Konstanze Jungbluth (Tübingen)

Binary and ternary deictic systems in speech and writing. Evidence from the use of demonstratives in Spanish

It is surprising that the authors describing deixis (e.g. Fillmore 1971/1997, Rauh 1983, Himmelmann 1997) do not usually recognize the deep qualitative difference between the use of deixis made in direct oral discourse and the use made in written language. This paper emphasizes this difference, focusing on the variation belonging to different text traditions (genre conventions) and shows why three-dimensional deictic systems continue to be used especially in direct oral communication where speakers and hearers are personally involved developing conversation as a joint activity.¹

1 Medium and conception differences between speaking and writing

Looking closer at the differences between spoken and written language in Spanish, we leave aside for the moment the big variety of diatopical and diastratical varieties which without any doubt are very important for the vast Spanish-speaking territory (see Oesterreicher 1995 for the architecture of language). When focusing on spoken and written language, the strict medium distinction is exclusive: each linguistic manifestation is either oral or written, there is no intermediate possible. However, if we think of the multi-faceted possibilities of talking and writing, there are a large number of different forms conceivable. The way they are composed and even their very practice are changing over time. Leaving these aspects aside for the moment, we look into this conceptional approach at oral and literate traditions (Söll 1974, Koch/Oesterreicher 1985, 1990), where there are intermediate positions in the way of graduates between the two extremes possible. In addition the participants actualizing the respective oral or literate discourse (Schlieben-Lange 1983) are free to decide whether they want to talk, to write or to listen, to read aloud or in silence etc. as part of their creative activity (Coseriu 1975:250-265). Of course social and above all institutional procedures restrict these decisions a great deal.

When we attempt to order the text traditions,² including oral and literate forms we can characterize them as more or less formal, as belonging to a private or an official communicative situation, representing a monologue or a dialogue, typical of administrative, literary or every-day language. By using a conceptual approach we can summarize all these specific forms and a lot of other imaginable ones on a scale, which extends between the extremes of orality and literacy:³

Please be conscious of the fact that spoken discourses are not always "oral". There are spoken text traditions belonging to the literal part of the continuum and vice versa. The genres on the literal part of the continuum are fairly well known, while some of the ones belonging to the oral part have not yet been studied at all.

While the above cited authors are focusing on the differences between orality and literacy at the universal level, I propose to re-interpret this continuum, collocating the linguistic manifestations , e.g. the texts and discourses along the same scale at the actual level. The underlying distinction between actual, historical and universal levels (Coseriu 1988a: 250-265, 1988b: 57-185) represent possible abstractions drawn from the real data, the only source to which we have direct access. This distinction situates the language as an activity actualizing generation by generation the traditional ways to talk and write at the historical level. Focusing on the contrasts between orality and literacy, the students of Coseriu felt it necessary to double this historical level by introducing a second abstraction representing the models which the speakers and hearers follow when creating a new text or discourse using the respective text tradition (Schlieben-Lange 1983, Koch 1997).

Continuing on the same lines with this framework, I re-interpret the continuum between orality (Mündlichkeit) and literacy (Schriftlichkeit) as a gradatum, recognizing the discrete steps separating the different text conventions, which the members of the respective text communities are ready to follow. Stehl (1988, 1996) insists on the gradual character of another linguistic scale, refusing continual transitions when looking at the different varieties between dialect and standard language in Italy. If we assume that the differentiations on the gradatum between orality and literacy are consistent with the practice of each group and serve to identify and distinguish each group, we have to emphasize the distinct character of each genre minimalizing at the same time their common ground. With regard to the literate part of the gradatum we are familiar with the genres. As for the oral part, we have to assume similar differentiations (Biber 1988, 1998, Diewald 1991, Schlieben-Lange 1983 with a historical perspective). There are a lot of names in everyday language denoting the respective genres, this fact supports our view (Antos 1996, Heinemann 2000). The text traditions are important in order to guide the reciprocal activity of speaking and understanding. Auer (1992) focusing on contextualization hierarchizes the respective activities in the following way:

We frame these instances of text traditions by verbal and non-verbal behaviour in order that the listener will know how to understand the speech:

Therefore the beginning and the end of the text traditions follow relatively fixed patterns. By this means the participants can orientate themselves and may even begin to negotiate about their roles in cases of interactive performed discourses.

The conceptual gradatum is realized as a highly differentiated sequence of text traditions between the extremes of orality and literacy.

2 Text traditions and frequencies of Demonstratives

As in Latin there are three forms in Spanish which form the grammatical paradigm:

The traditional interpretation of this paradigm, which is richer than the English paradigm of this and that, puts them in a line with the grammatical persons:

This interpretation can be combined with the distance parameter:

These two parameters, distance-oriented or person-oriented, are considered as being relevant for the use of three-term-systems in general.

It does not seem to me to be necessary to see the two parameters as being contradictory (see citation of Croft above). I admit that there are situations where the two perspectives do not coincide. It is the distance parameter which is more flexible and easier to be transferred to other 'spaces' (see below):

Another parameter generally taken into account is the visability or invisability of the objects referred to, but this does not seem to be important for European languages.

It is not my intention to enter into this discussion. While these parameters are important, in my view speakers first of all follow the rules of the other historical level: certain text traditions prefer certain demonstratives in characteristic ways.

Let us therefore have a look at the way these demonstratives are used in various text traditions. Unlike in French, in Spanish the same demonstratives can be used either adjectivally or nominally. Studying the use of the demonstratives in order to find the rules the speakers follow, one has to realize that there are some kinds of uses we have to separate off. There is no free variation in the case of idiomatic patterns like por eso 'therefore', en este punto 'on this point', eso es 'that is to say' etc. Furthermore aquel is obligatory always when the function of the demonstrative is to announce a following restrictive relative clause. To announce a following statement or at least to communicate that you are about to go on, one usually uses the term este (cataphoric function). These observations can be understood as a sign for grammaticalization processes of the respective demonstratives forming a fixed part in a grammatical structure (Lehmann 1985). Demonstratives in general are very likely to be involved in these processes (Diessel 1999: 115-155).

A point which is more difficult to treat is the fact that some texts are to be considered as a conglomerate of various kind of text traditions. For example fiction is mainly to be characterized as narrative, but it includes direct speech, which obviously follows other rules than the surrounding narrative text. Thus these parts have to be kept separate. This careful, minutious examination makes it difficult to analyze big corpora automatically. The following observations are therefore not based on exact statistical analyses of large scale samples. This aspect is still left for further investigations. Examining various texts according to the above mentioned gradatum we get the following distribution:

A comparative look at the corpus of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid representing the oral use of contemporary Spanish and at the frequency dictionary of Spanish words represetning the written use also shows this tendency.

Corpus Oral de Referencia del español Contemporáneo (UAM):⁴

FDSW fiction

FDSW essays

FDSW periodicals

It is obvious that the frequency of the demonstratives is a lot higher in the oral use than in any of the literal uses.

For example there exists an interdependency between the tenses of the verb and the demonstratives. One of the reasons is that some tenses of the past include the shifting of the origo,⁵ which is of special importance to all deictic elements. The typical tenses for narration in Spanish are the imperfecto (cantaba) and the pretérito (canté). They are used depending on aspectual difference. When transforming a phrase from the present to the past, the demonstratives have to be changed accordingly. This is the reason why aquel and ese are predominant on the right side. Este in narrative texts is either part of direct speech or is used in a text deictic function. In the later case it connects whole parts of texts, while even this function is mostly covered by ese.

Because of this important connexion between the tense of the verb and the demonstratives the isolation and/or definition of the respective text traditions has to be made with caution. It will be important to characterize certain obligatory parts more in detail which build up the text tradition under observation in order to find the rules behind the frequency distribution documented in the data.

Looking at the other extreme of the gradatum we observe, that people sharing situational perception and general knowledge have to interweave their utterances with the practical non-linguistic situation (see "praktischer Außer-Rede-Kontext" Coseriu 1955,1975: 282-284; "sympraktisches Umfeld" Bühler 1934:154-168). The natural context offers the speaker a lot more possibilities to encode his message interacting with the other participants as a human individual using a wide range of his physical, cognitive and emotional capacities, a point often ignored by linguists who assume deixis in natural situations and text deixis as similar. The involvement of the speaker and hearer (Biber 1988, 1998, Tannen 1989, Cheshire 1997) is essential and therefore has to be taken in account. Demonstratives are highly sensitive to this interactive dimension as we shall see below. These circumstances mean that

the use of deictics in the oral part of the gradatum is different to that in the literate part.

3 Face-to-face communication supports the persistence of a ternary deictic system

There seems to be a certain relationship between literacy and the structure of the deictic system.

Focusing on deixis it may therefore be possible that some text traditions, presumably the oral ones, perform a multi-dimensional system while others, typically the written ones, select only two forms which are enough to fulfill the purposes of anaphoric use. Although there may be some forms used only in written discourse our findings and the findings of Melchers (1997) converge that oral data in natural context are very likely to exhibit all the different kind of demonstratives, not only the unmarked ones.

Our claim includes that markedness has to be defined separately for each text tradition, because there are important reservations to an overall application. How are the text styles in Croft's terminology to be weighted (Croft 1990: 84-89)? Accordingly to their performance in certain societies? What will be the group of reference? Modern societies are highly differentiated and text traditions are continually developing, as are the social groups who at least partially define themselves by their use. Has a "good text-sample" (Croft 1990:87) even if it is "large and representative" (Croft 1990:87) not to be regarded as a mixture of different language practices thus creating a chaos for the linguist never to be untangled representing at the same time a situation which the users never are confronted with? The understanding of the utterances is guided by their embeddedness in the respective genres and there are different possibilities how to contextualize the communicative action in order that this reciprocal process will be felicitous.

This assumption is strengthened by the data found in Spanish. Even languages with established writing traditions that at the level of their system have a tripartite inventory of demonstratives, for example Spanish or Portuguese, make in most of their writing very little use of them (Lavric 1997, de Kock 1988). The overwhelming dominance of the written texts seems to decrease or even obscure the original distinctions, because to the purposes of text deixis the actualization of two forms or even of only one form is sufficient.⁷

If we start from the assumption that the deictic procedures are achieved and developed in natural contexts (three-dimensional space) than there are several possible transfers into other spaces and within the Spanish system allows them all. By tranferring the system of the three terms to the space of time we combine the present with este, the past with ese and the long ago with aquel. When talking about the future which is always a precarious concept the speakers tend to expand their origo into the future, but the other terms are possible as well, if the speaker wants to emphasize the respective space of time as being separate of the present.⁸

By transferring the terms to the space of the text, a reduction to a two-dimensional space is included. The text deictic functions are different from the functions in face-to-face-conversation. Above all there is a lot of work to be done in order to make the text cohesive. Ese is used to refer anaphorically to the previous phrase, it is often used with prepositions and there may be a noun after it. Este connects the parts of the text as a whole in the two directions: backwords, e.g. anaphorically and forewords, e.g. cataphorically. Este shows a bigger scope, it prefers the first place in the phrase.

When referring to two concepts mentioned before, the linearity of the text is reinterpreted in time. Aquel refers to the noun first mentioned, farer away from the origo which is the point in the text where the reader "is right now", while este refers to the term last mentioned, which is nearer to the point, he/she is at that moment. This use may be called iconic.

There are few cases where este is used inside of the phrase, normally in places where a personal pronoun can also be used. While both refer to a previous noun este implies an obligatory contrast: there has to be a second noun inside of the same phrase, in order that este can refer, as above, to the last mentioned noun, the noun nearer to its occurrence, thus avoiding ambiguity.

Most if not all of these functions are only relevant in the space of the text. There may be some monologous text traditions which are performed orally where these uses also occur as well, but ordinary conversations with their dialogical composition do not use these functions. The only function which is quite common in oral discourse is the anaphoric use of ese, which not only serves to connect the actual turn to concepts mentioned by the hearer but also to refer to concepts articulated by the speaker himself/herself. This function is predominant for ese in conversation, where este and aquel perform the function of situating (see below).

It is in face-to-face communication where the frequency of demonstratives increases and this is the place where all the different demonstratives are used (for the Czech: Berger 1993, for some Scottish and North-English dialects Melchers 1997, for English Krenn 1985, Lenz 1997, Cheshire 1997, for Spanish Hottenroth 1982, de Kock 1988, Lavric forthcoming, Jungbluth forthcoming, for the Brazil-Portuguese Câmara Jr. 1971, Castilho 1993, Jungbluth 1998, Jungbluth forthcoming). The importance of the speaker's responsability for his/her utterances and the necessity of communicating at each moment the attitude towards the mentioned facts, situations, people etc. obviously force the use of a highly differentiated system, when it is available.

In this kind of speech event the most important factor is the subjective relation between the speaker and hearer and the objects. The distance parameter is re-interpreted in terms of emotion. Este – nearness – is used to show affection and inclination, ese – distance – connotates often peyorative or contemptouos affects, aquel does not gain any further implications in this sub-space, which we might call social space.

It is not important to separate the different meanings, it is the very function of the demonstratives to allow the convergance of the different referring processes, thus facilitating the task of the speaker. In oral discourse there is still the possibility of narrowing the meaning by intonation, pauses, gestures and other co-performed systems should the speaker want to avoid ambiguity. As referring is a collaborative activity,¹⁰ the speaker can further determine if the hearer/s let him/her know that they need more indications in order to understand. All the participants intend to minimize effort, the speaker as well as the hearer:

The demonstratives work very well in this way because they can assume different kinds of references. The principle "one form - one function" is not important in this domain, where the reciprocal efforts of talking and listening dominate. With respect to the multifunctional uses of English never and that, not by chance a demonstrative, too, Jenny Cheshire observes:

The importance of the shared knowledge will be addressed in the next paragraph. Studying Northern English and Scottish dialects Gunnel Melchers (1997) concludes that the arcaic English yon is still used, especially in face-to-face communication by offering the speaker the possibility to utter euphemistic, depreciatory or contemptouos connotation (Melchers 1997:85). At the same time "yon is much more of a 'loaded' word, an indexical or marker of identity. It is used as a covert prestige form and quickly acquired by incomers who want to identify with Shetlanders (...)" (Melchers 1997: 89). These findings of another three-term-system (this - that - yon) support the idea that

Face-to-face communication supports the persistence of a ternary deictic system.

4. Shared knowledge, presumed attitudes, subjective relation

Topics are important in face-to-face interaction, the development of shared estimation about the people, things, activities, ideas etc. talked about seems to be just as important. This negotiation between the interlocutors is a socially often difficult activity, because it aims to establish a common view while tending to neglect the individual perspectives of the persons involved. These activities are essential for all kind of social groups developing and guaranteeing their social identity. People define themselves as belonging to certain groups, a fact which comes along with sharing the habitus of the respective figuration (Elias 1939/1976, Bourdieu 1972/1976). Performing the risky task of establishing or perhaps even changing the commonly shared perspective the speaker has to manage to incorporate the different views in his speech.

A very important factor the speaker has to deal with is the presumed attitude of the hearer: Focusing on the puzzling use of English that Jenny Cheshire¹² observes this function for the English demonstrative as well:

The speaker leaves the possibility to the hearer/s to communicate that they need further explanations. But first he/she assumes that there is enough understanding to continue.

Referrences to shared knowledge are particulary precarious, because the speaker can seldom be sure about a common ground. It is the reaction of the hearer, which shows him/her, if the assumptions are ratified or not.

Auer observes that the use of the demonstrative instead of the definite article offers the possibility to actualize shared knowledge. This strategy is quite economical compared to an explicit description, which may be redundant. Furthermore it helps not loosing the turn as would have been the case by asking directly. When the hearer ratifies the strategy common ground, e.g. shared context will be created strengthening the reciprocal involvement of the participants. At the same time this procedure excludes listeners who are not welcome by creating an intimate space typical for discourses belonging to the oral extreme of the scale between orality and literacy.

The speaker has to encode the message accordingly in order to steer the inferences, the hearer is assumed to make. Languages offer different means to manage this problem. Face-to-face communication shows a certain preference for compositional signs, where the linguistic message is further determined by intonation (Caspers 1999) or by gestural signs (Engle 1998, Wilkins 1999, Wilkins forthcoming, Jungbluth forthcoming).The following examples of my own corpus show some possible combinations. It may be that further research will show that these means are inherent in a lot of languages, but surely they are conventionalised to quite different degrees according to prevailing cultural practices.

Languages with multi-termed deictic systems offer their users a rich linguistic instrument to encode their proposals about common knowledge, shared attitudes or presumed attitudes of the interlocutor(s) etc. Speakers of some Northern English and Scottish dialects still use yon in addition to this and that, because this rich linguistic instrument serves their needs of expression (Melchers 1997). So do Spanish speakers. Using este they refer to something belonging to themselves or touched by them or simply related to them in a subjective view. Ese can either denote that the thing talked about belongs to the hearer or that the speaker refuses any possible relation, often with pejorative connotation. Aquel is quite rare, often used in combination with time gone: aquel ayer 'that past', en aquella época 'in that time'. The choice may be constrained since the hearer expects a certain term according to text conventions. When the speaker utters an unexpected form, that is a marked form, the hearer feels himself forced to look for probable inferences in order to understand the message in the way intended by the speaker.

Given this even very unusual occurences can be decoded:

The interpretation of este instead of expected aquel forces the hearer(s) to infer what the speaker assumes. He thinks that the uttered opinion is shared by his/her audience. The phrase can therefore be reformulated in the following manner: we all think that one of these mountains has to be Vesuvius.

In Spanish the deictic force may be even increased by putting the demonstrative after the noun thus separating the identification process from the deictical process (see Lavric 1995) by leaving the former for the definite article which precedes the noun.

It is important to note that the possibilities offered by the Spanish syntax to place the demonstrative after the noun strengthens the expressive force of the demonstratives, but the tranfers to the social space and the space of time is an overall possibility inherent of the system whatever the position of the demonstrative may be.

Ternary systems offer their users an important means to encode their proposals about common knowledge, shared attitudes or presumed attitudes of the interlocutor(s).

5. Continuity of the ternary system in Spanish

We have seen that the forms este, ese and aquel are distributed unequally in the different text traditions. This relation can even work as a signal for certain genres. In contrast to the occurrences in literal texts, where there is no co-presence of the three forms found (de Kock 1988, Lavric 1998) oral discourses taped in the province of Toledo in the heart of Castilia give evidence about the use of all three forms.

The two examples show that at least in Castilia there can native speakers be observed using all three demonstratives. But this is not very frequent. Of course este is to be expected quite frequently in oral discourses, especially in those where orality in medium and conception meet. Aquel on the other extreme is by far the rarest form. If it is used at all in oral discourse it refers to the space behind the speaker or behind the addressee, thus excluding this space from the shared space of conversation (see Jungbluth forthcoming). This observation can be seen as strengthening the interpretation made by Benveniste who distinguishes between the space of the first and the second person in contrast to the one of the third person, called Non-Personne (Benveniste 1966: 226ff).

In most of the face-to-face-communications in Spanish the use of the demonstratives is limitated to este and ese. There are only a few data which show the use of aquel. Most of them exemplify the use in the space of time denoting a distant past. The examples cited above are therefore especially valuable. While in the first example the apples are behind the addressee, the receptacle holding the milk in the second example is behind the speaker. This last case is difficult to find, because there are only very special circumstances which force the speaker to talk about things he cannot see. He/She only can talk about them in cases where their existence is well-known to him/her and normally the audience has visual access to them. But the examples remain quite isolated and the findings need to be prooved further.

There is little probability that the ternary system of demonstratives in Spanish will be reduced to a binary one. First the focus on the distribution along the gradatum between orality and literacy shows that the oral text traditions or genres make different choice - most frequently este, quite frequent ese, which serves for cohesion above all, very rarely aquel - than the literate ones - all demonstratives are relatively rare: some este doing cohesive work, some ese used often anaphorically with reference to a shortly before mentioned noun or concept, less aquel. The demonstratives in general are a lot more frequent in oral text traditions, especially when they are performed in face-to-face interaction. Secondly there are certain combinations where the respective demonstrative is obligatory or quasi obligatory.¹⁴ Announcing a restrictive relative clause aquel is in modern Spanish¹⁵ obligatory, in cataforic function este is very likely to be used. There are a lot of idioms, most of them build with ese. But in order to contrast in text deictic function between the former and the latter este and aquel form a fixed pair only used in written text traditions.

It may be that the obsession to look for binary oppositions or to think that at the end every contrast has to be limited to a bipolar static model is misleading. A ternary model, which by nature is a dynamic one, represents more adequately the observations. There is no reason to believe that the vast, multicultural, multinational Spanish speaking territory will end up choosing two and the same forms out of the three. People talking and writing use the various forms in different ways, thus continuing with their habitus (Merleau-Ponty 1945, Bourdieu 1972/1976), but at the same time changing it slightly in order to differentiate themselves from the older or otherwise specified social groups.

While speaking and writing are by their nature creative activities, not only frames but also smaller details of linguistic practices embedded in broader forms of interaction are changed over time. In the case of the demonstratives where neither of the forms is stigmatized they are likely to be changed unconsciously. More studies with a broader sample taken from different places in Spain and in other Spanish speaking countries will throw further light on this interesting question, provided the text traditions which guide the understanding are respected.

Bibliography

Alonso, Martin (1962), Evolucion sintactica del Espanol. Sintaxis historica del español desde el iberromano hasta nuestro dias. Madrid (Aguilar).

Alonso, Martin (1968), Gramatica del español contemporaneo, Madrid (Guadarrame).

Antos, Gerd (1996), Laien-Linguistik. Studien zu Sprach- und Kommunikationsproblemen im Alltag, Tübingen (Niemeyer).

Auer, J.C. Peter (1981), Zur indexikalitätsmarkierenden Funktion der demonstrativen Artikelform in deutschen Konversationen, in: Hindelang, Götz/Zillig, Werner (eds.), Sprache: Verstehen und Handeln, Vol. 2, Tübingen (Niemeyer), 301-310.

Auer, J.C. Peter (1992), Introduction: John Gumperz' Approach to Contextualization, in: Auer, Peter/Luzio, Aldo di, The Contextualization of Language, Amsterdam (Benjamins), 1-37.

Benveniste, Émile (1958/1966), Problèmes de linguistique générale, besonders Kapitel 21 De la subjectivité dans le langage, Paris (Gallimard).

Berger, Tilman (1993), Das System der tschechischen Demonstrativpronomina, unveröffentlichte Habilitationsschrift, München.

Biber, Douglas (1988), Variation across Speech and Writing, Cambridge (CUP).

Biber, Douglas (1998), Corpus Linguistics, Cambridge (CUP).

Bourdieu, Pierre (1972/1976), Entwurf einer Theorie der Praxis, Frankfurt a.M. (Suhrkamp).

Bühler, Karl (1934/1965/1982) Sprachtheorie - Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart (G. Fischer), transl. by Donald Fraser Goodwin, Theory of Language, Amsterdam (Benjamins) 1990.

Câmara Jr., Joaquim Mattoso (1971), Uma evolução em marcha: a relação entre êste e êsse, in: Coseriu, Eugenio/Stemple, Wolf-Dieter (eds.), Sprache und Geschichte. Festschrift für Harri Meier, München (Fink), 327-331.

Caspers, Johanneke (ms, 1999): Experiments on the meaning of four types of single-accent intonation patterns in Dutch, Leiden.

Castilho, Ataliba Teixeira de (1993), Os mostrativos no português falado, in: Castilho, Ataliba Teixeira de (ed.), Gramática do português falado, III, Campinas (Unicamp), 119-148.

Cheshire, Jenny (1996), That jacksprat: An interactional perspective on English that, in: Journal of Pragmatics 25, 369-393.

Cheshire, Jenny (1997), Involvement in 'standard' and 'nonstandard' English, In: Cheshire, Jenny/Stein, Dieter, Taming the vernacular, Harlow (Longman), 68-82.

Clark, Herbert (1996), Using Language, Cambridge (CUP).

Clark, Herbert / Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna (1986) Refering as a collaborative process, in: Cognition, 22, 1-39.

Collinson, William Edward (1937/1966), Indication. A Study of Demonstratives, Articles, and other 'Indicaters', New York (Kraus Reprint).

Coseriu, Eugenio (1955), Determinacíon y entorno: dos problemas de una lingüística del hablar, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 7, 29-54, übersetzt 1975: Determinierung und Umfeld. Zwei Probleme einer Linguistik des Sprechens, in: Eugenio Coseriu 1975, 253-290.

Coseriu, Eugenio (1975), Sprachtheorie und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, München (Fink).

Coseriu, Eugenio (1988a), Sprachkompetenz. Grundzüge der Theorie des Sprechens, Tübingen (Francke).

Coseriu, Eugenio (1988b), Einführung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Tübingen (Francke).

Croft, William (1990), Typology and universals. Cambridge (CUP).

Diessel, Holger (1999), Demonstratives. Form, function and grammaticalization, Amsterdam (Benjamins).

Diewald, Gabriele (1991), Deixis und Textsorten im Deutschen, Tübingen (Niemeyer).

Eguren, Luis J. (1999), Pronombres y adverbios demostrativos. Las relaciones deícticas, in: Bosque, Ignacio/Demonte, Violeta (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española 1. Sintaxis básica de las clases de palabras, Madrid (Espasa), 930-972.

Elias, Norbert (1939/1976), Über den Prozeß der Zivilisation, Frankfurt a.M. (Suhrkamp).

Elias, Norbert (1986/⁴1995), Lexikoneintrag "Figuration", in: Schäfers, Bernhard (ed.), Grundbegriffe der Soziologie, Opladen (Leske+Budrich), 75-78.

Fillmore, Charles (1971/1997), Lectures on Deixis, Stanford (SUP).

Gumperz, John (1992) Contextualization revisited, in: Auer, Peter/Luzio, Aldo di, The Contextualization of Language, Amsterdam (Benjamins), 39-53.

Hanks, William F. (1996), Language form and communicative practices, in: John J. Gumperz, Stephen Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge (CUP), 232-270.

Heinemann, Mechtihild (2000), Handbuchartikel Alltagstexte, in: Brinker Klaus et al. (eds.), Textlingusitik, HSK 16.1, Berlin (de Gruyter), 604-614.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (1997), Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase, Tübingen (Niemeyer)

Hottenroth, Priska (1982), The System of Local Deixis in Spanish, in: Weissenborn, Jürgen/Klein, Wolfgang (eds.), Here and There. Cross-linguistics Studies on Deixis and Demonstration, Amsterdam (Benjamins), 133-153.

Huerta, Eleazar (1967), La mostración y lo consabido, in: Carrillo Herrera, Gastón (ed.), Lengua, Literatura, Folklore, Chile (Universidad de Chile), 227-231.

Juilland, Alphonse/Chang-Rodríguez, Eugenio. (1964), Frecuency Dictionary of Spanish Words, London (Mouton) = FDSW

Jungbluth, Konstanze (1998), O uso dos pronomes demonstrativos em textos semi-orais: o caso dos folhetos nordestinos do Brasil, in: Große, Sibylle/Zimmermann, Klaus (eds.), "Substandard" e mudança no português do Brasil, Frankfurt a.M. (TFM) 1998: 329-355.

Jungbluth, Konstanze (forthcoming), Der Gebrauch von Deiktika in alltäglichen Handlungszusammenhängen. Bericht einer Feldstudie aus der Provinz Toledo, in: Jungbluth, Konstanze/Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte (eds.), Deixis – universelle und einzelsprachliche Aspekte

Jungbluth, Konstanze (forthcoming), Variação do sistema deictico nas línguas românicas

Jungbluth, Konstanze (forthcoming), Deictics in the Dyad of Conversation. Findings of Romance Languages.

Keenan, Edward (1976), The logical diversity of natural languages, in: Harnad, S./Steklis, H./Lancaster, J. (eds.), Origins and Evolutions of Language and Speech, New York (Academy of Science), 73-92.

Klein, Wolfgang (1978), Wo ist hier? Präliminarien zu einer Untersuchung der lokalen Deixis, in: Linguistische Berichte 58,18-40.

Koch, Peter (1997), Diskurstraditionen: zu ihrem sprachtheoretischen Status und ihrer Dynamik, in: Barbara Frank / Thomas Haye / Doris Tophinke (eds.): Gattungen mittelalterlicher Schriftlichkeit, Tübingen (Narr), 43-79.

Koch, Peter/Oesterreicher, Wulf (1985), Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36, 15-43.

Koch, Peter/Oesterreicher, Wulf (1990), Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch , Tübingen (Niemeyer).

Kock, Josse de (1988), Este, ese y aquel en el español escrito, in: Pedro Peira /Pablo Jauralde/Jesús Sánchez Lobato/Jorge Urrutia, Historia de la lengua: el español contemporáneo, homenaje a Alonso Zamora Vicente, vol. I, Madrid (Castalia), 411-424.

Krenn, Monika (1985), Probleme der Diskursanalyse im Englischen, Tübingen (Narr).

Lavric, Eva (1995), Aquellos misteriosos demostrativos pospuestos, in: Peter Cichon, Friederike Hassauer, Georg Kremnitz, Pablo Martínez (eds.): Actas de las Primeras Jornadas de Hispanistas en Austria. (Wien, 19-20 de mayo 1995) Wien (Edition Praesens), 106-113.

Lavric, Eva (1997), 'Ese reino movible' – Spanische, französische und deutsche Demonstrativa, in: Wotjak, Gerd (ed.), Studien zum romanisch-deutschen und innerromanischen Sprachvergleich, Frankfurt a.M. (Peter Lang), 515-543.

Lavric, Eva (forthcoming), Logische Formeln für Demonstrativa Bedeutungen. Relevante Teilmengen des Diskursuniversums, in: Jungbluth, Konstanze/Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte (eds.), Deixis – universelle und einzelsprachliche Aspekte

Lehmann, Christian (1985), Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change, in: Lingua e Stile 20, 303-318.

Lenz, Freidrich (1997), Diskursdeixis im Englischen, Tübingen (Niemeyer).

Marcos-Marín, Francisco A. et al (not dated), Corpus de Referencia de la Lengua Española Contemporánea: Corpus Oral Peninsular, Madrid (Universidad Autónoma) [http://www.lllf.uam.es/~fmarcos/informes/corpus/corpulee.html]

Melchers, Gunnel (1997) This, that, yon: on 'Three-Dimensional' Deictic Systems, in: Jenny Cheshire/Dieter Stein(eds.): Taming the Vernacular: From Dialect to Written Standard Language, Harlow (Addison Wesley Longman), 83-92.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1945), Phénoménologie de la Perception, Paris (Gallimard).

Oesterreicher, Wulf (1995), Konvergenz und Divergenz in den romanischen Sprachen, Tübingen, Narr.

Rauh, Gisa (1983), Essays on Deixis, Tübingen (Narr).

Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte (1983), Traditionen des Sprechens, Stuttgart (Kohlhammer).

Söll, Ludwig (1974), Gesprochenes und geschriebenes Französisch, Berlin.

Stehl, Thomas (1988), Les concepts de continuum et de gradatum dans la linguistique variationnelle, in: Kremer, Dieter, Actes du XVIII^e Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, Vol. V, Tübingen (Niemeyer), 28-40.

Stehl, Thomas (1996), Dialektgenerationen, Dialektfunktionen, Sprachwandel, Tübingen (Niemeyer).

Stetter, Christian (1999), Der Käfer in der Schachtel: Die Universalgrammatik und das Privatsprachensproblem, in: LiLi 115, 37-66.

Tannen, Deborah (1989), Talking voices: repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse, Cambridge (CUP).

Weissenborn, Jarvella/Klein, Wolfgang (1982), Introduction to: Here and there. Cross-linguistic studies on deixis and demonstration, New York (Benjamins), 1-12.

Wilkins, David (1999): Spatial Deixis in Arrernte Speech and Gesture, www.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/~deixis/reader

Wilkins, David (forthcoming), Why pointing with the index finger is not a universal, in: Kita, S., Pointing: Where language, cognition and culture meet.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1945,101995), Philosophische Untersuchungen Teil I, Frankfurt a.M. (Suhrkamp), 225-485.

Notes