Tentative Reference Acts? ‘Recognitional Demonstratives’ as Means of Suggesting Mutual Knowledge – or Overriding a Lack of It

Authors

  • Manfred Consten University of Jena
  • Maria Averintseva-Klisch University of Tübingen

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0033-x

Abstract

In an explorative study on German oral corpus data we investigate recognitional use of proximal demonstratives as a means of explicit speaker-hearer interaction shaping the discourse structure. We show that recognitionals mark tentative reference acts in that speakers suggest - or pretend - mutual knowledge of the referent, at the same time appealing to the hearers to accept the reference. Hearers may tacitly or explicitly accept the referential act or deny it asking for clarification, in the latter case making speakers change the intended local discourse topic. On these grounds we argue against a differentiation between recognitional and indefinite demonstratives, subsuming both as kinds of recognitional use under ‘pretended’ cognitive proximity.

Author Biographies

Manfred Consten, University of Jena

Dr. Manfred Consten works as a lecturer at the Institute for Germanic Linguistics, University of Jena. His main research area is text linguistics and reference theory, he is especially interested in text coherence, anaphora and deixis.

Maria Averintseva-Klisch, University of Tübingen

Dr. Maria Averintseva-Klisch is a researcher at the German Department (Deutsches Seminar) of the Tübingen University. She wrote her Ph.D. 2008 on German right dislocation and its discourse function. Her research concentrates in the first place on the discourse-grammar interface, including semantic, syntactic and pragmatic issues.

References

Auer, Peter. 1981. “Zur Indexikalitätsmarkierenden Funktion der demonstrativen Artikelform in deutschen Konversationen”. In G. Hindelang & W. Zillig (eds.), Sprache = Verstehen und Handeln (301-310). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 1984. “Referential problems in conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 627-648.
Google Scholar

Averintseva-Klisch, Maria. 2009. Rechte Satzperipherie im Diskurs. NP-Rechtsversetzungim Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Google Scholar

Averintseva-Klisch, Maria & Manfred Consten. 2007. “The role of discourse topic and proximity for demonstratives in German and Russian”. In B. Behrens et al. (eds.), Special issue of Language in Contrast 7/2 (219-240). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Bosch, Peter. 1983. Agreement and anaphora. A study of the roles of pronouns indiscourse and syntax. London/N.Y.: Academic Press.
Google Scholar

Bosch, Peter & Carla Umbach. 2007. “Reference Determination for Demonstrative Pronouns”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 48, 39-51.
Google Scholar

Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: CUP.
Google Scholar

Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: Fischer.
Google Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus: the 59th street bridge accent. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Consten, Manfred. 2003. “Towards a unified model of domain-bound reference”. In F. Lenz (ed.), Deictic conceptualization of space, time and person (223-248). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Consten, Manfred. 2004. Anaphorisch oder deiktisch? Zu einem integrativen Modell domänengebundener Referenz. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Google Scholar

Consten, Manfred & Maria Averintseva-Klisch. 2010. “'Nahe Referenten' - ein integrativer Ansatz zur Funktion demonstrativer Referenz”. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik, 20/1, 1-34.
Google Scholar

Consten, Manfred & Monika Schwarz-Friesel. 2007. “Anapher”. In L. Hoffmann (ed.), Wortarten des Deutschen (265-292). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Diewald, Gabriele. 1991. Deixis und Textsorten im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Google Scholar

Ehlich, Konrad. 1982. “Anaphora and deixis: same, similar or different?”. In R. Jarvella & W. Klein (eds.), Speech, place and action (315-339). Chichester: Wiley.
Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Google Scholar

Hausendorf, Heiko. 2003. “Deixis and speech situation revisited: the mechanism of perceived perception”. In F. Lenz (ed.), Deictic conceptualization of space, time and person (249-269). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1996. “Demonstratives in narrative discourse: a taxonomy of universal uses”. In B. Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora (205-254). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase. Zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Google Scholar

Ionin, Tanya. 2006. “This is definitely specific: specificity and definiteness in article systems”. Natural Language Semantics, 14, 175-234.
Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin. 1974. “Remarks on this and that”. Chicago Linguistic Society, 10, 345-356.
Google Scholar

Lenz, Friedrich. 1997. Diskursdeixis im Englischen. Sprachtheoretische Überlegungen und lexiko-grammatische Analysen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Google Scholar

Maaß, Christiane. 2010. Diskursdeixis im Französischen. Eine korpusbasierte Studie zu Semantik und Pragmatik diskursdeiktischer Verweise. Berlin et al.: de Gruyter.
Google Scholar

Maclaran, Rose. 1980. “On two asymmetrical uses of the demonstrative determiners in English”. Linguistics, 18, 803-820.
Google Scholar

Molnár, Krisztina. 2010. “Anamnestische Verwendung der Demonstrativa im Deutschen und im Ungarischen”. Deutsche Sprache, 4/10, 326-344.
Google Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza. 2002. “Die Indexikalität der Referenz in der sozialen Interaktion”. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 125, 79-113.
Google Scholar

Paul, Hermann. ¹°2002. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Google Scholar

Pfeffer, J. Alan & Walter F.W. Lohnes (eds.) (1984). Grunddeutsch. Texte zur gesprochenen deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Google Scholar

Prince, Ellen. 1981. “On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs”. In A. Joshi, B. Webber & I. Sag (eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (231-250). Cambridge: CUP.
Google Scholar

Sachs, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation”. Language, 50, 696-735.
Google Scholar

Strawson, Peter. 1950. “On referring”. Mind, 59, 320-344.
Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011. “Specificity”. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: de Gruyter. (Ms. under www.ilg.uni-stuttgart.de/vonHeusinger/pub).
Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus, Sofiana Chiriacescu & Annika Deichsel. 2010. “Two specific indefinite articles in German”. Handout, invited lecture at the University of Santa Cruz, California (people.ucsc.edu/~abrsvn/handout_11.pdf).
Google Scholar

Ward, Gregory & Betty Birner. 1995. “Definiteness and the English existential”. Language, 71/4, 722-742.
Google Scholar

Windisch, Ernst. 1869. Untersuchungen über den Ursprung des Relativpronomens in den idg. Sprachen. Leipzig: Melzer.
Google Scholar

Zeevat, Henk. 2004. “Asher on discourse topic”. Theoretical Linguistics, 30, 203-211.
Google Scholar

Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann & Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Google Scholar

Downloads

Published

2012-09-30

How to Cite

Consten, M., & Averintseva-Klisch, M. (2012). Tentative Reference Acts? ‘Recognitional Demonstratives’ as Means of Suggesting Mutual Knowledge – or Overriding a Lack of It. Research in Language, 10(3), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0033-x

Issue

Section

Articles