600

Tth Enik: Gestural demonstratives in English: an experiment

Argumentum 10 (2014), 600-610
Debreceni Egyetemi Kiad

Tth Enik

Gestural demonstratives in English: an experiment*

Abstract
This paper examines various hypotheses regarding the choice of English proximal and distal gestural
demonstratives in an experimental framework. Using the so called scripted dialogue technique it is shown that
there is a significant difference between the choice of demonstratives depending on the nature of context (noncontrastive vs. contrastive). In non-contrastive contexts distance plays a crucial role, but in contrastive contexts the
pattern of demonstratives changes, i.e. in contrastive contexts distance as a factor competes with some other factor.
Keywords: deixis, proximal and distal demonstratives, distance, context

Introduction

The aim of this paper1 is to explore the use of demonstratives in English, more specifically
those uses of demonstratives where some sort of extra-linguistic gesture is present. Recent
studies have shown that deictic references are not only often accompanied by a pointing
gesture, but it can also be argued that referring acts are incomplete without some act of
indicating (Schegloff 1984, Clark & Bangerter 2004). This paper presents the results of a
production experiment, where a scripted dialogue in a furniture shop scenario has been used
to elicit data from British English native speakers in order to gain new insights regarding the
factors influencing the choice of gestural demonstratives in English.

Deixis and demonstratives

2.1 Deixis
The term deixis refers to a class of linguistic expressions that are used to indicate elements of
the situational and/or discourse context, including the speech participants and the time and
location of the current speech event (Diessel 2012: 2408). Deixis is an intriguing linguistic
phenomenon at the semantics/pragmatics interface, it is extremely widespread in everyday
speech. Demonstrative systems form a central issue within studies on deixis. Demonstrative
*

This paper has been written in honour of Pter Pelyvs, who sparked my interest in the fields of semantics
and pragmatics.

This research has been supported by the project registered to the University of Debrecen (RH/885/2013.,
13.22).

601
Tth Enik: Gestural demonstratives in English: an experiment
Argumentum 10 (2014), 600-610
Debreceni Egyetemi Kiad

noun phrases appear very early in the course of language acquisition and it is reasonable to
assume that demonstratives may have emerged very early in the evolution of human language
(Diessel 2012, 2013).
Demonstratives are true language universals, they can be found across all languages. In
English this, these are called proximals, whereas that, those are labelled as distals. The terms
themselves are based on the traditional view, namely, proximals tend to refer to things that are
relatively close in space, while distals refer to things that are not so close, depending on the
speakers point of view (Fillmore 1971/1997, OKeeffe et al. 2011). Recently the traditional
view has been challenged by various authors and it has been argued that the traditional
analysis of demonstratives is not always adequate to characterize the meaning and use of
demonstratives (see Enfield 2003, Levinson 2004, Piwek et al. 2008, Sidnell 2009). It has also
been assumed that other factors may play an essential role in the choice of demonstratives.
For instance, Piwek et al.s (2008) work on Dutch proposed accessibility as a basic factor
influencing the choice of demonstratives. The experiment to be presented here tested the role
of three factors in the choice of English gestural demonstratives: distance, accessibility and
contrastiveness in linguistic contexts.

2.2 Different types of demonstratives

The term demonstrative may refer to a noun phrase containing a demonstrative
(this/that/these/those) functioning as a determiner (e.g. this book) or to a pronoun constituting
a full NP. I will follow Levinsons (2004) and OKeeffe et al.s (2011) taxonomy of different
uses of demonstratives, hence deictic and non-deictic uses of demonstratives will be
differentiated. In the case of deictic uses the demonstrative refers directly to the extralinguistic physical context, and the meaning of the demonstrative can be derived only through
some contextual clues. The deictic usage of that is illustrated by the following example:
(1)

That just threw an acorn at me.

(Chung, 2011: 2)

When uttering (1) the speaker is referring to a squirrel on a nearby tree, the utterance is
accompanied by a pointing gesture, which indicates that the speaker is referring to an entity
that is available in the physical context.
If a demonstrative does not refer directly to the extra-linguistic context, its use is labelled
as non-deictic. The non-deictic use of that is illustrated by (2); here the demonstrative refers
to an NP in the previous sentence. It is an example of discourse anaphora:
(2)

The cowboy entered. This man was not someone to mess with.

