Abstract
While demonstratives typically signal aspects of the spatial configuration of speech act participants and objects in the speech situation, intersubjective parameters, such as the attentional state of the interlocutor, have recently gained importance in the analysis of such forms. Several systems have been described in which the use of certain forms is conditioned by shared vs. non-shared attention towards a referent. Phenomena of this kind have recently been considered under the notion of ‘engagement’, i.e. the expression of a speaker’s assumptions about the knowledge or attention of their interlocutor (Evans et al. 2018a, b).
The present study contributes to the ongoing investigation of engagement by a descriptive account of demonstratives in Kogi (Chibchan). It is argued that the use of certain (ad)nominal forms that were initially associated with addressee proximity cannot be accounted for in merely spatial terms. The paper proposes a novel analysis in terms of engagement and shows that the forms apply when a referent is in the attention of, or is known to both interlocutors. Evidence in support of this comes from elicited data as well as an interactive matching game in which attentional states of participants can be observed.
References
Anderson, Stephen R., & Edward L. Keenan. 1985. Deixis. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and linguistic description, Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 259–308.Search in Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2016. Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arwako). International Journal of American Linguistics 82(1), 1–34.Search in Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2018. Yucatec Demonstratives in Interaction: Spontaneous versus Elicited Data. In Levinson, Stephen C. et al. (eds.), Demonstratives in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 176–205.10.1017/9781108333818.009Search in Google Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas. 2002. A grammar of Jahai. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Search in Google Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas. 2003. Attention, accessibility, and the addressee: the case of the Jahai demonstrative ton. Pragmatics 13, 363–379.Search in Google Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas.2008. Spatial coordinate systems in demonstrative meaning. Linguistic Typology 12(1), 99–142.Search in Google Scholar
Crevels, Mily. 2012. Language endangerment in South America: The clock is ticking. In: Campbell, Lyle & Verónica Grondona (eds.), The indigenous languages of South America: A comprehensive guide. Berlin: de Gruyter. 176–234.10.1515/9783110258035.167Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: form, function, and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 42). Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.42Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4), 463–489.10.1515/COG.2006.015Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2003. Demonstratives. Studies in Language 27(1), 61–112.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018a. The grammar of engagement I: framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition 10, 110–140.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018b. The grammar of engagement II: typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 10, 141–170.Search in Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. 1990. Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. 2005. Explorations in the deictic field. Current Anthropology 26(2), 191–220.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2018. Yélî Dnye: Demonstratives in the Language of Rossel Island, Papua New Guinea. In Levinson, Stephen C. et al. (eds.), Demonstratives in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 318–342.10.1017/9781108333818.016Search in Google Scholar
Meira, Sérgio. 2018. Tiriyó: Non-contrastive Exophoric Uses of Demonstratives. In Levinson, Stephen C. et al. (eds.), Demonstratives in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 222–241.10.1017/9781108333818.011Search in Google Scholar
Ortiz Ricaurte, Carolina. 2000. La lengua kogui: fonología y sintaxis nominal. In María S. Gonzáles de Pérez. and María L. Rodrígues de Montes (eds.), Lenguas indígenas de Colombia: Una visión descriptiva. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. 759–80.Search in Google Scholar
Özyürek, Aslı. 1998. An analysis of the basic meaning of Turkish demonstratives in face-to-face conversational interaction. In S. Santi, I. Guaitella, C. Cave, & G. Konopczynski (eds.), Oralite et gestualite: Communication multimodale, interaction; actes du colloque ORAGE 98. Paris: L’Harmattan. 609–614.Search in Google Scholar
Özyürek, Aslı, & Sotaro Kita. n.d. Joint attention and distance in the semantics of Turkish and Japanese demonstrative systems. Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Lauren Gawne, Darja Hoenigman, Julia C. Miller, Alan Rumsey, Stef Spronck, Alice Carroll and Nicholas Evans. 2012. Getting the story straight: Language fieldwork using a narrative problem-solving task. Language documentation and conservation 12, 135–174.Search in Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank (2003) Encoding shape: Formal means and semantic distinctions. In Nick Enfield (ed.), Field research manual 2003 part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. 57–59.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Dominique Knuchel, published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.
