In:Perspectives on Historical Syntax
Edited by Carlotta Viti
[Studies in Language Companion Series 169] 2015
► pp. 35–60
Manner deixis as source of grammatical markers in Indo-European languages
Published online: 29 April 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.169.02kon
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.169.02kon
Recent typological and areal studies of demonstratives, such as Himmelmann (1997), Diessel 1999, 2006), Dixon (2003), Güldemann (2008) and Krasnoukhova (2012), have contributed extensively to our knowledge of possible deictic systems. What is notably absent from these descriptions, however, are demonstratives expressing the semantic dimensions MANNER, QUALITY and DEGREE in addition to their deictic components. As a result of this neglect, the relevant demonstratives (e.g. German so, Ital. cosi, Finn. näin, noin, niin, Jap. koo, soo, aa) are frequently analyzed only in an atomistic fashion as isolated particles, without relating them to existing systematic analyses of demonstratives. The first goal of this cross-linguistic study is to provide a general analysis of such demonstratives, which includes their morphological properties (simplex or composite), their syntactic behavior as members of various categories and their semantic properties of combining two dimensions of meaning, viz. a deictic dimension (proximal, medial, distal, visible, etc.) and a content dimension in terms of the ontological categories ‘manner’, ‘quality’ and ‘degree’. In the second and major part of this paper I will discuss another neglected aspect of the relevant demonstratives, viz. their role in processes of grammaticalization and thus in the genesis and development of various grammatical categories. Starting out from the well-known extensions from exophoric to anaphoric and cataphoric, these demonstratives also develop into propositional anaphors, comparative markers, adverbial connectives, as well as quotative, exclamative and approximative markers in a wide variety of languages.
References (36)
Anderson, Stephen R. & Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Deixis. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III, Timothy Shopen (ed.). Cambridge: CUP
Brandner, Ellen & Bräuning, Iris. 2013. Relative wo in Alemannic: Only a complementizer? Linguistische Berichte 234: 131-169.
Buchstaller, Isabelle & van Alphen, Ingrid (eds). 2012. Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 15]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bühler, Karl. 1934/1982. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache [Ullstein Taschenbuch 1159]. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives. Form, Functions and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4): 463-489.
. 2012. Bühler’s two-field theory of pointing and naming and the deictic origins of grammatical morphemes. In Grammaticalization and Language Change. New Reflections [Studies in Language Companion Series 130], Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds), 37-50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2003. Demonstratives: A cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language 27(1): 61-112.
Ehlich, Konrad. 1987. So – Überlegungen zum Verhältnis sprachlicher Formen und sprachlichen Handelns, allgemein und an einem widerspenstigen Beispiel. In Sprache und Pragmatik, Inger Rosengren (ed.). Malmö: Almquist und Wiksel.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2009. Cyclical Change [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 146]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative Indexes in African Languages: A Synchronic and Diachronic Survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin & Buchholz, Oda. 1998. Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johan van der Auwera (ed.), 277-334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Haspelmath, Martin. 2012. Equative constructions in a world-wide perspective. Paper given at the conference Expressions of Similarity from an Africanist and Typological Perspective, Villejuif, July.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: Zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hole, Daniel & Klumpp, Gerson. 2000. Definite type and indefinite token: The article son in Colloquial German. Linguistische Berichte 182: 231-244.
Jäger, Agnes. 2010. Der Komparativzyklus und die Position der Vergleichspartikeln, Linguistische Berichte 224: 467-493.
. 2012. So manag so her bitharf: So als Vergleichspartikel und –korrelat in der Geschichte des Deutschen. Ms, University of Frankfurt.
König, Ekkehard. 2012. Le rôle des déictiques de la manière dans le cadre d’une typologie de la deixis. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, CVII. 11-42.
. 2013. The deictic identification of similarity. In Similative and Equative Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Letuchiy, Alexander B. 2012. On some properties of sentential arguments in Russian. Voprosy jazykoznanija 5.
Schleburg, Florian. 2002. Altenglisch ‘swa’. Syntax und Semantik einer polyfunktionalen Partikel. Heiselberg: Carl Winter.
Thurmair, Maria. 2001. Vergleiche und Vergleichen. Eine Studie zu Form und Funktion der Vergleichsstrukturen im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Tomasello, Michael, Carpenter, Malinda & Liszkowski, Ulf. 2007. A new look at infant pointing. Child Development 78: 705-722.
Traugott Closs, Elizabeth & König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 189-216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svarvik, Jan. 1985. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
Umbach, Carla. 2007. The role of so in equative comparison. Paper given at the Syntax and Semantics Conference CSSP, Paris.
. 2008. Facts as proof. Paper given at the Workshop on Reference to Abstract Objects in Natural Language, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.
Cited by (13)
Cited by 13 other publications
de Moura Alves, Luiza, Laura Becker & Johannes Helmbrecht
Gentens, Caroline & Kasper Boye
Guz, Wojciech
Jaradat, Abdulazeez
Krajewska, Dorota
Magni, Elisabetta & Ottavia Cepraga
König, Ekkehard & Letizia Vezzosi
2022. On the development of OE swā to ModE so and related changes in an atypical group of demonstratives. In English Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 358], ► pp. 309 ff.
Wolde, Elnora ten & Thomas Schwaiger
Забелина, Елизавета Александровна
Heine, Bernd, Tania Kuteva, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Fang Wu
König, Ekkehard
2017. The comparative basis of intensification. In Exploring Intensification [Studies in Language Companion Series, 189], ► pp. 15 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
