Kogi Demonstratives and Engagement

Abstract

While demonstratives typically signal aspects of the spatial configuration of speech act participants and objects in the speech situation, intersubjective parameters, such as the attentional state of the interlocutor, have recently gained importance in the analysis of such forms. Several systems have been described in which the use of certain forms is conditioned by shared vs. non-shared attention towards a referent. Phenomena of this kind have recently been considered under the notion of ‘engagement’, i.e. the expression of a speaker’s assumptions about the knowledge or attention of their interlocutor (Evans et al. 2018a, b).The present study contributes to the ongoing investigation of engagement by a descriptive account of demonstratives in Kogi (Chibchan). It is argued that the use of certain (ad)nominal forms that were initially associated with addressee proximity cannot be accounted for in merely spatial terms. The paper proposes a novel analysis in terms of engagement and shows that the forms apply when a referent is in the attention of, or is known to both interlocutors. Evidence in support of this comes from elicited data as well as an interactive matching game in which attentional states of participants can be observed.

A conceptual framework for the study of demonstrative reference

“…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;.…”

Language classification, language contact and Andean prehistory: The North

“…The Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in northernmost Colombia is the domain of the Arhuacan branch of Chibchan (not to be confused with the Arawakan language family), including Ika (Arwako, Bintukua) [arhu1242], Kogi (Cogui, Kágaba, Köggaba) [cogu1240], Kankuamo (Atanque, Atanques) [kank1244] and Wiwa (Malayo, Damana) [mala1522]. Current documentation projects are increasing our understanding of these languages significantly (Bergqvist, 2012, 2016; Knuchel, 2016, 2019). To the south of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, another Chibchan language, Chimila (Ette) [chim1309] is spoken, and yet another language of the family, Barí [bari1297] (Quesada, 2006; see García Rodríguez, 2014; Mosonyi, 2014 on community‐based documentation and education), is found to the southeast in the Sierra de Perijá and the adjacent lowlands.…”