Deixis and deictic oppositions in discourse: Evidence from Romani

Yaron Matras

doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00060-X

Deixis and deictic oppositions in discourse: Evidence from Romani

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Studies of indexical devices differ in their analysis of 'textual' deixis, some advocating an overlap of deictic and anaphoric functions, while others argue in favor of a consistent form-function correlation. This 'grey area' of deixis is conventionalized in Romani, which has a complex four-term opposition system of demonstratives and place adverbs. Drawing on examples of natural discourse in the Kelderaš/Lovari dialect, I argue that deixis in Romani identifies the source of knowledge about the object of reference, distinguishing between extra-linguistic, perceptual reality of the speech situation, and intra-linguistic or conceptual reality established via the discourse context. A second opposition line is drawn between general and discrete objects of reference. The fact that situation and context-based mental representations are kept apart grammatically, strengthens the argument in favor of their analytical separation, as suggested in Functional Pragmatics, while the overall arrangement in Romani suggests that the distal/proximate opposition cannot always be considered as basic in a typological classification of deictic systems.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	393-428
Number of pages	36
Journal	Journal of Pragmatics
Volume	29
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00060-X
State	Published - Apr 1998
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The study draws on an earlier discus,';ion of deixis in Romani presented in Matras 1994, Chapter 3. The data were obtained in Germany in 1990-1992 among speakers of a Keldera~/Lovari contact variety, most of whom are second generation immigrants from Poland, and trilingual in Romani, German, and Polish. The data collection was suppom.'d by grants from the Hamburg University and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Earlier version:~ of this paper were presented in Hamburg, Amsterdam, and Naples. I am grateful to M. Bolkestein, K. Btihrig, W. GrieBhaber, M. Hartung, G. Reershemius, J. Rehbein, G. Sch6n, J. C. Smith, and L. de Vries for comments and discussions about the data and theoretical issues. All shortcomings are of course my own responsibility. * Phone: +44 161 275-3975; Fax: +44 161 275 3187; E-maih [email protected]

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Language and Linguistics
Linguistics and Language
Artificial Intelligence

Access to Document

10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00060-X

Cite this

@article{6e4428e07206415cb9e8a40a7a1b7e91,

title = "Deixis and deictic oppositions in discourse: Evidence from Romani",

abstract = "Studies of indexical devices differ in their analysis of 'textual' deixis, some advocating an overlap of deictic and anaphoric functions, while others argue in favor of a consistent form-function correlation. This 'grey area' of deixis is conventionalized in Romani, which has a complex four-term opposition system of demonstratives and place adverbs. Drawing on examples of natural discourse in the Keldera{\v s}/Lovari dialect, I argue that deixis in Romani identifies the source of knowledge about the object of reference, distinguishing between extra-linguistic, perceptual reality of the speech situation, and intra-linguistic or conceptual reality established via the discourse context. A second opposition line is drawn between general and discrete objects of reference. The fact that situation and context-based mental representations are kept apart grammatically, strengthens the argument in favor of their analytical separation, as suggested in Functional Pragmatics, while the overall arrangement in Romani suggests that the distal/proximate opposition cannot always be considered as basic in a typological classification of deictic systems.",

author = "Yaron Matras",

note = "Funding Information: The study draws on an earlier discus,';ion of deixis in Romani presented in Matras 1994, Chapter 3. The data were obtained in Germany in 1990-1992 among speakers of a Keldera~/Lovari contact variety, most of whom are second generation immigrants from Poland, and trilingual in Romani, German, and Polish. The data collection was suppom.'d by grants from the Hamburg University and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Earlier version:~ of this paper were presented in Hamburg, Amsterdam, and Naples. I am grateful to M. Bolkestein, K. Btihrig, W. GrieBhaber, M. Hartung, G. Reershemius, J. Rehbein, G. Sch6n, J. C. Smith, and L. de Vries for comments and discussions about the data and theoretical issues. All shortcomings are of course my own responsibility. * Phone: +44 161 275-3975; Fax: +44 161 275 3187; E-maih [email protected]",

year = "1998",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00060-X",

language = "English",

volume = "29",

pages = "393--428",

journal = "Journal of Pragmatics",

issn = "0378-2166",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Deixis and deictic oppositions in discourse

T2 - Evidence from Romani

AU - Matras, Yaron

N1 - Funding Information: The study draws on an earlier discus,';ion of deixis in Romani presented in Matras 1994, Chapter 3. The data were obtained in Germany in 1990-1992 among speakers of a Keldera~/Lovari contact variety, most of whom are second generation immigrants from Poland, and trilingual in Romani, German, and Polish. The data collection was suppom.'d by grants from the Hamburg University and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Earlier version:~ of this paper were presented in Hamburg, Amsterdam, and Naples. I am grateful to M. Bolkestein, K. Btihrig, W. GrieBhaber, M. Hartung, G. Reershemius, J. Rehbein, G. Sch6n, J. C. Smith, and L. de Vries for comments and discussions about the data and theoretical issues. All shortcomings are of course my own responsibility. * Phone: +44 161 275-3975; Fax: +44 161 275 3187; E-maih [email protected]

PY - 1998/4

Y1 - 1998/4

N2 - Studies of indexical devices differ in their analysis of 'textual' deixis, some advocating an overlap of deictic and anaphoric functions, while others argue in favor of a consistent form-function correlation. This 'grey area' of deixis is conventionalized in Romani, which has a complex four-term opposition system of demonstratives and place adverbs. Drawing on examples of natural discourse in the Kelderaš/Lovari dialect, I argue that deixis in Romani identifies the source of knowledge about the object of reference, distinguishing between extra-linguistic, perceptual reality of the speech situation, and intra-linguistic or conceptual reality established via the discourse context. A second opposition line is drawn between general and discrete objects of reference. The fact that situation and context-based mental representations are kept apart grammatically, strengthens the argument in favor of their analytical separation, as suggested in Functional Pragmatics, while the overall arrangement in Romani suggests that the distal/proximate opposition cannot always be considered as basic in a typological classification of deictic systems.

AB - Studies of indexical devices differ in their analysis of 'textual' deixis, some advocating an overlap of deictic and anaphoric functions, while others argue in favor of a consistent form-function correlation. This 'grey area' of deixis is conventionalized in Romani, which has a complex four-term opposition system of demonstratives and place adverbs. Drawing on examples of natural discourse in the Kelderaš/Lovari dialect, I argue that deixis in Romani identifies the source of knowledge about the object of reference, distinguishing between extra-linguistic, perceptual reality of the speech situation, and intra-linguistic or conceptual reality established via the discourse context. A second opposition line is drawn between general and discrete objects of reference. The fact that situation and context-based mental representations are kept apart grammatically, strengthens the argument in favor of their analytical separation, as suggested in Functional Pragmatics, while the overall arrangement in Romani suggests that the distal/proximate opposition cannot always be considered as basic in a typological classification of deictic systems.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0000377864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00060-X

DO - 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00060-X

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0000377864

SN - 0378-2166

VL - 29

SP - 393

EP - 428

JO - Journal of Pragmatics

JF - Journal of Pragmatics

IS - 4

ER -

Deixis and deictic oppositions in discourse: Evidence from Romani

Abstract

Bibliographical note

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this