Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T13:45:08.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from LAO speakers and implications for semantic analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

N. J. Enfield
N. J. Enfield*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen
*
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Postbus 310, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands [Nick.Enfield@mpi.nl]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The semantics of simple (i.e. two-term) systems of demonstratives have in general hitherto been treated as inherently spatial and as marking a symmetrical opposition of distance (‘proximal’ versus 'distal'), assuming the speaker as a point of origin. More complex systems are known to add further distinctions, such as visibility or elevation, but are assumed to build on basic distinctions of distance. Despite their inherently context-dependent nature, little previous work has based the analysis of demonstratives on evidence of their use in real interactional situations. In this article, video recordings of spontaneous interaction among speakers of Lao (Southwestern Tai, Laos) are examined in an analysis of the two Lao demonstrative determiners nii4 and nan4. A hypothesis of minimal encoded semantics is tested against rich contextual information, and the hypothesis is shown to be consistent with the data. Encoded conventional meanings must be kept distinct from contingent contextual information and context-dependent pragmatic implicatures. Based on examples of the two Lao demonstrative determiners in exophoric uses, the following claims are made. The term nii4 is a semantically general demonstrative, lacking specification of any spatial property (such as location or distance). The term nan4 specifies that the referent is 'not here' (encoding ‘location’ but not 'distance'). Anchoring the semantic specification in a deictic primitive 'here' allows a strictly discrete intensional distinction to be mapped onto an extensional range of endless elasticity. A common ‘proximal’ spatial interpretation for the semantically more general term nii4 arises from the paradigmatic opposition of the two demonstrative determiners. This kind of analysis suggests a reappraisal of our general understanding of the semantics of demonstrative systems universally. To investigate the question in sufficient detail, however, rich contextual data (preferably collected on video) is necessary.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 82 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Stephen R., and Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Deixis. Language typology and syntactic description, ed. by Shopen, Timothy, vol. 3. 259–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1982[1934]. The deictic field of language and deictic words. (Translated excerpt from Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache, 1934.) Speech, place, and action, ed. by Jarvella, Robert J. and Klein, Wolfgang, 9–30. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1947. Meaning and necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Casad, Eugene H. 1988. Conventionalization of Cora locationals. Topics in cognitive linguistics, ed. by Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida, 345–78. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1930. A system of tone letters. Le maître phonétique, troisième série, 30. 24–27.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 2003. Pointing and placing. Pointing, ed. by Kita, Sotaro, 243–68. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., Schreuder, Robert; and Buttrick, Samuel. 1983. Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22. 245–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Andrade, Roy D. 1987. A folk model of the mind. Cultural models in language and thought, ed. by Holland, Dorothy and Quinn, Naomi, 112–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2000. The theory of cultural logic: How individuals combine social intelligence with semiotics to create and maintain cultural meaning. Cultural Dynamics 12. 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. Speech, place, and action, ed. by Jarvella, Robert J. and Klein, Wolfgang, 31–59. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1997 [1971]. Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 1998. Bad arguments against semantic primitives. Theoretical Linguistics 24. 129–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in public places. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goody, Esther N. (ed.) 1995. Social intelligence and interaction: Expressions and implications of the social bias in human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., 41–58. New York: Seminar Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hanks, William. 1990. Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haviland, John. 1993. Anchoring, iconicity, and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3. 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. Studies in anaphora, ed. by Fox, Barbara, 205–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1987. Refurbishing our foundations: Elementary linguistics from an advanced point of view. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmerer, David. 1999. ‘Near’ and ‘far’ in language and perception. Cognition 73. 35–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendon, Adam. 1977. Studies in the behavior of social interaction. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University and Lisse: Peter de Ridder.Google Scholar
Keysar, Boaz, Barr, Dale, Balin, Jennifer A.; and Brauner, Jason S. 2000. Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science 11. 32–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kita, Sotaro, and Dickey, Laura Walsh (eds.) 1998. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics annual report 1998. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1974. Remarks on this and that. Chicago Linguistics Society 10. 345–56.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1997. The contextual basis of cognitive semantics. Language and conceptualization, ed. by Nuyts, Jan and Pedersen, Eric, 229–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Penny. 1996. The Whorf theory complex: A critical reconstruction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. H. P. Grice on location on Rossel Island. Berkeley Linguistics Society 25. 210–24.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1997. From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and nonlinguistic thinking. Language and conceptualization, ed. by Nuyts, Jan and Pedersen, Eric, 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2001. Maxim. Key terms in language and culture, ed. by Duranti, Alessandro, 139–42. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. 1969. Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Özyürek, Asli. 2000. The influence of addressee location on spatial language and representational gestures of direction. Language and gesture, ed. by McNeill, David, 64–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özyürek, Asli, and Kita, Sotaro. 2001. Interacting with demonstratives: Encoding of joint attention as a semantic contrast in Turkish and Japanese demonstrative systems. Istanbul and Nijmegen: Koç University and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, ms.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1965/1932. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 2: Elements of logic, ed. by Hartshorne, Charles and Weiss, Paul. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, and Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, ed. by Psathas, George, 15–21. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Scheflen, Albert E. 1976. Human territories: How we behave in space-time. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (Written with Norman Ashcraft.).Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1960. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle, and Warner, Natasha (eds.) 1999. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics annual report 1999. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1972. Semantic primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980. Lingua mentalis. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1990. ‘Prototypes save’: On the uses and abuses of the notion of ‘prototype’ in linguistics and related fields. Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, ed. by Tzohatzidis, Savas L., 347–67. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David P. 1999. Demonstrative questionnaire: 'This' and 'that' in comparative perspective. Manual for the 1999 field season, ed. by Wilkins, David P., 1–24. Nijmegen: Language and Cognition Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David P., and Hill, Deborah. 1995. When ‘go’ means ‘come’: Questioning the basicness of motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 6. 209–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar