Workshop on Discourse Functions of Demonstratives - PowerPoint Presentation

Workshop on Discourse Functions of DemonstrativesUniversity of Oslo14 - 15 June 2018 Åshild NæssAnna MargettsYvonne TreisJozina Vander Klok 1

Small programme change: dinner tomorrow at 18.30! Wifi: conferences Password: SpaceTime147 (or use eduroam)2

FocusLittle-studied discourse functions of demonstratives as discourse-structuring devicesDemonstratives (and related forms) referring to persons, places and objects expressing other ontological categories e.g. manner, quality, degree, quantity with presentative functions 3

Discourse Functions of DemonstrativesForegrounding or backgrounding of information Referents, events, stretches of discourseMarking of presupposed or asserted information discourse topics stretches of discourse as forming a unit Clause-linking and subordination-like functionsFunctions relating to information structure i.e. clause-level topic/focus relations 4

Discourse Functions of DemonstrativesHow does the structure of a demonstrative paradigm interact with discourse functions? Does the type of system and/or the number of contrasts within the system have any impact on which member of the paradigm take on specific functions? person-based vs. distance-based systems two-term, three-term, larger systems5

Person deictics as discourse markersPerson deictics (including demonstratives) commonly take on discourse functions (Margetts 2015) 2nd-person forms may have a predisposition for taking on certain functions (Margetts 2015, 2016)6 Margetts, A. 2015. Person shift at narrative peak. Language 91/4, 755-805Margetts, A. 2016. Addressee-based demonstratives as topic markers. Annual conference of the Australian Linguistics Society, Melbourne, 5-7 December 2016

Some observations in an Oceanic language7

Saliba-Logea (Western Oceanic, PNG) 3-term, person-based demonstrative system Addr -based form: meta 8

Addr-based form as topic marker Marking participants as discourse topics 9

Addr-based form as clause-backgrounding device Marking clauses as background information, ‘discourse subordination’ 10

Some observations in a Papuan language11

Wambon (Trans New Guinea, West Papua) 3-term, person-based demonstrative systemAddr-based form: ev-e 12

Addr-based form for anaphoric reference13 Marking anaphoric-resumptive reference (De Vries 1995)

Addr -based form as topic markerMarking topics (De Vries 1995) 14

Addr-based form as clause-backgrounding deviceMarking subordinate clauses 15

Addr-based form as clause-backgrounding deviceMarking subordinate clauses 16

Similar patterns in other languagesIn some Oceanic and Papuan lgs.Addr-based demonstrativeAnaphoric referenceTopic marking Clause backgroundingJapanese, some Australian languages, some Indo-European lgs, …Addr-based demonstrative Anaphoric reference 17

Demonstratives in clause backgrounding and subordinationHaiman (1978)Conditional clauses and topics are marked identically in a number of unrelated languages Diessel (1999) Demonstratives as sentence connectives, complementizers, rel. clause markersBril ed. (2010) Demonstratives with backgrounding functions (Oceanic and other languages)Schapper and San Roque (2011) Demonstratives in non-embedded clausal nominalizations (Papuan languages)18

Is there a general cross-linguistic pattern?A typology of … … grammaticalisation paths? ... clause-combining demonstratives? … demonstratives in anaphoric use? … addr-based demonstratives? … 19

Need to distinguish between …20 the four uses of demonstratives ( Himmelmann 1996; 1997; Diessel 1999) Situational use Discourse deictic use Anaphoric / tracking use Recognitional use different types of demonstrative systems Distance-based vs. person based-systems literature is unreliable! needs explicit testing, e.g. with Wilkins (1999) 2-member vs. 3-member vs. more-member systems Wilkins, David P. 1999. Eliciting contrastive use of demonstratives for objects within close personal space. In David P. Wilkins (ed.), Manual for the 1999 field season (version 1.0) , 25–28. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

3-member person-based systemsWhich member occurs in anaphoric use?Observations (and predictions) of markedness distinctions:Addressee-based term is the unmarked choice in anaphoric use Addressee-based term tends to take on topic-marking functionsAddressee-based term tends to take on backgrounding functions21

3-member distance-based systemsWhich member occurs in anaphoric use? Diverging observations & predictions:proximal term is the unmarked choice (Himmelmann 1996) medial term is the unmarked choice (Lynch et al. 2002 on Oceanic lgs)distal term is the unmarked choice (Reesink 1987 on Papuan lgs)Possibly: No overall cross-linguistic pattern (but areal ones)Or our methodologies have not been clear enough to catch existing patternsmixing up anaphoric vs recognitional usemixing up person-based and distance-based systemsmixing systems with different numbers of members 22

Javanese (Austronesian)3-member distance-based systemMost varieties of Javanese have a demonstrative paradigm marking three degrees of physical deixis: iki DEM.PROXiku/kuwi DEM.MEDkae DEM.DIST Standard Javanese (e.g. Robson 2014)iki / kien DEM.PROXiku / kuen DEM.MEDika / kaen DEM.DIST Cirebon Javanese (Ewing 2014)23 Ewing, Michael. 2014. Pragmatic uses of demonstratives in Cirebon Javanese conversation.’ In Anthony Jukes, ed. Deixis and spatial expression in languages of Indonesia. NUSA 56: 47-63. Robson, Stuart. 2014. Javanese Grammar for Students, 3 rd edition . Clayton: Monash University Press.

