прагматика и медиа дискурс / 语用学关键概念 Key Notions for Pragmatics (2009)

12.2.JclckSldnell

of demonstrative tltisltlfat. When they are not functioning as pronouns (e.g.• ''T don't really like that.") they are typically labeled demonstrative adjectives (see for instance Anderson and Keenan 1985: 279). However, on syntactic grounds the items in ques­

tion are parallel to determiners and articles (a, the etc.) . Thus note the examples in (5).

On the basi. of distributional facts it would seem that tltis/tlult are DI!T elements (see the recent account of these issues in L}rons 1999). There are other unresolved issues with regard to the morpho syntax of English deixis. These problemsare particularly obviou when we begin to lookat non-standard varieties ofEnglish and English-lexified creoles.5 ln Guyanese Creole, tJ\e equivalents ofEnglish this/that and l ere/tllere are dis/da and yalde respectively. (n addition to the functional possibilities known frorn standard English varieties, GC deictics occur in post posed positions. Examples {6) illustrate this.

In GC and in many other vaneties of English, deictics can occur post nominaUy (see for instance Trudgi11 ( 1990: 79}). Post posed deictics also co-occm with deictics in base position thus resulting m what Hanks calls for Maya, continuous shapes. The system of root and post po.ed deictic terms. showing possible combinations and apparent gaps, is illustrated in Table 2.

Delxi 125

ThePonapeansystem thusnicelyillustrates thesemanticandstructural parallelism that one often finds across a series ofdeictic verbs, demonstratives and locative adverbs. 1l1is parallel organzation can be taken as evidence that spatial deicticsdo form a natu­ ralclassin anygiven language(a point elaborated in Hanks 1990).

Languages that incorporate a (relative to addressee' parameter do not exhaust the possibilities here and we find further cross·linguistic variation in terms of the indexi­ cal ground ofdeictic reference. lhus some languages incorporate a thoroughly 'socio­ centric' term by which an object is identified as remote from the speech situation. An example ofsuch a language isTlingit (Story & Naish 1973). CiBemba take,c; thisone step further and inn·oduces more subtle distinctions for both relative-to•speaker and relative-to-addressee terms. 11\e following examples are from Welmers (1973: 286-287):

Finally,wefind languagesinwhichtheindexicalgroundforsomedeictics isconstituted by some geographical location rather than the speech act participants. I have already discussed the role that fixed geographical features may play in linguistic systems of spatial reckoning. In Dyribal, according to Dixon (1972)) deictic markers may occur suffixed to noun markers (e.g., determiners). While some ofthe markers instantiate a system ofrelative spatial reckoningbasedonthepositionofthespeaker,othersindicate location relativetogeographical features. Examples in ( 14) illustrate:

With regard to the relational component we find a great deal ofcross linguistic varia­ tion. English speakers will be most familiar with the proximaVdistal contrast relation. Other languageswhich Anderson and Keenan (1985) label "distance oriented systems" introduce furtherdistinctionsalongUlissamedimension. Manydialects ofEnglish pre· serve the tripartite contrast between h re, tltere, yo1tder {including Guyanese Creole see Sidnell 1998a). Spanish has a similar tripartite contrast along a single dimension ofdistance from speaker: este, ese, aquel. Most languages seern to makeat least a basic distinction between proximate/distalorimmediate/distal in therelationalcomponent.7

7· Gcrmam diesldns isanotherexception here.

us JclckSidnell

presumably because they lack a stable referent - as people take turns talking. the referents ofdeictics such as lrere, tiJere, tlris, tluH change. While such pragmatic and cognitive complexitiesare doubtless relevant to theacquisition process, social factors may also be implicated. In a fascinating study ofthe acquisition ofdeictic verbs in a Samoan village, Platt (1986) showed that although the Samoan equivalent of deic· tic britg (agent-object-path) is semantically more complex than deictic come (agent­ path) the formerisacquired first. She attributed this tothe fact thatchildren, being low status individuals. are not expected to beckor'\ adults (a numberofethnographic stud· ieshaveshown that movement is associated with lower statusand a lack ofit isassoci­ ated with high status - see for instance Ochs 1988; Duranti 1994). However there is no expectation that children will not want and request objects usingthe Samoan verb for bri11g.

The study of deL\:is has undergone something of a rene\o\ral as researchers have begun to investigate naturally occurring data embedded in situated courses ofaction (Haviland 1996;Goodwin 1986, 1994, 1999a. 1999b; Hanks 1990). Such studieswereto some extent anticipated by the earlier work ofSchegloff. In his pioneering 1972 paper, ''Notes on aconversational practice: formulating place;'Schegloffargues that the useof a place formulation (including the deictic terms here and tiJere) involvec; both speaker and hearer in a series of analyses. In the first place, a place formulation involves the operations ofa location analysis. That is, in order to produce an intelligible place for· mulation,aspeakermustdoananalysisofthelocationofthe speakerand recipient(and associated possibilities for perceptual access, see Hanks 1996a). Demonstrativethis for instance suppose.s that a recipient may locate the object so designated and this turns out to have important implications for how it is used (see below and Goodwin 1986}. Furthermore. a place formulating expression may engender a membership analysis as certain place terms are appropriately used only by participants in a certain relation to oneanother (i.e., as co-n1embers ofthe category 'local'). Finall)'• Schegloffsuggests that anyplace formulation will be fittedtothe topic and the local relevanciesofanemergent andsequentiallyorganized course ofaction.

Consider the following example from a telephone conversation between two friends: