Abstract
Scholars are divided on whether the Speaker’s (S’) choice of spatial demonstratives in verbal interaction is ego-centric or not. We studied the choice of “zhe (here)/ na (there)” by a Mandarin S instructing Hearer (H) from a few to dozens of meters. Using within-group and between-group experiments in a picture-description paradigm, we found that both S- and H- distance (Ds and Dh) to the Referent constantly influence S’ demonstrative choice, and the social relation as a variable (Relation) between S and H also exerts some influence. Our findings support the idea that spatial reference in verbal interaction is somewhat non-egocentric.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berti, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2000). When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(3), 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900562237
Bonfiglioli, C., Finocchiaro, C., Gesierich, B., Rositani, F., & Vescovi, M. (2009). A kinematic approach to the conceptual representations of this and that. Cognition, 111(2), 270–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.006.
Burigo, M., & Coventry, K. (2010). Context affects scale selection for proximity terms. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 10(4), 292–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/13875861003797719
Chu, C., & Minai, U. (2018). Children’s demonstrative comprehension and the role of non-linguistic cognitive abilities: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(6), 1343–1368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9565-8
Clark, E. V., & Sengul, C. J. (1978). Strategies in the acquisition of deixis. Journal of Child Language, 5(3), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900002099.
Cléry, J., Guipponi, O., Wardak, C., & Ben Hamed, S. (2015). Neuronal bases of peripersonal and extrapersonal spaces, their plasticity and their dynamics: Knowns and unknowns. Neuropsychologia, 70, 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.10.022
Coventry, K. R., Griffiths, D., & Hamilton, C. J. (2014). Spatial demonstratives and perceptual space: Describing and remembering object location. Cognitive Psychology, 69, 46–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.12.001
Coventry, K. R., Valdés, B., Castillo, A., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2008). Language within your reach: Near–far perceptual space and spatial demonstratives. Cognition, 108(3), 889–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.010.
Diessel, H. (1999). Demonstratives: form, function and grammaticalization. John Benjamins
Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015.
Diessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25(2), 108–127.
Diessel, H. (2014). Demonstratives, frames of reference, and semantic universals of space. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(3), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12066.
Diessel, H., & Coventry, K. R. (2020). Demonstratives in spatial language and social interaction: an interdisciplinary review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.555265
Glover, K. D. (2000). Proximal and distal deixis in negotiation talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(7), 915–926. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00078-8.
Halligan, P. W., & Marshall, J. C. (1991). Left neglect for near but not far space in man. Nature, 350(6318), 498–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/350498a0.
Hanks, W. F. (2009). Fieldwork on deixis. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.003.
Jungbluth, K. (2003). Deictics in the conversational dyad: Findings in spanish and some cross-linguistic outlines. In F. Lenz (Ed.), Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person (pp. 13–40). John Benjamins.
Iachini, T., Coello, Y., Frassinetti, F., & Ruggiero, G. (2014). Body space in social interactions: A comparison of reaching and comfort distance in immersive virtual reality. Plos One, 9(11), e111511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111511
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Lo, S., & Andrews, S. (2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171.
Lü, S. (1984). Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci “800 words in Modern Chinese”. Shangwu Chubanshe “Commercial Publishing House”.
Imai, S. (2003). Spatial deixis [ phd. New York: The State University of New York at Buffalo].
Kasaba, R., Shimada, K., & Tomoda, A. (2021). Neural mechanisms of parental communicative adjustments in spoken language. Neuroscience, 457, 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.12.002
Kemmerer, D. (2006). The semantics of space: integrating linguistic typology and cognitive neuroscience. Neuropsychologia, 44(9), 1607–1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.01.025.
Kesselring, T., & Müller, U. (2011). The concept of egocentrism in the context of Piaget’s theory. New Ideas in Psychology, 29(3), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.008.
Kingsley, Z. G. (1949). Human behavior and the Principle of least effort: An introduction to Human Ecology. Addison-Wesley Press.
Küntay, A. C., & Özyürek, A. (2006). Learning to use demonstratives in conversation: What do language-specific strategies in turkish reveal? Journal of Child Language, 33(2), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007380
Maes, A., & De Rooij, C. (2007). (How) do demonstratives code distance? DAARC 2007, Centro Linguistica da Universidade de Porto. https://www.scopus.com/record/display.urieid=2-s20-84892497964&origin=inward
Meira, S. (2003). ‘addressee effects’ in demonstrative systems: the cases of Tiriyó and brazilian portuguese. In F. Lenz (Ed.), Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person (pp. 3–12). John Benjamins.
Meira, S., & Guirardello-Damian, R. (2018). Brazilian Portuguese: non-contrastive exophoric use of demonstratives in the spoken language. In S. C. Levinson, S. Cutfield, M. Dunn, N. Enfield, & S. Meira (Eds.), Demonstratives in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 116–133). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333818.006.
Mesh, K., Cruz, E., van de Weijer, J., Burenhult, N., & Gullberg, M. (2021). Effects of scale on multimodal Deixis: Evidence from Quiahije Chatino. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 584231. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584231
Peeters, D., Hagoort, P., & Özyürek, A. (2015). Electrophysiological evidence for the role of shared space in online comprehension of spatial demonstratives. Cognition, 136, 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.010.
Peeters, D., Krahmer, E., & Maes, A. (2021). A conceptual framework for the study of demonstrative reference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(2), 409–433. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01822-8.
Peeters, D., & Özyürek, A. (2016). This and that revisited: A social and multimodal approach to spatial demonstratives. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00222
Piaget, J. (1926). Language and Thought of the child (3rd Edn). Routledge.
Piwek, P., Beun, R., & Cremers, A. (2008). ‘proximal’ and ‘distal’ in language and cognition: evidence from deictic demonstratives in dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4), 694–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.001.
Reile, M., Averin, K., & Põldver, N. (2020). Interpreting estonian demonstratives: The effects of referent’s distance and visual salience. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.553226
Rocca, R., Tylén, K., & Wallentin, M. (2019a). This shoe, that tiger: semantic properties reflecting manual affordances of the referent modulate demonstrative use. Plos One, 14(1), e210333. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210333.
Rocca, R., Wallentin, M., Vesper, C., & Tylén, K. (2019). This is for you: Social modulations of proximal vs. distal space in collaborative interaction Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51134-8
Rubio-Fernandez, P. (2020). Pragmatic markers: The missing link between language and theory of mind. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02768-z.
Stevens, J., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Relative distance and gaze in the use of entity-referring spatial demonstratives: An event-related potential study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.02.005
Stevens, J., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Brain mechanisms for processing co-speech gesture: A cross-language study of spatial demonstratives. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 30, 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2014.03.003
Tao, H. (1999). The grammar of demonstratives in Mandarin conversational discourse: A case study. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 27(1), 69–103.
Teneggi, C., Canzoneri, E., di Pellegrino, G., & Serino, A. (2013). Social modulation of peripersonal space boundaries. Current Biology, 23(5), 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.043
Wilkins, D. (1999). Demonstrative questionnaire: “THIS” and “THAT” in comparative perspective. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 1–24). Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. https://doi.org/10.17617/2.2573775.
Winter, B. (2019). Statistics for linguists: an introduction using R. Routledge.
Xu, X., & Zhou, R. (2009). The influence of pointing distance and pointing mode on the choice of spatial demonstratives. Modern Foreign Language, 32(04), 408–414.
Xu, X., & Zhou, R. (2010). The influence of self-touch and other-touch situations on the choice of spatial demonstratives. Journal of Foreign Languages, 33(03), 17–22.
Xu, Z., & Min, R. (1992). A study on the acquisition of personal pronouns by chinese-speaking children. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 04, 337–345.
Zhao, Y. (2007). Children’s Acquisition of Demonstrative Pronouns in Mandarin Chinese, The 21st Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation. Seoul. 532–541. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/Y07-1055.pdf
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Yunqi Wang for helping us with the experiment design, and all the anonymous reviewers for their sharp insights and constructive comments. We take the responsibilities for any remaining errors in the paper.
Funding
Our work was supported by the China National Social Sciences Foundation under Grant 19BYY013 and the China Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant ZJU2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional/ national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. (Attached please find the translation of our online instruction page which all our participants read and acknowledged their informed consent by clicking “next page” to move on to the main body of the test.)
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained by all individuals in this study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Yue, M., Sun, B. Choice of Mandarin Spatial Demonstratives in Distant Interaction. J Psycholinguist Res 52, 763–785 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09927-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09927-y