Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:54:31.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some remarks on deixis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

G. L. Bursill-Hall
G. L. Bursill-Hall*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is concerned with so-called demonstratives. Languages use various devices to point out or indicate things; the demonstratives are but one of these devices. Much that has been written on this problem of deixis is confused and misleading because the criteria traditionally used in describing the different devices for pointing out or indicating have been for the most part notional or mentalistic; it behoves the theoretical linguist to seek for formal linguistic criteria to describe this feature, and these notes seek to outline some of the problems which are concerned with a satisfactory linguistic explanation of the grammatical category known as the “demonstratives.” In view of the title of this article, it might also be pointed out en passant (though the author has no wish to involve himself here in a terminological wrangle) that “deixis” may well be a more suitable term for this feature in view of the fact that languages possess other demonstrative devices or indicators in addition to those referred to traditionally as “demonstratives,” not to mention the quasi-linguistic feature of gesture.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Spring 1963 , pp. 82 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The author would like to express his thanks to his colleague, Professor J. O. St. Clair-Sobell of the University of British Columbia, who originally suggested this topic during his seminar on Comparative Slavonic Philology and for the many fruitful suggestions in the course of frequent informal discussions on the subject. He would also like to thank Professor C. E. Bazell of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, who read an earlier draft of the article and made many valuable suggestions.

References

2 Collinson, W. E., “Indication: A Study of Demonstratives, Articles and other ‘Indicators’,” Language Monograph, no. 17 (1937), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

3 Forchheimer, P., The Category of Person in Language (Berlin, 1953), pp. 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Frei, H., Acta Linguistica IV (1944), pp. 111–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Firth, J. R., “A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory,” Studies in Linguistic Analysis (Oxford, 1957), p. 19.Google Scholar

6 Gray, L. H., Foundations of Language (New York, 1939), p. 173.Google Scholar

7 Brøndal, V., Essais de Linguistique Générale (Copenhagen, 1943), pp. 98–9.Google Scholar

8 V. Brøndal, op. cit., p. 103.

9 Brugmann, K., “Die Demonstrativpronomina der indo-germanischen Sprachen,” Sächs. Abh. XXII (1904), no. 6.Google Scholar

10 Jespersen, O., The Philosophy of Grammar (London, 1924), p. 212.Google Scholar

11 Grasserie, R. de la, “De la véritable nature du pronom,” Etudes de grammaire comparée (Louvain, 1888), p. 3.Google Scholar

12 Wundt, W., Völkerpsychologie, vol. II (Leipzig, 1911), p. 141.Google Scholar

13 V. Brøndal, op. cit., p. 101.

14 Bühler, K., Sprachtheorie (Jena, 1934), p. 79.Google Scholar

15 Ginneken, J. van, Principes de linguistique psychologique (Paris, 1907), pp. 209–10.Google Scholar

16 In Armenian, the demonstrative pronouns indicate not only temporal nearness or farness but also a relationship between one individual and another. Mention of this is made to support Firth’s thesis (cf. n. 5), i.e., that this is a fact of the Armenian deictic system which, though tri-personal, is however discrete from all other tri-personal systems.

17 Hirt, H., Indogermanische Granmmatik, vol. III (Heidelberg, 1927), p. 26.Google Scholar

18 When the third member is lost, it can be argued that the demonstratives lose the sense of relation to person but represent the particular versus the general, and are thus bi-dimensional in space or time.

19 Lampach, S., “La relation des genres dans le système des pronoms de la 3e personne en français,” Word 12 (1956), pp. 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Benveniste, E., “Structure des relations de personne dans le verbe,” BSLP 43 (1946), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

21 Boas, F., Kwakiutl Grammar (Philadelphia, 1947).Google Scholar

22 Sapir, E., Language (New York, 1921).Google ScholarPubMed

23 Bloomfield, L., Language (New York, 1933), p. 259.Google ScholarPubMed

24 Ibid., p. 147.

25 Trager, G. L., “The Field of Linguistics,” Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Papers, no. 1 (Norman, 1949).Google Scholar

26 Whorf, B. L., Four articles on metalinguistics (Washington, D.C., 1949).Google Scholar

27 J. R. Firth, op. cit., p. 17.

28 Simon, H. F., “Two Substantival Complexes in Standard Chinese,” BSOAS XV (1953), pp. 327–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Bursill-Hall, G. L., “The Linguistic Theories of J. R. Firth,” Thought (Toronto, 1960), p. 243.Google Scholar

30 J. R. Firth, op. cit., p. 19.

31 E. Sapir, op. cit., pp. 118-9.

32 Bazell, C. E., Linguistic Form (Istanbul, 1953), p. 78.Google Scholar