of addressee-encoded forms is typical.

The data of both examples indicate that an addressee-encoding form is used to refer to a

referent/region that is physically proximal to the speaker if the control of the addressee takes precedence

over the speaker’s control. Note that once the patient or the speaker points at his/her own back or tooth,

many speakers of all the languages in the data can use proximal forms. The speaker now regains his/her

own back or tooth as his/her territory. In elicitation, informants who were acting as patients sometimes tried

to point to or touch his/her own back to specify the area to the doctor. In such a case, proximal forms

naturally occurred. To minimize such a possibility, informants were directed not to use or move their hands

at all.

English speakers use a distal form in situations as described above. A distal form (i.e., a non-proximal

form) in English is used in the same fashion as addressee-encoding forms in addressee-anchored languages,

where [contact/control] by the addressee defines the addressee’s territory. In Imai (1995), it was observed

that informants of several non-addressee-anchored languages used a distal form in the same manner as in

English in the situation involving a doctor or dentist. Those are Patois (English Creole in Jamaica), Pidgin

English in Solomon, Afrikaans, Bulgarian, Arabic, and Cambodian.4

A claim drawn from these data is that the speaker of these non-addressee-anchored languages uses a

distal form in such a situation because a referent/region controlled by the addressee but not by the speaker

is construed as being outside the speaker’s territory. A non-proximal form is used here not because of the

distality of a referent/region but because the form encodes non-control by the speaker because of the

dominant control by the addressee.

English does not have forms to mark the [addressee] parameter because English is not an addressee-

anchored language. However, it is still sensitive to control by the addressee. It is indifferent to control by a

164

third person. If a nurse touched a patient’s back and the patient was talking to the doctor, the patient would

not use ‘there’. Deprivation of the speaker’s control is triggered by the addressee’s control but not by the

non-participant’s control. Non-addressee-anchored languages show the sensitivity to the addressee’s

control by using a non-proximal form to refer to the referent/region physically belonging to the speaker but

conceptually under the addressee’s control rather than the speaker’s.

A note is in order here. This claim turns out not to be universal. Informants of some languages used a

proximal form in the same situation. These are Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Mandarin Chinese, Hungarian,

Hebrew, Latvian, and Malay in Imai (1995). Hindi, Bengali, and Mandarin Chinese have been reexamined

with additional informants, and the results reinforced the previous result.5 All informants in these languages

used a proximal form, and some of them categorically denied the use of a non-proximal form. The result

indicates that these languages are not sensitive to the addressee’s [contact/control], at least in such a

situation. The speaker’s body is construed to be the speaker’s territory regardless of control by the speaker

or the addressee.6

In short, English and some non-addressee-anchored languages showed sensitivity to the addressee’s

[contact/control]. Although they do not encode the addressee’s parameter with a non-proximal form, the

addressee’s control contributes to the conceptual partition in the space between the speaker’s territory and

the non-speaker’s territory. There are, however, languages that are indifferent to the addressee’s

[contact/control]. As long as a referent/region is proximal to the speaker it is considered to be within the

speaker’s territory regardless of control by the addressee in these languages.

5.7.5. The addressee’s indirect [contact] tends to override [distal] from the speaker

Many addressee-anchored languages can use an addressee-anchored form for a referent/region at a distance

but indirectly contacted by the addressee, at least as or more often than a distal form. Korean, an addressee-

anchor isolated language, uses ku- forms to mark the [addressee] parameter. Ku- is also used for a referent,

such as a picture on a wall or the ceiling indirectly reached by the addressee with a stick. It shows that

indirect contact by the addressee is conditioning the parameter of the [addressee]. The same was observed

in other addressee-anchor isolated languages such as Mizo and Mundari. In elicitation, most speakers of

Korean used addressee-encoding forms. Mizo and Mundari speakers used both addressee-encoding forms

165

and non-addressee-encoding forms. It suggests that all three languages are sensitive to the addressee’s

[contact/control] to some extent, and Korean is more sensitive than Mizo and Mundari are.

Among dual-anchored languages, all informants of Japanese and Santali, and most informants of

Venda, who conducted the addressee’s indirect contact task, used a form in the second category. Forms in

the second category encode either [medial] or the [addressee]. When speakers use the second form rather

than a distal form to refer to a distal referent/region indirectly contacted by the addressee, we can assume

that the form is marking the parameter of the [addressee].7

As noted in chapter 4, all speakers of the Bhaktapur dialect of Newari used a non-addressee encoding

medial form in a situation where indirect contact was made by the addressee. The data reflect different

ways of conceptualizing the addressee’s territory. Languages such as Japanese and Korean license a

reference/region indirectly contacted by the addressee to be within the addressee’s territory. Such a

situation, however, does not license the addressee’s territory in the Bhaktapur dialect, which requires a

referent/region in front of the addressee or “directly” contacted by the addressee. Note also that, in

Malagasy and the Patan dialect of Newari, only [contact] or [control] by the addressee but not [proximity]

to the addressee conditions the use of addressee-anchored forms.

In addressee-anchored languages, whose [addressee] parameter is conditioned by the addressee’s

[contact/control] as well as [proximity] to the addressee, the chance to use the addressee-anchored forms

rather than distal forms increases in proportion to control, i.e., from indirect [contact] to direct [control], in

the same fashion as we saw in the case of forms designating the speaker’s territory.

5.8. The addressee’s direct [contact/control] overrides [verticality]; the addressee’s indirect

[contact/control] tends to override [verticality]; [verticality] overrides [proximal] to the addressee

In Mizo, a referent/region proximal to the addressee is indicated with khaa ‘that one near you’ instead of

the level-distal form saw ‘that one at the same level’ (see chapter 4 table 25). In a case where different

levels are involved, the use of khaa has some limitations. If the addressee is up in a coconut tree and close

to coconuts on the tree, the speaker would refer to a coconut on the tree close to the addressee with khii

coconut khi ‘that coconut up there’ but not with khaa coconut kha ‘that coconut near you’. The [up]

parameter but not the [addressee] parameter is coded in such a case. The elicitation was done only in an

166

imaginary situation. It is insufficient to completely deny the possibility of using khaa in a real situation;

however, the data seem to reflect the use of the form in the language. The addressee encoding khaa was

used when the addressee in a coconut tree was touching the coconut. Unlike a direct contact by the

addressee’s hand, an indirect contact by using a stick-like object is marginal in terms of [contact]. Both

khaa and khii were used to refer to a fan on the ceiling reached by the addressee with a stick. In other words,

when the speaker and the designated referent/region are at the same level, proximity to the addressee is

enough to use the [addressee] parameter. When the different levels are involved between the speaker and

the designated referent/region, proximity to the addressee is not enough to use the [addressee] encoding

form. The [contact] parameter, preferably the direct [contact] by the addressee, is required to use the

[addressee] parameter. Thus, the asymmetry between the [level] parameter versus the vertical [up]

parameter (and presumably the [down] parameter as well) has become evident. It seems that [up] and

[down] vertical parameters are semantically more marked that the [level] parameter; therefore, the vertical

parameters tend to be coded more often than the [level] parameter when vertical parameters (including the

[level] parameter) compete with the [addressee] parameter.

In short, the addressee’s direct [contact/control] overrides [verticality]. Further, the addressee’s

indirect [contact/control] tends to override [verticality]. This is slightly different from the speaker’s case we

saw above. The speaker’s indirect [contact/control] was strong enough to override [verticality], while it is a

tendency in the addressee’s indirect [contact/control]. Finally, [verticality] ([up] and [down] but not [level])

parameters override [proximal] to the addressee. [Up] and [down] parameters may override [proximity] to

the speaker, while the same parameters more strongly override [proximity] to the addressee. We can draw a

claim from these comparisons that the speaker’s territory is more firmly set up than the addressee’s

territory.

5.9. Summary

We have looked at not only overt parameters but also covert or implicit parameters that are not

morphologically explicit in deictic forms, but that play a substantial role in the use of deictics. On the

grounds of observations and analysis, it is assumed that the generalizations regarding dominance of the

[contact/control] parameter in (10a-b) are universal.

167

(10) a. The speaker’s [contact/control] overrides [distance (immediate, medial, distal, or remote)] from the speaker.

b. The speaker’s direct [contact/control] overrides the addressee’s direct [contact/control].

(11a-e) show other dominance relations between parameters that pertain to languages that share the

relevant parameters. Note that the [contact] parameter and the [control] parameter coincide in most

languages. However, as we have seen elsewhere, Malagasy distinguishes [control] from [contact].

(11) a. The speaker’s [contact/control] overrides [invisibility]

b. The speaker’s [contact/control] overrides [motion]

c. The speaker’s [contact/control] overrides [verticality]

d. The addressee’s direct [contact/control] overrides [verticality]

e. The addressee’s indirect [contact/control] tends to override [verticality]

f. [Verticality] overrides [proximal] to the addressee

The parameter of [contact/control] is an important factor in deictics. It is more dominant than the parameter

of [distance] from the speaker, which is naively considered to be a significant and essential meaning of

parameters for deictics. The most dominant parameter, the speaker’s [contact/control], indicates the

importance of the speaker’s interaction with the referent/region. It suggests that the speaker’s conscious

interaction with the referent/region primarily conditions the use of deictics. Deictics do not simply reflect

static and a priori relations between the speaker and the referent/region. The speaker identifies a

reference/region based on the speaker’s conceptualization of his/her territory. The speaker in some

languages also identifies the addressee’s territory. It is noteworthy that the addressee’s territory is more

vulnerable than the speaker’s territory as is reflected in the data on parameter conflicts.

Notes

168

1. One informant out of three used both proximal and non-proximal verticality encoded forms

interchangeably for referents with indirect contact. In the elicitation session, the informant seemed quite

confused with the instructions and could not decide which forms he should have used.

2. Motivation for the use of medial forms in Venda and distal forms in Korean is not clear.

3. Apatani, Luiya, Newari, and Nuer data are not available for this question.

4. Yajima (1984) notes that the first category forms in Bulgarian refer to ‘proximal to the speaker’ and

‘proximal to the addressee’, while the second category forms refer to ‘distal’. However, an informant in our

data gave a distal form in a situation where a doctor touched a patient’s back/tooth.

5. Elicitation was conducted in the informants’ homeland with the help of Setsuko Shinozaki (in Beijing)

for Mandarin Chinese, Kazuko Nigamu (in Calcutta) for Bengali and by myself (in Delhi) for Hindi.

6. Informants of languages such as Malagasy, Russian, Norwegian, Polish, and Danish used a distance-

neutral form in the doctor-and-patient situation. In Malagasy, a distance-neutral bounded form was used. It

seems to be because a form, which can indicate the addressee’s control, requires movement or at least

potential movement of the referent, which is not the case with a patient’s body or tooth.

7. Speakers of Spanish and Thai that are also dual-anchored languages used forms in the second category.

Those forms may refer either to a referent/region proximal to the addressee or “distal”; therefore, we cannot

decide which was in the speaker’s mind. Data from Apatani, Luyia, and Neur are not available for this task.

169

Chapter 6

Conclusion

The present study has examined the semantics of spatial deictics from a cross-linguistic point of view.

Various parameters were examined to determine the factors influencing the use of deictics in various

languages. We have examined how the parameters determine the use of spatial deictics, how languages

demarcate space with deictics, and to what extent these parameters are universal. Not all the parameters are

morphologically overt. The methods used in this work revealed covert parameters, too.

There are absolute universal, near universal, universally available (or substantive universal)

parameters, and implicational universals for deictics. There are also semantics that are never coded in

spatial deixis (cf. Talmy 2001). The absolute universal parameter is a parameter that is observed in all

natural languages. The near-universal parameter is one that might actually be universal, but it has some

apparent and debatable counter-examples in some languages and requires further investigation. If apparent

counter-examples turn out not to exist, the parameter is re-categorized as an absolute universal. If those

apparent counter-examples are confirmed to be true exceptions, then the parameter is confirmed to be a

near universal. Other parameters mentioned below and elsewhere are universally available. These

constitute an inventory out of which each language selects only a subset. It is also important to note that

there are factors that never become deictic parameters in any language. Deictics may encode [motion] but

abstract away speed and manners of motion, such as rotation and oscillation. The process of abstracting

such factors away is called neutralization. Neutralization of factors in closed-class forms is extensively

studied in Talmy (2000a: 20ff.). The factors that he pointed out for neutralization in closed-class

grammatical categories, such as magnitude-neutrality, shape-neutrality, closure-neutrality, discontinuity-

neutrality, bulk-neutrality, token-neutrality, and substance-neutrality, are also applicable to deictics.

Deictics manifest magnitude-neutrality, which is shown by our use of the same proximal term this in ‘this

tiny smear’ as well as ‘this immense galaxy’. Deictics manifest shape-neutrality as exemplified in ‘this

triangle’ as well as ‘this oval’. Deictics manifest closure-neutrality as exemplified in ‘here in the glass’ as

well as ‘here in the ice-cube’, regardless of whether the curved plane leaves an opening or is wholly closed.

170

Deictics manifest discontinuity-neutrality as in examples such as ‘here in the light-bulb’ as well as ‘here in

the birdcage’, regardless of whether the curved plane is solid or gapped. Deictics manifest bulk-neutrality,

which is shown by sentences like ‘this line along the filament’ as well as ‘this line along the redwood tree’,

regardless of the bulk of the bodies of entities. Deictics manifest token-neutrality as shown by ‘this writer’

but not ‘this Shakespeare’, provided that there is only one Shakespeare to our knowledge, and because

there is no deictic that can refer to a token but not to a type. Deictics manifest substance-neutrality, which is

expressed in phrases like ‘this liquid’ as well as ‘this gas’.

(1) All languages pertain to [contact/control] by the speaker (absolute universal).

The primary function of spatial deixis is demarcation of space surrounding the speaker. The primary

and universal parameter for spatial demarcation is the speaker’s [contact/control]. Contrary to traditional

descriptions of deictics based on relative distance, the present research indicates that the primary and

universal parameter is the speaker’s [contact/control]. Although relative distance is one of the cues for

determining a territory, it can always be overridden by the more decisive [contact/control] parameter. The

speaker demarcates space by judging whether or not a referent/region is within his/her conceptual territory

or not. Whether s/he can contact/control or is contacting/controlling a referent/region is the most influential

factor in deciding his/her conceptual territory in all languages. As the level of control increases, the

referent/region is more easily construed to be within the speaker’s territory. Spatial recognition is grounded

in the speaker’s autonomous interpretation of the world or conceptual interactions with the world.

The notion of territory is not restricted to the speaker. The territory of the addressee or of a participant

in a conversation can be relevant to deictics in languages. The significance of [contact/control] in relation

to the addressee’s territory varies from language to language. The determining parameters of the

addressee’s territory vary among languages. Some languages define the addressee’s territory in terms of

[contact/control] by the addressee and [proximity] in the same way as the speaker’s territory. Malagasy

defines the addressee’s territory with respect to [control] but not [contact] or [proximity]. The Patan dialect

of Newari does so with respect to [contact/control] but not [proximity], and the Bhaktapur dialect does so

with respect to [contact/control] and [proximity] restricted to the frontal region of the addressee. We

pointed out that the addressee’s [contact/control] parameter, which is morphologically covert and usually

171

not considered as a parameter in English and some languages, is actually a factor in choosing deictics. In

other words, languages that do not morphologically encode the addressee anchor in deictics may still be

sensitive to the addressee.

(2) Anchor

a. All languages use the “speaker” as a primary anchor (absolute universal).

b. Some languages use a secondary anchor(s): the location of the addressee, the third person, a participant in a conversation, a non-participant in a conversation, or an object.

c. If a language has a form(s) encoding a non-speaker as an anchor, the language has more complex forms encoding the speaker as an anchor (implicational universal).

An anchor is the basis on which distance or other parameters of deictics are calculated. The speaker is the

primary anchor for deictics in all languages. The addressee anchor is an important factor for deictics among

languages, next to the indispensable speaker anchor. There exist two different systems of addressee-anchor

systems: the dual-anchor system and the addressee-anchor isolated system. In the dual-anchor system, a

deictic form that indicates proximity to the addressee (or more precisely, a referent or space within the

addressee’s territory) can also indicate some distance from the speaker. Languages with the addressee-

isolated system have forms exclusively used for indicating proximity to the addressee, and they cannot

indicate distance from the speaker. It is a tendency in descriptive grammars to neglect differences between

these two systems and incorrectly describe a language of the dual-anchor system as a language of the

addressee-isolated system. A good number of languages, probably about half of the languages described as

having forms encoding an addressee parameter, may in fact belong to the dual-anchor system. In addition

to the addressee, the third person, a participant in a conversation, a non-participant in a conversation, and

the location of an object are candidates for an anchor. Usually, the addressee-anchored form indicates the

proximity to the addressee but not the medial distance or remote distance from the addressee. There is not

single case in which more than one degree of distance is expressed by the third-person-anchored form. In

other words, if a language has a form(s) encoding a non-speaker as an anchor, the language has more

complex forms encoding the speaker as an anchor. This is an implicational universal.

Demarcation of space is made along a distance axis or a non-distance axis. Distance is calculated

based on the sense of the territory as recapitulated above. The distance axis is common among languages

172

and other non-distance axes are supplementary for some languages. The data show that most languages use

only a distance axis, and those languages that use axes other than the distance axis do not fail to use the

distance axis.

(3) Degrees of distance:

a. All languages may encode at least two degrees of distance (at least in locationals) (absolute universal).

b. Languages may not encode more than three degrees of distance (near universal).

The minimum degrees of distance in locationals are two, although there are a few languages whose

demonstrative pronouns and adjectives are distance-neutral.

Maximum degrees of distance are still undecided. Although Malagasy and Venda, among other

languages, have been reported to have more than a three-way contrast in distance in the literature, the

present study has demonstrated that these languages actually distinguish at most a three-way distance

contrast. Nevertheless, it is still premature to deny the possibility of the existence of languages encoding

more than a three-way distance contrast before examining a significant number of languages that have been

described as having four or more degrees of contrast in distance in reference grammars.

Languages encoding [motion] are categorized into three types. The first type encodes [motion] without

referring to direction or distance. The second type encodes [motion] as well as direction from the speaker.

The third type encodes [motion] as well as the distance of goal/destination.

Malagasy’s [motion] parameter includes fictive motions such as i) local-frame fictive motion, where

the observer is presented as stationary and his/her surroundings as moving relative to him/her from his/her

perspective, ii) ground-frame fictive motion, where the stationary figure object appears to be moving

because the ground object or the background moves, iii) coextension-path fictive motion of an observer,

where an imagined figure moves along a path, and iv) coextension-path fictive motion of focus of attention,

where only the focus of attention by the observer moves along a path. [Motion] may be foregrounded or

backgrounded. The choice depends on how the observer interprets the real-world events.

(4) Mode of access:

a. Deictics of all languages use “vision” as the primary mode of access (absolute universal).

173

b. If a language has a form(s) [invisible], it has equally or more complex form(s) encoding [visible] (implicational universal).

c. If a language has a form(s) encoding [olfactory], it has a form(s) encoding [auditory] (implicational universal).

[Visibility] is universal. Some languages distinguish [invisible] from [visible] and linguistically

encode [invisible] in deictics. The paradigm of [visible] forms is equal to or more complex than that of

[invisible] forms (except for a single exception in Upriver Halkomelem). All languages assume that a

referent/region is [visible] to the speaker and the addressee, unless the forms morphologically encode

[invisible]. [Invisibility] is primarily based on the speaker’s perspective; however, there are some cases of

perspective shifts, where [invisibility] from an addressee’s perspective is marked.

[Invisibility] is categorized into sub-types. These are [invisible-remote], distance-sensitive [invisible-

occlusion], distance-neutral [invisible-occlusion], and [invisible-peripheral sense]. [Invisible-remote] is the

most common cross-linguistically. From the first one to the last one, deictic force becomes gradually

weaker. As deictic force weakens, the function declines to anaphoric. [Invisible-remote] denotes an

invisible referent/region because it is too far for the speaker to see, and [invisible-occlusion] denotes an

invisible referent/region because of blockage of vision by an obstacle between the speaker and the

referent/region. A few languages additionally encode [auditory] and [olfactory]. These parameters belong

to [invisible-peripheral sense]. If a language has forms encoding [olfactory], it also has forms encoding

[auditory]. If a language has forms encoding [auditory], it also has forms encoding [invisible]. The cline

must be reflecting asymmetries of quantity and quality of information obtained by visual, auditory, and

olfactory modes of perceptions by human beings. When the speaker measures the distance of an object

from him/herself or another anchor, visual sense is the primary means to collect information. The location

of a sound source can also be judged by acoustic information; however, the accuracy of measurement is

coarse compared with that based on vision. Smells are of no use in detecting direction or distance.

Geographic parameters such as [uphill], [downhill], [upriver], [downriver], [inland], [sea-ward],

[parallel to a river], [away from a river], [toward a river], [exit/mouth of a river], [down the beach], and [up

the bush] are all bound to landscapes. Cardinal directions are bound to the earth’s axis. It may be the case

that, diachronically, landscape-bound geographic parameters switch to geometric parameters such as [up],

[down], [level] [side], [behind], [front], [in (interior)], [out (exterior)], and [other side]. We have also

174

suggested that cardinal-direction parameters originated in geographic parameters based on observations of

the contortion of quadrants.

Functional parameters include an equi-distance [contrast], [presentative (directive and offerative)],

[psychological distance], [alienable], [inalienable], and [contact/control]. Functional parameters reflect how

the speaker interacts with referents/regions.

An equi-distance [contrast] and [psychological distance], which override [distance] from the speaker

are not common among languages but were observed in some informants of English and a few informants

of Santali. The use of an equi-distance [contrast] and [psychological distance] reflect deviations from the

norm of deictics, which is conditioned by the speaker’s territory defined by [proximity] and

[contact/control]. Bleaching of deictic force will lead to the loss of a distance contrast and then toward an

anaphoric use of the form.

[Presentative] is subcategorized into [directive], whose function is to draw the attention of the

addressee to a referent/region, and [offerative], whose function is to hand over an object to the addressee.

Some languages have forms for “presentative” in general, and a few languages have distinctive forms for

[directive] and [offerative].

Malagasy manifests the involvement of [alienable], [inalienable] in deictics. Alienable objects are

construed to be under [control]; therefore they are referred to with forms encoding [control], which in turn

encode [motion].

Referent/region configurations encoded in deictics are parameters of [bounded, unbounded],

[restricted, extended], [motion], and [posture]. Parameters of [restricted] and [extended] are compared to

parameters of [bounded] and [unbounded]. These are similar but not identical. We argued that parameters

of [bounded] and [unbounded] in Malagasy and other languages may be related to [precise], [vague]

parameters, respectively, and to [static], [motion] parameters, respectively, by conceptual extensions. We

have also argued that addressee-encoding, or more precisely, the addressee’s [control] in Malagasy is an

extension of [motion]. Conceptual extensions thus create a net of the semantics of deictics. [Posture]

indicates that a referent is “lying”, “sitting”, “facing away”, “facing toward”, and so on.

Some of the parameters mentioned above are related to each other and form implicational universals

as follows:

175

(5) Implicational universals:

a. If a language has a form(s) encoding [level], it has a form(s) encoding [down].

b. If a language has a form(s) encoding [down], it has a form(s) encoding [up].

c. If a language encodes a geometric parameter in a deictic form, it also encodes it in a more distal deictic form.

d. If a language encodes a geographic parameter in a deictic form, it also encodes it in a more distal deictic form.

e. If a language has a form(s) encoding [motion], it has a form(s) encoding a static referent.

What are intentionally left out in the present research are the relativistic, qualitative factors that

determine where the dividing lines between the values of a parameter are to be located in a language. The

size of the figure and ground is one such factor. A table and cups of the same size were intentionally kept

using in most tasks to minimize the influence of that factor. The size of visual occupancy of a referent in

one’s visual field is also assumed to be another factor. A huge building covering most of the speaker’s

visual field may be referred to with a proximal form, while a bicycle in front of the building is referred to

with a distal form. Saliency because of the speaker’s attention on the referent/location may be another

factor. Another type of saliency, for instance, vividness of color of a referent, may also affect the choice of

deictics. These qualitative factors must be investigated to obtain a complete picture of spatial deixis.

The list below is still not exhaustive; however, to our knowledge at present, it is drawn from the most

extensive sources and covers most of the existing spatial deictic parameters in the world’s languages.

176

Table 1. Parameters of spatial deixis

A N C H O R S P A T I A L D E M A R C A T I O N

Distance Geometric Geographic Cardinal direction

Speaker Neutral Level Upriver NorthAddressee Immediate Up Downriver South

Dual-anchor Proximal Down Uphill EastAdr-isolated Medial Side Downhill West

Spk & Adr Distal Behind Inland/ BushThird person Remote Interior Sea/ BeachParticipant Invisible remote +deictic center Parallel to a riverNon-participant Emphatic remote –deictic center Away from a riverObject Exterior Toward a river

+deictic center Mouth of a river–deictic center

Other side

R E F E R E N T / R E G I O N C O N F I G U R A T I O N Quality Motion Posture Visibility

Bounded Motion Lying Invisible-occlusionUnbounded Motion with direction Sitting Invisible-peripheral sensePrecise Centripetal Facing away from S (Behind)Vague Centrifugal Facing across from S (Beside)Restricted Transversal Facing toward S (Front)Extended Motion with distance of goal

F U N C T I O N (Overt/ Covert) Contrast Control Presentative Psychological distance Information

Equi-distance contrast Contact/Control Directive (abhorrent) distal KnownDifferentiation Offerative UnknownSelection

177

Appendix A

List of Languages and Sources

Abkhaz Campbell, George L. 1991

Acehnese Durie, Mark 1993

Acoma Milier, Wick R. 1965

Afrikaans Donaldson, B.C. 1993

Aghu Drabbe, Peter 1957

Aka Bender, M. Lionel 1989

Akkadian (extinct) Lipin, L.A. 1973

Aklanon Dela Cruz, B.A. and R.D.P. Zorc 1968

Albanian Camaj, Martin 1984

Algonquian Proulx, Paul 1988

(Amazonian languages) Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Geoffrey K P. (eds.) 1998

Ambrym Paton, W.F. 1971

Ambulas Wilson, Patric R. 1980

(American Languages) Sawyer, Jesse (ed.) 1971

Amharic Davis, D.M. and Easter Fancher 1952; Gasser, Mike 1992; Woldegabir, Semere

1966

Amuesha Wise, Mary Ruth 1986

Anguthimri Crowley, Terry 1981

Ao Gowda, K.S. Gurubasave. 1975

Apatani Abraham, P.T. 1985

Arabana Hercus, L.A. 1994

Arabic (classical) Belnap, Kirk 1995

Arabic (Egyptian) Gray, J. Olmsted and S. Gamal-Edlin 1981

Arabic (Gulf) Holes, Clire 1990

Arabic-Moroccan Becker, Angelika and Carrol Mary 1997

178

Aramaic (Neo-) Khan, Geoffrey 1999

Armenian-classical Klein, Jared S. 1996

Arosi Capell, A. 1971

Asi Feta-Icorin, Mejella 1990

Assamese Goswami, Golockchandra 1982

Athabaskan Axelrod, Melissa 1992

Atikamekw Beland, Jean Pierre 1978

(Australian languages) Dixon, R.M.W. and Barry J. Blake (eds.) 1979

Babungo Schaub, Willi 1985

Balangao Shetler, Joanne 1976

Baluchi Nawata, Tetsuo 1981

Bambara Bird, Charles Stephen 1976

Bartangi Payne, John R. 1980

Basque Salturelli, Mario 1988

Baure Baptista, Praiscilla and Ruth Wallin 1967

Belhare Bickel, Balthasar 1994

Bella Coola Davis, Philip W. & Ross Sanders 1975a; Davis, Philip W. & Ross Saunders

1975b

Bemba Hoch, E. 1963

Bemba, Hausa Welmers, William Everett 1973

Bengali Bykova, E.M. 1981

Berbice Dutch Creole Kouwenberg, S. 1994

Bikol McFarland, C.D. 1974; Mintz, M.W. 1971

Binukid Guasa, P.A., Jr. 1991

Bishnupuriya Manipuri Simha, Kaliprasada 1981

Blackfoot Taylor, Allan 1969

Bol-Anon Vertulfo, Gerry (published year is not given)

Bolinao Viray, Renato R. 1979

179

Boro Bhattacharya, Pramod Chandra 1977

Brokeh Dondrup, Rinchin 1993

Breton Anderson, Stephen R. and Edward L. Keenan 1985

Bugun Dondrup, Rinchin 1990

Bukiyip Conrad, Robert J. 1991

Bulgarian Alexander, Ronelle 2000; Rå Hauge, Kjetil 1999; Scatton, Ernest A. 1984;

Yajima, Hideo 1984

Burmese Okell, John 1969

Canela-Krahô Popjes, Jack and Jo Popjes 1986

Capanahua Loos, Eugene 1995

Catalan Hualde, José Ignacio 1992; Otaka, Sumio 1987

Cebuano Bunye, Mmaria Victoria R. and Elsa Paula Yap 1971

Cèmuhi Rivierre, Jean-Claude 1980

Chalcatongo Mixtec Macauley, M.A. 1996

Chamorro Topping, Donald M. 1973

Chang Hutton, J. H. [1929] 1987

Cheremis (Mari) Koizumi, Tamotsu 1991

Cheyenne Leman, Wayne 1984

Chinese (Mandarin) Mochizuki, Yasokichi 1978

Chrau Thomas, David D. 1971

Chukchee Bogoras, Waldemar 1922

Cora Casad, Eugene H. and Ronald W. Langacker 1985; Langacker, Ronald W. 1991

Cree Wolfart, H. 1973

Czech Harkins, William E. 1953; Heltberg, Kristine 1970; Kirchner, James 1995

Daga Murane, Elizabeth 1974

Danish Allan, Robin, Philip Holmes and Tom Lundskæ-Nielsen 1995; Yamanobe,

Izumi 1986; Yokoyama, Tamiji 1988

Dinka Nebel, P.A. 1948

180

Djinang Waters, Bruce 1989

Dumi Van Driem, George 1993

Dutch Language Made Clear Project 2000

Dyirbal Dixon, R.M.W. 1972

English Fillmore, Charles J. 1982; Lakoff, Robin 1974

Estonian Koizumi, Tamotsu 1991; Matsumura, Kazuo 1995a

Evenki Nedjalkov, Igor 1997

Ewondo Redden, James E. 1980

Fijian Schiitz, Albert J. and Hisako Shoji 1987

Finnish Larjavaara, Matti 1990; Laury, Ritva 1997; Sulkala, Helena and M. Karjalainen

1992

Fore Scott, Graham 1978

Forest River Capell, A. and H.H.J. Coate 1984

Fox Bloomfield, Leonard (ms. written year is not given)

French Allen, Jeff 1995; Ozanne-Rivierre, Françoise 1997; Sato, Fusakichi, et al. 1995

Gaam Bender, M. Lionel 1989

Galela Yoshida, Shuji 1977

Galician Asaka, Takekazu 1993

Gambere Capell, A. and H.H.J. Coate 1984

Gambian Mandinka Rowlands, E.C. 1959

Gbeya Samarin, William J. 1966

Georgian Hewitt, B.G. 1996; Sato, Nobuo and Osamu Iijima 1994; Tobe, Miyuki 1997

German Klein, Wolfgang 1983; Yamaguchi, Kazuo and Sigeo Hajima 1958

Ghatoali Dasgupta, Dipankar 1978

Ginan Capell, A. and H.H.J. Coate 1984

Greek (Modern) Joseph, Brian D. 1987

Gujarati Mistry, P.J. 2000

Gumbaynggir Eades, Dianna 1979

181

Gunya Breen, J.G. 1981

Guugu Yimidhirr Haviland, John 1979

Halitao-Baytan Malicsi, Jonathan 1974

Halkomelem Galloway, Brent D. 1993

Hamer Lydall, Jean 1976

Hausa Matsushita, Shuuji 1979

Hebrew Anderson, Stephen R. and Edward L. Keenan 1985; Glinert, Lewis 1989

Hiligaynon Wolfenden, Elmer P. 1971

Hill Miri Simon, I. M. 1976

Hixkaryana Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1985a

Ho Burrows, Lionel [1915] 1980

Hua Haiman, John 1980

Hungarian Hall, Robert A. 1938; Országh, László 1974; Waseda, Mika 1995

Iban Omar, Asmah Haji 1981

Idu Pulu, Jatan 1978

Ifugao-Banaue Bayungan, Paul (published year is not given)

Igbo Emenanjo, E.N. 1987

Ik Himmelmann, Nikolaous P. 1996; Serzisko, Fritz 1989

Ilokano Vanoverbergh, M. 1955

Inabaknon (Abaknon) Merin, E.M. 1992

Inati Pennoyer, F.D. 1985

Indonesian MacDonald, R. Ross 1976

Inuktitut Denny, J. Peter 1978

Inuktitut (West Greenlandic) Fortescue, Michael D. 1984

Iraqw Mous, Waarten 1993

Iraya Tweddell, Colin Ellidge 1958

Irish Gaelic DeSantis, Christopher C. 1995

Ishkashmi Payne, John R. 1980

182

Italian Sakamoto, Tetsuo 1979

Ivatan Hidalgo, C.A. and A.C. Hidalgo 1971

Izi Meier, Paul and Inge Meier and John Samuel-Bendor 1975

Japanese Shirai, Junko and Patschke Cynthia 2000

Jawdjibara Capell, A. and H.H.J. Coate 1984

Jazguliami Payne, John R. 1980

Juang Dasgupta, Dipankar 1978

Jukun Shimizu, Kiyoshi 1980

Kadayan (Kadazan) Antonissen, A. 1958

Kaeti Drabbe, Peter 1959

Kagayan Jean, Harmon C. 1977

Kalkatungu Blake, Barry J. 1979

Kamchadal Bogoras, Waldemar 1922

Kannada Hodson, Thomas [1859] 1979; Sridhar, S.R. 1990

Kanuri Lukas, Johannes [1937] 1967

Kapauku Doble, Marion 1960

Karanga Marconnes, Rev. Francisque, S. J. 1931

Karo Batak Woollams, Geoff 1996

Karok Bright, William 1957

Kashmiri Wali, Kashi and Omkar N. Kowl 1990

Kawaiisu Zigmond, Maurice L. 1991

Kayardild Evans, Nicholas 1995

Kelo Bender, M. Lionel 1989

Kharia Thar Dasgupta, Dipankar 1978

Khasi Nagaraja, K.S. 1985; Rabel, Lili 1961

Kickapoo Voorhis, Paul H. 1974

Kikuyu Denny, J. Peter 1978

Kilba Schuh, Russel G. 1983

183

Kinyamwezi Clement, Maganga and T. C. Schadeberg 1992

Kiowa Watkins, Laurel J. 1984

Kirundi Bigirumwami, Joseph 1992

Kobon Davis, H.J. 1989

Koiali Dutton, T. E. (ed.) 1975

Kokborok Karapurkar, Pusha Pai 1976

Komi-Zyrian Koizumi, Tamotsu 1991

Korean Martin, Samuel E. and Young-Sook C. Lee 1969; Sohn, Ho-Min 1994

Koromfe Rennison, John R. 1997

Koryak Bogoras, Waldemar 1922

Kui Winfield, W.W. 1928

Kuki-Lushai Soppitt, C.A. [1893] 1976

Kullo Allan, Edward J. 1976

Kunuzi Nubian Abdel-Hafiz, Ahmed S. 1988

Kusaiean Lee, Ken-Deng 1975

Kwakiutl Boas, Franz 1947

Ladakhi Koshal, Sanyukta 1979

Lahu Matisoff, James A. 1973

Lak Friedman Victor A. 1996

Lampung Walker, Dale 1976

Lango Noonan, Micheal 1992

Lappish (Sami)(Northern) Koizumi, Tamotsu 1991

Lari Ganga, Celestin 1992

Latin Arita, Jun 1984; Tanaka, Toshimitsu 1990

Lealao Chinantec Rupp, James E. 1989

Lenakel Lynch, J. 1978

Lepcha Mainwaring, G.B. [1876] 1971

Lezgian Haspelmath, Martin 1993

184

Lodha Dasgupta, Dipankar 1978

Logbara (Ma’di) Crazzolara, J.P. 1960

Logo Tucker, Arcibald N. 1967

Loniu Hamel, P. J. 1994

Macedonian Bojié, Vera and Wolf Oschlies 1984

Macushi Abbott, Mirian 1991

Mahican Masthay, Carl 1972

Majang Unseth, Pete 1989

Malagasy Cousins, William Edward 1873; Garvey, Catherine J. 1964a; Garvey, Catherine

J. 1964b; Rajaona, Siméon 1972; Richardson, James 1884

Malagasy, Venda Imai, Shingo 1999

Malakmalak Birk, D.B.W. 1976

Malayalam Asher, R.E. and T.C. Kumari 1997; Jayaseelan, K.A. 2000

Maliseet-Passamaquoddy Leavitt, Robert M. 1996; LeSourd, Philip S. 1993

Mal-Pahariya Dasgupta, Dipankar 1978

Maltese Borg, Albert and Azzopardi-Alexandar Marie 1997

Malto Mahapatria, B.P. 1979

Mam England, Nora C. 1983

Manam Lichtenberg, Frantisek 1983

Mangarayi Merian, Francesca [1982] 1989

Mangubetu Larochette, J. 1958

Manobo Dubois, C.D. 1976

Manobo (Western Bukidnon) Elkins, Richard E. 1970

Mansaka Svelmoe, G. and T. Svelmoe 1974

Maori Bauer, Winifred 1993

Maountain Koiali Garland, Roger and Susan Garland 1975

Maranao Epstein, Jonathan 1963

Maranungku Tryon, Darrell T. 1970

185

Marathi Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 1997

Margany Breen, J.G. 1981

Margi Hoffman, Carl 1963

Maricopa Gordon, Lynn 1986

Maringi Powers, David 1992

Martuthunira Dench, Alan Charles 1995

Masalit Edgar, John 1989

Maya Hanks, William F. 1990

Me’en Will, Hans Georg 1989

Meje McKee, Robert 1991

Melanau Clayre, Iain 1973

Miji Simon, I. M. (published year is not given)

Miju Boro, A. 1978

Mishmi Sastry, Devi Prasada 1984

Mising Prasad, Bal Ram 1991

Miya Schuh, Russel G. 1998

Mizo Chhangte, L. 1989; Murthy, B. Laliyha and K.V. Subbarao 2000

Mocovi Quevedo, Samuel A. Lafone 1893

Mohawk Bonvillain, Nancy 1981

Mojave Munro, Pamela 1976

Mokilese Harrison, Sheldon P. 1976

Moklum Ngemu, T. 1977

Moldvin (Erza) Koizumi, Tamotsu 1991

Molo Bender, M. Lionel 1989

Mongolian Poppe, Nicholas 1970

Montagnais Proulx, Paul 1988

Mopan Maya Danziger, Eve 1994

Moru Tucker, Arcibald N. 1967

186

Mparntwe Arrernte Wilkins, David 1989

Mulao Jun, Wang and Zheng Guogiao 1993

Muna Berg, René van den 1989

Mundari Cook, Walter A. 1965; Munda, R.D. 1979; Osada, Toshiki 1992

Murut Prentice, D.J. 1971

Naga Pidgin Syeedhar, M.V. 1985

Nah Pertin, Kabuk 1994

Nakanai Johnston, Raymond Leslie 1980

Nama-Hottentot Hagman, Roy S. 1977; Anderson, Stephen R. and Edward L. Keenan 1985

Nandi Creider, Chet A. and Jane Tapsubei 1989

Natick Trumbull, James H. 1903

Nduka Huttar, George L. and Marry L. Huttar 1994

Nenets (Yurak) Koizumi, Tamotsu 1991

Nepali Kilgour, R.D.D. 1982; Morland-Hughes W.R.J. 1947

Nevome Shaul, David Leedom 1986

Ngarinjin Capell, A. and H.H.J. Coate 1984

Ngiyambaa Donaldson, Tamsin 1980

Nguna Schütz, Albert J. 1961

Nicobarese Temple, Richard C. 1902

(Nilo-Saharan languages) Bender, M. Lionel (ed.) 1989

Nishing Goswami, S.N. (ed.) 1995

Nkore-Kiga Taylor, C.V. 1985

Northern Paiute Snapp, Allen, John Anderson and Joy Anderson 1982; Langacker, Ronald W.

(ed.) 1982

Northern Tepehuan Bascom, Barton 1982; Langacker, Ronald W. (ed.) 1982

Norwegian Anderson, Gisle 1995; Okamoto, Takeshi 1993

Nunggubuyu Heath, Jeffrey 1980

Oneida Abbott, Clifford 1981

187

Onge Dasgupta, Dipankar and S. R. Sharma 1982

Oriya Ray, Tapas S. 2000

Oroshori Payne, John R. 1980

Ostyak (Khanty) Koizumi, Tamotsu 1991

Paamese Crowley, Terry 1982

Pahariya Dasgupta, Dipankar 1978

Pailibo Badu, Tapoli 1994

Palauan Josephs, Lewis, S. 1975

Palaung Milne, Leislie 1921

Pamir Languages: Roshani, Bartangi, Oroshori, Shughni (Šuni), Sarykoli, Jazguliami, Ishkashmi,Waxi

Payne, John R. 1980

Pangasinan Benton, Richard A. 1971; Fidel of Amurrio, Father 1970

Panytyima Dench, Alan 1992

Papago Saxton, Dean 1982; Langacker, Ronald W. (ed.) 1982

Pashto Nawata, Tetsuo 1985

Paumarí Chapman, Shirley and Desmond C. Derbyshire 1991

Perene Campa Reed, J. 1978; Wise, Mary Ruth 1986

Persian Elwell-Sutton, L.P. 1975

Pirahä Everette, Daniel 1986

Piro Matteson, E. 1965; Wise, Mary Ruth 1986

Pitta Pitta Blake, Barry J. 1979

Ponapean Rehg, Kenneth L. 1981

Portuguese-Brazilian Kurosawa, Naotoshi 1988

Puluwat Elbert, Samuel H. 1974

Punjabi Bhatia, Tej. K. 1993

Punjabi Dulai, Narinder K. 1989

Quechua (Ancash) Cole, Peter 1985

Quechua (Cuzco-Callao) Cusihuaman G. Antonio 1976

188

Quechua-(Huallaga) Weber, D. 1989

Quechua-(Imbabura) Cole, Peter 1985

Quileute Andrade, Manuel J. 1933

Rapanui Du Feu, Veronica 1996

Remo Fernandez, Frank. 1969

Roshani Payne, John R. 1980

Rumanian Mallinson, Graham 1986

Russian Sugiyama, Asako and Atsuko Fujinuma 1988

Sabgir Adriani, Nicolaus 1893

Saboat Larsen, Iver 1991

Sakao Guy, Jacques 1992

Salt-Yui Irwin, Barry 1974

Samal Fillmore, Charles J. [1971b] 1975

Sambal-Botolan Antworth, E.L. 1979; Diohen, Marilou (published year is not given)

Sambal-Tina Diego, Vic (published year is not given)

Samoan Iwase, Yoshichika 1989; Oda, Masahisro 1977

Sanskrit Tsuji, Naoshiro 1974

Santa Ana del Valle Zapotec Darnell, Mike and Aaron Broadwell 1992

Santali Neukom, Lukas 2001

Sanuma Borgman, Donald M. 1990

Sarykoli Payne, John R. 1980

Sassarese Jarea 1992

Sawatal Yoshida, Shuji 1981

Scottish Gaelic Adger, David 1992

Sebei Montgomery, Christine Anne 1967

Sedang Smith, Kenneth D. 1979

Selepet McElhanon, K.A. 1972

Serbo-Croatian Žic, Fuchs M. 1996

189

Shabo (Mikeyir) Teferra, Anbessa 1991

Shawnee Boling, Jerry A. 1980

Sherdukpen Dondrup, Rinchin 1988

Shoshoni Eizinga, Dirk 1995

Shughni (Šuni), Payne, John R. 1980

Sibuyanon Capa, Virgilio (published year is not given)

Singpo Gupta, K. Das 1979

Sinhala Gail, James W. and W. S. Karunatillake 2000

Siroi Wells, Margaret A. 1979

So Serzisko, Fritz 1989

Somali Bell, Christopher Richard Vincent 1968; Kirk, J.W.C. 1905

Sotho (Southern) Anderson, Stephen R. and Edward L. Keenan 1985; Doke, Clemant Martyn and

S. M. Mofokeng 1967

(South Asian languages) Lust, Barbara C., et al. 2000

Southern Paiute Bright, William (ed.) 1992; Sapir, Edward 1930

Spanish Terasaki, Hideki 1998

Sre Manley, Timothy 1972

Subanen Chuo, Lily T. 1973

Supyire Carlson, Robert 1994

Swahili Loogman, Alfons 1965

Swedish Holmes, Philip and Ian Hinchliffe 1994

Tagin Gupta, K. Das 1983

Takelma Golla, Victor (ed.) 1990; Sapir, Edward 1922

Tamil Annamalai, E. 2000; Asher, R.E. 1989

Taraon Pulu, Jatan 1991

Tauya MacDonald, Lorna 1990

Tehit Flassy, Don A.L. and W.A.L. Strokhof 1979

Telugu Subbarao, K.V. and Lalitha B. Murthy 2000

190

Thadou Shree, Krishan 1980

Thai Noss, Richard B. 1964; Sakamoto, Yasuyuki 1989

Tibetan Bell, Charles Alfred [1905, 1937] 1978; Kitamura, Hajime 1974; Roerich,

George N. and Lobsang Phuntshok Lhalungpa 1972

Tigrinya(Tigrigna) Laslau, Wolf 1941

Tinrin Osami, Midori 1995

Tlingit Boas, Franz 1917b; Story G.L. and C.M. Naish 1973; Swanton, John R. 1911

Toba Batak Van der Tuuk, H.N. [1964] 1971

Tokelau Hovdhaugen, E. 1989

Tolai Mosel, Ulrike 1982; Mosel, Ulrike 1984

Tolomako Guy, Jacques 1992

Truk Dyen, Isidore 1965

Tulu Brigel, J. [1872] 1982

Tümpisa (Panamint) Shoshone Dayley, Jon P. 1989.

Turkana Dimmendaal, Gerrit 1983

Turkish Anderson, Stephen R. and Edward L. Keenan 1985; Dervillez-Bastuji,

Jacqueline 1976; Kornfilt, Jaklin 1997; Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967; Lewis, Thomas 1967;

Underhill, Robert 1976; Wilkinson, David P. 1999; Ozyurek, Asli and Sotaro

Kita 2002

Turkmen Clark, Larry 1988

Tutsa Rekhung, Winlang 1992

Tzutujil Dayley, Jon D. 1985

Uighur Tobe, Miyuki 1986

Ulithian Sohn, Ho-Min and B. W. Bender 1973

Unami Delaware Goddard, Ives 1983

Unggarangi Capell, A. and H.H.J. Coate 1984

Urim Hemmilä, Ritva 1989

Urubu-Kaapor Kakumasu, James 1986

191

Ute Givón, Talmy 1980

Vai Welmers, William Everett 1976

(Various languages) Hasse, Martin 1992

Venda Poulos, G. 1990; Ziervogel, D., et al. (eds.) 1972

Vietnamese Nguyen, Dinh Hoa 1997

Vogul (Mansi) Koizumi, Tamotsu 1991

Votic Ariste, Paul 1968

Votyak (Udmurt) Koizumi, Tamotsu 1991

Wai-Wai Hawkins, Robert E. 1998

Walar Capell, A. and H.H.J. Coate 1984

Wangkangurru Hercus, L.A. 1994

Waray Piczon, Petrona B. 1973; Wolf, John and Ida Wolf 1967

Wardaman Merlan, Francesca 1994

Warekena Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1998

Wargamay Dixon, R.M.W. 1981

Wari’ Everette, Daniel L. and Barnbara Kern 1997

Watjarri Douglas, Wilfrid H. 1981

Waxi Payne, John R. 1980

Wellamo Tucker, Arcibald N. and M. A. Bryan 1966

Wembawemba Hercus, L.A. 1969

West Futuna, aniwa Capell, Arthur 1984; Dougherty, Janet W.D. 1983

Wikchamni Gamble, Geoffrey 1978

Woleaian Sohn, Ho-min 1975

Wolof Gasser, Mike 1992

Worora Capell, A. and H.H.J. Coate 1984

Xârâcùù Moyse-Faurie 1995

Xdi (Xedi) Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1996

Yagaria Renck, G.L. 1975

192

Yagua Payne, Doris L. and Thomas E. Payne 1990

Yakut Kruenger, John Richard 1997

Yapese Jesen, John Thayer 1977

Yatye Stahlke, Herb 1992

Yiddish Ueda, Kazuo 1985

Yidi Dixon, R.M.W. 1977

Yoruba Ogunbowale, P.O. 1970

Yucatec Maya, terms Hanks, William F. 1996

Yukatec Maya Hanks, William F. 1984

Yukatec Maya, terms Gumperz, John J. and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.) 1996

Yumas Foley, William A. 1991

Yunyuwa Kirton, Jean and B. Charlie 1996

Yupik Eskimo Miyaoka, Osahito 1978; Reed, Irene, et al. 1977

Yurok Robins, R.H. 1958

193

Appendix B

Summary of Data of 15 languages

Ao [Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Konyak]

(I) Parameters: [Prox], [Dist]

(II) Paradigm:

Imlang (lower village) Mangmetong Mongsen Ao

Prox Dist (Remote-lexical)Adj pre-nominal iba -- warajoko liba

post-nominal phi/ibai ayu warajoko libajuPron Sg/Pl phi/ibai ayuLoc at phi-ko/ibaiko ayu-ko worajo-ko

from phi fine ayu fineto phi ne/iba ne ayu ne

(The slot marked with ‘--’ is a gap in paradigm. No form was provided by informants and no form is

expected to exist to fill in these slots.)

Plural is marked with a suffix -lung for nouns.

Yimpang (higher village) Mangmetong Mongsen Ao

Prox Dist (Remote-lexical)Adj/Pron ipa-yi/ipa-/-yi/-(i)pai/-peyi (i)(p)a-chu war liba- -chuLoc at iku a-chuko war chu/wakuchu/war liba chu

from ipa pinongto (ipa)a-chu nü

/p/ ~ /b/

(‘War liba- -chu’ indicates that a modified noun fill in the position indicated by ‘- -‘.)

(III) Lexical “remote” forms:

The lexical (i.e., analytic) forms are not demonstratives per se because those forms can be replaced with

distal forms even when a referent is located in a considerable distance. For instance, in Yimpang (higher

village) Mangmetong Mongsen Ao, a star, which is very distal, may be referred to with the distal form

petinu pachu ‘that star’ or with the lexical ‘remote’ form war liba petinu (jo) ‘star which is far’. In case a

referent is not proximal but not very far either, distal demonstrative pachu may be used but not a lexical

“remote” form. Furthermore, the co-occurrence of ayu and wara indicates that only one of ayu and wara

but not both of them is a member of a demonstrative paradigm.

194

(1) ayim ayu wara ko liao.village that far Loc be‘That village is far.’

However, the ‘remote’ forms in Yimpang (higher village) Mangmetong Mongsen Ao seem to be on the

way to grammaticalization because the remote morpheme war seems to be related to the word ura ‘far’ but

diverted form it morphologically and the informant does not claim any semantic relation between the two.

When an informant was asked the meaning of war, ‘there’ was the gloss given by the informant. While in

Female Imlang (lower village) Mangmetong Mongsen Ao, the ‘remote’ form is identical with the word

wora ‘far’. In Imlang (lower village) Mangmetong Mongsen Ao, worajuko liba ju means ‘one that is far’

and anahko liba ju means ‘one that is close’. It also appeared that the informant of Yimpang (higher

village) Mangmetong Mongsen Ao used ‘remote’ forms more often than the informant of Imlang (lower

village) Mangmetong Mongsen Ao.

(IV) Informants:

1. Sex: FemaleAge: 20’sDialect/Birthplace: Imlang (lower village) Mangmetong Mongsen AoMother’s language: Imlang Mangmetong Mongsen AoFather’s language: Longkhum ChungliLanguage used at home: Imlang Mangmetong Mongsen AoElementary education instruction medium: English

2. Sex: FemaleAge: 20’sDialect/Birthplace: Yimpang (higher village) Mangmetong Mongsen Ao/City of KohimaMother’s language: Yimpang Mangmetong Mongsen AoFather’s language: Akoia ChungliLanguage used at home: Yimpang Mangmetong Mongsen AoElementary education instruction medium: English

195

Apatani [Tibeto-Burman, Mirish]

(I) Parameters: [Prox], [Dist], [Adr], [Emphatic remote],

Imperative deictic parameters: [Unmarked (direction)], [Centrifugal]

(II) Paradigm:

Prox Dist Emphatic remote AdrAdj Sg ska- -si inka- -si into (daka)- -si hka- -h

Pl ska- -atang si inka - -atang si into daka- -atang si hka- -atang hPron Sg si insi intosi h

Pl ska atang si inka atang si into daka atang si hka atang hLoc so inso intoso ho/h ko

unmarked centrifugalImperative -to ()e

(‘Hka- -h’ and other similar representations indicate that a modified noun fill in the position indicated by

‘- -‘.)

(III) [Emphatic remote]:

Emphatic remote forms are only used when contrastive distance is required. Even a star which is quite far is

referred to with either a ‘distal’ form or a ‘emphatic remote form’.

(IV) “Imperative”:

The centrifugal suffix indicates that the addressee changes his/her locations away from the speaker. The

unmarked suffix indicates either being stationary or centripetal motion of the addressee. Imperative

morpheme -e attaches to a mono-syllabic root, -e.

Imperative deictic paradigm:

Unmarked Centrifugalsuffix -to -e‘Sing!’ gaito gaie‘Stand!’ barito barie

-e‘Dance!’ nasu muto nasu mue‘Sit!’ duto due‘Give!’ bito bie

196

(V) Informants:

1. Sex: MaleAge: Not given

2. Sex: FemaleAge: 40’s(?) (Informant does not know her own age)Dialect/Birthplace: Ziro

3. Sex: FemaleAge: 24Dialect/Birthplace: Ziro

4. Sex: FemaleAge: 20’s

Informants who provided supplementary data:

5. Sex: MaleAge: 20’s,

6. Sex: MaleAge: 20’sDialect/Birthplace: Ziro.

197

English [Germanic]

(I) Parameters: [Prox], [Dist]

Covert parameters: [Contrast], [Psychological distance]

(II) Paradigm:

Prox DistAdj/Pron this thatLoc here there

(III) Informants:

1. Sex: MaleAge: 20’sDialect/Birthplace: Albany, NY

2. Sex: FemaleAge: Not givenDialect/Birthplace: Buffalo, NY

3. Sex: Male Age: 40’-50’s

Dialect/Birthplace: Rochester, NY

4. Sex: MaleAge: 20’sDialect/Birthplace: Buffalo, NY

5. Sex: MaleAge: 40’s

6. Sex: FemaleAge: 20’sDialect/Birthplace: Washington, D.C.

7. Sex: MaleAge: 50’sDialect/Birthplace: Not given

198

Japanese [Isolate]

(I) Parameters: [Prox], [Dist], [Adr/Med]

(II) Paradigm:

Prox Adr/Med DistAdj kono sono anoPron kore sore areLoc koko soko asoko

(III) Informants:

1. Sex: MaleAge: 30’sBirthplace: Tokyo

2. Sex: FemaleAge: 30’sBirthplace: Tokyo

3. Sex: FemaleAge: 30’sBirthplace: Yamaguchi

4. Sex: MaleAge: 20’sBirthplace: Saitama

5. Sex: MaleAge: 30’sBirthplace: Tokyo

6. Sex: FemaleAge: 20’sBirthplace: Chiba

7. Sex: FemaleAge: 20’sBirthplace: Tokyo

199

Korean [Isolate]

(I) Parameters: [Prox], [Dist], [Adr]

(II) Paradigm:

Prox Adr DistAdj i ku cePron ‘this/that thing, fact’ i kes ku kes ce kesLoc ‘here/there’ yeki/(yoki) keki/(koki) ceki /(coki)Loc ‘this/that place’ i kos ku kos ce kos

(III) Informants:

1. Sex: FemaleAge: Not given

2. Sex: FemaleAge: Not givenDialect/Birthplace: South Province

3. Sex: MaleAge: Not givenDialect/Birthplace: Suwon City (10km from Seoul), Kyunggi Province (Do)

4. Sex: MaleAge: Not givenDialect/Birthplace: Suwon City

5. Sex: FemaleAge: Not givenDialect/Birthplace: Suwon City

200

Luyia [Niger-Congo, Atlantic-Congo, Benue-Congo, Bantu]

(I) Parameters:Adjectives/Pronouns: [Prox], [Dist], (There may exist other parameters.)

Locationals: [Prox], [Adr/Med], [Dist], [Side], [Interior](?)

(II) Paradigm (partial):

Prox Adr/Med Dist (Iconic-Remote)Adj/Pron (with a noun class marker) sino ? sila silaaLoc ano ao ala/ela alaa/elaaLoc Side eno ? ei eiiLoc Inside mo/muno omu(o) mo/mula ?

(Slots marked with ‘?’ are gaps in data. No form was provided by informants to fill in these slots.)

(III) Informant:

1. Sex: Male

Age: 30’s

First language: Luyia

Second language: Swahili

201

Malagasy [Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian]

(I) Parameters:Adjectives/Pronouns: [Prox], [Med], [Dist], [Bounded], [Unbounded], [Neutral], ([Visible]

as default, [Invisible-occlusion] for [Neutral] only)

Locationals: [Prox], [Med], [Dist], [Bounded], [Unbounded], [Neutral], [Visible], [Invisible-

occlusion]

Covert/extended parameters: [Bounded]-->[Specific], [Bounded]-->[Static], [Unbounded]-->[Unspecific]

[Unbounded]-->[Motion] -->[Addressee’s control],

[Unbounded]-->[Addressee’s unbounded/Addressee’s control],

[Directive] (?)

(II) Paradigm:

Proximal Med. Distal Distance-NeutralBounded Unbounded Bounded Unbounded

Adj/Pron Visible Sg ito/itý itsy irý io inyPl ireto iretsy irerý ireo ireny

Invisible Sg (izato) (izaty) ? (izary) izao izanyPl (izareto) ? ? ? ? ?

Loc Visible eto etý etsy erý eo enyInvisible ato atý atsy arý ao any

(Slots marked with ‘?’ are gaps in data. No form was provided by informants to fill in these slots.)

cf. izy: 3rd Sg pronoun

izay: anaphoric(?) pronoun

ilay: determiner

ny: determiner

(III) [Invisible]:

[Invisible] (Adj/Pron) forms may also be used as [directive] and may also connote politeness. For instance,

[directive] use of izato may be a semantic extension of [invisible]. The speaker calls the addressee’s

attention when the addressee is not looking at the object. One informant commented that izato was polite

when introducing people; ito, on the other hand, was derogatory if it was used for people. This usage of

[invisible] forms for politeness may be a euphonic use. Aside from these [invisible] forms, there were

observed two morphologically distinctive forms for [offerative/directive], namely indro for singular and

indreto for plural.

202

Morphologically, iz- forms should be [invisible]; however, there is no example of distance contrastive

[visible-occlusion]. There are examples of distance neutral [invisible periphery].

(IV) Informants:

1. Sex: FemaleAge: 30’sDialect: Marina dialect (Standard Malagasy)Birthplace: AntananarivoElementary school instruction medium: Marina dialect

2. Sex: FemaleAge: 31Dialect: Marina dialect (Standard Malagasy)Birthplace: AntananarivoMother’s language: Marina dialectFather’s language: Marina dialectElementary school instruction medium: Marina dialect

Four more informants provided supplementary data.

203

Mizo (Lushai) [Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Kuki-Chin]

(I) Parameters: [Prox], [Dist], [Adr], [Level], [Up], [Down], [Inv-peripheral sense (sound/smell)]

Covert parameter: [Offerative (not directive)]

(II) Paradigm:

Prox Adr Dist-Level Distal-Up Distal-Down Ana/Sound, smell

Adj Sg hee- -hi khaa- -kha saw- -saw khii- -khi khuu- -khu (chuu)- -chuEmphatic hee ta- -hi khaa ta- -kha saw ta- -saw khii ta- -khi khuu ta- -khu chuu ta- -chu

Pl heng- -hi khang- -kha sawng- -saw khing- -khi khung- -khu chung- -chuPron Sg hei/(hee) hi khaa kha saw saw khii khi khuu khu chuu chu

Pl heng hi khang kha sawng saw khing khi khung khu chung chuLoc he tah kha tah saw tah khi tah khu tah chu tah

Emph hee tah hian khaa tah khan saw tah sawan khii ta khian khuu ta kuan chu ta cuan

(‘Hee- -hi’ and other similar presentations indicate that a modified noun fill in the position indicated with ‘--‘.)

saw no saw [s: no: s]

[he: hi] is in a fast speech, [hei hi] is in a slow speech.

(III) [Invisible-peripheral]:

Chu is for invisible, non-tactual, i.e., smell, sound, and anaphora.

(IV) [Offerative]:

Addressee forms are also used as [offerative].

(V) [Verticality]

[Verticality] parameter is obligatory for non-proximal referents.

(VI) Informants:

1. Sex: MaleAge: 39Dialect/Birthplace: AizawlMother’s language: MizoFather’s language: MizoElementary school instruction medium: English

2. Sex: FemaleAge: 39Dialect/Birthplace: AizawlMother’s language: MizoElementary school instruction medium: English

3. Sex: FemaleAge: 27Elementary school instruction medium: English

204

4. Sex: MaleAge: 50’s

5. Sex: MaleAge: 40’s

6. Sex: FemaleAge: 30’

205

Mundari [Austro-Asiatic, Munda]

(I) Parameters: [Prox], [Med], [Dist], [Med], [Emphatic]=[Directive]

[Med] may be used as [Offerative]

(II) Paradigm:

Prox Adr Med DistAdj/Pron Ina Sg ne(a) (ho)ena/hona (h)ena/en hana

nee hoene hene(e) hane(e)Emphatic Sg neenea hoeneehoena heneehena/eneena haneehana/haneena

Du neaki (ho)enaki/honaki (h)enaki hanakiPl neako (ho)enako/honako (h)enako hanako

Ani Sg nei>niy (ho)eni/honi (h)eni hani Du neiki>niyki (ho)enki (h)enki hanki

Pl neiko>niyko (ho)enko/inku (h)enko hanku *hanko

Loc I neta(a) hoenta/enta henta(a) hanta(a)Emphatic neeneta hoeneehoenta henehenta hanehantaII nere ? henre hanreEmphatic neenere hoenehoenre henehenre hane()hanreIII nete hoente hente hanteEmphatic neenete ? henehente hanehante

(Slots marked with ‘?’ are gaps in data. No form was provided by informants to fill in these slots.)

In addition, there are na- forms and neya, which are rare in data. They seem to be either identical to ne-

forms in terms of distance, or a little farther than ne- forms.

Number is marked with a suffix:

-ø ‘singular’-kin ‘dual’-ko ‘plural’

Animate/Inanimate:

-a of adjectives and pronouns is replaced by -i to indicate animate referent; e.g., niy ‘this (animate)’, haniy

‘that (animate)’.

(II) Locationals:

Semantic differences among endings of locationals, -ta(a) (I), -re (II) and -te (III), are not clear. These

may be combined as in netaare. It may be also duplicated as in: neenetaare. Cook (1965: 126) describes

the difference as follows, which was not significant in my data:

206

-re ‘in, at, on’ (exactly at a point).-te ‘to’ (exactly to a point)-ta ‘near’ (near proximity)-tare ‘near’ (almost at a point)

Reduplicated locational forms may be reanalyzed as an adjective/pronoun by adding the -a suffix.

neenetare-a kap. ‘this cup. (this cup here)’

(III) [Emphatic], [Directive]:

One of the functions of emphatic forms is to draw addressee’s attention (i.e., [directive]) and to pin-point

the designated location precisely.

(IV) [Offerative]:

One speaker took out gifts for her family from a bag one by one. While she was showing them to her

mother and putting them on the floor, she said:

(1) ena salt, ena suger, ena. . . ‘This is salt, this is sugar, this is. . . ’

Ena, which is otherwise a medial form, was used as [offerative]. It resembles the use of the forms in the

second category in Turkish.

(V) [Speaker’s/addressee’s direct/indirect control]

One informant that Osada (2002 p.c.) consulted suggested that variants with the ending -a, namely nea,

hana, and other forms may mean something like ‘over here’ or ‘over there’. In one instance, nea but not

nee could be used in a phrase ‘come here’ when the addressee had to walk around an obstacle between the

speaker and the addressee. In another instance, the speaker used hana but denied hane as a possibility for

referring to a mountain behind another mountain. Osada’s analysis may be applicable to inanimate forms,

however, it cannot be applied to animate pronouns/adjectives since morphological variants are not available

for the latter.

(VI) Informants:

1. Sex: Male (Some data were apparently deviated from the norm.)Age: 19Dialect: Hasada (Standard Mundari)Birthplace: Keora village

207

2. Sex: MaleAge: 20’Dialect: Hasada (Standard Mundari)Birthplace: Keora village

3. Sex: FemaleAge: 35Dialect: Hasada (Standard Mundari)Birthplace: Keora village

4. Sex: FemaleAge: 30Dialect: Hasada (Standard Mundari)Birthplace: Keora village

5. Sex: MaleAge: 35Dialect: Hasada (Standard Mundari)Birthplace: A village near Keora

6. Sex: MaleAge: 17Dialect: Hasada (Standard Mundari)Birthplace: Keora village

208

Newari [Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Eastern Himalayan (Spoken in/around Katmandu)]

(I) Parameters: [Prox], [Med], [Dist], [Med]

(II) Paradigm (Summary of Patan dialect and Bhaktapur dialect):

Prox Adr Med Dist (Emphatic remote ?)Adj/Pron Ina Sg/Pl th(w)o am(a) wo hun (hun wo)Loc th(w)ana am(a) kana ana hunkana --

am(a) thææ wo tææ

(Slots marked with ‘--’ are gaps in paradigm. No form was provided by informants and no form is expected

to exist to fill in these slots.)

