2. Deictics in the conversational dyad

A conceptual framework for the study of demonstrative reference

“…Moreover, in the absence of a broader conversational context in which the use of the demonstratives takes place, interlocutors may have no means to jointly construe at a psychological level what they consider their shared space. In naturally occurring situations such as those observed by Jungbluth (2003), the opposite is true. Interlocutors may prefer to use demonstratives in such a way that these align with the jointly (verbally and nonverbally) construed distinction between the psychologically shared space within the conversational dyad versus any dyadexternal location.…”

“…An explanation for these divergent result patterns may be found in the fact that the relative locations of the different referents, as typically indicated on the table by coloured dots (see Fig. 3) in such experimental studies using the 'memory Jungbluth (2003), in naturally occurring communication, the Spanish 'proximal' demonstrative form este is dominant in reference to entities inside the face-to-face conversational dyad formed by speaker ('S') and addressee ('A'). Hence, even a referent ('R') that is located physically close to the addressee and outside the peripersonal space of the speaker (but inside the dyad) would predominantly invite the speaker to use the 'proximal' demonstrative form este in face-to-face conversations game' paradigm, are highly salient to the experimental participants.…”

“…It is well established that language users typically take into account the presumed cognitive status of a referent in the addressee's situation model when using a referring expression in general (e.g., Chafe, 1976;Evans, Bergqvist, & San Roque, 2018;Gundel et al, 1993;Prince, 1981b) and when producing a communicative pointing gesture (Cleret de Langavant et al, 2011;Liu et al, 2019;Oosterwijk et al, 2017;Peeters et al, 2013;Winner et al, 2019). Important considerations for the speaker when selecting a demonstrative form may be whether the referent is in joint attention between speaker and addressee or not (Brown & Levinson, 2018;Burenhult, 2003;Evans et al, 2018;Herrmann, 2018;Knuchel, 2019;Küntay & Özyürek, 2006;Meira, 2018;Peeters, Azar, & Özyürek, 2014;Skarabela, Allen, & Scott-Phillips, 2013;Stevens & Zhang, 2013), whether it is considered perceptually, socially, and/or cognitively accessible to the addressee (Burenhult, 2008;Hanks, 2009;Jarbou, 2010;Piwek et al, 2008), and whether it can be considered in the psychologically construed shared space, the current interactional space, or within or outside the interlocutors' conceptually defined 'here-space' (Cutfield, 2018;Enfield, 2003Enfield, , 2018Jungbluth, 2003;Levinson, 2018;Meira & Guirardello-Damian, 2018;Opalka, 1982;.…”

“…In the World Atlas of Language Structures, the Spanish demonstrative system is described as containing a three-term 'proximal' (este)-'medial' (ese)-'distal' (aquel) distance contrast (Diessel, 2013). Jungbluth (2003), in her in-depth analysis of the Spanish demonstrative system, emphasizes that speakers and addressees when talking to each other in face-to-face situations typically "treat their shared conversational space as uniform. Everything inside the conversational dyad is treated as proximal without any further differentiation" (Jungbluth, 2003, p. 19).…”

“…Figure 4 illustrates the presumed 'default' situation of naturally occurring communication by speakers of Spanish. Here, we follow Jungbluth (2003) in assuming that, by definition, Spanish interlocutors aim to jointly construe a shared space and keep track of whether a referent is located inside the psychologically shared space or not (Shin et al, 2020). They adapt their choice of demonstrative form accordingly, and may even use a specific demonstrative form to indicate whether they consider a referent to be located inside the assumed shared space or not (Jungbluth, 2003;Shin et al, 2020).…”