Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 31:1 (2024) ► pp.125–155

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Demonstrative this/that and gestures

Do they function the same way?

 | Liaocheng University
 | China University of Petroleum Beijing
Published online: 11 October 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00042.pan
Abstract
This paper addresses the unresolved question of whether demonstrative this/that and their accompanying gestures serve the same function. By utilizing Langacker’s notion of Current Discourse Space (CDS) and integrating gesture studies and frame semantics, this research models the entire process of demonstrative use and points to the distinct roles that demonstratives and gestures play in each usage event. The findings reveal that their functions are indeed different: the gesture (gazing) initially singles out an entity as a target, followed by the demonstratives encoding it phonetically. Subsequently, the demonstratives evoke the initiation of a targeting act by the hearer, and the gesture (pointing) specifically identifies the entity during the decoding process. Based on the notion of distinguishing role and value, this study proposes that the semantic content (‘target’) encoded by demonstratives is the role (‘element’) within the viewing (attention)-target event frame, rather than its value (‘entity’). This principle applies to both exophoric and anaphoric contexts, providing a unified conceptual foundation for the function of demonstratives. In the light of these findings, the article also offers novel perspectives on the function of demonstratives as grounding elements, contributing to a deeper understanding of their role in communication.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Studies on demonstrative this/that
  • 3.Usage event, the CDS and its applicable conditions
  • 4.A model of usage events of this/that
    • 4.1Main-model of exophoric use
      • 4.1.1Targeting event (Usage Event 1)
      • 4.1.2Code-assigning event (Usage Event 2)
      • 4.1.3Activation of targeting (Usage Event 3)
      • 4.1.4Pointing event (Usage Event 4)
      • 4.1.5Achievement of targeting event (Usage Event 5)
    • 4.2Sub-model of exophoric use
  • 5.Endophoric contexts
  • 6.Further discussion: Semantic content vs. grounding function
    • 6.1Directive force
    • 6.2Role vs. value
    • 6.3The directive force of demonstratives and gestures
      • 6.3.1When a demonstrative co-occurs with a gesture, does it possess directive force?
      • 6.3.2Is the directive force of exophoric usage the same as that of anaphoric usage?
      • 6.3.3What is the source of the directive force of demonstratives?
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (64)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 1993. A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics 191. 39–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alahverdzhieva, Katya, Alex Lascarides & Dan Flickinger. 2017. Aligning speech and co-speech gesture in a constraint-based grammar. Journal of Language Modelling 5(3). 421–464. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon & John Perry. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernardis, Paolo & Maurizio Gentilucci. 2006. Speech and gesture share the same communication system. Neuropsychologia 44(2). 178–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butterworth, George. 2003. Pointing is the royal road to language for babies. In Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 307–328. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan. 2015. Spoken language usage events. Language and Cognition 7(4). 499–514. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cooperrider, Kensy, Jordan Fenlon, Jonathan Keane, Diane Brentari & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2021. How pointing is integrated into language: Evidence from speakers and signers. Frontiers in Communication 61: 567774. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (4). 463–489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Deixis and demonstratives. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), An international handbook of natural language meaning (vol. III1), 2407–2431. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Where does language come from? Some reflections on the role of deictic gesture and demonstratives in the evolution of language. Language and Cognition 52 (2–3). 239–249. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 2008. Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(4). 409–466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2019. Cognitive linguistics: A complete guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard. 1999. Roles, frames, and definiteness. In Karen van Hoek, Andrej Kibrik & Leo Noorman (eds.), Discourse studies in Cognitive linguistics, 53–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Grounding, subjectivity and definite descriptions. In Frank Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 41–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fan, James, Ken Barker, Bruce Porter & Peter Clark. 2001. Representing roles and purpose. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Capture, 38–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feyaerts, Kurt, Geert Brône & Bert Oben. 2017. Multimodality in interaction. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive linguistics, 135–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Collin Baker. 2015. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In Bernd Heine & Heike Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (2 edn.), 313–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Collin F. Baker & Hiroaki Sato. 2002. The FrameNet database and software tools. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (vol. IV1), 1157–1160. LREC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2021. Multimodal Construction Grammar: From multimodal constructs to multimodal constructions. In Xu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge handbook of Cognitive linguistics, 78–92. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 1967. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 261. 22–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988. How gestures can become like words. In Francisco Poyatos (ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in non-verbal communication, 131–141. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Language and gesture: Unity or duality? In David McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 47–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro. 2003. Interplay of gaze, hand, torso orientation, and language in pointing. In Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 307–328. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kok, Kasper I. & Alan Cienki. 2016. Cognitive Grammar and gesture: Points of convergence, advances and challenges. Cognitive Linguistics 27 (1). 67–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisite. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. Discourse in Cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2).143–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Deixis and subjectivity. In Frank Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2004. Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language 11(1). 77–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langlotz, Andreas. 2015. Local meaning-negotiation, activity types, and the current-discourse-space model. Language and Cognition 71. 515–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Deixis and pragmatics. In Larry Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. Introduction: Demonstratives: Patterns in diversity. In Stephen Levinson, Sarah Cutfield, Michael Dunn, Nick Enfield, Sergio Meira & David Wilkins (eds.), Demonstratives in cross-linguistic perspective, 1–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Speech and gesture integration. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 791. 11–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2009. The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (4). 329–361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 431. 542–552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Pointing, talk, and the bodies: Reference and joint attention as embodied interactional achievements. In Mandana Seyfeddinipur & Marianne Gullberg (eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance: Essays in honor of Adam Kendon, 95–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moore, Chris & Philip J. Dunham. 1995. Joint attention: Its origins and role in development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rohlfing, Katharina J., Angela Grimminger & Carina Lüke. 2017. An interactive view on the development of deictic pointing in infancy. Frontiers in Psychology 81. 1319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruth-Hirrel, Laura & Sherman Wilcox. 2018. Speech-gesture constructions in cognitive grammar: The case of beats and points. Cognitive Linguistics 29(3). 453–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sarda, Laure & Ludovica Lena. 2023. Existential constructions: In search of a definition. In Laure Sarda & Ludovica Lena (eds.), Existential constructions across languages: Forms, meanings and functions, 1–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schoonjans, Steven. 2017. Multimodal Construction Grammar issues are Construction Grammar issues. Linguistics Vanguard 31. 20160050. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, Francis & Mark Turner. 2013. Multimodal Construction Grammar. In Mike Borkent, Barbara Dancygier & Jennifer Hinnell (eds.), Language and the creative mind, 1–20. Stanford: CSLI Publication.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stukenbrock, Anja. 2015. Deixis in der face-to-face-interaktion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Forward-looking: Where do we go with multimodal projections? In Arnulf Deppermann & Jürgen Streeck (eds.), Time in embodied interaction: Synchronicity and sequentiality of multimodal resources, 31–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Deixis, meta-perceptive gaze practices, and the interactional achievement of joint attention. Frontiers in Psychology 111. 1779. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2018. The targeting system of language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Targeting in language: Unifying deixis and anaphora. Frontiers in Psychology 111. 2016. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander. 2017. Do we really need a multimodal construction of grammar. Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1). 20160095. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zima, Elisabeth & Alexander Bergs. 2017. Multimodality and Construction Grammar. Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1). 20161006. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zima, Elisabeth & Geert Brône. 2015. Cognitive linguistics and interactional discourse: Time to enter into dialogue. Language and Cognition 7(4). 485–498. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue