Abstract
This paper studies the referring properties of post-nominal demonstratives in Spanish with an aim to contributing to our present understanding of this marked construction. A corpus analysis is presented, where 600 cases of pre- and post-nominal demonstratives are analyzed based on their discourse anaphoric properties: direct vs. indirect anaphora. The data reveal that post-nominal demonstratives are significantly preferred in cases of indirect anaphora; that is, where no antecedent is linguistically realized in the discourse, and the reference of the demonstrative anaphor has to be inferred from the discourse or situational context. Pre-nominal demonstratives, on the other hand, show a more balanced picture sharing similar numbers in direct and indirect anaphora. However, the data also reveal that post-nominal demonstratives can be used in direct anaphoric uses, which poses a problem for a categorical distinction between pre- and post-nominal demonstratives at the referential level. Since variability appears to be the nature of the phenomenon, I propose a uniform presuppositional characterization for pre- and post-nominal demonstratives that is able to account for the observed referential flexibility.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on a previous draft. This research was supported by an IUPUI School of Liberal Arts Research Support Grant.
References
Alcina Franch, Juan & José Manuel Blecua. 1975. Gramática española. Barcelona: Ariel.Search in Google Scholar
Alexander, David B. 2008. The Spanish postnominal demonstrative in synchrony and diachrony. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24(1). 65–87.10.1017/S0022226700011567Search in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy B. 1997. Demonstratives and reinforcers in Romance and Germanic languages. Lingua 102. 87–113.10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00046-0Search in Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy B. 2001. Focusing the right way in Romance determiner phrases. Probus 13. 1–29.10.1515/prbs.13.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Brizuela, Maquela. 2000. La accesibilidad y el costo de procesamiento en la selección de expresiones definidas. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 1. 297–308.Search in Google Scholar
Brugè, Laura. 2002. The positions of demonstratives in extended nominal projection. In Guglielmo Cinque (ed.), Functional structure in IP and DP: The cartography of syntactic structures 1, 15–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Brustad, Kristen E. 2000. The syntax of spoken Arabic: A comparative study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian and Kuwaiti dialects. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1937 [1990]. Theory of language: The representational theory of language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Campos, Héctor. 2005. Noun modification, pseudo-articles and last resort operations in Arvantovlaxika and in Romanian. Lingua 115 (3). 311–347.10.1016/j.lingua.2003.11.002Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2002. Corpus del español: 100 million words, 1200s-1900s. http://www.corpusdelespanol.org (accessed 10 October 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 463–489.10.1515/COG.2006.015Search in Google Scholar
Eguren, Luis. 1999. Pronombres y adverbios demostrativos: Las relaciones deícticas. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 931–972. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Search in Google Scholar
Fernández Ramírez, Salvador. 1951 [1986]. Gramática Española: El pronombre. Madrid: Arco Libros.Search in Google Scholar
Gardent, Claire, Hélène Manuélian & Eric Kow. 2003. Which bridges for bridging definite descriptions? In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora (LINC’03), Budapest, Hungary, 13–14 April.Search in Google Scholar
Gili Gaya, Samuel. 1943. Curso superior de sintaxis española. México: Minerva.Search in Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1). 39–100.10.1007/BF00628304Search in Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199687305.013.5Search in Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Rexach, Javier. 2002. Demonstratives in context. In Javier Gutiérrez Rexach (ed.), From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics, 195–235. New York: Elsevier.10.1163/9780585475295Search in Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 391–428.Search in Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. On the semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Rainer Bäuerle (ed.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, 164–189. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Hottenroth, Priska M. 1982. The system of local deixis in Spanish. In Jürgen Weissenborn & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Here and there: Cross-linguistic studies on deixis and demonstration, 133–154. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins,.10.1075/pb.iii.2-3.07hotSearch in Google Scholar
Irmer, Matthias. 2010. Bridging inferences in discourse interpretation. Leipzig: University of Leipzig dissertation.10.1515/9783110262018Search in Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar
Kaplan, Robert. 1989. Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, 481–566. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. In James McCawley (ed.), Syntax and semantics 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, 363–385. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368859_021Search in Google Scholar
King, Jeffrey. 2001. Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/1990.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kleiber, Georges. 1999. Associative anaphora and part-whole relationship: The condition of alienation and the principle of ontological congruence. Journal of Pragmatics 31(3). 339–362.10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00072-1Search in Google Scholar
Manoliu, Maria M. 1999. The conversational factor in language change: From prenominal to postnominal demonstratives. In Laurel J. Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th international conference on historical linguistics, 187–205. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.215.14manSearch in Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–256. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2002. Demonstratives as definites. In Kees van Deemter & Rodger Kibble (eds.), Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation, 89–196. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 287–350.10.1023/A:1024157132393Search in Google Scholar
Roca Urgell, Francesc. 1996. La determinación y la modificación nominal en español. Barcelona: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Rosetti, Alexandru. 1986. Istoria limbii române. De la origini pînă la începutul seculului al XVII-lea. Ediţie definitivă. [History of the Romanian language. From its origins to the early seventeenth century. Definitive edition]. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică.Search in Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1956. Logic and knowledge: Essays 1901–1950. London: George Allen & Unwin.Search in Google Scholar
Salazar, Beatrice. 1990. Concerning pejorative or laudatory connotations attributed to Spanish demonstratives. Langues Néo-latines: Bulletin trimestriel de la Société des langues néo-latines 84(4). 89–102.Search in Google Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, Monika. 2007. Indirect anaphora in text. A cognitive account. In Monika Schwarz-Friesel, Manfred Consten & Mareile Hillevi Knees (eds.), Anaphors in text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (Studies in language companion series 86), 3–20. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.86.04schSearch in Google Scholar
Taboada, Inma. 2007. Prenominal and postnominal demonstratives in Spanish: A [+/− deictic] approach. International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 41(2). 323–332.Search in Google Scholar
Vieu, Laure & Michel Aurnague. 2007. Part-of relations, functionality, dependence. In Michel Aurnague, Maya Hickmann & Laure Vieu (eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition, 307–336. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.20.18vieSearch in Google Scholar
Westerståhl, Dag. 1985. Determiners and Context Sets. In Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural language, 45–71. Dordrecht: Foris.Search in Google Scholar
Zeevat, Henk. 1999. Demonstratives in discourse. Journal of Semantics 16. 279–314.10.1093/jos/16.4.279Search in Google Scholar
Zulaica Hernández, Iker. 2012. Temporal constraints in the use of demonstratives in Iberian Spanish. Borealis 1(2): 195–234.10.7557/1.1.2.2350Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
