Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T19:26:03.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The semantics of spatial demonstratives in Spanish: a Demonstrative Choice Task study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2021

EMANUELA TODISCO ,
ROBERTA ROCCA  and
MIKKEL WALLENTIN
EMANUELA TODISCO*
Affiliation:
Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament de Filologia Espanyola, Moderna i Clàssica
ROBERTA ROCCA
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Psychology and Aarhus Universitet, Interacting Minds Centre
MIKKEL WALLENTIN
Affiliation:
Aarhus Universitet, Department of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, Aarhus Universitet, Interacting Minds Centre, and Aarhus Universitet, Centre of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience
*
[*] Address for correspondence: Emanuela Todisco. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Demonstratives (this/that in English) are pivotal in communication. In this study, we show that semantic features of referents systematically influence speakers’ choices of demonstrative forms for Spanish nouns in the absence of a guiding context. We used the Demonstrative Choice Task (DCT), previously applied to two-term demonstrative languages (Danish, English, and Italian), and applied it to Spanish, a three-term demonstrative system (este/ese/aquel), to test if the semantic dimensions driving demonstrative choice overlap with those found for English. 1,639 native Spanish speakers were presented with 480 nouns rated along 76 semantic features and were asked to match each noun with a demonstrative. We found that demonstratives are influenced by the same semantic factors as two-term languages, such as manipulability, valence, and the self. In Spanish, these semantic factors predict the demonstrative choice between the proximal este/a and a combination of medial and distal forms ese/a and aquel/la. Additional semantic factors affect speakers’ preferences for ese/a versus aquel/a (e.g., visuality and time). We conclude that many of the semantic attractors influencing the choice of demonstratives are constant across languages, independent of the number of terms characterizing the demonstrative system, and provide a window into the landscape of meaning subserving linguistic reference.

Keywords

Spanish spatial demonstrativessemanticsDCTcross-linguistic invariants
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 503 - 533
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

references

Binder, J. R., Conant, L. L., Humphries, C. J., Fernandino, L., Simons, S. B., Aguilar, M. & Desai, R. H. (2016). Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation. Cognitive Neuropsychology 33(3/4), 130–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. (1934/2011). Theory of language: the representational function of language [Sprachtheorie]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bocale, P. & Cologna, D. B. (2020). The expression of epistemic uncertainty through the use of distal demonstratives in Russian and Chinese: a cognitive analysis of corpus data. International Journal of Linguistics 12(2), 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldano, M. & Coventry, K. R. (2019). Spatial demonstratives and perceptual space: To reach or not to reach? Cognition 191, e2019.06.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooperrider, K. (2016). The co-organization of demonstratives and pointing gestures. Discourse Processes 53, 632–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K. R., Griffiths, D. & Hamilton, C. J. (2014). Spatial demonstratives and perceptual space: describing and remembering object location. Cognitive Psychology 69, 46–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coventry, K. R., Valdés, B., Castillo, A. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2008). Language within your reach: near–far perceptual space and spatial demonstratives. Cognition 108(3), 889–895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Pellegrino, G. & Làdavas, E. (2015). Peripersonal space in the brain. Neuropsychologia 66, 126–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diessel, H. (1999 ). Demonstratives: form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2005). Distance contrasts in demonstratives. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D., & Comrie, B. (eds), World atlas of language structures (pp. 170–173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2013). Where does language come from? Some reflections on the role of deictic gesture and demonstratives in the evolution of language. Language and Cognition 5(2/3), 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2014). Demonstratives, frames of reference, and semantic universals of space. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(3), 116–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. & Coventry, K. R. (2020). Demonstratives in spatial language and social interaction: an interdisciplinary review. Frontiers of Psychology 11, e555265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dragulescu, A. & Arendt, C. (2020). xlsx. Online <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=xlsx>..>Google Scholar
Dufter, A. (2015). Semantics. In Jungbluth, K. & Da Milano, F. (eds), Manual of deixis in Romance languages (pp. 359–380). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Finley, A., Banerjee, S., Hjelle, Ø. & Bivand, R. (2017). MBA: Multilevel B-Spline Approximation. Online <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MBA>..>Google Scholar
Fricke, E. (2014). Deixis, gesture, and embodiment from a linguistic point of view. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D. & Bressem, J. (eds), Body, language, communication (pp. 1803–1823). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gudde, H. B., Griffiths, D. & Coventry, K. R. (2018). The (spatial) memory game: testing the relationship between spatial language, object knowledge, and spatial cognition. Journal of Visualized Experiments 132, e56495.Google Scholar
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30(2), 179–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hottenroth, P. (1982). Locative in Spanish, in here and there: cross-linguistics studies on deixis and demonstratives. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
Hunley, S. B. & Lourenco, S. F. (2018). What is peripersonal space? An examination of unresolved empirical issues and emerging findings. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews, Cognitive Science 9(6), e1472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iverson, J. M., Tencer, H. L., Lany, J. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2000). The relation between gesture and speech in congenitally blind and sighted language-learners. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 24(2), 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jungbluth, K. (2003). Deictics in the conversational dyad: findings in Spanish and some cross-linguistic outlines. In Lenz, F. (ed.), Deictic conceptualization of space, time and person (pp. 13–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jungbluth, K. & Da Milano, F. (2015). Manual of deixis in Romance languages. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmerer, D. (2006). The semantics of space: integrating linguistic typology and cognitive neuroscience. Neuropsychologia 44(9), 1607–1621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kita, S. (2003). Pointing: where language culture, and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küntay, A. C. & Özyürek, A. (2002). Joint attention and the development of the use of demonstratives in Turkish. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 26 (pp. 336–347). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Wolberg, G. & Shin, S. Y. (1997). Scattered data interpolation with multilevel B-splines. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 3, 228–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Rayson, P. & Wilson, A. (2014). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: based on the British National Corpus. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (2018). Introduction: patterns in diversity. In Levinson, S., Cutfield, S., Dunn, M., Enfield, N. & Meira, S. (eds), Demonstratives in cross-linguistic perspective (Language Culture and Cognition) (pp. 1–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S., Cutfield, S., Dunn, M., Enfield, N. & Meira, S. (eds) (2018). Demonstratives in cross-linguistic perspective (Language Culture and Cognition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, L. (2013). A semantic study of German and Chinese demonstratives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Los Angeles, California. Online <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9v40c1w2>..>Google Scholar
Lynott, D., Connell, L., Brysbaert, M., Brand, J. & Carney, J. (2020). The Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods 52, 1271–1291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pajusalu, R. (2006). Death of a demonstrative: person and time. The case of Estonian too. Linguistica Uralica 42(4), 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peeters, D., Hagoort, P. & Özyürek, A. (2015). Electrophysiological evidence for the role of shared space in online comprehension of spatial demonstratives. Cognition 136, 64–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peeters, D., Krahmer, E. & Maes, A. A. (2021). A conceptual framework for the study of demonstrative reference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 28, 409–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Saldanya, M. (2015). Paradigms as triggers of semantic change: demonstrative adverbs in Catalan and Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 14, 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2020). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Online <https://www.R-project.org/>..>Google Scholar
Revelle, W. (2017). psych: procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Online <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych>.Google Scholar
Revelle, W. (2019). psych: procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
Rocca, R., Tylén, K. & Wallentin, M. (2019a). This shoe, that tiger: semantic properties reflecting manual affordances of the referent modulate demonstrative use. PloS One 14(1), e0210333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rocca, R. & Wallentin, M. (2020). Demonstrative reference and semantic space: a large-scale Demonstrative Choice Task study. Frontiers in Psychology, e2020.00629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rocca, R., Wallentin, M., Vesper, C. & Tylén, K. (2018). This and that back in context: grounding demonstrative reference in manual and social affordances. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Madison, WI. Online <https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2018/papers/0192/0192.pdf>.Google Scholar
Rocca, R., Wallentin, M., Vesper, C. & Tylén, K. (2019b). This is for you: social modulations of proximal vs. distal space in collaborative interaction. Scientific Reports 9(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
RStudio Team. (2016). RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Boston: MA. Online <http://www.rstudio.com/>..>Google Scholar
Strauss, S. (2002). This, that, and it in spoken American English: a demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Sciences 24(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. (2014). Pointing to an ‘empty’ space: deixis am phantasma in face-to-face interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 74, 70–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. (2015). Intercorporeal phantasms: kinesthetic alignment with imagined bodies in self-defense trainings. International and Linguistic Structures 58, 1–23.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In Pick, H. (ed.), Spatial orientation: theory, research, and application (pp. 225–282). Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1988). The relation of grammar to cognition. In Rudska-Ostyn, B. (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 165–206). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2018). The targeting system of language. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todisco, E., Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Collier, J. & Coventry, K. R. (2020). The temporal dynamics of deictic communication. First Language 41(2), 154–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todisco, E., Guijarro-Fuentes, P. & Coventry, K. R. (2021). Analogical levelling in the Majorcan Catalan demonstrative system. Probus International Journal of Romance Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wickham, H. (2020). reshape2. Online <https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/reshape2/index.html>..>Google Scholar
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D. A., François, R., … & Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software 4(43), e01686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H., Seidel, D. & RStudio (2020). scales. Online <https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/scales/index.html>..>Google Scholar
Wilke, C.O. (2020). cowplot. Online <https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cowplot/index.html>..>Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P. (1999). Demonstrative questionnaire: “THIS” and “THAT” in comparative perspective. In Wilkins, D. P. (ed.), Manual for the 1999 field season (pp. 1–24). Nijmegen: MPI for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Xiao, N. & Li, M. (2018). ggsci-package. Online <https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggsci/vignettes/ggsci.html>..>Google Scholar