Cover not available
Article In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 31:1 (2024) ► pp.126–156

Demonstrative this/that and gestures

Do they function the same way?

| Liaocheng University,
| China University of Petroleum Beijing,
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.
Keywords: Current Discourse Space (CDS), demonstrative, gesture, viewing-target event frame, grounding function
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
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (60)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 1993. A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics 191. 39–55. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon & John Perry. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bernardis, Paolo & Maurizio Gentilucc. 2006. Speech and gesture share the same communication system. Neuropsychologia 44(2). 178–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, Alan. 2015. Spoken language usage events. Language and Cognition 7(4). 499–514. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 41. 463–489. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2011. Turning speaker meaning on its head: Non-verbal communication and intended meanings. Pragmatics & Cognition 31. 422–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 2008. Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(4). 409–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2019. Cognitive linguistics: A complete guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Grounding, subjectivity and definite descriptions. In Frank Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 41–82. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. Victoria, Canada. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.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
Fillmore, Charles J., Collin F. Baker & Hiroaki Sato. 2002. The FrameNet database and software tools. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (vol. IV1), 1157–1160. Las Palmas. LREC.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 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
. 2000. Language and gesture: Unity or duality? In David McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 47–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisite. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Discourse in Cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2).143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. Deixis and subjectivity. In Frank Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2004. Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language 11 (1). 77–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langlotz, Andreas. 2015. Local meaning-negotiation, activity types, and the current-discourse-space model. Language and Cognition 71. 515–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Deixis and pragmatics. In Larry Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. Speech and gesture integration. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 791. 11–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2011. Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 431. 542–552. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, Günter & René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruth-Hirrel, Laura & Sherman Wilcox. 2018. Speech-gesture constructions in cognitive grammar: The case of beats and points. Cognitive Linguistics 31. 453–493. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoonjans, Steven. 2017. Multimodal Construction Grammar issues are Construction Grammar issues. Linguistics Vanguard 31. 20160050. DOI logoGoogle 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
Stukenbrock, Anja. 2015. Deixis in der face-to-face-interaktion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Deixis, meta-perceptive gaze practices, and the interactional achievement of joint attention. Frontiers in Psychology 111.1779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2018. The targeting system of language. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Targeting in language: Unifying deixis and anaphora. Frontiers in Psychology 111. 2016. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hoek, Karen. 1995. Conceptual reference points: A Cognitive Grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language 711. 310–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziem, Alexander. 2017. Do we really need a multimodal construction of grammar. Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1). 20160095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zima, Elisabeth & Alexander Bergs. 2017. Multimodality and Construction Grammar. Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1). 20161006. DOI logoGoogle Scholar