Discourse functions of the - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Discourse functions of the

postposed demonstratives in Eastern Finnic languages

Workshop: Discourse Functions of Demonstratives14–15 June 2018, OsloChingduang YurayongDepartment of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies

25/06/2018

1

https://cs4.pikabu.ru/post_img/2016/08/24/7/1472037045184934658.jpg

Slide2

Eastern

Finnic languages (Karelian, Veps and Lude) use two types of demonstrative (Larjavaara

1986):A canonical preposed demonstrative:DEM-N = Exophoric use (à Diessel 1999) / Situational use (à Himmelmann 1996)A non-canonical postposed demonstrativeN-DEM

= Endophoric use (à Diessel 1999) /

Tracking use (à Himmelmann 1996)

Discourse-pragmatic functions of the N-DEM phrase in Eastern Finnic

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong2

Backgroundhttps://finnicherald.deviantart.com/art/Map-of-the-Finnic-Languages-550930672

Slide3

Language

Proximal

DistalMedial(/Distance-neutral?)Livonianta : nämä

se : ne

South Estonian

sjootuu

taa

North Estoniansee : need

Finnishtämä : nämä

tuo : nuose : neVotickase : kanese : neIngriantämä : nämätuo :nuose : neKarelian propertämä : nämätuo : nuose : neOlonets Kareliantämä : nämätua : nuatse : netneče : nenneLudetämä : ńämädtuo : nuodse : ńedńeče : ńeńeVepsńece : ńenese : ne25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong3Finnic 2/3-terms demonstrative systemsWestEast

Slide4

25/06/2018

4

WALSFeature 88A: Order of Demonstrative and Noun

Demonstrative-Noun

(Dryer 2013)

Slide5

Word-order-typological survey on the frequencies of use.

Materials of Eastern Finnic languages:Olonets Karelian (Makarov & Rjagoev 1969)Lude (Ojansuu et al. 1934, Pahomov 2011)Veps

(Zaitceva & Mullonen 1969, Veps Folktales 1996)Canonical preposed demonstrative vs. non-canonical postposed demonstrative. > relative ratio25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong

5

Eastern

Finnic

demonstrative:constituent orders & frequencies

Slide6

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong6Eastern Finnic demonstrative:constituent orders & frequencies

Language

Variety

DEM-N

N-DEM

DEM

KarelianOlonets29.06%

7.69%

63.25%LudeNorthern72.40%2.60%25.00%Central100.00%--Southern49.83%5.50%44.67%VepsNorthern---Central---Southern---Proximal singular *tämäLanguageVarietyDEM-NN-DEMDEMKarelianOlonets42.86%14.29%42.86%LudeNorthern50.00%-50.00%Central100.00%--Southern66.27%7.06%26.67%VepsNorthern---Central-

-

-

Southern

-

-

-

Proximal plural *

nämä

Slide7

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong

7Eastern Finnic

demonstrative:constituent orders & frequencies

Slide8

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong8Eastern Finnic demonstrative:constituent orders & frequencies

Distal singular *too

Distal plural *

noo

Language

Variety

DEM-N

N-DEM

DEMKarelianOlonets12.50%-87.50%LudeNorthern 100.00%--Central100,00%--Southern33.33%-66.67%VepsNorthern---Central---Southern---LanguageVarietyDEM-NN-DEMDEMKarelianOlonets---LudeNorthern---Central---Southern---VepsNorthern---Central---Southern---

Slide9

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong

9Eastern Finnic

demonstrative:constituent orders & frequencies

Slide10

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong10Eastern Finnic demonstrative:constituent orders & frequencies

New compound demonstrative singular **ne-se

New compound demonstrative plural

**ne-ne

Language

Variety

DEM-N

N-DEM

DEMKarelianOlonets41.38%10.34%48.28%LudeNorthern40.00%10.00%50.00%Central100.00%--Southern--100.00%VepsNorthern79.23%7.25%13.53%Central74.34%5.70%19.96%Southern78.75%8.75%12.50%LanguageVarietyDEM-NN-DEMDEMKarelianOlonets70.00%10.00%20.00%LudeNorthern66.67%-33.33%Central100.00%

-

-

Southern

-

-

-

Veps

Northern

81.58%

2.63%

15.79%

Central

82.31%

3.08%

14.62%

Southern

64.29%

21.43%

14.29%

Slide11

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong

11Eastern Finnic

demonstrative:constituent orders & frequencies

Slide12

The quantitative survey confirms the Northern Eurasian areal tendency of dominant DEM-N order, as claimed in WALS.

However, the medial demonstratives, singular *se and plural *ne, do not correlate with the expectation …

25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong12

Eastern Finnic demonstrative:constituent orders & frequencies

Slide13

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong13Eastern Finnic demonstrative:constituent orders & frequencies

Medial singular *se

Medial plural

*ne

Language

Variety

DEM-N

N-DEM

DEMKarelianOlonets24.24%21.97%53.79%LudeNorthern43.42%11.11%45.47%Central26.32%-73.68%Southern20.11%36.59%43.30%VepsNorthern6.67%61.43%31.90%Central7.44%68.70%23.85%Southern6.06%57.58%36.36%LanguageVarietyDEM-NN-DEMDEMKarelianOlonets28.81%13.56%57.63%LudeNorthern44.12%8.82%47.06%

Central

62.50%

-

37.50%

Southern

42.59%

11.11%

46.30%

Veps

Northern

22.22%

66.67%

11.11%

Central

6.67%

93.33%

-

Southern

40.00%

60.00%

-

Slide14

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong

14Eastern Finnic

demonstrative:constituent orders & frequencies

Slide15

The quantitative survey confirms the Northern Eurasian areal tendency of dominant DEM-N order, as claimed in WALS.

However, the medial demonstratives, singular *se and plural *ne

, do not correlate with the expectation …Some change in syntax and pragmatics of the medial demonstratives *se and *ne is taking place in the easternmost tip of Finnic-speaking areas.The postposed demonstratives *se and *ne have extended their host attachment from noun also to pronoun and other non-nominal word classes like verb and adverb. They have also lost stress and ability to inflect.The postposed demonstratives are enclitic to whole of host phrase, not only to specific constituent. Therefore, they are to be considered enclitics and not suffixes (Diessel

1999: 22–25)

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong

15

Eastern

Finnic demonstrative:constituent orders & frequencies

Slide16

Focusing on the functions of postposed demonstratives in Eastern Finnic languages, I identify three main contexts of use on the basis of syntactic contexts:

Topic marker – clause-second positionDefinite-anaphoric marker – clause-second and clause-internal positionFocus marker – clause-initial, clause-final position and tail construction

25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong16Functions

Slide17

Topic is ‘what the discourse is about’ (

Dik 1989, Lambrecht 1994, Erteschik-Shir 1997, Dalrymple & Nikolaeva 2011)Topic vs. Comment (Andrews 2007)Presupposition vs. Assertion/Comment (Lambrecht 1994, Andrews 2007)Given information

vs. New information (Dik 1989)General information [~ generic index (Givon 1983)]Situational informationContextual informationBackground vs. Completive (Dalrymple & Nikolaeva 2011)

Link vs. Tail (Vallduví 1992)

Theme vs. Rheme (Halliday 1994)

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong

17Function 1:

Topic markerTopic in information structure

Slide18

PostpDem occurs in the clause-second position as a

boundary marker (cf. Bauer 1982, Jenny 2009) of the first stressed constituent that is promoted into discourse topic.(1) Livonianu’d-jemà |

se | vo͕ĺ̀ĺiD nǟnə̑D rānda pǟl seĺ̀ĺi ō̬’gi naìst-pùoĺI

al̄Z vo͕n̄D, …

‘The Holder of fog was such a grizzled lady, …’ (Suhonen

1975: 112)

(2) Votic

mo·nikove̮r | se· | on tē·, a

ke·rittü pe·rze | se·

| on pe̮ллò sä·ηkĭ.‘The crooked man is a road, but the shaved ass is a stubble field.’ (Mägiste 1959: 150)[original translation: ‘Der Krumme [dies] ist ein Weg, der gescherte Arsch aber ist der Stoppelacker.’](3) Finnishminunkin lapseni | ne | pisti jo kädet suoraksi kun ne näki että, …‘My children, too, stretch their hand when they saw that …’ (Mielikäinen 1980)(4) Ingrianpiirileikki no se oli meillä se on jo se. meiDä leikki | se | on sitä.‘The circle game, we had such thing. Our game was such a thing.’ (Kokko et al. 2003: 149)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong18Function 1: Topic marker

Slide19

PostpDem occurs in the clause-second position as a

boundary marker (cf. Bauer 1982, Jenny 2009) of the first stressed constituent that is promoted into discourse topic.(5) Olonets Karelianminum akku |

se | kuwndelow, a sinun akku ei kuwnelluh.‘My wife listens, but your wife did not listen [to her husband].’ (Makarov & Rjagoev 1969: 45)(6) Ludeku

mi·na |

se | suaim

me·t́t́š́at

kävümäi ka,

hi·muoit́t́i, int́̀eres̀o·vatse a·mbuda he·iD, …

‘When I got to hunt, I was pleased and interested to shoot them [the bears], …’ (Virtaranta 1984: 43)(7) Veps

Duńan Kuudunjan vaih́etno kuлe͔n, а śigouṕäi | se͔ | mida pagiže͔p ka ei kuлu.‘I listen to D-K, but from there, what he says, I do not hear.’ (Zaitceva & Mullonen 1969: 186)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong19Function 1: Topic marker

Slide20

PostpDem marks the topic, which is active/identifiable

from the previous immediate discourse context > expected topic (Andrews 2007: 149), given topic (Dik 1989: 267)(8) Central Veps

Onge-n tač-i-n’, ong | se |

karv-ha

tartį-i.

rod-gen

throw-pst-

1sg rod dem hair-ill stick-pst

.3sg‘I threw a fishing rod, the rod stuck to

the hair.’ (Vologda, Zaiceva & Mullonen 1969: 197)(9) Olonets Karelianottaw käzipaika-n hüvä-n, pelvahize-n, ilmanigäize-n.take-3sg.prs hand_towel-gen good-gen linen-gen fluffy-gennu. käzipaikku | se | on hienoine,well hand_towel dem be.3sg.prs thin‘[He] takes a good, linen and fluffy hand towel. Well, the hand towel is thin.’ (Makarov & Rjagoev 1969: 207)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong20Function 1.1: Anaphoric topic

Slide21

PostpDem expresses switching of topic from a previous discourse context

(Andrews 2007: 149) or resuming of topic know from more remote context (Andrews 2007: 149)(10) Northern VepsD'o nece ženih

i tuli. Hän nühaib i sanub: “Božuško, reskan hengen duhh om.”A

adiv |

se | škapha

peitnuze.

Prihä

| se | tuli ka i

sanub: “Reskan hengen duhh om silei.”

Igaks žal’ liinob, adiv | se | hivä oli.A božž | se | i sanub: Ka tulnu om. (Veps Folk Tales 1996)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong21Function 1.2: Switch-topic

Slide22

PostpDem establishes contrast between several referents in a close discourse context.

(11) Southern Vepspriha-d | ne |

edoo ajo-i-ba, mä | se | jäl’ghe ajo-i-

n.boy

-pl dem

.pl before drive

-pst-3pl

1sg dem after drive-pst-1sg‘

The boys, they drove away; Me, I chased [them].’ (Zaiceva &

Mullonen 1969: 209–211)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong22Function 1.3: Contrastive topic

Slide23

PostpDem in other non-clause-second positions can be classified on the basis of anaphora.

Definite description (Wettstein 1981)Referential use ~ tracking referenceAttributive use ~ bridging referenceIdentifiability (Lyons 1999)Situational

General knowledgeAnaphoricBridging-cross referenceAnaphoric relation (Huang 2000, 2004)AntecedentAnaphor25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong

23

Function 2: Definite-anaphoric markerDefiniteness and anaphora

Slide24

PostDem codes the co-occurrence of anaphor and its antecedent in a close discourse context

(Kettunen 1943).(12) Southern Ludekoir d’uokš d’älg-i-d

müöi vīd’ikkō i hauku-šk-ai.dog run.3sg.prs footstep-pl-part along spruce.ill and bark-inch-3sg.prs

vīd’iko-s on kuadu

-nu pū,spruce-ines

be.3sg.prs fall-

ptcp.pst tree

лadvt’šura-s haukkū koir se.top_side-

ines bark.3sg.prs dog dem‘

A dog run along the footsteps into spruces and started barking. In the clump of spruces has a tree fallen. On top, the dog is barking.’ (Ojansuu et al. 1934: 228)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong24Function 2.1: Tracking reference

Slide25

Longer distance tracking reference is also possible, provided that the anaphor is still active/relevant/identifiable/salient in the discourse

.(13) Central VepsMinain̕ oružj ninga pand-ut1sg.all gun

so put-pass … [19 words] …da minain’ ei otand oružj se.

and 1sg.all

neg.3sg take.inf

gun

dem‘

A gun was given to me … and I did not take the gun.’ (Zaiceva & Mullonen 1969: 173–176)

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong25Function 2.1: Tracking reference

Slide26

In any case, the anaphor can but does not necessarily need to be identical to the antecedent as long as the demonstrative bridges two referents of the same or closely related topic and the anaphor is a given or contextually identifiable information

.(14) Southern Ludetämä se, Novikuon tagana,

em mušta i nazvanijat sethis dem Novikuo-gen behind neg.1sg remember.cng also name

demkut hänt i nazivali?

how 3sg-part

also [call.pst.3pl]

‘This

[village] behind Novikuo, I cannot remember

at all the [village] name

how it is called.’ (Pahomov 2011: 198)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong26Function 2.2: Bridging reference

Slide27

PostDem can also be used with generic terms (e.g. natural phenomena and historical events)

.(15) Olonets Kareliansit sügüzü-l se karzi-tah.then autumn-all

dem take_away-pass.prs‘Then in autumn it will be taken away.’ (Makarov & Rjagoev 1969: 195–196)(16) Central Vepsvilu ol-i kevas’ se

, näge-d.cool be-3sg.pst spring

dem see-2sg.prs

‘(Quite) cool was spring time, you see

.’ (Zaitceva &

Mullonen 1969: 280–284)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong

27Function 2.3: Generic index

Slide28

Topic sets a background for the utterance, which is complemented by new information in

comment. On the other hand, presupposition presents truncated information that is supplemented by focus. (Andrews 2007)PostpDem can simply emphasise the head-word without expressing topicality or anaphora as in the previous cases.Emphatic-focus marker (Grünthal 2015)

PostDem in this context of use accompanies a host word in the comment articulation, often as new information, e.g., focus (17) and tail construction (18–19).Many times, we find PostpDem following non-nominal word classes – verb (20) and adverb (21–22) – and, thus, cannot be interpreted as the anaphoric use of PostpDem.25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong

28

Function 3: Focus markerFocality and emphasis

Slide29

(17) Northern VepsA:

ken mahta-b starinįiž-i-d sanu-da? who can-3sg tale-pl-part say-inf

B: mina ühte-n se mahta-n. 1sg one-gen

dem can-1sg‘Who can do story telling? – I know/can tell

just one.’ (Veps

folktales 1996: 108–112)

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong29

Function 3.1: Focus

Slide30

(18) Northern Veps

ö-s ii magada Varvara se, tötuškon tütär se.night-

ines neg.3sg sleep-cng Varvara dem auntie-gen daugther dem‘All night long, Varvara,

the auntie’s daughter, does not sleep.’ (Veps folktales 1996: 34–51)

(19) Southern Ludemuzik

eläu, köuh

mies

se,man live.3sg.prs poor man dem

ej tieda kus suo-da i

kuj laps-i-d süöttä-dä.neg.3sg know.cng where get-inf and how child-pl-part feed-inf‘A man is living, the poor man, not knowing where to get (food) and how to feed children.’ (Ojansuu et al. 1934: 149)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong30Function 3.2: Tail construction

Slide31

(20) Central Veps

ka kugou hän om se?also where 3sg be.3sg.prs

dem‘So where is (s)he?’ (Zaiceva & Mullonen 1969: 173–176)(21) Central Vepsda

mina ot-i-n‘

tagamaha se, …

and 1sg take-

pst-1sg back

dem‘And I took [the gun] back, …’ (Zaiceva & Mullonen 1969: 173–176)

(22) Southern Ludeka pulka-l ve se ei puut-nu, puutu-i drobu-l.

so bullet-ades still dem neg.3sg hit-cng.pst hit-3sg.pst shotgun-ades‘[He put the bullet on the shotgun] but the bullet, still, did not hit [the bear], the shotgun did [hit the bear].’ (Pahomov 2011: 232)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong31Function 3.3: Non-nominal focus

Slide32

In terms of geographical distribution, only Veps

, Lude and Olonets Karelian employ all three functions.Karelian Proper lacks the anaphoric use.The rest of Finnic languages only have the use of topic marker.As for the Finnic languages in Estonia, the use of PostpDem is not observed, but instead, the preposed demonstrative shows the development towards becoming a definite article (Pajusalu 2009)

.25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong32

Geographical distribution

https://finnicherald.deviantart.com/art/Map-of-the-Finnic-Languages-550930672

Slide33

(23) Topic marker

vodá | ta | idjë́d,water dem go.

3sg.prsdak vot vodá | to | éto koljësó to I ver’tít.

so so water dem that wheel dem

also spin.3sg.prs‘The water

flows, so the water also spins that wheel.’ (

Arhangelsk, Russian National Corpus = RNC)

(24) Contrastive topicso dvustvolkom |

to | sam hodil,with double_barrel.

instr dem alone walk.past.ma odnostvolok | to | ètomu sosedu to dalbut single_barrel dem that.dat neighbour.dat dem give.pst.m‘With the double-barrel (gun), I was walking alone; as for the single-barrel (gun), I gave to that neighbour.’ (Vologda, RNC)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong33Parallel example 1: North Russian dialect

Slide34

(25) Definite-anaphoric marker

déduško z bábuškoj pomjóršy, a ot sýna ostáfšy jíhna

nivéska žzyvjót, v bárskom domú,ot déduško

to kupíl ètot

dóm

to,from

old_man dem

buy.pst.m that house dem

tám čitýre sim’jí žyvút.

‘An old man and the old lady having passed away; staying away from the son, their girl lives in a grand house; from the old man, he bought that house; there, four families are living.’ (Novgorod, RNC)(26) Focus markerv magazinah to niceo kupiť to ne byloin store.pl.loc dem nothing buy.inf dem neg be.pst.neu‘In the stores, there was nothing to buy.’ (Arhangelsk, RNC)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong34Parallel example 1: North Russian dialect

Slide35

(27) Thailand Green Hmong (Hmong-Mien)

crang55 cra11 | nua35

| ku35 yua35 tua41 tao214 ka55 tua41[clf knife

dem] 1sg

buy come at market come‘This knife, I bought it from the market.’ (

Kunyot 1984: 121)

(28) Mon (Austroasiatic)

hmoɲ ʔələwìʔ | kɔ̀h |

nùm kɒ krɒə.cɔ̀h hnòk tao

pùə.mə.lòn raʔ[king Alawi dem] exist obl glory big stay exceedingly foc‘This king Alawi was of great glory.’ (Jenny 2014: 576)The two main functions of kɔ̀h are as demonstrative with medial deixis and marking identifiable information relevant to the ongoing discourse. This second function corresponds to a topic marker, which can be seen as an extension of anaphoric uses of the demonstrative. Marking a constituent (phrase or clause) as identifiable or topical, kɔ̀h sets it apart from the new information given in the sentence, i.e. the predicate. (Jenny 2009: 70)25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong35Parallel example 2: Southeast Asia

Slide36

25/06/2018

36

WALSFeature 88A: Order of Demonstrative and Noun

DEM-N

(Dryer 2013)

N-DEM

Slide37

The medial demonstratives *se and *ne

as topic marker are observed in all Finnic languages. Thus, it might be possible to reconstruct such context of use as far as to the Proto-Finnic stage.The postposed demonstrative as topic marker could have been a source construction, which has extended its range of use to other non-second position.When anaphoric demonstratives develop into definite articles their use is gradually extended from non-topical antecedents to all kinds of referents in the preceding discourse. In the course of this development, demonstratives lose their deictic function and turn into formal markers of definiteness. (Diessel 1999: 128–129)It is still unclear and challenging if we could provide any relative chronology:

Which of the other two contexts of use came first: definite-anaphoric marker or focus marker?25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong37

Diachronic implications

Slide38

Hypothesis 1The postposed demonstrative as topic marker used in tail construction could have started extending its range of use to the phrase-final position, which can be regarded as focus marker. Consequently, the postposed demonstrative has extended its range from topic to comment articulation, and later allowing occurrence in all clause positions.

Hypothesis 2The emergence of the postposed demonstrative as marker of definiteness in Eastern Finnic languages might also have been completely independent of the context of topic marker. Instead, it could have been under the effect of N-ADJ order, which started to occur in Finnic languages spoken in Russia, and this reversed order could have extended to attributive demonstratives, creating a new functional domain for demonstrative.

