This study explores spatial reference in three different languages: Estonian, Finnish and Russian. We concentrate on the use of demonstratives (i.e. pronouns and adverbs), and the association between the demonstrative pronoun system (i.e. two- and three-term system) and the use of other referential devices (e.g. noun phrases and third person pronouns). More specifically, we test the influence of the distance of the referent from the speaker and change in the deictic field on the use of demonstratives. We show using a free production experiment that the use of demonstratives has a different susceptibility to these factors in different languages. Furthermore, in these languages, there is an association between the elaborateness of the demonstrative pronoun system and the use of other referential devices.
Abbott, B. 2017, Reference. — The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford, 240—258.
Anderson, S. R., Keenan, E. L. 1985, Deixis. — Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, Cambridge, 259-308.
Ariel, M. 2001, Accessibility Theory. An Overview. - Text Representations. Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, Oxford, 29-87.
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.04ari
Bonfiglioli, C., Finocchiaro, C., Gesierich, B., Rositani, F., Vescovi, M. 2009, A Kinematic Approach to the Conceptual Representations of this and that. - Cognition 111 (2), 270-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.006.
Burenhult, N. 2003, Attention, Accessibility, and the Addressee: the Case of the Jahai Demonstrative ton. - Pragmatics 13 (3), 363-379.
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.13.3.01bur
Clark, E. V., Sengul, C. J. 1978, Strategies in the Acquisition of Deixis. - Journal of Child Language 5, 457-475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900002099.
Cohen, J. 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Mahwah-London.
Coventry, K. R., Griffiths, D., Hamilton, C. J. 2014, Spatial Demonstratives and Perceptual Space: Describing and Remembering Object Location. - Cognitive Psychology 69, 46-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.12.001.
Coventry, K. R., Valdés, B., Castillo, A., Guijarro-Fuentes, P. 2008, Language within Your Reach: Near-Far Perceptual Space and Spatial Demonstratives. - Cognition 108 (3), 889-895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.010.
Diessel, H. 1999, Demonstratives. Form, Function and Grammaticalization, Amsterdam-Philadelphia (Typological Studies in Language 42).
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42
Diessel, H. 2006, Demonstratives, Joint Attention, and the Emergence of Grammar. - Cognitive Linguistics 17 (4), 463-489. https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015.
Diessel, H. 2012, Deixis and Demonstratives. - An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Volume 3, Berlin, 2407-2431.
Diessel, H. 2013, Distance Contrasts in Demonstratives. - The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig. https://wals.info/chapter/41.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2003, Demonstratives. A Cross-Linguistic Typology. - Studies in Language 27, 61-112.
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.1.04dix
Enfield, N. J. 2003, Demonstratives in Space and Interaction: Data from Lao Speakers and Implications for Semantic Analysis. - Language 79, 82-117.
https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0075
Etelämäki, M. 2006, Toiminta ja tarkoite - tutkimus suomen pronominista tämä, Helsinki (SKST 1008).
Etelämäki, M. 2009, The Finnish Demonstrative Pronouns in Light of Interaction. - Journal of Pragmatics 41, 25-46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.005
Field, A., Miles, J., Field, Z. 2012, Discovering Statistics Using R, London.
Fillmore, C. J. 1997, Lectures on Deixis, Stanford.
Freundschuh, S. M., Egenhofer, M. J. 1997, Human Conceptions of Spaces: Implications for Geographic Information Systems. - Transactions in GIS 2 (4), 361-375.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.1997.tb00063.x
Greenacre, M. 2007, Correspondence Analysis in Practice, Boca Raton-London-New York (Interdisciplinary Statistics Series).
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420011234
Gudde, H. B., Coventry, K. R., Engelhardt, P. E. 2016, Language and Memory for Object Location. - Cognition 153, 99-107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.016
Gundel, J. K., Bassene, M., Gordon, B., Humnick, L., Khalfaoui, A. 2010, Testing Predictions of the Givenness Hierarchy Framework: A Crosslinguistic Investigation. - Journal of Pragmatics 42 (7), 1770-1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.010.
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., Zacharski, R. 1993, Cognitive Status and the Form of Reffering Expressions in Discourse. - Language 69, 274-307.
https://doi.org/10.2307/416535
Hakulinen, A. 1985, On Cohesive Devices in Finnish. - Text Connexity, Text Coherence. Aspects, Methods, Results, Hamburg (Papiere zur Textlinguistik 49), 337-362.
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T. R., Alho, I. 2004, Iso suomen kielioppi, Helsinki (SKST 950).
Halliday, M. A. K., Hasan, R. 1976, Cohesion in English, London.
Hanks, W. F. 1992, The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference. - Rethinking Context. Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Cambridge, 43-76.
Hanks, W. F. 2011, Deixis and Indexicality. - Foundations of Pragmatics, Berlin-Boston (Handbooks of Pragmatics 1), 315-346.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214260.315
Himmelmann, N. P. 1996, Demonstratives in Narrative Discourse. - Studies in Anaphora, Amsterdam-Philadelphia (Typological Studies in Language 33), 205-254.
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.08him
Huang, Y. 2014, Pragmatics, Oxford.
Kaiser, E. 2010, Salience and Contrast Effects in Reference Resolution. The Interpretation of Dutch Pronouns and Demonstratives. - Language and Cognitive Processes 26 (10), 1587-1624. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.522915.
Khalfaoui, A. 2007, A Cognitive Approach to Analyzing Demonstratives in Tunisian Arabic. - Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XX, Amsterdam-Philadelphia (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 290), 169-186.
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.290.15kha
Kibrik, A. A. 1996, Anaphora in Russian Narrative Prose. A Cognitive Calculative Account. - Studies in Anaphora, Amsterdam-Philadelphia (Typological Studies in Language 33), 255-304.
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.09kib
Kibrik, A. A. 2011. Reference in Discourse, Oxford.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001
Küntay, A. C., Özyürek, A. 2006, Learning to Use Demonstratives in Conversation: What Do Language Specific Strategies in Turkish Reveal? - Journal of Child Language 33 (02), 303-320. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007380.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007380
Larjavaara, M. 1990, Suomen deiksis, Helsinki (Suomi 156).
Larjavaara, M. 2007, Pragmasemantiikka, Helsinki (SKST 1077).
Laury, R. 1996, . Pronouns and Adverbs, Figure and Ground. The Local Case Forms and Locative Forms of Finnish Demonstratives in Spoken Discourse. - SKY Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, 65-92.
Laury, R. 1997, Demonstratives in Interaction. The Emergence of a Definite Article in Finnish, Amsterdam-Philadelphia.
https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.7
Le, S., Josse, J., Husson, F. 2008, FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. - Journal of Statistical Software 25, 1-18. http://dx.doi. org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01.
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01
Levinson, S. C. 2006, Deixis. - The Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford, 97-121.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch5
Levinson, S. C. 2018. Introduction: Demonstratives: Patterns in Diversity. - Demonstratives in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Cambridge (Language Culture and Cognition 14), 1-42.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333818.002
Lüdecke, D. 2017, sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot.
Lyons, J. 1977, Semantics. Volume 2, Cambridge.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620614
Maes, A. A., de Rooij, C. 2007, (How) Do Demonstratives Code Distance. - Proceedings of the 6th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphora Resolution Colloquium DAARC 2007, Lagos, 83-89.
March, E. G., Pattison, P. 2014, The Role of Language System in Context-Dependent Language Use in Turkish-Speaking Versus English-Speaking Older Adults. - Applied Psycholinguistics 35, 1087-1108.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000707
Meira, S., Terrill, A. 2005, Contrasting Contrastive Demonstratives in Tiriyó and Lavukaleve. - Linguistics 43 (6), 1131-1152.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.6.1131
Mendoza, I. 2015, Distance in Discourse: Evidence from Polish, Russian and German. - Distance in Language. Grounding a Metaphor, Cambridge.
Pajusalu, R. 2006, Death of a Demonstrative: Person and Time. The Case of Estonian too. - LU XLII, 241-253.
Pajusalu, R. 2009, Pronouns and Reference in Estonian. - Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 62 (1/2). 122-139.
https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2009.0008
Pajusalu, R. 2017, Viiteseosed. - Eesti keele süntaks, Tartu (Eesti keele varamu 3), 566-589.
Priiki, K. 2017, Hän, se, tää vai toi? Vuorovaikutussosiolingvistinen tutkimus henkilöviittauksista Kaakkois-Satakunnan nykypuhekielessä, Turku (Annales Universitatis Turkuensis C 432).
R Core Team 2017, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Reile, M. 2015, Space and Demonstratives: an Experiment with Estonian Exophoric Demonstratives. - ESUKA 6 (2), 137-165. http://jeful.ut.ee/index.php/JEFUL/ article/view/jeful.2015.6.2.06/98.
https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.2.06
Reile, M. 2016, Distance, Visual Salience and Contrast Expressed through Different Demonstrative Systems: an Experimental Study in Estonian. - SKY Journal of Linguistics 29, 63-94. http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/SKY2016/ SKYJoL29_Reile.pdf.
Seppänen, E.-L. 1998, Läsnäolon pronominit. Tämä, tuo, se ja hän viittaamassa keskustelun osallistujaan, Helsinki (SKST 715).
Timberlake, A. 2004, A Reference Grammar of Russian, New York.
Tóth, E., Csatár, P., Banga, A. 2014, Exploring Hungarian and Dutch Gestural Demonstratives. - Complex Visibles Out There. Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure, Olomouc (Olomouc Modern Language Series 4), 607-626.
van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F., Zyngier, S. 2012, Scientific Methods for the Humanities, Amsterdam-Pholadelphia (Linguistic Approaches to Literature 13).
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.13
Vogels, J., Krahmer, E., Maes, A. 2013, Who is Where Referred to How, and Why? The Influence of Visual Saliency on Referent Accessibility in Spoken Language Production. - Language and Cognitive Processes 28 (9). 1323-1349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.682072.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.682072
Апресян, Ю. 1986, Дейксис в лексике и грамматике и наивная модель мира. / Семиотика и информатика 28, 5/33.
Шелякин, М. А. 2002, Русский язык. Справочник, Таллинн.
