'Proximal' and 'distal' in language and cognition: Evidence from deictic demonstratives in Dutch

Journal of Pragmatics

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 694-718

  Piwek, Paul ^a   Beun, Robbert Jan ^b   Cremers, Anita ^c  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c TNO   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Deictic reference; Importance; Proximal and distal demonstratives

Indexed keywords

EID: 40649083047     PISSN: 03782166     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ariel M. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents (1990), Routledge, London and New York
2. Ayto J. The Bloomsbury Dictionary of Word Origins (1990), Bloomsbury, London
3. Bangerter A. Using pointing and describing to achieve joint focus of attention in dialogue. Psychological Science 15 6 (2004) 415-419
4. Beun R.-J., and Cremers A. Object reference in a shared domain of conversation. Pragmatics and Cognition 6 1/2 (1998) 121-152
5. Botley S., and McEnery T. Demonstratives in English: a corpus-based study. Journal of English Linguistics 29 1 (2001) 7-33
6. Bühler K. Sprachtheorie: die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache (1934), Fischer, Jena
7. Biber D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S., and Finegan E. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999), Longman, Harlow
8. Buchler J. The Philosophy of Peirce: Selected Writings (1940), Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
9. Butterworth G. Pointing is the royal road to language for babies. In: Kita S. (Ed). Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet (2003), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey 9-34
10. Carter D. Interpreting Anaphors in Natural Language Text (1987), Ellis Horword, Wiley & Sons, New York
11. Chafe W. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In: Li C.N. (Ed). Subject and Topic (1976), Academic Press, New York 25-55
12. Christophersen P. The Articles: A Study of their Theory and Use in English (1939), Einar Munksgaard, Copenhagen
13. Clark H.H. Using Language (1996), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
14. Clark H.H., and Bangerter A. Changing Ideas about Reference. In: Noveck I., and Sperber D. (Eds). Experimental Pragmatics (2004), Palgrave Macmillan, New York 25-49
15. Clark H.H., and Marshall C.R. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In: Joshi A., Webber B., and Sag I. (Eds). Elements of Discourse Understanding (1981), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 10-63
16. Cremers, Anita, 1993. Transcripties dialogen blokken-experiment. IPO Report No. 889. Eindhoven.
17. Cremers A. Referring in a shared workspace. In: Brouwer-Janse M.D., and Harrington T.L. (Eds). Human-Machine Communication for Educational Systems Design (1994), Springer Verlag, Heidelberg 71-78
18. Diessel H. Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization (1999), John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia
19. Enfield N. Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis. Language 79 1 (2003) 82-117
20. Epstein R. The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics 12 4 (2002) 333-378
21. Garć E.C. The Role of Theory in Linguistic Analysis: The Spanish Pronoun System (1975), North Holland, Amsterdam
22. Glover K.D. Proximal and distal deixis in negotiation talk. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 915-926
23. Grosz, Barbara, 1977. The representation and use of focus in dialogue understanding. Technical Note 151. SRI International, Menlo Park.
24. Grosz B., and Sidner C. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12 (1986) 175-204
25. Gundel, Jeanette K., 1978. Stress, pronominalization and given-new distinction. University of Hawai Working Papers in Linguistics 10/2, 1-13.
26. Gundel J.K., Hedberg N., and Zacharski R. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69 2 (1993) 274-307
27. Halliday M.A.K. Introduction to Functional Grammar (1985), Edward Arnold, London
28. Hollingdale S. Makers of Mathematics (1989), Penguin Books, London
29. Hume D. A Treatise of Human Nature (1984), Penguin Books, London (orginal work published in 1739 and 1740)
30. Janssen T.A.J.M. Tenses and demonstratives: conspecific categories. In: Geiger R.A., and Rudzka-Ostyn B. (Eds). Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language (1993), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin 741-783
31. Jordan, Pamela W., 2000. Intentional influences on object redescriptions in dialogue: evidence from an empirical study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
32. Kahneman D. A perspective on judgement and choice: mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist 58 9 (2003) 697-720
33. Kaplan D. DTHAT. In: Yourgrau P. (Ed). Demonstratives (1990), Oxford University Press, Oxford 11-33 (reprinted from Syntax and Semantics, pp. 221-243, by P. Cole, Ed., 1978, New York: Academic Press)
34. Kemmerer D. "Near" and "far" in language and perception. Cognition 73 (1999) 35-63
35. Kirsner R.S. Deixis in discourse: an exploratory quantitative study of the modern Dutch demonstrative adjectives. In: Givón T. (Ed). Syntax and Semantics: Discourse and Syntax Vol. 12 (1979), Academic Press, New York 355-375
36. Kirsner R.S. What it takes to show whether an analysis 'Fits'. In: Bluhme H., and Hammarström G. (Eds). Descriptio Linguistica: Proceedings of the First Conference on Descriptive and Structural Linguistics (1985), Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen 76-112
37. Kirsner R.S. From meaning to message in two theories: Cognitive and Saussurean views of the Modern Dutch demonstratives. In: Geiger R.A., and Rudzka-Ostyn B. (Eds). Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language (1993), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin 81-114
38. Kirsner R.S., and Van Heuven V.J. The significance of demonstrative position in modern Dutch. Lingua 76 (1988) 209-248
39. Kühnlein, Peter, Stegmann, Jens, 2003. Empirical issues in deictic gestures. Referring to Objects in Simple Identification Tasks. Technical report 2003/3, SFB 360, University of Bielefeld.
40. Lakoff R. Remarks on this and that. Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (1974) 345-356
41. Levinson S.C. Activity types and language. In: Drew P., and Heritage J. (Eds). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (1992), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 66-100
42. Levinson S.C. Deixis and pragmatics. In: Horn L., and Ward G. (Eds). The Handbook of pragmatics (2004), Blackwell, Oxford 97-121
43. Longman Dictionary of the English Language, 1991. 2nd ed., Longman, Harlow.
44. Maes F., and Noordman L. Demonstrative nominal anaphors: a case of nonidentificational markedness. Linguistics 33 (1995) 255-282
45. Prince E. On the reference of indefinite-this NPs. In: Joshi A., Webber B., and Sag I. (Eds). Elements of discourse understanding (1981), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 231-250
46. Roberts C. Demonstratives as Definites. In: van Deemter K., and Kibble R. (Eds). Information Sharing (2002), CSLI, Stanford, CA 89-196
47. Strauss S. This, that and it in spoken American English: a demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Sciences 24 (2002) 121-152
48. Ultan R. Size-sound symbolism. In: Greenberg J. (Ed). Universals of Human Language Vol. 4 (1984), Stanford University Press, Stanford 525-568
49. Van Dale: Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal, 1984. 11nd ed., Van Dale Lexicografie, Utrecht/Antwerpen.
50. Weissenborn J., and Klein W. Introduction. In: Weissenborn J., and Klein W. (Eds). Here and There (1982), Benjamins, Amsterdam 1-12
51. Woodworth N.L. Sound Symbolism in Proximal and Distal Forms. Linguistics 29 (1991) 273-299
52. Wright S., and Givón T. The pragmatics of indefinite reference: quantified text-based studies. Studies in Language 11 1 (1987) 1-33