Blended origo — Deixis in virtual reality

Karsten Senkbeil
University of Hildesheim
Abstract

Studies on communication in Social Virtual Reality (SVR) have shown that the immersive qualities of VR — the sense of presence, and a sense of embodiment through increasingly realistic motion tracking and avatars — have an impact on verbal communicative interactions in the new medium. Misunderstandings and moments of linguistic creativity are observable, and many of them revolve around ambivalent locations, doubled ‘bodies’, and issues while coordinating attention, i.e.: they concern deixis. This paper presents the results of a qualitative analysis of deictic terms in verbal interactions in SVR. It demonstrates that the unusual communicative circumstances in immersive VR directly affect a speaker’s origo, the deictic zero-point of orientation in space and time. This paper concludes that the term blended origo may serve as an analytical concept to understand deixis while SVR users communicatively interact in two ‘realities’ simultaneously.

Keywords:
Publication history

Date received: 29 September 2022

Date accepted: 22 April 2024

Published online: 16 January 2025

Table of contents

In the last decades, Virtual Reality (VR) has been repeatedly announced as ‘the next big thing’ in media technology, then not living up to the expectations. Since the early 2020s, important players in the IT market have increased their activities in the field, combining technical improvements and lower pricing with new strategies in terms of marketing and software design to overcome a cultural bias of the past: that VR usage is an isolated, antisocial, lonely activity. The VR industry today focuses on the creation of opportunities for social interaction and communication, work in teams, cooperative gaming and learning: Social Virtual Reality (SVR). The hypothesized next iteration of the internet, the ‘metaverse’, is expected to embed social media functionalities in interactive, location-independent, persistent 3D-environments to be accessed with VR hardware. Once VR becomes less of an isolationistic, and more of a social-communicative activity (in work life, education, and entertainment), it may become a contender to existing forms of social media, and a relevant field for pragmalinguistic analyses of new forms of computer-mediated, (mostly) spoken and (occasionally) written language use.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Auer, Peter, and Anja Stukenbrock
2022 “Deictic Reference in Space.” In Pragmatics of Space, edited by Andreas H. Jucker, and Heiko Hausendorf, 23–62. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakardjieva, Maria
2003 “Virtual Togetherness: An Everyday-Life Perspective.” Media, Culture & Society 25 (3): 291–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Alice, Astrid Ensslin, Isabelle Van der Bom, and Jen Smith
2018 “Immersion in Digital Fiction.” International Journal of Literary Linguistics 7 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berger, Manuel, Andreas H. Jucker, and Miriam A. Locher
2016 “Interaction and Space in the Virtual World of Second Life.” Journal of Pragmatics 101 (August): 83–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buckland, Warren
2003 “Orientation in Film Space. A Cognitive Semiotic Approach.” Recherches En Communication 19 (March): 87-102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl
2011 [1934] Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Translated by Donald Fraser Goodwin, and Achim Eschbach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Meredyth A. Krych
2004 “Speaking While Monitoring Addressees for Understanding.” Journal of Memory and Language 50 (1): 62–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara
2008 “Personal Pronouns, Blending, and Narrative Viewpoint.” In Language in the Context of Use, edited by Andrea Tyler, Kim Yiyoung, and Mari Takada, 167–82. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser
eds. 2012 Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2012a “Bühler’s Two-Field Theory of Pointing and Naming and the Deictic Origins of Grammatical Morphemes.” In Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections, edited by Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems, and Tanja Mortelmans. Studies in Language Companion Series 130, 37–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012b “Deixis and Demonstratives.” In Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 33/3, edited by Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, 2407–32. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad
1978 “Deixis und Anapher.” In Essays on Deixis, edited by Gisa Rauh, 79–97. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1993 “HIAT: A Transcription System for Discourse Data.” In Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, edited by Jane Anne Edwards, and Martin D. Lampert, 123–48. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2013 “Nonverbal Communication in a Functional Pragmatic Perspective.” In Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 38/1, edited by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David McNeill, and Sedinha Tessendorf, 648–58. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
1998 “Conceptual Integration Networks.” Cognitive Science 22 (2): 133–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1975 Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis 1971. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Freeman, Guo, and Divine Maloney
2021 “Body, Avatar, and Me: The Presentation and Perception of Self in Social Virtual Reality.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4 (CSCW3): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fricke, Ellen
2002 “ Origo, Pointing, and Speech: The Impact of Co-Speech Gestures on Linguistic Deixis Theory.” Gesture 2 (2): 207–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 “Origo, Pointing, and Conceptualization — What Gestures Reveal about the Nature of the Origo in Face-to-Face Interaction.” In Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time, and Person, edited by Friedrich Lenz, 69–93. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Origo, Geste und Raum Lokaldeixis im Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter. http://​nbn​-resolving​.de​/urn:nbn:de:101:1​-2016112311497. DOI logo
2014 “Deixis, Gesture, and Embodiment from a Linguistic Point of View.” In Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 38/2, edited by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David McNeill, and Jana Bressem, 1803–23. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022 “The Pragmatics of Gesture and Space.” In Pragmatics of Space, edited by Andreas H. Jucker, and Heiko Hausendorf, 363–98. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Kornelia, and Martin Stempfhuber
eds. 2015 Präsenzen 2.0: Körperinszenierung in Medienkulturen. Wiesbaden: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William F.
2009 “Fieldwork on Deixis.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (1): 10–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanna, Joy E., and Susan E. Brennan
2007 “Speakers’ Eye Gaze Disambiguates Referring Expressions Early during Face-to-Face Conversation.” Journal of Memory and Language 57 (4): 596–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Tilo, and Matthias Hofer
2022 “I Know It Is Not Real (and That Matters) Media Awareness vs. Presence in a Parallel Processing Account of the VR Experience.” Frontiers in Virtual Reality 3 (April). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hausendorf, Heiko
2003 “Deixis and Speech Situation Revisited: The Mechanism of Perceived Perception.” In Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time, and Person, edited by Friedrich Lenz, 249–69. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 112. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hindmarsh, Jon, Christian Heath, and Mike Fraser
2006 “(Im)Materiality, Virtual Reality and Interaction: Grounding the ‘Virtual’ in Studies of Technology in Action.” The Sociological Review 54 (4): 795–817. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kameyama, Shinichi
2009 “Persondeixis, Objektdeixis.” In Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten, edited by Ludger Hoffmann, 577–600. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kecskés, Istvan
2010 “The Paradox of Communication: Socio-Cognitive Approach to Pragmatics.” Pragmatics and Society 1 (1): 50–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskés, István
2014 Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskés, István, and Fenghui Zhang
2009 “Activating, Seeking, and Creating Common Ground: A Socio-Cognitive Approach.” Pragmatics & Cognition 17 (2): 331–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilteni, Konstantina, Raphaela Groten, and Mel Slater
2012 “The Sense of Embodiment in Virtual Reality.” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 21 (4): 373–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang
1978 “Wo ist hier? Präliminarien zu einer Untersuchung der lokalen Deixis.” Linguistische Berichte 58: 18–39.Google Scholar
Krishnaswamy, Nikhil, and James Pustejovsky
2018 “Deictic Adaptation in a Virtual Environment.” In Spatial Cognition XI, edited by Sarah Creem-Regehr, Johannes Schöning, and Alexander Klippel: 180–96. Cham: Springer International. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Friedrich
ed. 2003 Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time, and Person. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Deixis.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Laurence R. Horn, and Gregory L. Ward. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liang, Mei-Ya
2021 “Pragmatic Socialization through Gameplay Directives: Multimodal Conversation Analysis of Avatar-Embodied Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 171 (January): 36–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Licoppe, Christian
2015 “Contested Norms of Presence.” In Präsenzen 2.0, edited by Kornelia Hahn, and Martin Stempfhuber, 97–112. Wiesbaden: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Showing Objects in Skype Video-Mediated Conversations: From Showing Gestures to Showing Sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics 110 (March): 63–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K.
2000 “Blended Spaces and Deixis in Sign Language Discourse.” In Language and Gesture, edited by David McNeill, 331–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lombard, Matthew, and Theresa Ditton
1997 “At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 “Deixis, Space and Time.” In Semantics. Volume 2, 636–724. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Nathalie, and Andreas H. Jucker
2022 “Co-Presence and Beyond: Spatial Configurations of Communication in Virtual Environments.” In Pragmatics of Space, edited by Andreas H. Jucker, and Heiko Hausendorf, 579–608. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David McNeill, and Sedinha Tessendorf
eds. 2014 Body — Language — Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Olbertz-Siitonen, Margarethe, Arja Piirainen-Marsh, and Marko Siitonen
2021 “Constructing Co-Presence through Shared VR Gameplay.” Journal für Medienlinguistik 4 (2): 85–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peeters, David
2019 “Virtual Reality: A Game-Changing Method for the Language Sciences.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26 (3): 894–900. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poggi, Isabella
2013 “Mind, Hands, Face, and Body: A Sketch of a Goal and Belief View of Multimodal Communication.” In Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 38/1, edited by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David McNeill, and Sedinha Tessendorf, 627–47. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaun, Laura, Sheizaf Rafaeli, and Dennis Kurzon
2016 “Blurring the Boundaries between Domestic and Digital Spheres: Competing Engagements in Public Google Hangouts.” Pragmatics, 291–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saker, Michael, and Jordan Frith
2019 “From Hybrid Space to Dislocated Space: Mobile Virtual Reality and a Third Stage of Mobile Media Theory.” New Media & Society 21 (1): 214–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 “Coextensive Space: Virtual Reality and the Developing Relationship between the Body, the Digital and Physical Space.” Media, Culture & Society 42 (7–8): 1427–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saredakis, Dimitrios, Ancret Szpak, Brandon Birckhead, Hannah A. D. Keage, Albert Rizzo, and Tobias Loetscher
2020 “Factors Associated with Virtual Reality Sickness in Head-Mounted Displays: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14 (March): 96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlickau, Stephan
2009 Neue Medien in der Sprach- und Kulturvermittlung: Pragmatik, Didaktik, Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Hildesheimer Schriften zur Interkulturellen Kommunikation, Bd. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
ed. 2012 Cognitive Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics, 4. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senkbeil, Karsten
2021 “Developing Methodology and Applications for Virtual Reality in the Humanities.” Stiftung Universität Hildesheim. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2024 “Communication in Hybrid Presence — Methods and Applications for Social Virtual Reality in the Humanities.” In Virtual Reality in den Geisteswissenschaften. Konzepte, Methoden und interkulturelle Anwendungen, edited by Karsten Senkbeil, and Timo Ahlers, 205–234. Hildesheimer Schriften zur Interkulturellen Kommunikation, Bd. 12. Berlin: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senkbeil, Karsten, Timo Ahlers, Milica Lazovic, and Kathrin Schweiger
2020 “Tandemlernen in Social-Virtual-Reality: Immersiv-Spielebasierter DaF-Erwerb von Mündlichen Sprachkompetenzen.” Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 25 (2): 237–69.Google Scholar
Senkbeil, Karsten, Gillian Martin, and Breffni O’Rourke
2022 “SpEakWise VR: Exploring the Use of Social Virtual Reality in Telecollaborative Foreign Language Learning Between Learners of English and German.” In Intelligent CALL, Granular Systems and Learner Data: Short Papers from EUROCALL 2022, edited by Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir, Branislav Bédi, Linda Bradley, Kolbrún Friðriksdóttir, Hólmfríður Garðarsdóttir, Sylvie Thouësny, and Matthew James Whelpton. 352–357. Research-publishing.net. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stukenbrock, Anja
2014 “Pointing to an ‘Empty’ Space: Deixis am Phantasma in Face-to-Face Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 74 (December): 70–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 “Deixis, Meta-Perceptive Gaze Practices, and the Interactional Achievement of Joint Attention.” Frontiers in Psychology 11 (September): 1779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark
2019 “Blending in Language and Communication.” In Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska, and Dagmar Divjak, 245–70. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Krieken, Kobie, José Sanders, and Hans Hoeken
2016 “Blended Viewpoints, Mediated Witnesses: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to News Narratives.” In Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning, edited by Barbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu, and Arie Verhagen, 145–68. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Krieken, Kobie, José Sanders, and Eve Sweetser
2019 “Linguistic and Cognitive Representation of Time and Viewpoint in Narrative Discourse.” Cognitive Linguistics 30 (2): 243–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wirth, Werner, Tilo Hartmann, Saskia Böcking, et al.
2007 “A Process Model of the Formation of Spatial Presence Experiences.” Media Psychology 9 (3): 493–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yee, Nick, and Jeremy Bailenson
2007 “The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior.” Human Communication Research 33 (3): 271–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Shanyang
2003 “ ‘Being There’ and the Role of Presence Technology.” In Being There: Concepts, Effects and Measurement of User Presence in Synthetic Environments, edited by Giuseppe Riva, Fabrizio Davide, and Wijnand Ijsselsteijn, 137–46. Amsterdam: Ios Press.Google Scholar
2005 “The Digital Self: Through the Looking Glass of Telecopresent Others.” Symbolic Interaction 28 (3): 387–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan
2013 “Levels of Embodiment and Communication.” In Body — Language — Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, Vol. 1, edited by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David McNeill, and Sedinha Teßendorf, 533–50. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar