Abstract

In this paper I study semantic and pragmatic properties of elevational demonstratives by means of a typological investigation of 50 languages with elevational demonstratives from all across the globe. The four basic verticality values expressed by elevational demonstratives are UP, DOWN, LEVEL, and ACROSS. They can be ordered along the elevational hierarchy (UP/DOWN > LEVEL/ACROSS), which reflects cross-linguistic tendencies in the expression of these values by demonstratives. Elevational values are frequently co-expressed with distance-based meanings of demonstratives, and it is almost always distal demonstratives that express elevation, whereas medial or proximal demonstratives can lack elevational distinctions. This means that elevational demonstratives largely refer to areas outside the peripersonal sphere in a similar way as simple distal demonstratives. In the proximal domain, fine grained semantic distinctions such as those encoded by elevational demonstratives are superfluous since this domain is accessible to the interlocutors who in the default case of a normal conversation are located in close proximity to each other. I then discuss metaphorical extensions of elevational demonstratives to non-spatial uses such as temporal and social deixis. There are a few languages in which elevational demonstratives with the meaning UP express the temporal meaning future, whereas the DOWN demonstratives encode past. This finding is particularly interesting in view of the widely-debated use of Mandarin Chinese spatial terms ‘up’ for past events and ‘down’ for future events, which show the opposite metaphorical extension. I finally examine areal tendencies and potential correlations between elevational demonstratives and the geographical location of speech communities in mountainous areas such as the Himalayas, the Papuan Highlands and the Caucasus. I tentatively conclude that languages spoken in similar topographic environments do not tend to have similar systems of elevational demonstratives if they belong to different language families.

Highlights

  • The expression of space in grammars of natural languages is ubiquitous and ‘spatial language’ has been investigated for decades within many different linguistic subdisciplines and by means of various approaches and frameworks

  • In (6), I introduced the basic terms for verticality values. These values can be ordered along the elevational hierarchy that reflects cross-linguistic frequency of occurrence (23): (23) UP/DOWN > LEVEL/ACROSS

  • I did not find any language with both LEVEL and ACROSS elevational demonstratives, so these two values seem to exclude each other

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The expression of space in grammars of natural languages is ubiquitous and ‘spatial language’ has been investigated for decades within many different linguistic subdisciplines and by means of various approaches and frameworks. Elevational meanings have repeatedly been grouped together with grammatical items that refer to salient landmarks (e.g., ‘seawards’/‘landwards,’ ‘upriver’/‘downriver’). Such systems have been called ‘environmental space deixis’ (Bickel, 1997), ‘spatial coordinate systems’ (Burenhult, 2008) or ‘topographical deixis’ (Post, 2011). From a number of surveys, we can conclude that demonstratives expressing elevational distinctions are cross-linguistically not extremely common and not extremely rare, but we lack detailed comparative studies (e.g., Hyslop, 1993; Ebert, 1994; Diessel, 1999; Dixon, 2003; Post, 2011, 2017; Schapper, 2014; Aikhenvald, 2015; Breunesse, 2019)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call