25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong38Diachronic implications

Slide39

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong

39Diachrony: Criteria of grammaticalisation(Diessel 1999: 118)

Change area

Change

Eastern

Finnic context

Function1. Grammatical items that developed from demonstratives are no longer used to focus the hearer’s attention on entities in the outside world.

✓

2. They are deictically non-contrastive.✓Syntax3. Their occurrence is often restricted to a particular syntactic context.✓4. They are often obligatory to form a certain grammatical construction.✗Morphology5. They are usually restricted to the distal or, less frequently, the proximal form.✗6. They may have lost their ability to inflect.✓Phonology7. They may have undergone a process of phonological reduction.✓? ✗?8. They may have coalesced with other free forms.✓

Slide40

25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong40Diachrony: Grammaticalisation paths

Source

Target

Eastern Finnic context

Diessel

(1999: 119–150)+ Jenny (2009: 60)

Heine & Kuteva(2002: 106–116)

Demonstrative3rd person pronoun✓Definite article / Noun class marker✓Focus marker✓Possessive-✗Copula✗Sentence connectiveConjunction✗Relative pronoun✗-Subordinator✗Complementiser✗Boundary marker-✓

Slide41

Demonstratives in Finnic languages have taken different directions of development.Easternmost Finnic languages have introduced the new compound demonstratives

*ne-se and *ne-ne together with the renewal (simplification) of the spatial system.The new compound demonstratives **ne-se and **ne-ne have begun to replace the original proximal and distal demonstratives. The replacement is complete in Veps.However, the original medial demonstratives

*se and *ne found the way to continue their existence as the newly emerged postposed demonstrative, which no longer has exophoric/situational/deictic but discourse-pragmatic functions.Being medial (hearer’s sphere) – or even distance-neutral? – by deixis favours the grammaticalisation of the demonstratives *se and *ne into discourse-pragmatic functions, rather than proximal demonstratives.25/06/2018

Chingduang Yurayong

41

Concluding notes

Slide42

Andrews, A. 2007. The major functions of the noun phrase.

Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description Vol. 1, Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 132–223.Bauer, C. 1982. Morphology and syntax of Spoken Mon. Doctoral dissertation at SOAS, London. Dalrymple, M. & Nikolaeva, I. 2011. Objects and information structure

. Cambridge University Press.Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization (Vol. 42). John Benjamins Publishing.Dik, S. C. 1989. The theory of functional grammar. Part I: The structure of the clause. Dordrecht/Providence: Foris Publications. Dryer, M. S. 2013. Order of Demonstrative and Noun. Dryer &

Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at

http://wals.info/chapter/88, Accessed on 2018-06-04.) Erteschik-Shir, N. 1997. 

The dynamics of focus structure : Cambridge University Press.

Erteschik-Shir, N. 2007. Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface : Oxford University Press.

Givón, T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: An Introduction. Givón (ed), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Grünthal, R. 2015. Vepsänkielioppi. Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Halliday, M. A. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong42References 1/2

Slide43

Himmelmann, N. P. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse. Fox (ed.),

Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 201-254. Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A cross-linguistic approach. Oxford University Press on Demand.Huang, Yan. 2004. Anaphora and the Pragmatics–Syntax Interface. Chapter 13. The handbook of pragmatics 288.

Jenny, M. 2009. Deixis and information structure in Mon: the Multifunctional particle kɔ̀h. JSEALS 2. 53-72.Jenny, M. 2011. Mon. Jenny & Sidwell (eds.), The handbook of Austroasiatic languages.Kettunen, L. E. 1943. Vepsän murteiden lauseopillinen tutkimus.Suomalais-

Ugrilainen seura.Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents

. Cambridge: CUP.Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness

. Cambridge: CUP.Larjavaara, M

. 1986. Itämerensuomen demonstratiivit I:

karjala, aunus, lyydi ja vepsä. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Pajusalu, R. 2009. Pronouns and reference in Estonian. Sprachtypologie und

Universalienforschung 62(1-2). 122-139.

Vallduví, E. 1992. The Informational Component. New York: Garland.Wettstein, H. K. 1981. Demonstrative reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Studies 40(2). 241-257.25/06/2018Chingduang Yurayong43References 2/2