(Levinson 2004: 108)

Within deictic cases, a further distinction can be made between gestural and symbolic uses (see
Levinson 2004, Piwek et al. 2008, OKeeffe et al. 2011). Gestural demonstratives are
accompanied by a gesture,2 while symbolic demonstratives are not. Compare (3), where in order
to interpret this city the addressee does not need an accompanying gesture, with (1) above.
(3)

I enjoy living in this city.

The term gesture is used here to cover not only pointing gestures, but changes in gaze direction or body
posture, too.

602
Tth Enik: Gestural demonstratives in English: an experiment
Argumentum 10 (2014), 600-610
Debreceni Egyetemi Kiad

Gestural demonstratives may be treated as prototypical cases of demonstratives (Lyons 1977,

Schegloff 1984, Clark & Bangerter 2004), and accordingly, gesturals are in the scope of the
following analysis. Levinson (2004) divides gestural uses into two subcategories,
differentiating contrastive and non-contrastive uses. While (1) above is non-contrastive, (4) is
contrastive:
(4)

I broke this tooth first and then that one next.

(Levinson 2004: 108)

In order to explore the various factors that might influence the choice of gestural
demonstratives in English I carried out the experiment described below.

The experiment

3.1 Overview
As mentioned earlier, traditional studies of deixis often explain the use of demonstratives in
terms of relative distance from the speaker. The goal of the present experiment was to revisit
the traditional view and to test the assumption that other cognitive factors may also play an
essential role in the choice of gestural demonstratives. As a starting point the following view
of communication was considered. In order to communicate, speaker and hearer must realize
that their partner views the situation from a different perspective. Hence, throughout the
communicative process the perspective of the other person must be constantly adopted (see
Clark & Bangerter 2004, Diessel 2006). Speakers may try to refer to a given object, and
pointing serves as a means to help the addressee locate the referent, but a successful referring
act requires a joint focus of attention from the speaker and addressee. As Clark & Bangerter
(2004) remark, a crucial feature of indicating, which includes pointing, is that speakers get
their addressees to focus attention on individual objects (Clark & Bangerter 2004: 42).
Based on these background assumptions and adopting Luz and van der Sluiss (2011)
experimental methodology, a production study was carried out.3 In neutral, i.e. noncontrastive contexts the role of two factors distance and accessibility was explored. In
order to investigate the use of contrastive and non-contrastive gestural demonstratives (see
Levinson 2004), the use of demonstratives in contrastive and neutral contexts was compared.
The relevant notions will be defined as follows.
Distance as a factor is usually left unspecified in the relevant literature. However, in order
to be able to test distance as a factor in a more exact manner I wanted to provide at least a
working definition of distance. Relying on Kemmerers (1999) findings and Wilkins et al.s
(2007) guidelines it can be stated that in a communicative setting, where a joint focus of
attention is established, near space is more or less within arms reach and far space expands
outward from that boundary.4 Hence, entities located within the boundaries of the oval in
Figure 1 were considered to be close to the speaker.
With respect to the second factor, Kahneman (2003) notes that there is no unique
theoretical account of accessibility. A number of authors have analysed the role of
accessibility in discourse, see for instance Ariel (2001), but the scope of the term has not been

3
4

In the study described here perception issues were not considered.

Coventry et al. (2008) showed that near space is extendable when a tool (a 70 cm stick) is used to point at
objects to be named.

603
Tth Enik: Gestural demonstratives in English: an experiment
Argumentum 10 (2014), 600-610
Debreceni Egyetemi Kiad

extended to physical contexts of communication. For that reason accessibility as a working

notion will be defined as follows:

Figure 1: Entities located close to the speaker in the furniture shop scenario

Accessibility:
an entity is associated with low accessibility if, according to the speakers assessment, the
addressee is invited to consider it to be new or unexpected, i.e. an effort is required on the part
of the addressee to identify the referent;
an entity is associated with high accessibility if it is already known to the addressee, i.e. it is
in the focus of joint attention of the speaker and the addressee.
The last factor, contrastiveness, is defined with the following components:
Contrastiveness in:
- physical context: no conditions;
- linguistic context: contrastiveness is explicitly indicated linguistically, for instance by
choosing a lexical item with a contrastive sense, such as prefer, or a coordinating
conjunction with a contrastive sense, e.g. but, or a sentence containing a focus or a
contrastive topic;
- epistemic context: the entities contrasted are highly accessible and they compete to be
highlighted by the speaker;
- social context: not relevant.
Contexts satisfying these conditions will be labelled as contrastive, while contexts that do not
satisfy the definition above are treated as neutral. Thus, (4) above and (5) are contrastive
contexts:
(5)

Most people seem to prefer this wallpaper to that one.

Relying on the factors defined above, in neutral contexts two hypotheses were to be tested:
Hypothesis 1 (distance):
In neutral (i.e. non-contrastive) contexts gestural proximal demonstratives are selected by
speakers to refer to entities that are near to the speaker, while gestural distal demonstratives
are preferred by speakers to refer to entities that are further away.

604
Tth Enik: Gestural demonstratives in English: an experiment
Argumentum 10 (2014), 600-610
Debreceni Egyetemi Kiad

Hypothesis 2 (accessibility):
In neutral (i.e. non-contrastive) contexts gestural proximal demonstratives are selected by
speakers to refer to entities that are associated with low accessibility, while gestural distal
demonstratives are selected to refer to entities associated with high accessibility (see Piwek et
al. 2008: 710, Strauss 2002: 135).
Turning to contrastive contexts I wanted to examine whether the nature of the context
influences the choice of gestural demonstratives or not. In contrastive contexts the referents
are highlighted as competing entities. For this reason I expected that in contrastive contexts,
when distance is constant (near), the frequency of demonstratives selected will change. Those
contexts where the entities talked about are far from the speaker could not be tested by this
method, since all factors would trigger the choice of distals. 5 Hence, the third hypothesis
concerning the choice of demonstratives in neutral vs. contrastive contexts is the following:
Hypothesis 3 (contrastiveness):
The pattern of gestural demonstratives selected is different in neutral and in contrastive
contexts.
In order to test these hypotheses I carried out an experiment, which is described below.

3.2 Materials and methods

27 adult native speakers of British English participated in the experiment, their average age
was 38. The subjects were selected via snowball sampling, there were 16 male (59 per cent)
and 11 female (41 per cent) participants. I adopted Luz & van der Sluiss (2011) experimental
method; namely, subjects read a scripted dialogue in a furniture shop setting between the
seller (female) and a buyer (male). Their task was to choose between different demonstrative
expressions in a multiple choice online test.6 A screenshot from the test is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: A screenshot from the test

5

Those cases where one of the entities is near and the other is far cannot be tested in this framework, either.
Consider the example below:
This one (here) is bigger than that one (over there).
(Diessel 2012: 2419)
In each case a pointing gesture on the part of the speaker was assumed. This was always explicitly indicated
in the text.

605
Tth Enik: Gestural demonstratives in English: an experiment
Argumentum 10 (2014), 600-610
Debreceni Egyetemi Kiad

The dialogue comprised 18 questions:7

4-4 questions tested Hypothesis 1 (distance), accessibility was equally distributed:
questions 1, 8, 11, 14 and 3, 6, 15, 17
4-4 questions tested Hypothesis 2 (accessibility), distance was kept constant: questions 3,
8, 11, 17 and 1, 6, 14, 15
4-4 questions tested Hypothesis 3 (contrastiveness), distance: near, accessibility: high):
questions 2, 9, 10, 13 and 1, 8, 11, 14
6 questions served as fillers: questions 4, 5, 7, 12, 16, 18
The furniture shop scenario contained 31 objects; out of these 5 were distractors. Objects
considered to be near and far were equal in number.

3.3 Results
The results of the test and the characteristics of the individual questions are shown in Table 1.
Question

Characteristics

Nr.

Results
Proximals

Distals

neutral, near, low accessibility

10

17

contrastive, near

18

neutral, far, high accessibility

11

16

neutral, far, low accessibility

24

neutral, near, high accessibility

19

contrastive, near

22

10

contrastive, near

17

10

11

neutral, near, high accessibility

19

13

contrastive, near

11

16

14

neutral, near, low accessibility

21

15

neutral, far, low accessibility

22

17

neutral, far, high accessibility

23

Table 1: Results and characteristics (question numbers are the same as in the test, fillers have been omitted)

The test is available at the link below:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1SwjvrVVUG4_WlP1pqoAOVKGCuS3-QKaQ4ZK603iHhEo/viewform?usp=send_form

606
Tth Enik: Gestural demonstratives in English: an experiment
Argumentum 10 (2014), 600-610
Debreceni Egyetemi Kiad

The data were analysed with the help of chi-square statistics. Regarding distance, in neutral
contexts there is a significant difference between near and far entities and the choice of
demonstratives (proximal vs. distal), hence the predictions of Hypothesis 1 (distance) are
borne out. (2(1) = 23.45, p < 0.01) The distribution of gestural demonstratives with respect to
distance is shown in Figure 3. Turning to accessibility in neutral contexts, there is no
significant difference, thus, Hypothesis 2 (accessibility) is rejected. (2(1) = 0.48, p = 0.49).
Finally, the choice of gestural demonstratives was compared in neutral and contrastive
contexts. Using the chi-square test again, it was shown that there is a significant difference
between the choice of proximals and distals depending on the nature of context, (2(1) = 4.59, p
< 0.05), hence, the predictions of Hypothesis 3 (contrastiveness) are borne out , there must be a
relation between the choice of gestural proximals and distals and the type of context (see Figure
4).

Figure 3: Distribution of gestural demonstratives over distance in English

Figure 4: Distribution of gestural demonstratives in contrastive and neutral contexts

607
Tth Enik: Gestural demonstratives in English: an experiment
Argumentum 10 (2014), 600-610
Debreceni Egyetemi Kiad

Discussion

Based on the results of the experiment above it seems to be the case that in neutral contexts
distance is indeed an important factor; Hypothesis 1 (distance) adequately captures the choice
of gestural demonstratives in neutral contexts. These findings agree, on the one hand, with
Luz and van der Sluiss (2011) results concerning English, Dutch and Portuguese in a similar
experimental setting; and, on the other hand, with Coventry et al.s (2008) results for English
and Spanish in a different setting. Though quite a lot of studies have criticised and tried to
replace distance as a decisive factor, the experiment reported here reinforces the basic role of
distance. A closer look at Figure 3 reveals an interesting phenomenon, i.e. when the entity
being referred to is close to the speaker, the number of proximal and distal demonstratives
selected is almost equal. Moreover, if we examine the relevant questions, it turns out that in
the case of question 1 and 11 even more distals are selected in neutral contexts, though the
entities are close to the speaker. These data then seemingly contradict Hypothesis 1 (distance).
Levinson (2004) argues that the choice of this always indicates some kind of proximity, but
that is semantically unmarked with respect to distance. Diessel (2012) even argues that in
non-contrastive situations this and that are often interchangeable [], suggesting that they do
not carry an inherent distance feature (Diessel 2012: 2419). Those questions where the
entities were far from the speaker yielded more uniform results, in each case more distals than
proximals were selected (questions 3, 6, 15, 17). Hence the role of distance as a decisive
factor is more convincing in those cases where the entities talked about are far from the
speaker. Those cases where the entities are close to the speaker will be discussed in a more
detailed fashion later on.
Hypothesis 2 (accessibility) is rejected, the choice of gestural proximals versus gestural
distals is not dependent upon the accessibility of the referent in neutral contexts. In a different
experimental setting I have shown that accessibility does not influence the choice of gestural
demonstratives in Hungarian, either (Tth 2013, 2014). Hence, accessibility seems to be a
weak factor, if a factor at all; it cannot explain the use of gestural demonstratives. The
weakness of accessibility may be illustrated by the results obtained for question 8 (19
proximals, 8 distals). In this case distance and accessibility predict different patterns for the
choice of demonstratives; hence, if accessibility were a strong factor, more distals would have
been selected.
Results concerning accessibility are controversial in the literature: Piwek et al. (2008)
accepts the same hypothesis for Dutch in a controlled dialogue game setting, while Jarbou
(2010) argues that in spoken Arabic just the opposite holds (his results are based on
observations of naturally occurring speech). Many authors note that the notion of accessibility
is not well-defined (see Burenhult 2003, Hanks 2009). Hence, further studies should be
carried out that are based on a more exact notion of accessibility, at least within an
experimental framework.
Turning to the final hypothesis, it has been shown that in contrastive contexts, where the
referent is highly accessible and close to the speaker, there is a significant difference in the
choice of demonstratives; namely, distals are preferred even if the entity being referred to is
close to the speaker (see Figure 4). This challenges distance as a crucial factor influencing the
choice of demonstratives in contrastive contexts. Since accessibility is constant and moreover,
it was rejected as a factor in neutral contexts, it cannot play a role here.
Question 10 is problematic from this point of view, since it is the only question where
distance is stronger than the contrastive nature of the context. Question 10 is presented below
as (6):

608
Tth Enik: Gestural demonstratives in English: an experiment
Argumentum 10 (2014), 600-610
Debreceni Egyetemi Kiad

(6)

Shop assistant: Im afraid that there are only five left of that type. But what about the
other type? From those coloured ones / From these coloured ones weve got six left.
(she is pointing at the lamps) Arent they suitable after all?
Buyer: OK.

In (6) the demonstrative may receive both a non-deictic and a deictic interpretation, more
specifically, either an anaphoric or a contrastive interpretation is available, which may have
influenced the results. In the contrastive case the number of distals should be significantly
higher than that of proximals. Here 17 proximals and 10 distals were selected, which indicates
that perhaps distance is the dominant factor here. The entities talked about are indeed very
close to the speaker.
Contrastive contexts are frequently mentioned in the relevant literature on deixis, as
illustrated by the examples cited below. However, to the best of my knowledge such contexts
have never been compared to neutral contexts and they have not been examined in an
experimental framework before.
(7)

(8)

(9)

a.
b.
c.
d.

I like this better than that.

I like this painting better than that painting.
I like those better than these.
I like those paintings better than these paintings.

(Pointing at two sample plates in a china shop):

These are over at the warehouse, but those I have in stock here.
This speck is smaller than that speck.

(10) This planet is smaller than that planet.

(Walter 2009: 451)

(Walter 2009: 454)

(Talmy 2000: 25)
(Talmy 2000: 25)

It was Levinson (2004) who introduced the contrastive, non-contrastive distinction within the
category of gestural uses, when he pointed out that the use of demonstratives may bring into
existence a new focus of attention or signal a contrast between two referents that have been
introduced into the conversation earlier (consider examples (7) and (8)). Fortis and Fagard
(2010) note that relative distance is not only a matter of physical proximity (see the difference
between example (9) and (10) above). Hence, further studies are required to explore the
relation and interplay between distance and nature of context as factors influencing the choice
of gestural demonstratives.

Summary

Experimental data seem to be helpful in differentiating and specifying the factors influencing
the choice of gestural demonstratives in English. There is a significant difference between the
choice of demonstratives depending on the nature of context (neutral vs. contrastive). In
neutral contexts distance plays a crucial role, while accessibility as a determining factor has
been ruled out. In contrastive contexts, where the referents are highly accessible and close to
the speaker, distals are preferred, i.e. distance alone cannot explain the emerging pattern.
It is left for future research to explore languages that fall into different typological
categories, to examine other uses of demonstratives (such as symbolic and non-deictic uses).

609
Tth Enik: Gestural demonstratives in English: an experiment
Argumentum 10 (2014), 600-610
Debreceni Egyetemi Kiad

Further experiments are called for to explore the interdependence of individual factors,
moreover, other potential factors (such as salience) should also be examined.

References
Ariel, M. (2001): Accessibility theory: an overview. In: Sanders, T., Schilperoord, J. &
Spooren, W. (eds.): Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29-87.
Burenhult, N. (2003): Attention, accessibility, and the addressee: the case of the Jahai
demonstrative ton. Pragmatics 13(3/4), 363-379.
Chung, K.G. (2011): Usage of Demonstratives. Ms. Accessed 18 January, 2013.
https://linguistics.stonybrook.edu/files/undergrad_theses/chung.pdf
Clark, H.H. & Bangerter, A. (2004): Changing conceptions of reference. In: Noveck, I. &
Sperber, D. (eds.): Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan,
25-49.
Coventry, K.R., Valds, B., Castillo, A. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2008): Language within your
reach: near-far perceptual space and spatial demonstratives. Cognition 108, 889-895.
Diessel, H. (2006): Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive
Linguistics 17(4), 463-489.
Diessel, H. (2012): Deixis and demonstratives. In: Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K. &
Portner, P. (eds.): An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Vol. 3.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2407-2431.
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.
Enfield, N. (2003): Demonstratives in space and interaction: data from Lao speakers and
implications for semantic analysis. Language 79(1), 82-117.
Fortis, J. & Fagard, B. (2010): Space and language. Part V. Deixis. Ms. Typologisches
Forschungskolloquium, Institute for Linguistics, University of Leipzig, Leipzig. Accessed
07 August, 2013.
http://htl.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/fortis/leipzig/5.DEIXIS.pdf
Fillmore, C.J. (1971): Towards a Theory of Deixis. The PCCLLU Papers 3.4 Hawaii:
Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii. Reprinted Fillmore, C.J. (1997): Lectures
On Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Hanks, W.F. (2009): Fieldwork on deixis. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 10-24.
Jarbou, S.O. (2010): Accessibility vs. physical proximity: an analysis of deictic demonstrative
practice in spoken Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 3078-3097.
Kahneman, D. (2003): A perspective on judgement and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
American Psychologist 58.9, 697-720.
Kemmerer, D. (1999): Near and far in language and perception. Cognition 73, 35-63.

610
Tth Enik: Gestural demonstratives in English: an experiment
Argumentum 10 (2014), 600-610
Debreceni Egyetemi Kiad

Levinson, S.C. (2004): Deixis. In: Horn, L.R. & Ward, G.: The Handbook of Pragmatics.
Oxford: Blackwell, 97-121.
Luz, S. & Van der Sluis, I. (2011): Production of demonstratives in Dutch, English and
Portuguese dialogues. In: Gardent, C. & Striegnitz, K. (eds.): Proceedings of the 13th
European Workshop on Natural Language Generation. Stroudsburg: Association for
Computational Linguistics, 181-186. Accessed October 01, 2013.
https://www.scss.tcd.ie/~luzs/publications/LuzVanDerSluis11pdden.pdf
Lyons, J. (1977): Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OKeeffe, A., Clancy, B. & Adolphs, S. (2011): Introducing Pragmatics in Use. New York:
Rutledge.
Piwek, P., Beun, R. & Cremers, A. (2008): Proximal and distal in language and cognition:
evidence from deictic demonstratives in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 694-718.
Schegloff, E. A. (1984): On some gestures relation to talk. In: Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J.
(eds.): Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 266-298.
Sidnell, J. (2009): Deixis. In: Verschueren, J. & stman, J. (eds.): Key Notions for
Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 114-138.
Strauss, S. (2002): This, that, and it in spoken American English: a demonstrative system of
gradient focus. Language Sciences 24, 131-152.
Talmy, L. (2000): Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1. Concept Structuring Systems.
Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Tth, E. (2013): A fnvi mutat nvmsok deiktikus hasznlata a magyar s az angol
nyelvben [On the deictic use of demonstratives in Hungarian and English]. Argumentum 9,
311-320.
Tth, E. (2014): A fnvi mutat nvmsok indexiklis hasznlatrl egy ksrlet kapcsn
[The indexical use of demonstratives: an experiment]. In: MANYE XXIII. Nyelv
Trsadalom Kultra. Interkulturlis s multikulturlis perspektvk [Language Society
Culture. Intercultural and multicultural perspectives]. In press.
Wilkins, D., Kita, S., & Enfield, N. (2007): Ethnography of pointing field workers guide.
In: Majid, A. (ed.): Field Manual Vol. 10. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for
Psycholinguistics, 89-95.
Wolter, L. (2009): Demonstratives in philosophy and linguistics. Philosophy Compass 4/3,
451-468.
Enik Tth
University of Debrecen
Institute of English and American Studies
Department of English Linguistics
[email protected]