Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T12:37:55.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where does language come from? Some reflections on the role of deictic gesture and demonstratives in the evolution of language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Holger Diessel
Holger Diessel*
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Institut für Anglistik, Ernst-Abbe-Platz 8, 07743 Jena, Germany. E-mail: holger.diessel@uni-jena.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper considers Arbib's hypothesis that (oral) language has its roots in gesture in light of recent research on demonstratives, joint attention, and deictic pointing (Michael Arbib. 2012. How the brain got language: The Mirror System Hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press). It is argued that demonstratives provide an important link between gesture, discourse, and grammar that rests on their communicative function to coordinate the interlocutors' focus of attention. Combining evidence from linguistic typology and historical linguistics with evidence from research on social cognition, the paper argues that demonstratives constitute a universal class of linguistic expressions that are commonly used in combination with a deictic pointing gesture to establish joint attention, a cognitive phenomenon that is closely related to Arbib's notion of “complex imitation”. No other class of linguistic expressions is so closely tied to the speaker's body and gesture than demonstratives. However, demonstratives are not only used to focus the language users' attention on concrete entities in the surrounding situation, they are also used to organize the information flow in discourse, which in turn underlies their frequent development into a wide range of grammatical markers, e.g. definite articles, third person pronouns, relative markers, complementizers, subordinate conjunctions, copulas, and focus markers. In this way, demonstratives provide an explicit link between gesture, imitation, and grammar that is consistent with Arbib's theory of the evolution of language.

Keywords

demonstrativedeixisjoint attentiongrammaticalizationevolution of language
Type
The perspective from linguistics
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 5 , Issue 2-3: Special Issue , September 2013 , pp. 239 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2013

References

Bates, E., Camaioni, L. & Voltera, V.. 1976. The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. Merrill-Palmer Quaterly 21. 205–226.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Bretherton, I. & Snyder, L.. 1979. From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brugmann, K. 1904. Demonstrativpronomina der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
Butterworth, G. 1998. What is special about pointing in babies? In Simion, F. & Butterworth, G. (eds.), The development of sensory, motor and cognitive capacities in early infancy. From perception to cognition, 171–190. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Camaioni, L., Perucchini, P. & Bellagamba, P.. 2004. The role of declarative pointing in developing a theory of mind. Infancy 5. 291–308.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M., Nagell, K. & Tomasello, M.. 1998. Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, E.V. 1978. From gesture to word: On the natural history of deixis in language acquisition. In Bruner, J. S. & Garton, A. F. (eds.), Human growth and development, 85–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 1999a. Demonstratives. Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 1999b. The morphosyntax of demonstratives in synchrony and diachrony. Linguistic Typology 3. 1–49.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2003. The relationship between demonstratives and interrogatives. Studies in Language 27. 581–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. 2005. Distance contrasts in demonstratives. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D. & Comrie, B. (eds.), World atlas of linguistic structures, 170–173. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17. 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. 2011. Review article of Language, usage and cognition by J. Bybee. Language 87. 830–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. 2012a. Deixis and demonstratives. In Maienborn, C., Heusinger, K. v. & Portner, P. (eds.), An international handbook of natural language meaning, 1–25. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2012b. Buehler's two-field theory of pointing and naming and the deictic origins of grammatical morphemes. In Breban, T., Brems, L., Davidse, K. & Mortelmans, T. (eds.), New perspectives on grammaticalization: Theoretical understanding and empirical description, 35–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2003. Demonstratives. A cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language 27. 61–122.Google Scholar
Eilan, N., Hoerl, C., McCormack, T. & Roessler, J.. 2005. (eds.), Joint attention: Communication and other minds issues in philosophy and psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eriksson, M. 2008. Referring as interaction: On the interplay between linguistic and bodily practices. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 240–262.Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. C.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429–48.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T.. 2007. The genesis of grammar. A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. I, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Iverson, J. M. & Goldin-Meadow, S.. 2005. Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological Science 16. 367–371.Google Scholar
Kemmerer, D. 1999. “Near” and “far” in language and perception. Cognition 73. 35–63.Google Scholar
Kita, S. 2003. Pointing. A foundational building block of human communication. In Kita, S. (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 1–8. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Koenig, E. 2012. Le role des déictiques de manrière dans le cadre d'une typologie de la deixis. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 107. 11–42.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2004. Deixis and pragmatic. In Horn, L. & Ward, G. (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lizskowski, U., Carpenter, M., Henning, A., Striano, T. & Tomasello, M.. 2004. 12-month-olds point to share attention and interest. Developmental Science 7. 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. 1987. The grammatical nature and discourse power of demonstratives. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 184–194.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language. A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Call, J.. 1997. Primate cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar