ESTONIAN ACADEMY
PUBLISHERS
eesti teaduste
akadeemia kirjastus
PUBLISHED
SINCE 1965
 
Linguistica Uralica cover
Linguistica Uralica
ISSN 1736-7506 (Electronic)
ISSN 0868-4731 (Print)

Reference in the Borderline of Space and Discourse: a Free Production Experiment in Estonian, Finnish and Russian; pp. 185-208

Full article in PDF format | https://dx.doi.org/10.3176/lu.2019.3.02

Authors
Maria Reile, Piia Taremaa, Tiina Nahkola, Renate Pajusalu

Abstract

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.


References

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.


Back to Issue