Discourse Functions of Abui demonstratives

František Kratochvíl

Department of Asian Studies

June 15, 2018

Outline of this talk

1. deixis and joint attention2. Abui deictic system3. functions of adnominal demonstratives4. functions of adverbial demonstratives5. functions of equative and similative demonstratives6. conclusion

Nature of deixis

Diessel (2013, 239) argues that:

. . . demonstratives provide an important link between gesture,discourse, and grammar that rests on their communicativefunction to coordinate the interlocutors’ focus of attention. . . .

No other class of linguistic expressions is so closely tied to thespeaker’s body and gesture as demonstratives. However,demonstratives are not only used to focus the language users’attention on concrete entities in the surrounding situation,they are also used to organize the information flow indiscourse, which in turn underlies their frequent developmentinto a wide range of grammatical markers, e.g. definitearticles, third person pronouns, relative markers,complementizers, subordinate conjunctions, copulas, and focusmarkers. In this way, demonstratives provide an explicit linkbetween gesture, imitation, and grammar . . .

Deictic expressions, embodiment and joint attention

Deictic expressions presuppose a point of reference (origo, cf.Bühler 1934), which is primarily located in speaker’s (oraddressee’s) body (and therefore subjective).Deictic expressions manage joint attention and link gesture,communication, and grammar (Diessel, 2013). They they requirethe support of body posture, gestures or gaze in face-to-faceconversation to be interpreted (embodiment).Deictic expressions and pointing are acquired very early and can beunderstood by some animals (dogs, horses, chimps) (varioussources).

Engagement

A directly related to joint attention is the category ofengagement developed by Evans et al. (2017a,b), elaborating DuBois’ alignment (2007, 144).

Engagement is ‘a grammatical system for encoding therelative mental accessibility of an entity or a state ofaffairs to the speaker and addressee.’ (Evans et al.,2017a, 2)

Alor-Pantar languages

Holton et al. (2012) established the genetic coherence of the AP family.

Abui pronominal demonstratives - (Kratochvíl, 2011)

viewpoint elevationdistance speaker addressee low highproximal do to

prox prox.admedial o, lo yo ò ó

md md.ad md.l md.hdistal oro wò wó

dst dst.l dst.h

Table: Abui pronominal demonstratives

Deictic usageThis paradigm is used to point in space. Only its core has extendedfunctions.

Corpus frequency

Deictic words are extremely common, constituting more than 10% of the entirecorpus. The proximal do is by far the most common in the Abui Corpus(>200k words). In spoken language the subjective viewpoint is certainly themost common one. Among the addressee-based forms, the medial yo standsout. Its relatively higher frequency can be explained by the politeness-relateduses and its attention-drawing function to familiar but inactive referents. Ininteraction with addressee’s viewpoint the medial form is probably perceived asmore objective and less face-threatening than the proximal to. The number oftokens of ya should be in fact much lower (sequential linker ya was included inthe count).

viewpointdistance speaker tokens addressee tokensprx do 5703 to 878

ma 1024 ta 197md o/lo 981/30 yo 2588

la 1280 fa 165dst nu 4034 hu 854

ya 4155 (incl. seq)

Table: Corpus frequencies of Abui demonstratives (October 4, 2017)

Spatial contrasts (Kratochvíl, 2011)

(1) a. doprox

falahouse

vs. toprox.ad

falahouse

‘this house (near me)’ vs. ‘this house (near you)’b. o

mdfalahouse

vs. yomd.ad

falahouse

‘that house (further from me)’ vs. ‘that house (furtherfrom you)’

c. orodst

falahouse

‘that house over there (far from us)’

Referential uses (Kratochvíl & Delpada, 2015)

viewpointcognitive status speaker addressee

definite do toprox prox.ad

given, old o, lo yomd md.ad

specific nu huspc spc.ad

Table: Abui anaphoric demonstratives

Givenness, old-information and familiarityAddressee-based forms highlight the familiarity of the referent, as eitherimmediately accessible or accessible with some effort. The specific forms nuand hu imply a set or a type and presuppose existence. Their interpretationinteracts with the type of noun and slightly differs between unique-referent,proper nouns, and common nouns.

Engagement function of medial demonstrativesContext: B is leaving to the market

(2) A: nalasomething

nukuone

belbuy

bapurp

miitake

ne-r=te!1sg.loc-reach=priorA: ‘buy me something!’

(3) B: nalawhat

eh?inter

B: ‘what?’

(4) A: mur[citrus

yo!md.ad]np

A: ‘oranges (you could have guessed, because you know Ilike them)’

Abui adnominal demonstratives combine with both common and proper nounsand indicate in the postnominal (phrase-final) position the cognitive status ofthe referent in the givenness hierarchy.

Overview of adnominal functions - Givennesss Hierarchy(Kratochvíl & Delpada, 2015)

Uniquely identifiable objects can be marked as familiar with the addressee-basedforms. For specific reference (lower end of the same hierarchy), addressee-basedform mark a form of familiarity which we term here as noteworthiness.

Overview of adnominal functions - Givennesss Hierarchy(Kratochvíl & Delpada, 2015)

Other syntactic positions available to Abui demonstratives

Phrase-final slotsPronominal demonstratives have been extended into markers of anumber of grammatical categories such as anaphora (a), temporallocation/tense (t), evidentiality (e), and assertion (as). Theyoccupy the phrase final slot, and the phrase types can be stacked,as we will show below.

Proximal demonstratives indicating temporal location

(5) a. di3agt

de-melang3i.al-village

da-wai3i.pat-return

yaargo.pfv

doproxt

‘he just went back to his village’b. di

3agtde-melang3i.al-village

da-wai3i.pat-return

yaargo.pfv

toprox.adt

‘[you know that] he just went back to his village’

ExtensionDemonstratives in the clause-final position indicate the temporal location of anevent in respect of the coding time. This position is available to alldemonstratives given in Table 3. Whether the extension is based on ametaphor of the type space → time or whether the post-predicate slot ishistorically associated with tense is unclear. Both forms retain theirengagement function, where the to prox.ad marks the event as accessible tothe addressee (and of course also to the speaker).

Medial demonstratives indicating temporal location

(6) a. di3agt

de-melang3i.al-village

da-wai3i.pat-return

yaarigo.pfv

omdt

‘he went back to his village some time ago’b. di

3agtde-melang3i.al-village

da-wai3i.pat-return

yaarigo.pfv

yomd.adt

‘you should know that he went back to his village sometime ago’

EngagementAddressee-based forms present the situation from addressee’s viewpoint, aseither ‘familiar’, or ‘potentially familiar’. The meaning-contribution in thedomain of tense is the same as in the adnominal domain, where the paradigmencodes referential properties such as definiteness, familiarity, and specificity(cf. Kratochvíl & Delpada, 2015).

Proximal demonstratives in assertions

context: bow practice, participants: grandfather and grandson

(7) na-táng1sg.inal-hand

do,#prox

di3agt

namurwound.pfv

toprx.ade

do!prxas

‘this hand of mine, it really hurts (you know)!’

Layering of clause-final demonstrativesClause-final position allows more than one demonstrative. The forms closer tothe predicate encode absolute tense and evidentiality. The final position isassociated with stance: the proximal form marks strong assertion. The contextis required for correct interpretation of the form (whether temporal, evidentialor assertive).

Demonstratives in imperatives

context: mother to a child in the evening, suggesting that it isalready bed time

(8) a-ran2sg.pat-quiet

basim

taalie.ipfv

yo!md.ad

‘you should calm down and sleep!’

Layering of clause-final demonstrativesThe medial addressee-based form directs addressee’s attention to their abilityto access the reasons for the appeal. It mitigates the face threat of a strongcommand and makes it sound as an attempt to persuade.

Summary - uses of pronominal demonstratives

form space discourse time sourcedo proximal recent near past/future witnessedto proximalAD recentAD near past/futureAD witnessedAD

o medial earlier further past/future past witnessedyo medialAD earlierAD further past/futureAD past witnessedAD

nu n.a. specific/new remote past/future rememberedhu n.a. specific/newAD remote past/futureAD rememberedAD

Table: Functions of Abui demonstratives

Abui adverbial demonstratives

viewpointdistance speaker addresseeproximal ma ta

be.prox be.prox.admedial la fa

be.md be.md.addistal ya

be.dst

Table: Inventory of Abui adverbial demonstratives

Proximal adverbial demonstratives with spatial reference

(9) a. di3agt

mabe.proxs

ha-yeei3.pat-fall.pfv

‘it fell here (by me)’b. di

3atabe.prox.ads

ha-yeei?3.pat-fall.pfv

‘did it fall here (where you are)?’

Syntactic position of adverbial demonstrativesAbui adverbial demonstratives occur in the same syntactic positionas locational constituents and are in complementary distributionwith them.

Medial adverbial demonstratives with spatial reference

(10) Context: talking on the phone to a relative calling from thetown

a2sg.agt

labe.mds

taalie.ipfv

reor

a-wai?2sg.pat-return

‘are you staying the night there (in the town) or are youcoming back?’

(11) Context: looking at a photograph outside of add’s visualfield (MPI stimuli set)

kaanri,good.pfv

balball

doprox

fabe.md.ads

ayokutwo

‘right, there are (actually) two balls there (you should beable to find a matching picture in your stack)’

Distal adverbial demonstrative with spatial reference

The distal form is used when the visual field is separated. InEnglish, we have to use here in this case, to attract addressee’sattention, even though the speaker cannot be seen behind the wall.

(12) context: speaker inside the house, not visible to add

na1sg.agt

yabe.dsts

e-afu2sg.al-fish

walangaifresh

h-iel3.pat-roast.ipfv

‘I am roasting you a fish here (lit. over there, i.e. in thekitchen)’

Abui preverbal modal slots

(13) a. yalnow

di3agt

kulmustdyn

miyeei=secome.pfv=prior

‘now he must be coming’b. a

2sg.agtkulmustdeo

yaa!go.ipfv

‘you must go!’c. kul

mustepi

hedo3.foc

ha-riik3.pat-ill

‘surely he is ill’

Layering of modal slotsThe modal kul may encode all three main types of modality. In (13a), kulencodes dynamic modality (marked with dyn). The deontic use of the verb kul‘must’ (marked with deo) is illustrated in (13b). The modal kul may alsoencode epistemic modality (epi), as shown in (13c).

Proximal demonstratives encoding dynamic modality

Dynamic modalityDynamic modality is usually understood as the capacity of a participant to‘control’ an event (Nuyts, 2005, 7). The degree of ‘proximity’ corresponds tothe speaker’s perspective on control or potential (subjective-objective-general).The addressee-forms add the intersubjective dimension.

(14) amaperson

henthen

mabe.prxdyn

kalietaold.person

doprx

fen-ikill.cpl-pfv

‘people then just killed the old man [without obstacles]’

Dynamic modality and engagement

The demonstrative has a scope over just the modal component of the meaning.The addressee is invited to assess the state of affairs and potentially react.

(15) fubetel.nut

barel

afeidayesterday

tabe.prox.addyn

faaringmuch

o,md

maamafather

he-ne3.loc-like.prox.ipfv

he-ho-takdi3.loc-3.rec-consume.pfv

‘the betel nut which there was just plenty of yesterday (according toyou), it was father who ate it all by himself’

In questions, the speaker is either unable to assess the state of affairs or wantsto confirm joint attention with the addressee. In both cases, the addressee’saccess to the state of affairs is given prominence over the speaker’s. This is abridging context (spatially proximate to ADD as well).

(16) di3agt

tabe.prox.addyn

taa?lie.ipfv

‘is he asleep (according to you)?’

Medial forms encoding dynamic modality

Medial forms indicate an assessment of of control capacity and aretypically used to refer to compulsive or sudden behavior.

(17) o-mi2sg.rec-inside

labe.mddyn

ne-l=tahai,1sg.loc-give=search.ipfv

maama?father

‘you (whom I respect) doubt me (now, i.e. you didn’t before)?’

(18) ne-kariang1sg.al-work

he-n3.loc-like.prox

fabe.md.addyn

kaanracomplete.ipfv

pebe.near

‘my work is [actually] nearly completed (and you can objectivelyevaluate that this is so).’

Distal forms encoding modality

The distal forms indicate the lack of intention and control,sometimes random or spontaneous occurrence (from speaker’sperspective, the assessment of the potential or control is difficultor impossible). In context where the assessment is possible, thedistal form is dismissive or mocking.

(19) afebefore

kalietaold.person

lokupl

di3agt

yabe.dstdyn

wódst.h

Pidoarea

he-amakaang3.al-person

lokupl

ha-da=ta-loi3.pat-join=distr.pat-war.ipfv

doprox

‘in the past, our ancestors became embroiled in a war with the Pidopeople up there’

Proximal forms encoding deontic modality

Deontic modalityDeontic modality indicates the desirability of an event. Deontic modality is agradual scale running from absolute necessity via desirability to acceptability(Nuyts, 2005, 9). The Abui forms do not map this scale (an earlier analysisthat I had), but rather encode speaker’s perspective on the desirability of theevent. Proximal forms indicate subjective necessity/desirability. Addressee canbe engaged to consider the modal status of the state of affairs.

(20) di3agt

mabe.prxdeo

do-laak-e3i.rec-go.back-prog

wanalready

he-l=he-no-kalenri3.loc-give=3.loc-1sg.rec-refuse.pfv‘he has to go, I am fed up with him’

Context: tikak fak negotiations(21) hen

thentabe.prox.addeo

aimaladrum.type

nukuone

e-l?2sg.loc-give

‘it must be (according to YOU) that you will be given an aimaladrum, then?’

Medial forms encoding deontic modality

Medial forms indicate more objective necessity/desirability than theproximate forms.

Context: tikak fak negotiations(22) e-ng

2s.loc-seelabe.mddeo

he-tulisa=re?3.loc-write.ipfv tag

‘you should just write it, no?’

Context: tikak fak, the elder familiar with the custom lawsuggests the other side that there needs to be a certain amountof cloth included in the payment as well.

(23) kabalacloth

nuspc

fabe.md.addeo

kasingbit

karnukuwalyetingfifteen

‘there need to be fifteen pieces of cloth’ [objective fact that youshould be aware of]

Distal forms encoding deontic modality

The distal form ya indicates that a state of affairs is generallydesirable. It can be used sarcastically to dismiss subjectiveperspective of the addressee.

(24) yabe.dstdeo

te=mi-a-te=mi-ared[somewhere=be.in]

baai,add

tafaadrum

nuspc

de-i=da-moida3i.loc-put=3i.pat-sound.ipfv‘the drum value must be recognised everywhere’ [excludingany subjectivity]

Proximal forms encoding epistemic modality

Epistemic modalityEpistemic modality is estimation, typically (but not necessarily) by the speaker,of the probability of an event (cf. Nuyts 2005:10). It is a gradual scale runningfrom absolute certainty via probability to possibility. The Abui demonstrativesencode speaker’s perspective on the possibility, as either subjective (proximalforms), objective, or general. As in the previous cases, examples of irony andsarcasm are plenty.

(25) a. mabe.proxepi

kairr

anuirain

seicome.down.ipfv

‘probably it is about to rain’ [speaker’s viewpoint]b. anui

rainmabe.proxdyn

kairr

seicome.down.ipfv

‘the rain is about to start (by its propensity as rain)’ [assessmentfocused on the rain]

Some instances show different scope of modal forms, depending whether theyprecede or follow the argument. The assessment of the event is from differentperspectives.

Engagement and epistemic modality

(26) tabe.prox.adepi

e-neng2sg.al-man

di3agt

he-fanga=ti3.loc-tell.pfv=real.pst

kofut

di3agt

mokukid

kaang-kaangred[good]

ha-yaal3.pat-give.birth.ipfv

baquot

yomd.ad

‘probably (you remember that) your husband said “she will give birthto a healthy child” (she said)’

In (27), the speaker chooses the proximal addressee-based to effectivelycontradict the addressee’s expectation, marking a proposition as being entirelyaddressee’s ‘subjective’ probability judgment, that is not valid.

(27) tabe.prox.adepi

h-iénglaka!3.pat-know.ipfv

‘probably (just in your view) he knows! (in fact he does not)’

Stacking of modal slots

Example (28) illustrates the layered structure of Abui modal slots and offersclear evidence that the adverbial demonstratives do not refer to space. Thespatial constituent is here oro nala homing phrase.

Context: tikak fak negotiations, commenting on the presence of therecording equipment capturing all spoken word after one of the eldercorrected himself.

(28) ah,inter

mabe.proxepi

yabe.dstdyn

oro[dst

nalasomething

ho-ming3.rec-inside]goal

we-ileave-pfv

nu!spc

‘oh, probably it has already somehow entered that thing over there’

(29) hareso

e-ng2sg.loc-see

mabe.proxdeo

kairr

labe.mddyn

na-kol-na-kol-r-i,red[1s.pat-cheat.pfv]

hoo?tag‘so you would have to keep cheating me, right?

Overview of spatial and modal functions

modalityform spatial dynamic deontic epistemicma proximal just want probably

spontaneouslyta proximalAD justAD wantAD probablyAD

spontaneouslyADla medial keep need apparently

suddenly obviouslyfa medialAD be forcedAD needAD actuallyADya distal happen to might possibly

somehow

Table: Functions of Abui adverbial demonstratives

Abui equative and similative demonstratives

Abui has grammatical means to point to quality, manner (auxiliary entities) andits ESD paradigm contains a root for indicating sameness (cf. Umbach andGust 2014) and it is used in equative constructions (cf. Haspelmath et al.2012). ESD roots take on the morphology associated with the categories theypoint to.

viewpointdistance speaker addresseeproximal n-medial w-distal h-

Table: Inventory of Abui ESD demonstratives

n- derived forms: na, nala, nadi, nil, nir, niri, nidi, . . .w- derived forms: waha, wala, wiida, wiir, wiiri, wiidi, . . .h- derived forms: ha, hal, har, hadi, hari, . . .

Similative constructions

Example (30) illustrates the equative construction. The demonstrative isformally marked for its arguments.

(30) Fanata[pn

doprox]TARGET

he-maama3.poss-father

he-kuopal3.al-stingy

tuku3.iii-distr.i-be.like

he-ta-wiida

‘Fanata is as singy as his uncle, lit. Fanata’s and hisuncle’s stinginess is similar?)’ [KNYM.30a]

(31) He-sepaatu[3poss-shoe]TARGET

ne-ta-wiida.1sg.III-distr.I-be.like

‘He has similar shoes with me, lit. as for him, his shoesresemble mine.’ [B7.46.3c]

Equative constructions

Example (30) illustrates the equative construction. The demonstrative isformally marked for its arguments.

(32) falahouse

barel

oro[dist

naa=nube.like]KIND=spc

‘That house is the same (like this) over there.’ [AA.653]

(33) he-deki3.al-pants

wanalready

di3agt

na-rdo.like.pfv

ba[comp

akan-r-i.black-reach-pfv]MANNER

‘he already made his trousers in this way (that they are)black’ [B07.031.02]

No shared knowledge - free choice

The root h- is used in contexts where the speaker has no access to the kind ormanner. The descriptions are guesses or suggestions, and prompt agreement.

(34) Ede2sg.agt

ha!be.like

‘It’s up to you, whichever way you wish!’

(35) he-deki3.al-pants

wanalready

di3agt

na-rdo.like.pfv

ba[comp

akan-r-i.black-reach-pfv]MANNER

‘he already made his trousers in this way (that they are)black’ [B07.031.02]

Conclusion

I engagement/viewpoint is an integral part of the Abui modal systemI there is no evidence that ‘epistemic’ and ‘intersubjective’ meanings

grammaticalize later, as shown for English by Traugott & Dasher (2002)I subjectivity and modality are not correlated (conforms Narrog 2005a)I participant vs. speaker-oriented modality: kaang, beeka vs.

demonstrative forms discussed hereI relationship to mood & status (Sawila and Abui) - see also (Mithun,

1995)I phonological bulk remains unreducedI ESD demonstratives take on verbal morphology (cross-linguistic parallels)

Bibliography

Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darschellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag.Diessel, Holger. 2013. Where does language come from? Some reflections on the role of deictic gesture and

demonstratives in the evolution of language. Language and Cognition 5(2-3). 239 – 249.Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse:

Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2017a. The Grammar of Engagement I: Framework and

initial exemplification. Language and Cognition 21. 1–31.Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2017b. The Grammar of Engagement II: Typology and

diachrony. Language and Cognition 22. 1–30.Holton, Gary, Marian Klamer, František Kratochvíl, Laura C. Robinson & Antoinette Schapper. 2012. The

historical relations of the papuan languages of alor and pantar. Oceanic Linguistics 51(1). 86–122.Kratochvíl, František. 2011. Discourse-structuring functions of Abui demonstratives. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen

Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages. Diachronic and typologicalperspectives, 757–788. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kratochvíl, František & Benidiktus Delpada. 2015. Definiteness and Specificity in Abui ,. In Proceedings of theSecond International Workshop on Information Structure of Austronesian Languages, 179–208. Tokyo:Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

Mithun, Marianne. 1995. On the relativity of irreality. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality ingrammar and discourse, vol. 32 Typological studies in language, 367–388. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Nuyts, Jan. 2005. The modal confusion on terminology and the concepts behind it. In Alex Klinge &Henrik Høeg Müller (eds.), Modality in form and function. london: Equinox, 5–38. Equinox.