The Interplay between Joint Attention, Physical Proximity, and Pointing Gesture in Demonstrative Choice

The Interplay between Joint Attention, Physical Proximity, and Pointing Gesture in Demonstrative Choice David Peeters (david.peeters@mpi.nl) Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands International Max Planck Research School for Language Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Radboud University, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Zeynep Azar (zeynep.azar@mpi.nl) Radboud University, Center for Language Studies, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Asli Ozyurek (asli.ozyurek@mpi.nl) Radboud University, Center for Language Studies, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Abstract A fundamental property of language is that it allows us to establish triadic joint attention to a referent, for instance by the use of spatial demonstratives. Traditional accounts of demonstrative choice focused on the physical proximity of the referent to the interlocutors. However, recent work taking into account the multimodal context in which spatial demonstrative use is generally embedded shows that such accounts are too simplistic. Using a controlled elicitation task, we here tested the differential roles of visual joint attention, physical proximity of a referent, and use of a pointing gesture in demonstrative choice in Dutch. It was found that ‘proximal’ demonstratives were used in a speaker-anchored way to refer to objects nearby the speaker. ‘Distal’ demonstratives were used for referents not nearby the speaker, but also in an addressee-anchored way, i.e. when the referent was in the addressee’s focus of visual attention. Pointing gestures were closely tied to demonstratives but not to the use of (in)definite articles. These findings show that demonstrative choice is dependent on a subtle interplay between different context-dependent factors as a function of both speaker- and addressee-anchored perspectives. Findings are discussed in terms of demonstrative systems and multimodal reference production in general. Keywords: Spatial Demonstratives; Deixis; Joint Attention; Reference; Pointing Gesture Introduction Establishing triadic joint attention to a referent is a very basic human communicative ability (Carpenter, Nagell, & Tomasello, 1998) and a common way to do so is by using a linguistic referring expression, often combined with a manual pointing gesture and a shift of gaze (Bakeman & Adamson, 1984; Clark & Bangerter, 2004; Diessel, 1999). In everyday spoken interaction, people often refer to objects in the extra-linguistic physical surroundings of a conversation (i.e. exophorically) by using demonstrative pronouns and determiners (henceforth: demonstratives) such as this and that (in English) in their speech. Most languages contain more than one demonstrative type (Diessel, 2005), which implies that people have to choose among different options when using a demonstrative. Traditional accounts of demonstrative reference are spatialist in nature. Generally they take the relative proximity of a referent to the speaker as a fundamental criterion in demonstrative choice (e.g., Anderson & Keenan, 1985; Halliday & Hasan, 1977; Lyons, 1977, inter alia). Such proximity-based accounts argue that one would select a proximal demonstrative to refer to an object that is physically relatively nearby, and a distal demonstrative to refer to an object that is relatively far away. This speaker-anchored proximity-based view is omnipresent in reference grammars (Diessel, 2005) and recent experimental studies provide partial support (e.g., Coventry et al., 2008; Stevens & Zhang, 2013). However, more and more evidence accumulates showing that such traditional accounts are too simplistic (e.g., Enfield, 2003; Hanks, 1990; Strauss, 2002). Descriptions of demonstrative systems in different languages from different language families (e.g., Dutch, English, Jahai, Jordanian Arabic, Turkish) suggest that factors related to the locus of visual attention of the addressee and/or the cognitive (rather than physical) accessibility of a referent may play an important role in which demonstrative a speaker chooses (Burenhult, 2003; Jarbou, 2010; Kuntay & Ozyurek, 2006; Piwek et al., 2008; Stevens & Zhang, 2013). Kuntay and Ozyurek (2006), for instance, show that the Turkish demonstrative su is primarily used to shift the visual attention of the addressee when she does not (yet) visually attend to the referent, independent of the relative physical distance of that referent. As such, joint attention between speaker and addressee focused on a referent is not only often the desired outcome of exophoric demonstrative use (Diessel, 1999), but the presence or absence of joint attention to a referent at the moment a referring expression is instantiated may also drive the choice for a particular demonstrative over another. In general, being able to monitor and follow the gaze of an interlocutor is indeed a pivotal communicative skill and often a prerequisite for successful communication (e.g., Bakeman & Adamson,