Discourse-anadeictic uses of manner demonstratives: A view from spoken Israeli Hebrew

  • 1 Department of Hebrew Language, Tel-Aviv University, HaMatmid 30/4, Ramat Gan, Israel
Leon Shor
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Hebrew Language, Tel-Aviv University, HaMatmid 30/4, Ramat Gan, Israel
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar

Abstract

Although past research has amply discussed the discourse-deictic function of demonstratives, it mainly focused on entity-referring and place-referring demonstratives, and was typically grounded in monologic, mostly written, data. To fill this gap, this study examines the discourse-deictic occurrences of the manner demonstrative kaχa ‘thus’ in Israeli Hebrew conversation. In these uses, kaχa points—prospectively or retrospectively—towards a contextually relevant discourse representation, requiring the recipient to operate upon that representation in order to create a new referent. The study argues for an essential difference between prospective and retrospective discourse-deictic occurrences of kaχa. As a prospective indexical, kaχa is maximally deictic – it directs the recipient’s attention towards an anticipated segment, enabling the speaker to claim the right to an extended turn, as well as facilitating the interlocutor’s processing of the upcoming segment. As a retrospective indexical, kaχa is anadeictic – it combines both the deictic and the anaphoric indexical procedures, targeting opinions or perspectives previously conveyed by the interlocutors, and subjecting them to further evaluation.

  • Ariel, Mira. 1998. The linguistic status of the “here and now”. Cognitive Linguistics 9(3). 189–237.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds.), Text representation, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Auer, Peter. 2006. Construction Grammar meets Conversation: Einige Überlegungen am Beispiel von ‚so‘-Konstruktionen. In Susanne Günthner & Imo Wolfgang (eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, 291–314. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Auer, Peter. 2009a. Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction. Discourse Processes 46(2–3). 180–205.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Auer, Peter. 2009b. Context and contextualization. In Jef Verschueren & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Key Notions in Pragmatics, 86–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Bolden, Galina B & Jenny Mandelbaum. 2017. The use of conversational co- remembering to corroborate contentious claims. Discourse Studies 19(1). 3–29.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Bruti, Silvia. 2004. Cataphoric complexity in spoken English. In Karin Aijmer & Anna- Brita Stenström (eds.), Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora, 39–63. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2013. Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Oxford: Wiley.

  • Cornish, Francis. 1999. Anaphora, discourse, and understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Cornish, Francis. 2010. Anaphora: Text-based or discourse-dependent? Functionalist vs. formalist accounts. Functions of Language 17(2). 207–241.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Cornish, Francis. 2011. ‘Strict’ anadeixis, discourse deixis and text structuring. Language Sciences 33(5). 753–767.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Cornish, Francis. 2012. Micro-syntax, macro-syntax, foregrounding and backgrounding in discourse – When indexicals target discursively subsidiary information. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 26. 6–34.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Cornish, Francis. 2014. Indexicals and context: Context-bound prerequisite(s), ongoing processing and aftermaths of the discourse referring act. In Marion Fossard & Marie-José Béguelin (eds.), Nouvelles perspectives sur l’anaphore: Points de vue linguistique, psycholinguistique et acquisitionnel, 1–8. Bern: Peter Lang.

  • Cornish, Francis & Anne Salazar Orvig. 2016. A critical look at the notion “pro-form”: Evidence from indexical markers, spoken discourse and (French) child language. Language Sciences 54. 58–76.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Deppermann, Arnulf. 2014. “Don’t get me wrong”: Recipient design by using negation to constrain an action’s interpretation. In Susanne GüNthner, Wolfgang Imo & Jörg BüCker (eds.), Grammar and dialogism: Sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation, 15–51. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.

  • Deroey, Katrien L. B. 2015. Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics 36(1). 51–72.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Diessel, Holger. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 463–489.

  • Ehlich, K.. 1982. Anaphora and deixis: Same, similar, or different?. In Robert J Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, 315–338. Chichester: John Wiley.

  • Ewing, Michael. 2014. Pragmatic uses of demonstratives in Cirebon Javanese conversation. In Anthony Robert Jukes (ed.), Deixis and spatial expressions in languages of Indonesia. [Special issue]. NUSA 56. 47–63.

  • Gerner, Matthias. 2009. Deictic features of demonstratives: A typological survey with special reference to the Miao group. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La revue Canadienne de Linguistique 54(1). 43–90.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Goodwin, Charles. 2002. Time in action. Current Anthropology 43(S4). S19–S35.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 34). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Halliday, M. A. K. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn. London: Routledge.

  • Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

  • Hasselgård, Hilde. 2010. Adjunct adverbials in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Henkin, Roni. 1999. Ma ben ‘haʃamajim kχulim ka.ele’, ‘haʃamajim kχulim kaze’ve ‘haʃamajim kχulim ke.ilu’: Al haʃimuʃ beχinujej remez maʃvim visodot aχerim lehistajgut [The difference between ‘the sky is blue ka.ele’, ‘the sky is blue kaze’, and ‘the sky is blue ke.ilu’: On the use of comparative demonstratives and other elements for hedging]. In Rina Ben-Shahar & Gideon Toury (eds.), Haivrit safa xaya 2 [Hebrew – a living language 2], 103–122. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.

  • Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1). 15–38.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 206–254. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Hopper, Paul J. 2014. This, that and the other: Prospection, retraction and obviation in dialogical grammar. In Susanne Günthner, Wolfgang Imo & Jörg Bücker (eds.), Grammar and dialogism: Sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation, 271–300. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.

  • Houtkoop, Hanneke & Harrie Mazeland. 1985. Turns and discourse units in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 9(5). 595–620.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Huddleston, Rodney, & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Imo, Wolfgang. 2014. Elliptical structures as dialogical resources for the management of understanding. In Jörg Bücker, Susanne Günthner & Wolfgang Imo (eds.), Grammar and dialogism, 139–178. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Janssen, Theo A. J. M. 2002. Deictic principles of pronominals, demonstratives, and tenses. In Frank Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (Cognitive Linguistic Series 21), 151–193. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Jucker, Andreas H & Yael Ziv. 1998. Discourse markers: Introduction. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, 1–12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Keevallik, Leelo. 2005. The deictic nii ‘so, in this way’ in interaction. In Daniele Monticelli, Renate Pajusalu & Anu Treikelder (eds.), From utterance to uttering and vice versa: Multidisciplinary views on deixis, 109–126. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.

  • Keevallik, Leelo. 2010a. Pro-adverbs of manner as markers of activity transition. Studies in Language 34(2). 350–381.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Keevallik, Leelo. 2010b. Marking boundaries between activities: The particle nii in Estonian. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(2). 157–182.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Keevallik, Leelo. 2011. Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction. Discourse Processes 48(6). 404–431.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Kim, Stephanie Hyeri. 2015. Resisting the terms of polar questions through ani (‘no’)- prefacing in Korean conversation. Discourse Processes 52(4). 311–334.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • König, Ekkehard. 2012. Le rôle des déictiques de manière dans le cadre d’une typologie de la deixis. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 107(1). 11–42.

  • König, Ekkehard. 2015. Manner deixis as source of grammatical markers in Indo-European languages. In Carla Viti (ed.), Perspectives on historical syntax, 35–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • König, Ekkehard & Carla Umbach. 2018. Demonstratives of manner, of quality, and of degree: A neglected subclass. In Marco Coniglio, Andrew Murphy, Eva Schlachter & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Atypical demonstratives, 285–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Laury, Ritva. 1997. Demonstratives in interaction: The emergence of a definite article in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2004. Deixis. In Laurence Horn (ed.), The handbook of pragmatics, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2007. An introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.

  • Linell, Per. 2005. The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London: Routledge.

  • Maschler, Yael. 2009. Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Maschler, Yael. 2012. Emergent projecting constructions: The case of Hebrew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language 36(4). 785–847.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Miestamo, Matti. 2009. Negation. In Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman & Jeff Verschueren (eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics, 208–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Müller, Simone. 2005. Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2015. Grammar, projection and turn-organization: (il) y a NP ‘there is NP’ as a projector construction in French talk-in-interaction. In Arnulf Deppermann & Susanne Günthner (eds.), Temporality in interaction, 173–199. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Rühlemann, Christoph. 2006. Coming to terms with conversational grammar: ‘Dislocation’ and ‘dysfluency’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(4). 385–409.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Rühlemann, Christoph. 2007. Conversation in context: A corpus-driven approach. London: Continuum.

  • Rühlemann, Christoph, Andrej Bagoutdinov & Matthew Brook O’Donnell. 2011. Windows on the mind: Pauses in conversational narrative. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(2). 198–230.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Schiffrin, Deborah. 1980. Meta‐talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4). 199–236.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Schiffrin, Deborah. 1990. Between text and context: Deixis, anaphora, and the meaning of then. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 10(3). 245–270.

  • Selting, Margret. 2000. The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29(4). 477–517.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Shor, Leon. 2016. Cognitive and interactional motivations for prosodic phrasing: A corpus-based analysis of the simple clause in spoken Israeli Hebrew. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 3(2). 325–343.

  • Shor, Leon. forthcoming a. “Lo, ata ʦodek bemea aχuz” – ʃimuʃim proʦeduralijim ʃel milat haʃlila lo [“No, you’re one hundred percent right” – Procedural uses of the negator lo]. Balshanut Ivrit [Hebrew linguistics].

  • Shor, Leon. forthcoming b. Negation in Israeli Hebrew. In Ruth Berman & Bracha Nir (eds.), Usage Based Studies in Modern Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Smith, Michael B. 2004. Cataphoric pronouns as mental space designators. In Ellen Contini-Morava, Robert S. Kirsner & Betsy Rodriguez-Bachiller (eds.), Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis, 61–90. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Taylor, Talbot J. 1997. Theorizing language: Analysis, normativity, rhetoric, history. Amsterdam: Pergamon.

  • Webber, Bonnie L. 1988. Discourse deixis: Reference to discourse segments. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) 26. 113–122.

  • Webber, Bonnie L. 1991. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes 6(2). 107–135.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Wu, Yián. 2004. Spatial demonstratives in English and Chinese: Text and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Ziv, Yael. 2006. Osim kaze dibur yaʃir [Doing like direct speech]. In Rina Ben Shachar & Gideon Toury (eds.), Haivrit safa xaya 4 [Hebrew – A living language 4], 141–156. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

The official journal of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), Folia Linguistica covers all non-historical areas in the traditional disciplines of general linguistics, and also sociological, discoursal, computational and psychological aspects of language and linguistic theory. Folia Linguistica Historica is exclusively devoted to diachronic linguistics (both historical and comparative) and to the history of linguistics.

Search