Cirebon Javanese: Uses of demonstratives (Ewing 2014)24 (Ewing 2014:52)  primarily proximal (56%), then medial (38%) primarily medial Dem (79%)  primarily distal Dem (59%), then medial (35%)  primarily medial Dem (52%), then distal (35%)

Javanese demonstratives: Anaphoric useAnaphoric use seems to be most common (64%) (Ewing 2014)Medial form is the unmarked choice (79%) follows Oceanic languages (Lynch et al. 2000) 25 Cirebon Javanese (Ewing 2014:54)

Javanese demonstratives: Beyond anaphoric use? However, the percentage of third person pronominal use (anaphoric or not) has not been studiedOr which of these uses are as imposter pronouns, where there is a mismatch between the person marking on the underlying form and the referent identified in the utterance (Conners 2017): éh, iku bójó-né Gendut kuliah ndhék ndhi yò PRT DEM.MED/2SG spouse-DEF chubby university at where PRT ‘So, you, Gendut’s spouse, where do you go to university?’ 26 Cirebon Javanese (Ewing 2014:54) Malang Javanese

Javanese demonstratives: Beyond anaphoric use?A further question arises with the use of demonstratives together with personal pronouns. Is this use anaphoric, recognitional, or otherwise? (Ewing 2014: 56-57) Di-kéi aku iki kokPASS-give 1SG DEM.PROX PRT‘I was the one who gave it!’ 27 Malang Javanese

Javanese demonstratives: Managing conversationEwing (2014) Demonstratives can mark the end of an intonation unit, and furthermore, can help project the end of a turn unit. 28

What about two-term systems? (And how many discourse functions can demonstratives have?)Äiwoo (Oceanic)wide range of forms showing a proximal (-e) vs. distal (-â) distinctionphrase/clause -initial particle le/lâ, phrase-final clitic =Ce/=C â - often though not always in combinationmark off various information-structural units distal as unmarked basis for a number of conjunction -like items such as lâto ‘ then , thus ’, lâmaa ‘ if , when ’, lângaa ‘ when , before ’ extremely frequent in narrative discourse 29

Äiwoo (Oceanic) Ile dee näkenaa eä ikâ. Dänyimowa , ikâ lâ kiemoto wâ . Iemo kâ , nogo nâ kitei . This is the story of the heron. Once upon a time, the heron lived . He lived , and what he did was to fish. Kuwolâ ngâ numa lägä mo lâ kitei kâ , mo lâ kingä nâ . Kivängä sii . Dâbu dedâuwângâ lâ kiemoto wâ , He went out at low tide and fished , and then he ate . He ate fish. Every day he lived like this , nogo nâ kitei . Lâ kivängä kâ . what he did was to fish. Then he ate . Dänyidâbu dä , lâ iwolâto wâ ngâ numa lägä lâ kiteito wâ . Iwokä nâ , lâto iitoto ngä nupwä päbu kâ . One day, he went out at low tide and fished . As he went , he stepped into the mouth of a clam. Lâto iluwakä päbu kä , nyike imââ. Lâto kisokâ. Ikâ kuwäämokee, känä nyike nataie, mo ngângo. Then the clam caught his leg and bit it. So he was stuck there. The heron tried to pull his leg free, but it was stuck.Lâto kitaiaonâ, lâ kitaiaonâ, mo päbu nede imagumu-manai. Ä ba kuwolâgu. He pulled and pulled, but the clam tightened its jaws. He couldn’t get out.Ba wâtâwegu, mo nelo lâ kupu-utemätowâ, lâ kibeetowâ. Ngaa ikâ nulä kuuboto go kivaakä nulä nâ, It didn’t take long before the tide started coming in, rising up. So the heron worried, he thought, känä dädengaa nelo eolo mana, lâto kunumepukâ. What if the tide rises up very high, then he would drown. 30

Some discourse functions in ÄiwooPresentational constructions Dä=nyimowa, ikâ lâ ki-emo=to=wâ some=time heron DIST IPFV-stay=CS=DIST‘Once upon a time, the heron lived.’ Reactivation/topic-switch … mo pelivano =nâ ku-lu-po-ule=to.CONJ children.3MIN=DIST PFV-3AUG-go-around=CS‘(she left,) and her children could walk now.’ 31

Some discourse functions in ÄiwooSubordination Lâ vepe=kâ mo i-eli-usiDIST hot=DIST CONJ PFV-roll-again‘When it is dry, he rolls it up again.’BUT: Dengaa i-te-wâ-i iumu, lâ=to ku-wâ-nubo-wâ-i iumu=wâ lest PFV-see-DIR:2-3AUG 2MIN DIST=CS IPFV-CAUS-die-UV-3AUG 2MIN=DIST ‘If they see you, they will kill you ’ sibe eângâ lâ ki-täve = kâ loincloth DEM:DIST DIST IPFV-hang=DIST ‘that loincloth that is hanging there’ BUT : nyibä liluwâio = engâ i - vili - woli - i -le basket small.PL=DEM:DIST PFV-weave-down-3AUG-UA ‘those small baskets they had woven’ 32

Some discourse functions in ÄiwooFocusargument focuski-viteiâ-i =lâ lâ sii eä ngâpogo =nâ mo nävedungaa=nâ baIPFV-sell-3AUG=DIST DIST fish of only=DIST CONJ dorsal.fin=DIST NEG ‎‎They only sell the BODY of the fish and not the fins. (Shark net 109-110)Sentence focus lâ tumä i-lâwââ-kä=to opo nyigi lakwaio tä=nâ.DIST father.3MIN PFV-build.A-DIR:3=CS house one small POSS:LOC.3MIN=DISTThen her father built her a little house. 33

Discourse functions of manner demonstratives34

Manner demonstratives and their extended uses35

Manner demonstratives and their extended uses36Extended uses mentioned in the literature (no exhaustive list!): Quotative, e.g. French ainsi ‘thus, like this’(1), German so ‘thus, like this’ (2) [direct speech ], so Angela Merkel am Wochenendelit. ‘[direct speech], thus Angela Merkel at the weekend.’Propositional anaphora A: The meeting has been postponed? B: I suppose so. (2) Sentence and clause connectives (1) < *manner DEM (+ X)Conditional, causal, inferential, concessive, resultative, purposive, temporal etc. (2) Illustrative – see French ainsi : [General observation]. Ainsi [Example]. (1) Contrastive – see Kambaata hítt = íkk [lit. ‘being like this’] ‘but’ (3) (1) Karssenberg & Lahousse (2018), (2) König (2015), König & Umbach (forthc.) (3) Treis (forthc. a)

Manner demonstratives and their extended uses37Interphrasal and interclausal coordination (‘like this’ > ‘as well as’ > ‘and’)

Manner demonstratives and their extended uses38Lexicalisations :Average quality: What was the concert like? – So so.(2) simply (‘empty-handed, unfinished, without use, without fuss, without any addition, without excuses, at no charge’)(3) Yes (‘like this’ > ‘Yes.’)English yes (< yeah swa) (2) / Kambaata hittíguta ‘yes (lit. it is like this)’ (3) (2) König (2015) (3) Treis (forthc. a)

Discourse functions of presentative demonstratives39

Presentative demonstratives and their extended uses40 Exophoric use: (nominative NP) + PRES_DEM

Presentative demonstratives and their extended uses41 As discourse signal: No syntactic integrationFossilized gender, number, deixis

Manner demonstratives and their extended uses42Open questions for future research:If a language has deictic distinctions (e.g. proximal, medial, distal) in manner DEM, then which forms are most likely to grammaticalize (into what extended functions)? If a language distinguishes between manner (‘in this way’), quality (‘such’, degree (‘to this extent’), quantity (‘this much’), which discourse functions do the different DEMs develop?What are common lexicalisations of manner demonstratives?What are discourse functions of presentative demonstratives?

ReferencesDiessel H., 1999, Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins.Karssenberg , L. & K. Lahousse 2018. On the different interpretations of sentence-initial ainsi ‘so’ and the competition between three types of Verb–Subject order. Folia Linguistica 52, 1: 1-38.König E., 2015, Manner deixis as source of grammatical markers in Indo-European languages, in C. Viti (ed.), Perspectives on Historical Syntax , Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, p. 33-60.König E. & C. Umbach forthcoming, Demonstratives of manner, of quality and of degree: A neglected subclass, in E. Boef, M. Coniglio, E. Schlachter & T. Veenstra ( ed), Demonstratives: Syntax, Semantics and Typology, Berlin, De Gruyter Mouton.Treis, Y. forthcoming a. Similative and equative demonstratives in Kambaata. Faits de langues (Special issue Comparaisons d’égalité et de similitude, ed. by C. Chamoreau & Y. Treis)Treis, Y. forthcoming a. Presentative demonstratives in Kambaata, in Les Actes du Colloque « Du terrain à la théorie : Les 40 ans du LACITO » , 15-17 novembre 2016, Villejuif. 43