There are distinctive forms for animate singular and plural.

(III) Hun wo is only used occasionally for the sake of comparison when there is more than one referent in a

“distal” area. It is not distinct morphologically. It is a combination of a medial form and a distal form. Thus,

there is not enough reason to consider it a part of the deixis paradigm.

(IV) [Addressee] and [control]:

Patan dialect and Bhaktapur dialect code [addressee] parameter in a different manner. In Patan dialect,

direct/indirect [contact] and [control] is the requirement for [addressee] coding. In Bhaktapur dialect, direct

[contact] or the front region of the addressee (without [contact]) is the requirement for the [addressee]

coding.

(V) Informants:

Patan dialect:

1. Sex: FemaleAge: 30’s (?)Dialect: PatanFather’s language: NewariMother’s language: NewariElementary school instruction medium: Nepali

Nine other informants provided supplementary data.

Bhaktapur dialect:

1. Sex: MaleAge: 40’sDialect: Bhaktapur

Eight other informants provided supplementary data.

209

Nuer [Nilo-Saharan, Chari-Nile, Nilotic]

(I) Parameters: [Prox], [Adr/Med], [Dist]

(II) Diagram:

Prox Adr/Med DistAdj/Pron Sg (after consonant) m/m m míi

(after vowel/word initial) mm mm mmíi/mmíi/mmí(?)Pl (after consonant) tí t tíi

(after vowel/word initial) tití tt/tt titíi/titíiLoc I Sg jn jn/jn jníi

Pl kntí knt kntíiLoc II Sg/Pl? guä m guäm/guäth m gua míi/guääth míiLoc III Sg/Pl? wän m wän m/win m wän míi

‘Sg/Pl?’ indicates that both singular forms and plural forms were undecided because there was no

consistency in using different forms in terms of number.’

(III) Phonology:

Underlined vowels: Breathy voice (breathy /a/ is indicated with two dots above it instead of an underline).

under a vowel).

If a demonstrative is preceded by a consonant, the first consonant of the demonstrative (i.e., m- for

singular and t- for plural) is dropped (i.e., degemination).

After a consonant:

(1) ya m ya-dä.cow this Cop.Sg cow-my‘This cow is my cow.’

After a vowel:

(2) bel mm -mi yan.banana this Cop-one(?) yellow‘This banana is yellow.’

(3) belni titi k belni-kä.bananas there Cop.Pl bananas-my‘These are my bananas.’

(4) k ti k k-äcows these Cop.Pl cows-my‘These cows are my cows.’

210

If a demonstrative appears in sentence-initial position, the first consonant is retained because it does not

create a geminate.

(5) mm ya-dä.this Cop.Sgcow-my‘This is my cow.’

Note that /y/ is regarded as a consonant in terms of gemination.

(6) kubay m. cup this‘This cup.’

(IV) Locationals:

(7) jn/jn/jni.‘It/he/she is here/there/there (yonder).’

These forms denote the location at which an inanimate object (and probably all of the 3rd persons) exists.

Note the phonological identity between the first part of these demonstratives and the 3rd person sg pronoun

jn.

(8) A:kubay ni?cup be.where‘Where is the cup?’

B: jn. ‘It is here.’

When the referent is the 3rd person plural (e.g., cups), knt- series is used. Again, the relation between the

first part of these demonstratives and the 3rd person pl pronouns kn is clear.

(9) knti/knt/kntii‘(They are) here/there/ there (yonder).’

Guä in Loc II means ‘place’, e.g., guä ga ‘beautiful place’, therefore, guä m, literally means ‘this place’.

(V) Informant:

1. Sex: MaleAge: Not given

211

Santali [Austro-Asiatic, Munda]

(I) Parameters: [Prox], [Adr/Med], [Dist], ([Side])

(II) Paradigm:

Prox Adr/Med/Ana DistAdj/Pron Ina Sg noa/nia ona/in hana/hina

Du noakin onakin hanakinPl noako onako han(a)ko

(Side) Sg? -- -- (nhawa)Loc -de form nonde/nende onde/ende hende/hande

-te form note/nate onte hante-tere form notere (h)ontere/entere hantere-tare form onta(ta)re(Side) -de form -- (nhonde) (nhande)

-tere form -- -- (nhatere)

/nh/ nasal aspiration

(Slots marked with ‘--’ are gaps in paradigm. No form was provided by informants and no form is

expected to exist to fill in these slots.)

Sg? indicates that it was not decided whether the form in question distinguishes number or not because the

use of the forms by informants was not consistent.

Animate has -i ending corresponding to -a ending of inanimate forms, e.g, uni ‘that, singular’ , unikin

‘those, dual’ uniko ‘those, plural’, oni changes to uni due to vowel harmony.

Semantic differences among various forms of locational adverbs are not clear.

(III) [Side]:

Only three speakers used [side] forms. [Side] forms indicate a referent/region at the side of a reference

frame or ground (e.g., a cup at the edge of a table). Coding of [side] is optional. Meaning of another nasal

aspirated form, nhende, is not clear.

(IV) [Addressee]:

Two speakers from the state of Jhalkand used medial forms for coding [addressee] parameter as well, while

two speakers from Shantiniketan in West Bengal did not mark [addressee].

(V) Informants:

1. Sex: MaleAge: 29Birthplace: Bidyadharpur, Santiniketan

212

2. Sex: MaleAge: Not givenBirthplace: Pokur (near Dumkha)

3. Sex: MaleAge: Not givenBirthplace: Sahibganj District

Informants who provided supplementary data:

4. Sex: MaleAge: 19

5. Sex: MaleAge: 35Birthplace: Koyat Pukur (500m from Bidyadharpur)

6. Sex: MaleAge: 20’sBirthplace: Satsal (Biharl)

7. Sex: MaleAge: 40’s

8. Sex: MaleAge: 40’s

9. Sex: MaleAge: 30’s

10. Sex: Male Age: 20’s

11. Sex: Female Age: 40’s

12. Sex: Male Age: 20’s

13. Sex: Male Age: 40’s

14. Sex: Male Age: 40’

213

Spanish [Indo-European, Italic, Romance]

(I) Parameters: [Prox], [Adr/Dist], [Emphatic remote]

(II) Paradigm:

Prox Adr/Dist Emphatic remoteAdj/Pron Masc Sg este ese aquel

Pl estos esos aquellosFem Sg esta esa aquella

Pl estas esas aquellasNeut Sg/Pl esto eso aquello

Loc aqui ahi alli

Cf. Latin American Spanish

Loc aca ahi alla

Orthographically, stresses are put on pronouns. They are omitted because there are no phonetic differences

between pronouns and adjectives.

(III) [Distance]

Only two terms are used when there is a single cup at a different location of a table, whereas three terms are

used when there are several cups on a table and comparison among cups is required. The basic two-term

distance is confirmed by the fact that esa but not aquella is used to refer to a star or a cloud in the sky,

which is quite distal. This is the same situation as in Thai.

(IV) Informant:

1. Sex: FemaleAge: Not givenBirthplace: Spain

Two more informants (from Spain) provided supplementary data.

214

Thai [Tai-Kadai, Tai]

(I) Parameters: Adjectives/Pronouns: [Prox], [Adr/Dist], [Emphatic remote]

Locationals: [Prox], [Adr/Dist], [Emphatic remote], [General], [Specific]

(II) Paradigm:

Prox Adr/Dist Emphatic remote (Iconic remote)Adj/Pron/(Loc) ní nán nóon nuuunLoc General thî nî thî nân thî nôon thî nuuun

Specific trong ní trong nán trong nóon trong nuuun

Tone: /a/ mid /á/ high /à/ low /a/ rising /â/ falling

(III) [Distance]:

Only two terms, ní and nán are used when there is a single cup at different location of a table, whereas

three terms, ní, nán, and nóon are used when there are several cups on a table and comparison among cups

are required. One speaker constantly used only two terms on table-top tasks, while she used noon when

referred to a quite far referent compared with other closer referents outside the house. Other speakers used

noon and nuuun for an object that is quite far away and hard to identify. The basic two-term distance is

confirmed by the fact that nán but not nóon is used to refer to a star or a cloud in the sky, which are quite

distal.

(IV) [General], [Specific]:

Thî refers to a general location, while trong refers to a more specific, restricted, or narrowed-down location.

However, those notions of general and specific are relative and depend on how the speaker conceptualizes

the designated location, which is similar to the distinction between in and at in English. In elicitation, thî

was used to refer to the area of a food complex in general, while trong was used to specifically refer to one

restaurant in the food complex. Thî but not trong was used to refer to Thailand in general. Trong was used

to refer to a bounded region in a small circle drawn on a paper. Both thî and trong were used for ‘there’ in

the following conversation. General/specific distinction does not correspond to unspecific (e.g.,

hereabout)/specific distinction in other languages.

(1) Teacher: Did you put the book back there? (pointing at a bookcase.)

Student: Yes, I put the book there.

Teacher: The book is not there. Please check it again.

215

(V) Informants:

1. Sex: MaleAge: 20’Birthplace: Bangkok

2. Sex: FemaleAge: 20’Birthplace: Bangkok

3. Sex: FemaleAge: 20’

4. Sex: FemaleAge: 20’Birthplace: Korat (350km from Bangkok)

5. Sex: FemaleAge: Not givenBirthplace: Pataya

Elementary school instruction medium: Thai.High school instruction medium: Chinese

216

Venda [Niger-Congo, Atlantic-Congo, Benue-Congo, Bantu]

(I) Parameters: Primary [Prox], [Adr/Med], [Distal]

Secondary Six degrees of [Distance]

(II) Paradigm:

Primary distinction:

Prox Adr/Med DistPredicative khei kheyo kheilaAdj/Pron class 9 hei heyo heilaLoc class 16 hafha hafho hafhala

(III) [Distance]:

Though it is undeniable that some speakers can divide space into more than three degrees, it is doubtful that

a single speaker can manipulate all of the morphologically possible forms distinctively. There are primary

and secondary space distinctions. Primarily, deictics divide space into three degrees of distance, and this

three-degree system is shared by the majority of native informants. Distinctions of more than three degrees

are the secondary distinctions.

Secondary distinction: More than three degrees of distance were used by some informants, but:

(i) Forms, degrees, and even the order vary from speaker to speaker.

(ii) Predicative demonstratives have only four forms.

(iii) Semantic contrast of secondary distinctions arises only when contrastive encoding is forced, e.g., two

cups within a [proximal] location.

(IV) [Addressee]:

All informants used ‘medial forms’ to indicate the [addressee] parameter. Some informants used the forms

exclusively for [addressee] in tabletop tasks; nevertheless, they used the forms as [medial] if the figure and

the ground were large enough, e.g., trees in the field.

(V) Informants:

1. Sex: MaleAge: 23Mother’s language: VendaFather’s language: VendaSecond language: Afrikaans, English

2. Sex: Female

217

Age: Not givenDialect: TshitavhatsindiMother’s language: TshitavhatsindiFather’s language: Tshitavhatsindi

3. Sex: MaleAge: Not givenDialect: Tshironga (Luronga)

4. Sex: FemaleDialect: TshirongaMother’s language: ShanganiFather’s language: Venda

5. Sex: FemaleAge: Not given

Dialect: TshiilafuriMother’s language: TsongaFather’s language: VendaElementary school instruction medium: English

6. Sex: MaleDialect: Tshilafuri

Mother’s language: TshilafuriFather’s language: TshilafuriSecond language: Shangani

7. Sex: MaleAge: Not givenDialect: (claimed as) Shakadza VendaMother’s language: TshivendaFather’s language: Tshivenda

8. Sex: MaleDialect: (claimed as) ThohoyandouMother’s language: VendaFather’s language: Venda

218

References

Abbott, Clifford 1981 Here and there in Oneida. International Journal of American Linguistics 47-1: 50-57.

Abbott, Mirian 1991 Macushi. In Derbyshire, D. C. and Geoffrey K. P. (eds.) vol. 3, 23-160.

Abdel-Hafiz, Ahmed S. 1988 A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian. Ph. D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Abraham, P. T. 1985 Apatani Grammar. Mysore, India: Central Institute of Indian Languages.

Adger, David 1992 Linguist List 3.4. Message 3.

Adriani, Nicolaus 1893 Sangireesche Spraakkunst. Leiden: A. H. Ardiani.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1998 Warekena. In Derbyshire, D. C. and Geoffrey K. P. (eds.) vol. 4, 225-440.

Alexander, Ronelle 2000 Intensive Bulgarian, vol. 1. Madison: The Univ. of Wisconsin Press.

Allan, Edward J. 1976 Kullo. In Bender, M. Lionel (ed.), 324-350.

Allan, Robin, Philip Holmes and Tom Lundskæ-Nielsen 1995 Danish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London; New York: Routledge.

Allen, Jeff 1995 (p. c. Matsumoto, response to Matsumoto 1995 Linguist List 6.772).

Anderson, Gisle 1995 In Matsumura, Kazuo 1995b.

Anderson, Stephen R. and Edward L. Keenan 1985 Deixis. In Shopen, T. (ed.) vol. 3, 259-308.

Andrade, Manuel J. 1933 Quileute. In Boas, Franz (ed.) Part III, 151-292.

Andrews, Edna and Yashai Tobin (eds.) 1996 Toward a Calculus of Meaning: Studies in Markedness, Distinctive Features and Deixis. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Annamalai, E. 2000 Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Tamil. In Lust, Barbara C., et al. (eds.) 2000, 169-216.

Antonissen, A. 1958 Kadazan-English and English-Kadazan Dictionary. Canberra: Government Printing Office.

Antworth, E.L. 1979 A Grammatical Sketch of Botolan Sambal Manila: Linguistics Society of the Philippines.

Ariste, Paul 1968 A Grammar of the Votic Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Arita, Jun 1984 Index-shiki Raten Bunpohyo [Index Latin Grammar]. Tokyo: Hakusuisha.

Asaka, Takekazu 1993 Gendai Garisiago Bunpo. [A Grammar of Modern Galician.] Tokyo: Daigaku Shorin.

Asher, R.E. 1989 Tamil. London; New York: Routledge.

219

Asher, R.E. and T.C. Kumari 1997 Malayalam. London; New York: Routledge.

Axelrod, Melissa 1992 In Haase, Martin. Linguist List 3.149. Deictic iconicity (summary).

Badu, Tapoli 1994 Pailibo Language Guide. Itanagar, India: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Baptista, Praiscilla and Ruth Wallin 1967 Baure. In Bolivian Indian Language I, 27-84. Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Bascom, Barton 1982 Northern Tepehuan. In Langacker, R.W. (ed.) 267-393.

Bauer, Winifred 1993 Maori. London; New York: Routledge.

Bayungan, Paul (published year is not given) Ifugao-Banaue Grammar Notes. The Philippines: Peace Corps.

Becker, Angelika and Carrol Mary 1997 The Acquisition of Spatial Relations in a Second Language. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bedell, G., E. Kobayashi and M. Muraki (eds.) 1979 Explanations in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

Beland, Jean Pierre 1978 Atikamekw Morphology and Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Berkeley.

Bell, Charles Alfred [1905, 1937] 1978 Manual of Colloquial Tibetan. Kathumandu, Nepal: Ranta Pustak Bhandar.

Bell, Christopher Richard Vincent 1968 The Somali Language. London; New York: Longmans, Green & Co.

Belnap, Kirk 1995 (p. c. Matsumoto, response to Matsumoto 1995 Linguist List 6.772).

Bender, M. Lionel (ed.) 1976 The Non-Semitic Language of Ethiopia. Monograph No. 5, Occasional PapersSeries. Committee on Ethiopian Studies, African Studies Center, Michigan State University.

Bender, M. Lionel 1989 The Eastern Jebel languages. In Bender, L. (ed.)

Bender, M. Lionel (ed.) 1989 Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics (Nilo-Saharan, vol. 3) Hamburg: Buske.

Bender, M. Lionel (ed.) 1991 Proceedings of the Fourth Nilo-Saharan Conference (Nilo-Saharan, vol. 7) Hamburg: Buske.

Benton, Richard A. 1971 Pangasinan Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Berg, René van den 1989 A Grammar of the Muna Language. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.

Bhatia, Tej. K. 1993 Punjabi: A Cognitive Grammar. London; New York: Routledge.

Bhattacharya, Pramod Chandra 1977 A Descriptive Analysis of the Boro Language. Gauhati: Gauhati University.

Bickel, Balthasar 1994 Spatial Operation in Deixis, Cognition, and Culture: Where to Orient Oneself in Belhare. Working Paper 28. Nijmegen: Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

220

Bigirumwami, Joseph 1992 In Haase, Martin. Linguist List 3.149. Deictic iconicity (summary).

Bird, Charles Stephen 1976 An ka Bamanankan Kalan=Intermediate Bambara. Bloobington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Bird, Charles Stephen 1977 An ka Bamanankan Kalan=Introductory Bambara. Bloobington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Birk, D.B.W. 1976 The Malakmalak Language, Daly River (Western Arnhem Land). Canberra: The Australian National University.

Blake, Barry J. 1979 Pitta Pitta. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Barry J. Blake (eds.) vol. 1, 183-242.

Blake, Barry J. 1979 A Kalkatungu Grammar. Canberra: Australian National University.

Bloom, Paul, et al. (eds.) 1996 Language and Space. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Bloomfield, Leonard 1984 Fox-English lexicon. New Haven, Conn: Human Relations Area Files.

Bloomfield, Leonard 1984 Cree-English lexicon. New Haven, Conn: Human Relations Area Files.

Boas, Franz (ed.) 1911 Handbook of American Indian languages, Part 1, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Boas, Franz (ed.)1922 Handbook of American Indian languages, Part 2, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Boas, Franz. 1917b Grammatical Notes on the Language of the Tlingit Indians. Anthropological Publications, vol. 8.1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Boas, Franz (ed.) 1933-38 Handbook of American Indian languages, Part 3, New York: Columbia University and J.J. Augustin.

Boas, Franz 1947 Kwakiutl Grammar with a Glossary of the Suffixes. New York: AMS Press.

Bogoras, Waldemar 1922 Chukchee In Boas, Franz (ed.) Part II, 631-903.

Bojié, Vera and Wolf Oschlies 1984 Lehrbuch der Mazedonischen Sprache. Munchen: Verlag Otto Sagner.

Boling, Jerry A. 1980 Selected Problems in Schwnee Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.

Bonvillain, Nancy 1981 Locative Semantics in Mohawk: Time and Space. International Journal of American Linguistics 47-1: 58-65.

Borg, Albert and Azzopardi-Alexandar Marie 1997 Maltese. London; New York: Routledge.

Borgman, Donald M. 1990 Sanuma. In Derbyshire, D. C. and Geoffrey K. P. (eds.) vol. 2, 15-248.

Boro, A. 1978 Miju Dictionary. Shillong, India: Research Department, Arunachal Pradesh Administration.Bradley, D. (ed.) 1989 Papers in South-East Asian Languages. No. 11 of South-East Asian Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Brecht, R.D. 1974 Deixis in embedded structure. Foundation of Language 11: 489-518.

Breen, J.G. 1981 Margany and Gunya. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Barry J. Blake (eds.) vol. 2, 275-393.

221

Brigel, J. [1872] 1982 A Grammar of the Tulu Language. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.

Bright, William (ed.) 1992 The Collected Works of Edward Sapir vol. X. Southern Paiute and Ute Linguistics and Ethnology. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bright, William (eds.) 1992 International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bright, William 1957 The Karok Language. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brugmann, K. 1904 Demonstrativpronomina der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Teubner.

Büler, Karl [1934] 1965 Sprachtheorie. Die Dastellungsfunktion der Sprachen. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.

Bunye, Maria Victoria R. and Elsa Paula Yap 1971 Cebuano Grammar Notes. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Burrows, Lionel [1915] 1980 The Grammar of the Ho Language. New Delhi, India: Cosmo Publications.

Bykova, E.M. 1981 The Bengali Language. Moscow: Nauka Pub. House, Central Dept. of Oriental Literature.

Camaj, Martin 1984 Albanian Grammar. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassouritz.

Campbell, George L. 1991 Compendium of the World’s Language. London; New York: Routledge.

Capa, Virgilio (published year is not given) Sibuyanon Grammar Notes. The Philippines: Peace Corps.

Capell, A. 1971 Arosi Grammar. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Capell, A. and H.H.J. Coate 1984 Comparative Studies in Northern Kimberley Languages. Canberra: Australian National University.

Capell, Arthur 1984 Futuna-Aniwa Dictionary with Grammatical Introduction. Canberra: Australian National University.

Carlson, Robert 1994 A Grammar of Supyire. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Casad, Eugene H. and Ronald W. Langacker 1985 ‘Inside’ and ‘Outside’ in Cora Grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics 51-3: 247-81. Reprinted in Langaker, Ronald. W. 1991.

Chapman, Shirley and Desmond C. Derbyshire 1991 Paumarí. In Derbyshire, D. C. and Geoffrey K. P. (eds.), vol. 3, 161-352.

Chhangte, L. 1989 The Grammar of simple clauses in Mizo. In Bradley (ed.), 93-174.

Chuo, Lily T. 1973 A Structural Description of the Subanen Language. MA Thesis, University of the Philippines.

Clark, Larry 1988 Turkmen Reference Grammar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitzverlg.

Clayre, Iain 1973 Notes on Spatial Deixis in Melanau. Anthropological Linguistics 15-2: 71-86.

Clement, Maganga and T. C. Schadeberg 1992 Kinyamwezi. Köln: R. Köppe Verlag.

Cole, Peter 1985 Imbabura Quechua. London: Croom Helm.

222

Conrad, Robert J. 1991 An Outline of Bukiyip Grammar Canberra: Australian National University.

Cook, Walter A. 1965 A Descriptive Analysis of Mundari. Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School of Georgetown University.

Cousins, William Edward 1873 A Concise Introduction to the Study of the Malagasy Language as Spoken in Imerina. Antanarivo: London Missionary Society.

Cowan, William (ed.) 1984 Papers of the Fifteenth Algonquian Conference. Ottawa: Carleton University.

Crazzolara, J.P. 1960 A study of the Logbara (Ma’di) Language. London; New York; Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Creider, Chet A. and Jane Tapsubei 1989 A Grammar of Nandi. Hamburg: Buske.

Crowley, Terry 1981 Mpakwithi dialect of Anguthimri. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Barry J. Blake (eds.) vol. 2, 147-194.

Crowley, Terry 1982 The Paamese Language of Vanuatu. Canberra: Australian National University.

Cusihuaman G. Antonio 1976 Grammatica Quechua: Cuzco-Callao. Lima: Ministerio de Educacion, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

Danziger, Eve 1994 Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Person, Perception, and Function in Mopan Maya Spatial Deixis. Linguistics 32-4, 5: 885-907.

Darnell, Mike and Aaron Broadwell 1992 In Haase, Martin. Linguist List 3.149. Deictic iconicity (summary).

Dasgupta, Dipankar 1978 Linguistic studies in Juang, Kharia Thar, Lodha, Mal-Pahariya, Ghatoali, Pahariya. Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India.

Davis, D.M. and Easter Fancher 1952 A Beginner’s Amharic Grammar. Washington D.C.: Davis, D. M.

Davis, H.J. 1989 Kobon. London; New York: Routledge.

Davis, Philip W. & Ross Sanders 1975a Bella Coola Deictic Usage. Rice University Studies, Studies in Cultural Anthropology 61-2: 13-35.

Davis, Philip W. & Ross Saunders 1975b Bella Coola Nominal Deixis. Language 51-4: 845-858.

Dayley, Jon 1985 Tzutujil Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dayley, Jon 1989. Tümpisa (Panamint) Shoshone Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dela Cruz, B.A. and R.D.P. Zorc 1968 A Study of the Aklanon Dialect. Aklan, the Philippines: Public Domain.

Dench, Alan 1992 In Haase, Martin. Linguist List 3.149. Deictic iconicity (summary).

Dench, Alan Charles 1995 Martuthunira: A language of the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Canberra:The Australian National University.

Denny, J. Peter 1978 Locating the universals in lexical systems for spatial deixis. CLS Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon: 71-84.

223

Denny, J. Peter 1982 Semantics of the Inuktitut (Eskimo) spatial deictics. In International Journal of American Linguistics 48: 359-389.

Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Geoffrey K P. (eds.) 1986 Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 1. Berlin;New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Geoffrey K P. (eds.) 1990 Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 2. Berlin;New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Geoffrey K P. (eds.) 1991 Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 3. Berlin;New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Geoffrey K P. (eds.) 1998 Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 4. Berlin;New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1985a Hixkaryana. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.

Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1985b Hixkaryana and Linguistic Typology. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington Press.

Dervillez-Bastuji, Jacqueline 1976 Les Relations Spatiales en Turc Contemprain. Paris: Klincksieck.

DeSantis, Christopher C. 1995 (p. c. Matsumoto, response to Matsumoto 1995 Linguist List 6.772).

Diego, Vic (published year is not given) Sambal-Tina Grammar Notes. The Philippines: Peace Corps.

Diessel, Holger 1998 Data collection used for preparation of dissertation, Demonstratives in Crosslinguisticand Diachronic Perspective. ms. Buffalo, New York: SUNY Buffalo.

Diessel, Holger 1999 Demonstratives: Forms, Function, and Grammaticalization.Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Dimmendaal, Gerrit 1983 The Turkana Language. Dordrecht: Foris.

Diohen, Marilou (published year is not given) Sambal-Botlan Grammar Notes. The Philippines: Peace Corps.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1972 The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1977 A Grammar of Yidi. London; New York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1981 Wargamay. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Barry J. Blake (eds.) vol. 2, 1-144.

Dixon, R.M.W. and Barry J. Blake (eds.) 1979 Handbook of Australian Languages, vol. 1. Canberra: The Australian National University Press.

Dixon, R.M.W. and Barry J. Blake (eds.) 1981 Handbook of Australian Languages, vol. 2. Canberra: The Australian National University Press.

Doble, Marion 1960 Kapauku-Malaysian-Dutch-English Dictionary. The Hague: Maritnus Nijhoff.

Doke, Clemant Martyn and S. M. Mofokeng 1967 Textbook of Southern Sotho. Cape Town: Longmans.

Donaldson, B.C. 1993 A Grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

224

Donaldson, Tamsin 1980 Ngiyambaa: The language of the Wangaabuwan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dondrup, Rinchin 1988 A Handbook on Sherdukpen Language. Itanagar, India: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Dondrup, Rinchin 1990 Bugun Language Guide. Itanagar, India: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Dondrup, Rinchin 1993 Brokeh Language Guide. Itanagar, India: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Dougherty, Janet W.D. 1983 West Futuna-Aniwa : An introduction to a Polynesian Outlier Language. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Douglas, Wilfrid H. 1981 Watjarri. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Barry J. Blake (eds.) vol. 2, 197-272.

Drabbe, Peter 1957 Spraakkunst van het Aghu-dialect van de Awju-taal. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Drabbe, Peter 1959 Kaetic en Wambon, Twee Awju-dialecten. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Drogo, J.M.V. and D. Testen (eds.) 1984 CLS 20. Papers from the Twentieth Regional Meetings. Chicago: CLS.

Du Feu, Veronica 1996 Rapanui. London; New York: Routledge.

Dubois, C.D. 1976 Sarangani Manobo: An Introductory Guide. Manila: Linguistics Society of the Philippines.

Dulai, Narinder K. 1989 A Pedagogical Grammar of Punjuabi. Patiak, India: Indian Institute of LanguageStudies.

Duranti, A. and C. Goodwin (eds.) 1992 Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Durie, Mark 1993 A Grammar of Acehnese on the Basis of a Dialect of North Aceh. Dordrecht; Cinnaminson: Foris.

Dutton, T. E. (ed.) 1975 Studies in Languages of Central and South-East Papua. Canberra: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University.

Dyen, Isidore 1965 A Sketch of Trukese Grammar. New Haven: American Oriental Society.

Eades, Dianna 1979 Gumbaynggir. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Barry J. Blake (eds.) vol. 1, 245-361.

Edgar, John 1989 A Masalit Grammar. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.

Eizinga, Dirk 1995 Linguist List 6.1115 Sum: Vowels and Sound Symbolism.

Elbert, Samuel H. 1974 Puluwat Grammar. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Elkins, Richard E. 1970 Major Grammatical Patterns of Western Bukidnon Manobo. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of Oklahoma.

Elwell-Sutton, L.P. 1975 Colloquial Persian. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

225

Emenanjo, E.N. 1987 Elements of Modern Igbo Grammar. Ibadan, Nigeria: University Press.

England, Nora C. 1983 A Grammar of Mam, a Mayan Language. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Epstein, Jonathan 1963 Maranao Grammar. Zamboanga, The Philippines: Peace Corps.

Evans, Nicholas 1995 A Grammar of Kayardild. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Everette, Daniel 1986 Pirahä. Derbyshire, D. C. and Geoffrey K. P. (eds.) 200-325.

Everette, Daniel L. and Barnbara Kern 1997 Wari’. London and New York: Routledge.

Fernandez, Frank. 1969 A Grammatical Sketch of Remo:A Munda Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Feta-Icorin, Mejella 1990 Asi Grammar Note. The Philippines: Peace corps.

Fidel of Amurrio, Father 1970 Pangasinan Grammar. Tagaytay, Philippines.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1971 Toward a Theory of Deixis. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics3/4: 219-242.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1975 Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis 1971. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1982 Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis. In Jaravella, R. J. and W. Klein (ed.) 31-59.

Flassy, Don A.L. and W.A.L. Strokhof 1979 Notes on Tehit (Bird’s Head-Irian Jaya) Nusa, vol. 7, 35-84.

Foley, William A. 1991 The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Fortescue, Michael D. 1984 West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.

Fox, Barbara 1996 Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1996 On Sources of Demonstratives and Anaphors. In Fox, Barbara (ed.) 169-203.

Friedman Victor A. 1996 The Five Deictics of Lak. In Andrews, Edna and Yashai Tobin (eds.) 307-318.

Gail, James W. and W. S. Karunatillake 2000 Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Sinhala. In Lust, Barbara C., et al. (eds.) 715-776.

Galloway, Brent D. 1993 A Grammar of Upriver Halkomelem. Los Angels: University of California Press.

Gamble, Geoffrey 1978 Wikchamni grammar. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press.

Ganga, Celestin 1992 The Sound Structure of Lari. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.

Garland, Roger and Susan Garland 1975 A Grammar sketch of Mountain Koiali. In Dutton, T. A. (ed.) 413-470.

Garvey, Catherine J. 1964a Malagasy Introductory Course. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics of Modern Language Association of America.

226

Garvey, Catherine J. 1964b A Sketch of Malagasy Grammar. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics of Modern Language Association of America.

Gasser, Mike 1992 In Haase, Martin Linguist List 3.149. Deictic iconicity (summary).

Givón, Talmy 1980 Ute Reference Grammar. Ignacio: Ute Press.

Glinert, Lewis 1989 The grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goddard, Ives 1983 The Eastern Algonquian subordinative mode and importance of morphology. International Journal of American linguistics. 49(4): 351-387.

Golla, Victor (ed.) 1990 The Collected Works of Edward Sapir vol. VIII. Takelma Texts and Grammar. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gordon, Lynn 1986 Maricopa Morphology and Syntax. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goswami, Golockchandra 1982 Structure of Assamese. Gauhati, India: Gauhati University.

Goswami, S.N. (ed.) 1995 Nishing (Bangni) Language Guide. Itanagar, India: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Gowda, K.S. Gurubasave. 1975 Ao Grammar. Mysore, India: Central Institute of Indian Languages.

Gray, J. Olmsted and S. Gamal-Edlin 1981 Cairene Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. London: Croom Helm.

Guasa, P.A.Jr. 1991 Binukid: A Grammatical Description. Ph.D. dissertation, University of the Philippines.

Gumperz, John J. and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.) 1996 Rethinking Linguistic Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gupta, K. Das 1979 A Phrase Book in Singpho. Shillong, India: Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Gupta, K. Das 1983 An Outline on Tagin Language. Shillong, India: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Guy, Jacques 1992 Linguist List 3.4. Message 2. Iconicity in demonstratives.

Haase, Martin 1992 Linguist List 3.149. Deictic iconicity (summary).

Hagman, Roy S. 1977 Nama Hottentot Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University.

Haiman, John 1980 Hua: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hall, Robert A. 1938 An Analytical Grammar of the Hungarian Language. Supplement to Language, Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 14-2.

Hamel, P. J. 1994 A Grammar and Lexicon of Loniu, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Australian National University.

Hanks, William F. 1984 The Evidential Core of Deixis in Yukatec Maya. In Drogo, J, M. V. and D. Testen (eds.) CLS 20: 154-172.

Hanks, William F. 1990 Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.

227

Hanks, William F. 1992 The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference. In Duranti, A. and C. Goodwin (eds.) 43-76.

Hanks, William F. 1996 Language Form and Communicative Practices. In Gumperz, John J. and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.) 232-270.

Harkins, William E. 1953 A Modern Czech Grammar. New York: King’s Crown Press.

Harrison, Sheldon P. 1976 Mokilese Reference Grammar. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.

Harweg, R. 1978 Deixis und variable Referenz. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 31-2: 132-142.

Haspelmath, Martin 1993 A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Haase, Martin 1992 Linguist List 3.149. Deictic iconicity (summary).

Haviland, John 1979 Guugu Yimidhirr. In Dixon, R.M.W. and Barry J. Blake (eds.) vol. 1, 27-180.

Hawkins, Robert E. 1998 Wai-Wai. In Derbyshire, D. C. and Geoffrey K. P. (eds.) vol. 4, 25-224.

Heath, Jeffrey 1980 Nunggubuyu deixis, anaphora and culture. Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora CLS: 151-165.

Heath, Jeffrey 1984 Functional Grammar of Nunggubuyu. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Heltberg, Kristine 1970 Studies on Slavic Derivation. Odense: Odense University Slavic Studies, vol. 1. Odense University Press.

Hemmilä, Ritva 1989 The demonstrative pronouns pa and ti in Urim discourse. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 20: 41-63.

Hercus, L.A. 1969 The Languages of Victoria: A Late Survey (2 parts). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Hercus, L.A. 1994 A Grammar of the Arabana-Wangkangurru Language, Lake Eyre Basin, South Australia. Canberra: Australian National University.

Hewitt, B.G. 1996 Georgian: A Learner’s Guide. London: Routledge.

Hidalgo, C.A. and A.C. Hidalgo 1971 A Tagmemic Grammar of Ivatan. Manila: Linguistics Society of the Philippines.

Himmelmann, Nikolaous P. 1996 Demonstratives in Narrative Discourse. In Fox, Barbara A. (ed.) 205-254.

Hoch, E. 1963 A Bemba Grammar with Exercises. Zambia: Language Centre.

Hodson, Thomas [1859] 1979 An Elementary Grammar of the Kannada Language. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.

Hoffman, Carl 1963 A Grammar of the Margi Language. London: Oxford University Press.

Holes, Clire 1990 Gulf Arabic. London; New York: Routledge.

228

Holmes, Philip and Ian Hinchliffe 1994 Swedish. A Comprehensive Grammar. London; New York: Routledge.

Hovdhaugen, E. 1989 A Handbook of the Tokelau Language. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.

Hualde, José Ignacio 1992 Catalan. London; New York: Routledge.

Huttar, George L. and Marry L. Huttar 1994 Nduka. London; New York: Routledge.

Hutton, J. H. [1929] 1987 Chang Language. Delhi: Gian Publishing House.

Imai, Shingo 1995 Nihongo no shijishi no tokuchou. [Characteristics of Japanese demonstratives.] Nihongogaku 14-7: 61-71.

Imai, Shingo 1999 How finely do languages divide distance: demonstratives in Malagasy and Venda. Paperpresented at LSA annual meeting. Los Angels. m.s. SUNY Buffalo.

Irwin, Barry 1974 Salt-Yui Grammar. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Iwase, Yoshichika 1989 Samoago Nyumon [Introduction to Samoan]. Tokyo: Tairyusha.

Jackendoff, Ray S. 1996 The Architecture of the Linguistic-Spatial Interface. In Bloom, P., et al. (eds.) 1-30.

Jakobson, Roman 1971 [1957] Shifters, Verbal Categories and Russian verb. In Selected Writings of Roman Jakobson, vol. 2. Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton. 130-147.

Jaravella, Robert J. and Wolfgang Klein (eds.) 1982 Speech, Place, and Action: Studies of Deixis and Related Topics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Jarea 1992 Linguist List 3.62. Message 1. deictic phonology.

Jarea 1992 In Haase, Martin. Linguist List 3.149. Deictic iconicity (summary).

Jayaseelan, K.A. 2000 Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Malayalam. In Lust, Barbara C., et al. (eds.) 113-168.

Jean, Harmon C. 1977 Kagayan and the Manobo Subgroup of Philippine Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of the Philippines.

Jesen, John Thayer 1977 Yapese Reference Grammar. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.

Jespersen, Otto [1924] 1965 The Philosophy of Grammar. New York: W. Norton.

Johnston, Raymond Leslie 1980 Nakanai of New Britain. Canberra: Australian National University.

Joseph, Brian D. 1987 Modern Greek. London; Wolfebro, N. H.: Croom Helm.

Josephs, Lewis, S. 1975 Palauan Reference Grammar. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.

Jun, Wang and Zheng Guogiao 1993 An Outline Grammar of Mulao. Canberra: The Australian National University. [English translation by Luo Yongxian].

Kakumasu, James 1986 Urubu-Kaapor. In Derbyshire, D. C. and Geoffrey K. P. (eds.) vol. 1, 326-403.

229

Kamio, Akio 1979 On the notion Speaker’s territory of information. In Bedell, G., E. Kobayashi and M. Muraki (eds.) 213-231.

Kamio, Akio 1987 Proximal and Distal Information: A Theory of Territory of Information in English and Japanese. PhD. Dissertation, Tsukuba University.

Kamio, Akio 1990 Joho no Nawabari Ririon [Territory of Information]. Tokyo: Taishukan.

Karapurkar, Pusha Pai 1976 Kokborok Grammar. Mysore, India: Central Institute of Indian Languages.

Khan, Geoffrey 1999 A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill.

Kilgour, R.D.D. 1982 Nepali Grammar & Vocabulary. New Delhi.

Kirchner, James 1995 (p. c. Matsumoto, response to Matsumoto 1995 Linguist List 6.772).

Kirk, J.W.C. 1905 A Grammar of the Somali Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kirton, Jean and B. Charlie 1996 Further Aspects of the Grammar of Yunyuwa, Northern Australia. Canberra: Australian National University.

Kitamura, Hajime 1974 Chibettogo Bunpo Kaiwa [Tibetan Grammar and Conversation.] Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

Klein, Jared S. 1996 On Personal Deixis in Classical Armenian: A study of the Syntax and Semantics of then-, s-, and d- Demonstratives in Manuscripts E and M of the Old Armenian Gospels. Dettelbach: J. H .Röl.

Klein, Wolfgang 1978 Wo ist hier? Präliminarien zu einer Untersuchung der lokalen Deixis [Where is here? Preliminaries to a Study of Local Deixis]. Linguistische Berichte 58: 18-40.

Klein, Wolfgang 1983 Deixis and Spatial Orientation in Route Directions. In Pick, H. and L. Acredolo (eds.) 283-311.

Koizumi, Tamotsu 1991 Urarugo no Hanashi [On Uralic Languages.]. Tokyo: Daigakushorin.

Kornfilt, Jaklin 1997 Turkish. London; New York: Routledge.

Koshal, Sanyukta 1979 Ladakhi Grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Kouwenberg, S. 1994 A Grammar of Berbice Dutch Creole. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kruenger, John Richard 1997 Yakut Manual. (Uraric and Altaic Series, vol. 21) Richmond, Surrey: Curzon.

Kurosawa, Naotoshi 1988 Brazilian Portuguese. Tokyo: Hakusuisha.

Lakoff, Robin 1974 Remarks on ‘this’ and ‘that’. CLS 10: 345-356.

Langacker, Ronald W. (ed.) 1982 Uto-Aztecan Grammatical Sketches.(Studies in Uto Aztecan Grammar, vol. 3) Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991 Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

230

Languages Made Clear Project 2000 http://languagesmadeclear.cjb.net/

Larjavaara, Matti 1990 Suomen Deixis. Suomi 156. Helsinki: SKS.

Larochette, J. 1958 Grammaire des Dialectes Mangbetu et Medje. Tervuren.

Larsen, Iver 1991 Saboat Noun Classification. In Rottland, Franz and Omondi, Lucia N. (eds.)

Laslau, Wolf 1941 Documents Tigrigna. (Ethiopien Setentrional) Grammaire et Texts. Paris: C. Klincksieck.

Laury, Ritva 1997 Demonstratives in Interaction: The Emergence of a Definite Article in Finnish. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Leavitt, Robert M. 1996 Passamaquoddy-Maliseet. München, Newcastle: Lincom Europa.

Lee, Ken-Deng 1975 Kusaiean Reference Grammar. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.

Leman, Wayne 1984 Cheyenne Deixis and Sound Symbolism. In Cowan, W. (ed.) 329-43.

LeSourd, Philip S. 1993 Maliseet-Passamaquoddy Pronouns. Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics 18-3: 27-30.

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, Stephen C. 1996a Frames of Reference and Molyneux’s Question: Crosslinguistic Evidence. In Bloom, P., et al. (eds.) 108-169.

Levinson, Stephen C. 1996b Relativity in Spatial Conception and Description. In Gumperz, J. J. and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.) 177-202.

Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967 Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.

Lewis, Thomas 1967 Elementary Turkish. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lichtenberg, Frantisek 1983 A Grammar of Manam. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Lipin, L.A. 1973 The Akkadian Language (Translated from Russian). Moscow: Nauka Publication House.

Loogman, Alfons 1965 Swahili Grammar and Syntax. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

Loos, Eugene 1995 (p. c. Matsumoto, response to Matsumoto 1995 Linguist List 6.772.)

Lukas, Johannes [1937] 1967 A Study of the Kanuri Language. London: Dawsons of Pall Mall.

Lust, Barbara C., et al. 2000 Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Selected South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology. Berlin: New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lydall, Jean 1976 Hamer. In Bender, M. Lionel (ed.) 393-438.

Lynch, J. 1978 A Grammar of Lenakel. Canberra: Australian National University.

Lyons, John 1968 Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, John 1973 Deixis as the source of reference. reported by L.A.U.T. Trier.

231

Lyons, John 1977 Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macauley, M.A. 1996 A Grammar of Chalcatongo Mixtec. Berkeley: University of California Press.

MacDonald, Lorna 1990 A grammar of Tauya. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

MacDonald, R. Ross 1976 Indonesian Reference Grammar. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Mahapatria, B.P. 1979 Malto. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Language.

Mainwaring, G.B. [1876] 1971 A Grammar of the Lepcha Language. New Delhi: Manjusri Publication House.

Malicsi, Jonathan 1974 A Structural Sketch of Halitao Baytan. University of the Philippines, thesis.

Mallinson, Graham 1986 Rumanian. London; Dover, N. H.: Croom Helm.

Manley, Timothy 1972 Outline of Sre Structure. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Marconnes, Rev. Francisque, S. J. 1931 A grammar of Central Karanga. The language of old Monomotopa. (Special number of Bantu Studies). Witwatersrand: Witwatrsrand University Press.

Martin, Samuel E. and Young-Sook C. Lee 1969 Beginning Korean. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Masthay, Carl 1972 Schmick’s Mahican Manuscript, transcribed and rearranged by English translation. St. Louis: Masthay, C.

Matisoff, James A. 1973 The Grammar of Lafu (University of California Publications in Linguistics 75). Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Matsumura, Kazuo 1995a Linguist List 6.772. Message 1. Q: ‘this’ and ‘that’.

Matsumura, Kazuo 1995b Linguist List 6.799 Message 1. Sum: ‘this’ and ‘that’.

Matsushita, Shuuji 1979 Hausa go Kiso Bunpoo [A Hausa Basic Grammar]. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.

Matteson, E. 1965 The Piro (Arawakan) Language. University of California Publications in Linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

McElhanon, K.A. 1972 Selepet Grammar Part 1. Canberra: The Australian National University.

McFarland, C.D. 1974 The Dialects of the Bikol Area. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.

McKee, Robert 1991 ‘Here’, ‘There’, ‘Yonder’, and Beyond with Meje Aspect. In Rottland, F. and Lucia N. Omondi (eds.) 165-180.

Meier, Paul and Inge Meier and John Samuel-Bendor 1975 A Grammar of Izi. Norman: The Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.

Merian, Francesca [1982] 1989 Mangarayi. London; New York: Routledge.

Merin, E.M. 1992 A Grammar Description of Inabaknon. University of the Philippines, thesis.

232

Merlan, Francesca 1994 A Grammar of Wardaman: A Language of the Northern Territory of Australia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Milier, Wick R. 1965 Acoma Grammar and Texts. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Milne, Leislie 1921 An Elementary Palaung Grammar. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

Mintz, M.W. 1971 Bikol Grammar Notes. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Mistry, P.J. 2000 Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Gujarati. In Lust, Barbara C., et al. (eds.) 333-396.

Miyaoka, Osahito 1978 Eskimono Gengo to Bunka [Eskimo’s Language and Culture]. Tokyo: Kobundo.

Mochizuki, Yasokichi 1978 Chugokugo to Nihongo [Chinese and Japanese]. Tokyo: Koseikan.

Montello, Daniel R. (ed.) 2001 Spatial Information Theory: Foundation of Geographic Information Science, International Conference, COSIT 2001, Morro Bay CA, USA, September 19-23, 2001, Proceedings. Heiderberg: Springer.

Montgomery, Christine Anne 1967 The Morphology of Sebei. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.

Moore, Brian C.J. 1989 An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, 3rd edition. London: Academic Press.

Morland-Hughes W.R.J. 1947 A Grammar of the Nepali Language. London: Luzac.

Mosel, Ulrike 1982 Local Deixis in Tolai. In Weissenborn, J. and W. Klein (eds.) 111-132.

Mosel, Ulrike 1984 Tolai Syntax and Historical Development. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Mous, Waarten 1993 A Grammar of Iraqw. Hamburg: Buske.

Moyse-Faurie 1995 Le xârâcùù, langue de Thio-Canala (Nouvelle-Calédonie), Paris: Peeters.

Munda, R.D. 1979 Mundari-vyakaran. Ranchi: Mundari Sahitya Parisad.

Munro, Pamela 1976 Mojave Syntax. New York; London: Garland Publishing.

Murane, Elizabeth 1974 Daga Grammar, from Morpheme to Discourse. Norma: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.

Murthy, B. Laliyha and K.V. Subbarao 2000 Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Mizo. In Lust, Barbara C., et al. (eds.) 777-840.

Nagaraja, K.S. 1985 Khasi. A Descriptive Analysis. Pune: Deccan College. Post-Graduate & Research Institute.

Nawata, Tetsuo 1981 Baluchi: Asian African Grammatical Manual No. 176. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asian and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Languages.

Nawata, Tetsuo 1985 Pashutogo Bunpo Nyuumon [Introduction to Pashto Grammar]. Tokyo: Daigakushorin.

Nebel, P.A. 1948 Dinka Grammar (Rek-Mulual Dialect) With Texts and Vocabulary. (Museum. Combonianum No.2.) Verona: Mission Africane.

233

Nedjalkov, Igor 1997 Evenki. London; New York: Routledge.

Neukom, Lukas 2001 Santali. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.

Ngemu, T. 1977 Moklum Language Guide. Sillong, India: The Director of Information and Public Relations.

Nguyen, Dinh Hoa 1997 Vietnamese. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Noonan, Micheal 1992 A grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton.

Noss, Richard B. 1964 Thai Reference Grammar. Washington D.C.: Foreign Service Institute.

Oda, Masahisro 1977 Samoan: Asian and African Grammar Manual No.16b. Tokyo: Institute for the Studyof Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

Ogunbowale, P.O. 1970 The Essentials of Yoruba Language. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Okamoto, Takeshi 1993 Jishuu Noruweego Bunpo [Self-learning Norwegian Grammar] Tokyo: Daigaku Shorin.

Okell, John 1969 A Reference Grammar of Colloquial Burmese. Part 1. London: Oxford University Press.

Omar, Asmah Haji 1981 The Iban Language of Sarawak. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.

Országh, László 1974 English-Hungarian Dictionary. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Osada, Toshiki 1992 A Reference Grammar of Mundari. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages andCultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

Osami, Midori 1995 Tinrin Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Otaka, Sumio 1987 Kataloniago no Bunpo [Catalan Grammar]. Tokyo: Daigakushorin.

Ozanne-Rivierre, Françoise 1997 Spatial references in New Caledonian languages. In Senft, Gunter (ed.) 82-100.

Ozyurek, Asli and Sotaro Kita 2002 Encoding of joint attention and distance in the Turkish and Japanese demonstrative system. Koe University and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, ms.

Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 1997 Marathi. London; New York: Routledge.

Paton, W.F. 1971 Ambrym (Lonwolwol) Grammar. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Payne, Doris L. and Thomas E. Payne 1990 Yagua. In Derbyshire, D. C. and Geoffrey K. P. (eds.) vol. 2, 249-474.

Payne, John R. 1980 The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua 51: 147-186.

Pederson, Eric and David Wilkins 1996 A Cross-Linguistic Questionnaire on Demonstratives, ‘Manual’ forthe 1996 Field Season. Version 1.0. Nijmegen: Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

234

Pennoyer, F.D. 1985 Inati: The Hidden Negrito Language of Panay, Philippines. Washington: Seattle Pacific University.

Pertin, Kabuk 1994 Nah Language Guide. Itanagar, India: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Pick, Herbert and , L. Acredolo (eds.) 1983 Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application. New York: Plenum Press.

Piczon, Petrona B. 1973 Elements of Modern Waray. Ateneo de Manina University, thesis.

Popjes, Jack and Jo Popjes 1986 Canela-Krahô. In Derbyshire, D. C. and Geoffrey K. P. (eds.) vol. 1, 128-199.

Poppe, Nicholas 1970 Mongolian Language Handbook. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Poulos, G. 1990 A Linguistic Analysis of Venda. Pretoria: Via Africa.

Powers, David 1992 In Haase, Martin. Linguist List 3.149. Deictic iconicity (summary).

Prasad, Bal Ram 1991 Mising Grammar. Mysore, India: Central Institute of Indian Languages.

Prentice, D.J. 1971 The Murut Language of Sabah. Canberra: Australian National University.

Proulx, Paul 1988 The demonstrative Pronouns of Proto-Algonquian. International Journal of American linguistics 54-3: 309-330.

Pulu, Jatan 1978 Idu Phrase Book. Shillong, India: The Director of Information and Public Relations.

Pulu, Jatan 1991 A Phrase Book on Taraon Language. Itanagar, India: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Quevedo, Samuel A. Lafone 1893 Natas ó sea Principias de Grammática Mocovi. La Plata: Talleres de Publicationes de Museo.

Rå Hauge, Kjetil 1999 A Short Grammar of Contemporary Bulgarian. Bloomington, Indiana: Slavica Publishers.

Rabel, Lili 1961 Khasi. A Language of Assam. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University.

Rajaona, Siméon 1972 Srtucture du Malgache: étude des Formes Préicatives. Ambozantany: Fianarantsoa.

Rauh, Gisa (ed.) 1983 Essays on Deixis. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Rauh, Gisa 1983 Aspects of Deixis. In Rauh, G. (ed.) 9-60.

Ray, Tapas S. 2000 Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Oriya. In Lust, Barbara C., et al. (eds.) 2000: 575-636.

Redden, James E. 1980 A Descriptive Grammar of Ewondo. Carbondale.

Reed, Irene, et al. 1977 Yup’ik Eskimo Grammar. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University ofAlaska.

Reed, J. 1978 Pronominals in Perene Campa (ms.).

Rehg, Kenneth L. 1981 Ponapean Reference Grammar. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press.

235

Rekhung, Winlang 1992 Tutsa Language Guide. Itanagar, India: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Renck, G.L. 1975 A Grammar of Yagaria. Canberra: The Australian National University.Rennison, John R. 1997 Koromfe. London; New York: Routledge.

Richardson, James 1884 Malagasy for Beginners: A Series of Graduated Lessons and Excercises in Malagasy as Spoken by the Hovas. Parts I, II. Antananarivo: The London Missionary Society.

Rivierre, Jean-Claude 1980 La langue de Touho (Nouvelle-Calédonie). Paris: SELAF.

Robins, R.H. 1958 The Yurok Language: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Roerich, George N. and Lobsang Phuntshok Lhalungpa 1972 Text Book of Colloquial Tibetan (Dialect of Central Tibet). New Delhi, India: Manjusri Publication House.

Rottland, France and Lucia N. Omondi (eds.) 1991 Proceedings of the Third Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Kinsumu, Kenya, August 4-9, 1986. Hamburg: Buske.

Rowlands, E.C. 1959 A Grammar of Gambian Mandinka. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.) 1988 Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rupp, James E. 1989 Lealao Chinantec Syntax: Studies in Chinantec Languages 2. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington Press.

Sakamoto, Tetsuo 1979 Gendai Itariago Bumpo [Modern Italian Grammar]. Tokyo: Hakusuisha.

Sakamoto, Yasuyuki 1989 Thaigo Nyumon [Introduction to Thai]. Tokyo: Daigakushorin.

Salturelli, Mario 1988 Basque. London: Croom Helm.

Samarin, William J. 1966 The Gbeya Language: Grammar, Texts, and Vocabularies. Berkeley and Los Angels: University of California Press.

Sapir, Edward 1922 The Takelma Language of Southwestern Oregon. In Boas, Franz (ed.) Part II, 1-296. (Golla, Victor (ed.) 1990 vol. VIII.)

Sapir, Edward 1930 Southern Paiute, A Shoshonean language. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 65:1-296. (In Bright, William (ed.) 1992.)

Sastry, Devi Prasada 1984 Mishmi Grammar. Mysore, India: Central Institute of Indian Languages.

Sato, Fusakichi, et al. 1995 Grammaire du Français Actual. Tokyo: Surugadai Publisher.

Sato, Nobuo and Osamu Iijima 1994 Gurujiago Nyuumon [Introduction to Georgian]. Tokyo: Tairyusha.

Sawyer, Jesse (ed.) 1971 Studies in American Indian Languages. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Saxton, Dean 1982 Papago. In Langacker, R. W. (ed.) 93-266.

Scatton, Ernest A. 1984 A reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.

Schaub, Willi 1985 Babubngo. London: Croom Heln.

236

Schiitz, Albert J. and Hisako Shoji 1987 Fijigo Kaiwashu [Fijian Conversation]. Tokyo: Tairyusha.

Schuh, Russel G. 1983 Kilba equational sentences. In Afroasiatic Linguistics. Monographic Journals of the Near East 4: 101-174.

Schuh, Russel G. 1998 A Grammar of Miya. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Schütz, Albert J. 1961 Nhuna Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Scott, Graham 1978 The Fore Language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Australian National University.

Searle, J.R. 1959 Sense and Reference. Phil. Dissertation, Oxford.

Senft, Gunter (ed.) 1997 Referring to Space: Studies in Austronesian and Papuan Languages. New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford.

Serzisko, Fritz 1989 The Kuliak Languages. In Bender, L. (ed.)

Shaul, David Leedom 1986 Topics in Nevome Syntax. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Shetler, Joanne 1976 Notes on Balangao Grammar. California: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Shimizu, Kiyoshi 1980 A Jukun Grammar. Vienna: Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanstik und Agyptologio der Universität Wien.

Shirai, Junko and Patschke Cynthia 2000 Development of Children’s Demonstratives. In Proceeding of 17th Annual Meeting of Japanese Cognitive Science Society.

Shopen, Timothy (ed.) 1985 Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. III. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shree, Krishan 1980 Thadou: A Grammatical Sketch. Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India, Government of India.

Simha, Kaliprasada 1981 The Bishnupriya Manipuri Language. Calcutta: Firma KLM.

Simon, I. M. 1976 Hill Miri Language Guide. Shillong, India: Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Simon, I. M. (published year is not given) Miji Language Guide. Shillong, India: Philological Section Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Smith, Kenneth D. 1979 Sedang Grammar. Canberra: Australian National University.

Snapp, Allen, John Anderson and Joy Anderson 1982 Northern Paiute. In Langacker, R. W. (ed.) 1-92.

Sohn, Ho-min 1975 Woleaian Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Sohn, Ho-Min 1994 Korean. London; New York: Routledge.

Sohn, Ho-Min and B. W. Bender 1973 A Ulithian Grammar. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Soppitt, C.A. [1893] 1976 A Short Account of the Kuki-Lushai Tribes on the North-East Frontier with an Outline Grammar of the Rangkhol-Kuki-Lushai Language and Comparison of Lushai with other Dialtects. Calcutta: Firma-KLM.

237

Sridhar, S.R. 1990 Kannada. London; New York: Routledge.

Stahlke, Herb 1992 In Haase, Martin. Linguist List 3.149. Deictic iconicity (summary).

Story G.L. and C.M. Naish 1973 Tlingit Verb Dictionary. Fairbanks: University of Alaska, Alaska Native Language Center.

Subbarao, K.V. and Lalitha B. Murthy 2000 Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Telugu. In Lust, Barbara C., et al. (eds.) 217-275.

Sugiyama, Asako and Atsuko Fujinuma 1988 Rosiago Bunpo no Kiso [Basics of Russian Grammar]. Tokyo: Hakubashobo.

Sulkala, Helena and M. Karjalainen 1992 Finnish. London; New York: Routledge.

Svelmoe, G. and T. Svelmoe 1974 Notes on Mansaka Grammar. Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Svorou, Soteria 1993 The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Swanton, John R. 1911 Tlingit. In Boas, Franz (ed.) Part I, 159-204.

Syeedhar, M.V. 1985 Standardized Grammar of Naga Pidgin. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.

Talmy, Leonard 1983 How Language Structures Space. In Pick, Herbert and L. Acredolo (eds.) 225-320.

Talmy, Leonard 1988 The Relation of Grammar and Cognition. In Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), 165-205.

Talmy, Leonard 1996 Fictive Motion in Language and ‘Ception’. In Bloom, P., et al. (eds.) 211-276.

Talmy, Leonard 2000a Toward A Cognitive Semantics vol. 1. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Talmy, Leonard 2000b Toward A Cognitive Semantics vol. 2. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Talmy, Leonard 2001 How Spoken Language and Signed Language Structure Space Differently. In Montello, Daniel R. (ed.) 247-262.

Tanaka, Toshimitsu 1990 Ratengo Shoho [Basic Latin]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.

Taylor, Allan 1969 A Grammar of Blackfoot. Ph.D. dissertation , UC Berkeley,

Taylor, C.V. 1985 Nkore-Kiga. London; Dover N. H.: Croom Helm.

Teferra, Anbessa 1991 A Sketch of Shabo Grammar. In Bender, L. (ed.) 371-387.

Temple, Richard C. 1902 A Grammar of the Nicobarese Language. Chapter IV, Part II, The Census Report on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Port Blair: Superintendent’s Printing Press.

Terasaki, Hideki 1998 Estructura de Grammática Española. Tokyo: Daigaku Shorin.

Thomas, David D. 1971 Chrau Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Tobe, Miyuki 1986 Uigurugo Nyuumon [Introduction to Uighur]. Tokyo: Tairyusha.

Tobe, Miyuki 1997 Gurujiago Nyuumon [Introduction to Georgian]. Tokyo: Tairyusha.

238

Topping, Donald M. 1973 Chamorro Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Trumbull, James H. 1903 Natick Dictionary. BAE-B 25. Washington. D.C.

Tryon, Darrell T. 1970 An Introduction to Maranungku (Northern Australia). Canberra: The Australian National University.

Tsuji, Naoshiro 1974 Sansukuritto Bunpo [Sanskrit Grammar]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.

Tucker, Arcibald N. 1967 The Eastern Sudanic Languages. London: International Published for African Institute by Dawsons of Mall.

Tucker, Arcibald N. and M. A. Bryan 1966 Linguistic Analysis, the Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa. London: Oxford University Press.

Tweddell, Colin Ellidge 1958 The Iraya (Mangyan) Language of Mindoro, Philippines: Phonology and Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.

Ueda, Kazuo 1985 Ideshugo Bunpo Nyuumon [Introduction to Yiddish Grammar]. Tokyo: Daigakushorin.

Underhill, Robert 1976 Turkish Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Unseth, Pete 1989 Sketch of Majang Syntax. In Bender. L. (ed.) 97-127.

Van der Tuuk, H.N. [1964] 1971 A Grammar of Toba Batak (Translated by Jeune Scott-Kemball). The Hague: Martinus Nijhott.

Van Driem, George 1993 A Grammar of Dumi. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Vanoverbergh, M. 1955 Iloko Grammar. Bagio, The Philippines: Catholic School Press.

Vertulfo, Gerry (published year is not given) Bol-Anon Grammar Notes. The Philippines: Peace corps.

Viray, Renato R. 1979 Syntactic Structure of Bolinao. Philippine Normal College, thesis.

Voorhis, Paul H. 1974 Introduction to the Kickapoo Language. Language Science Monographs. No. 13. Bloomington: Indiana University.

Wali, Kashi and Omkar N. Kowl 1990 Kashmiri: A Cognitive Descriptive Grammar. London; New York: Routledge.

Walker, Dale 1976 A Grammar of the Lampung Language: The Pesisir Dialect of Way Lama. Jakarta: Badan Penyeleggara Seri NUSA.

Waseda, Mika 1995 Hangariigo no Bunpo[ A Grammar of Hungarian]. Tokyo: Daigaku Shorin.

Waters, Bruce 1989 Djinang and Djinba: A Grammatical and Historical Perspective. Canberra: Australian National University.

Watkins, Laurel J. 1984 A grammar of Kiowa. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.

Weber, D. 1989 A Grammar of Huallaga (Huanuco) Quechua. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Weissenborn, Jurgen and Wolfgang Klein 1982 Here and There: Cross-linguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstratives. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

239

Wells, Margaret A. 1979 Siroi Grammar. Canberra: Australian National University.

Welmers, William Everett 1973 African Language Structures. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Welmers, William Everett 1976 A Grammar of Vai. Berkeley, Los Angels and London: University of California Press.

Wilkins, David 1989 Mparntwe Arrernte: Studies in the Structure and Semantics of Grammar. Nijmegen: Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

Wilkinson, David P. 1999 The 1999 Demonstrative Questionnaire: ‘This’ and ‘That’ in ComparativePerspective. In Wilkinson, David (ed.) 1-24.

Wilkinson, David (ed.) Manual for the 1999 Field Session, Version 1.0. Nijmegen: Language and Cognition Group Max Planck Institute.

Will, Hans Georg 1989 Sketch of Me’en Grammar. In Bender. L. (ed.) 129-50.

Wilson, Patric R. 1980 Ambulas Grammar. (Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages, vol. 26).

Ukarumpa (Papua New Guinea) Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Winfield, W.W. 1928 A Grammar of the Kui Language. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal.

Wise, Mary Ruth 1986 Grammatical characteristics of PreAndine Arawakan languages of Peru. In Derbyshire, D. C. and Geoffrey K. P. (eds.) vol. 1, 567-642.

Wise, Mary Ruth 1986 Grammatical characteristics of PreAndine Arawakan languages of Peru. In Derbyshire, D. C. and Geoffrey K. P. (eds.) vol. 1, 567-642.

Woldegabir, Semere 1966 Amharic for Foreigners. Addis Ababa: Published by Author.

Wolf, John and Ida Wolf 1967 Beginning Waray-Waray, vol. 1. New York: Cornell University.

Wolfart, H. 1973 Plains Cree: A Grammatical Study, Transaction of the American Philosophical Society.n.s. 83. no. 5.

Wolfenden, Elmer P. 1971 Hiligaynon Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Woodworth, Nancy L. 1991 Sound Symbolism in Proximal and Distal Forms. Linguistics 29-2(312): 273-299.

Woollams, Geoff 1996 A grammar of Karo Batak, Sumatra. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Yajima, Hideo 1984 Gendai Burugaria-go Nyumon [Introduction to Modern Bulgarian]. Tokyo: Tairyusha.

Yamaguchi, Kazuo and Sigeo Hajima 1958 Kiso Doitsugo Bunpo [Basic German Grammar]. Tokyo: Hakusuisha.

Yamanobe, Izumi 1986 Jishuu Denmaakugo Bunpoo [Self-learning Danish Grammar]. Tokyo: Daigaku Shorin.

Yokoyama, Tamiji 1988 Ekusupuresu Denmaakugo [Express Danish]. Tokyo: Hakusuisha.

240

Yoshida, Shuji 1977 On the Notions of Orientation in Halmahera. Bulletin of National Museum of Ethnology 2-4: 437-497.

Yoshida, Shuji 1980 Typology and Universality of the Cognition of Space Division Through the Analysis of Demonstratives. Bulletin of The National Museum of Ethnology 5-4, 833-950.

Yoshida, Shuji 1981 Kuukan Ninshiki no Ruikeika ni tsuite [On Typology of Spatial Recognition]. Tokyo: Kikan Jinruigaku. 12-3: 80-129.

Žic, Fuchs M. 1996 ‘Here’ and ‘There’ in Croatian: How Deictic Systems Changes. Paper presented at SUNY Buffalo. ms.

Ziervogel, D., et al. (eds.) 1972 A Handbook of the Venda language. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

Zigmond, Maurice L. 1991 Kawaiisu: A Grammar and Dictionary with Texts. Berkeley: University of California Press.