Full Title: Typological approaches to non-canonicity in demonstratives

Date: 21-Aug-2024 - 24-Aug-2024
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact Person: Ekaterina Gruzdeva
Meeting Email: [email protected]

Linguistic Field(s): Typology

Call Deadline: 30-Oct-2023

Meeting Description:

Demonstratives are a semantic class of deictic expressions which serve to focus joint attention onto a referent in the surrounding situation or unfolding discourse (Diessel 2012). According to Hanks (1992: 47), the basic communicative function of deictic forms is ‘to individuate or single out objects of reference or address in terms of their relation to the current interactive context in which the utterance occurs’. Himmelmann (1996: 210) suggests the following criterion for identification of demonstratives: ‘the element must be in a paradigmatic relation to elements which … locate the entity referred to on a distance scale: as proximal, distal, etc.’

Demonstratives have traditionally been classified as belonging to certain morphosyntactic categories. Current research suggests that at least 7 different distinct categories of demonstratives can be identified: determiners, pronouns, adverbs, non-verbal predicators, verbs, adpositions, and articles, as well as additional semantic sub-categories such as manner adverb and locative adverb. The vast majority of the research has focused on canonical demonstratives, such as pronouns, determiners, and locative adverbs, whereas other categories have seen little research or awareness. Among recent publications on less-studied categories of demonstratives under different labels, one can mention Guérin (2015) on manner demonstrative verbs, Killian & Gruzdeva (in press) on the typology of demonstrative verbs, Killian (2022a) on deictic adpositions, Killian (2022b) on the typology of non-verbal demonstrative predicators, and Diessel & Breunesse (2020) on demonstrative clause linkers.

Demonstratives frequently show morphosyntactic behavior which cuts across multiple word classes. Such behavior is not limited to the well-known pronoun-determiner overlap, and the following examples (1–2) in Lewotobi Lamaholot confirm that other demonstrative categories can also show mixed categorization, such as locative adverbs and adpositions. Due to this categorical ambiguity, Killian & Gruzdeva (in press) adopt the term ontological to refer to subcategories of demonstratives, particularly when it is not feasible or desirable to force a semantic categorization into a specific morphosyntactic category.

Lewotobi Lamaholot (Nagaya 2017: 50)
(1)
go tei te
1SG live DEM.PROX
‘I live here.’
(2)
go tei te laŋoʔ
1SG live DEM.PROX house

Demonstratives are known to be used both in deictic and non-deictic functions. Deictic uses include exophoric (including the so-called deixis am Phantasma, following (Himmelmann 1996) and discourse deictic. Non-deictic use includes tracking (anaphoric and cataphoric reference), expressive, and recognitional (Levinson 2018). Beyond these functions, various non-canonical functions of demonstratives have been discussed in connection to the role of demonstratives in conversation and discourse:
• Information-structural scope such as topicalisation: e.g. in Czech (Šimík 2009); Mon (Jenny 2009); Polish (Tabakowska 1989, Rutkowski 2006); in Thai (Warotamasikkhadit 1997, Singnoi 2004); in Finnic and Russian dialects (Yurayong 2020).
• Discourse organization such as fillers and place holders (see Hayashi & Yoon 2006, Podlesskaya 2010 for general typology): e.g. in Estonian (Keevallik 2010); in Finnish (Etelämäki 2006).
• Stance taking and evaluation: e.g. in Austronesian languages in general (Cleary-Kemp 2007: 336–337), and specifically in Tagalog (Nagaya 2011); in Burmese (Simpson 2008); in Papuan languages (Kratochvíl 2011, Schapper & San Roque 2011); in Vietnamese (Lê 2002, Adachi 2016).
• Intensification and hedging: e.g. in German (Umbach & Ebert 2009); in Russian (Grenoble 2008); in Thai (Iwasaki & Dechapratumwan 2022).
• Quotation (see Buchstaller & van Alphen 2012 for general typology): e.g. in African languages (Güldemann 2008); in Papuan languages (Reesink 1993); in Uralic languages (Teptiuk 2020).

Call for Papers:

The proposed workshop is aimed at discussing non-canonical demonstratives and demonstratives in non-canonical functions. We are especially interested in typologically oriented language-specific and cross-linguistic studies. We invite topics addressing the following questions:
• What non-canonical morphosyntactic categories of demonstratives are attested in the languages of the world?
• What kind of ontological categories of demonstratives are attested in the languages of the world, and what distinct properties do they show?
• How can non-canonical demonstratives be semantically typologized within each morphosyntactic category?
• What deictic oppositions are attested in non-canonical demonstratives, and how do these oppositions transform in non-exophoric functions?
• In which functions, including expressive and recognitional, can non-canonical demonstratives be used?
• Can any other non-canonical functions be identified aside from the aforementioned ones?
• Do we need to refine our definition of demonstrative in light of any new information coming from non-canonical demonstrative categories and functions?

We invite contributions to the workshop with an abstract (no more than 300 words) to be sent to the convenors by October 30, 2023.

Workshop convenors
Ekaterina Gruzdeva ([email protected])
Don Killian ([email protected])
Chingduang Yurayong ([email protected])

Please also find the full description of the workshop and call for papers in the following link: https://helsinkifi-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/yurayong_ad_helsinki_fi/Ec2dTuOdGiVAhNlUewhxETYBrD3fkNkbY3MA0ulAziN0IA?e=7GxJK0