1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 31, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 31, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper addresses the unresolved question of whether demonstrative 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 and , this study proposes that the semantic content (‘target’) encoded by demonstratives is the (‘element’) within the frame, rather than its (‘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.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00042.pan
2024-10-11
2025-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.00042.pan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abbott, Barbara
    1993 A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics191. 39–55. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90069‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90069-2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alahverdzhieva, Katya, Alex Lascarides & Dan Flickinger
    2017 Aligning speech and co-speech gesture in a constraint-based grammar. Journal of Language Modelling5(3). 421–464. 10.15398/jlm.v5i3.167
     https://doi.org/10.15398/jlm.v5i3.167 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barwise, Jon & John Perry
    1983 Situations and attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernardis, Paolo & Maurizio Gentilucci
    2006 Speech and gesture share the same communication system. Neuropsychologia44(2). 178–190. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.05.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1933 Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Butterworth, George
    2003 Pointing is the royal road to language for babies. InSotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 307–328. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.1007/PL00022079
     https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022079 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cienki, Alan
    2015 Spoken language usage events. Language and Cognition7(4). 499–514. 10.1017/langcog.2015.20
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.20 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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 Communication61: 567774. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.567774
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.567774 [Google Scholar]
  9. Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
    2004 Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  10. Diessel, Holger
    1999 Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2006 Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics17 (4). 463–489. 10.1515/COG.2006.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2012 Deixis and demonstratives. InClaudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), An international handbook of natural language meaning (vol.III1), 2407–2431. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2013 Where does language come from? Some reflections on the role of deictic gesture and demonstratives in the evolution of language. Language and Cognition52 (2–3). 239–249. 10.1515/langcog‑2013‑0017
     https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog-2013-0017 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dynel, Marta
    2011 Turning speaker meaning on its head: Non-verbal communication and intended meanings. Pragmatics & Cognition31. 422–447. 10.1075/pc.19.3.03dyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19.3.03dyn [Google Scholar]
  15. Elbourne, Paul
    2008 Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy31(4). 409–466. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9043‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9043-0 [Google Scholar]
  16. Evans, Vyvyan
    2019 Cognitive linguistics: A complete guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474405232
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474405232 [Google Scholar]
  17. Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green
    2006 Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Epstein, Richard
    1999 Roles, frames, and definiteness. InKaren van Hoek, Andrej Kibrik & Leo Noorman (eds.), Discourse studies in Cognitive linguistics, 53–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.176.05eps
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.176.05eps [Google Scholar]
  19. 2002 Grounding, subjectivity and definite descriptions. InFrank Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 41–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110899801.41
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899801.41 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fan, James, Ken Barker, Bruce Porter & Peter Clark
    2001 Representing roles and purpose. InProceedings of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Capture, 38–43. 10.1145/500737.500747
     https://doi.org/10.1145/500737.500747 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1994 Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624582
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
  22. Feyaerts, Kurt, Geert Brône & Bert Oben
    2017 Multimodality in interaction. InBarbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive linguistics, 135–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.010 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1982 Frame semantics. InLinguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Fillmore, Charles J. & Collin Baker
    2015 A frames approach to semantic analysis. InBernd Heine & Heike Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (2 edn.), 313–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Fillmore, Charles J., Collin F. Baker & Hiroaki Sato
    2002 The FrameNet database and software tools. InProceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (vol.IV1), 1157–1160. LREC.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2021 Multimodal Construction Grammar: From multimodal constructs to multimodal constructions. InXu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge handbook of Cognitive linguistics, 78–92. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑6
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-6 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kendon, Adam
    1967 Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica261. 22–63. 10.1016/0001‑6918(67)90005‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  28. 1988 How gestures can become like words. InFrancisco Poyatos (ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in non-verbal communication, 131–141. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 2000 Language and gesture: Unity or duality?InDavid McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 47–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620850.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620850.004 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2004 Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kita, Sotaro
    2003 Interplay of gaze, hand, torso orientation, and language in pointing. InSotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 307–328. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410607744‑17
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607744-17 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kok, Kasper I. & Alan Cienki
    2016 Cognitive Grammar and gesture: Points of convergence, advances and challenges. Cognitive Linguistics27 (1). 67–100. 10.1515/cog‑2015‑0087
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0087 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, George
    1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994 Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  35. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisite. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 2001 Discourse in Cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics12(2).143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2002 Deixis and subjectivity. InFrank Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110899801.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899801.1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Langacker, Ronald
    2004 Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language11(1). 77–113. 10.1075/fol.11.1.05lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.11.1.05lan [Google Scholar]
  39. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Langlotz, Andreas
    2015 Local meaning-negotiation, activity types, and the current-discourse-space model. Language and Cognition71. 515–545. 10.1017/langcog.2015.21
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.21 [Google Scholar]
  41. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2004 Deixis and pragmatics. InLarry Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 2018 Introduction: Demonstratives: Patterns in diversity. InStephen Levinson, Sarah Cutfield, Michael Dunn, Nick Enfield, Sergio Meira & David Wilkins (eds.), Demonstratives in cross-linguistic perspective, 1–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108333818.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333818.002 [Google Scholar]
  44. McNeill, David
    1992 Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 1998 Speech and gesture integration. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development791. 11–27. 10.1002/cd.23219987902
     https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219987902 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2005 Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226514642.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226514642.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mondada, Lorenza
    2009 The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction42 (4). 329–361. 10.1080/08351810903296473
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296473 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2011 Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics431. 542–552. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2014 Pointing, talk, and the bodies: Reference and joint attention as embodied interactional achievements. InMandana Seyfeddinipur & Marianne Gullberg (eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance: Essays in honor of Adam Kendon, 95–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.188.06mon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.188.06mon [Google Scholar]
  50. Moore, Chris & Philip J. Dunham
    1995 Joint attention: Its origins and role in development. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Radden, Günter & René Dirven
    2007 Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  52. Rohlfing, Katharina J., Angela Grimminger & Carina Lüke
    2017 An interactive view on the development of deictic pointing in infancy. Frontiers in Psychology81. 1319. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01319
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01319 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ruth-Hirrel, Laura & Sherman Wilcox
    2018 Speech-gesture constructions in cognitive grammar: The case of beats and points. Cognitive Linguistics29(3). 453–493. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0116
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0116 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sarda, Laure & Ludovica Lena
    2023 Existential constructions: In search of a definition. InLaure Sarda & Ludovica Lena (eds.), Existential constructions across languages: Forms, meanings and functions, 1–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.76.01sar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.76.01sar [Google Scholar]
  55. Schoonjans, Steven
    2017 Multimodal Construction Grammar issues are Construction Grammar issues. Linguistics Vanguard31. 20160050. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0050
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0050 [Google Scholar]
  56. Steen, Francis & Mark Turner
    2013 Multimodal Construction Grammar. InMike Borkent, Barbara Dancygier & Jennifer Hinnell (eds.), Language and the creative mind, 1–20. Stanford: CSLI Publication.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Stukenbrock, Anja
    2015 Deixis in der face-to-face-interaktion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110307436
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110307436 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2018 Forward-looking: Where do we go with multimodal projections?InArnulf Deppermann & Jürgen Streeck (eds.), Time in embodied interaction: Synchronicity and sequentiality of multimodal resources, 31–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 2020 Deixis, meta-perceptive gaze practices, and the interactional achievement of joint attention. Frontiers in Psychology111. 1779. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01779
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01779 [Google Scholar]
  60. Talmy, Leonard
    2018 The targeting system of language. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262036979.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262036979.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2020 Targeting in language: Unifying deixis and anaphora. Frontiers in Psychology111. 2016. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02016
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02016 [Google Scholar]
  62. Ziem, Alexander
    2017 Do we really need a multimodal construction of grammar. Linguistics Vanguard3(s1). 20160095. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0095
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0095 [Google Scholar]
  63. Zima, Elisabeth & Alexander Bergs
    2017 Multimodality and Construction Grammar. Linguistics Vanguard3(s1). 20161006. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑1006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-1006 [Google Scholar]
  64. Zima, Elisabeth & Geert Brône
    2015 Cognitive linguistics and interactional discourse: Time to enter into dialogue. Language and Cognition7(4). 485–498. 10.1017/langcog.2015.19
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.19 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00042.pan
Loading
Demonstrative this/that and gestures
Pragmatics & Cognition 31, 125 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00042.pan
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00042.pan
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00042.pan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Current Discourse Space (CDS); demonstrative; gesture; grounding function; viewing-target event frame

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error