Perceptual Features in Ticuna Demonstratives

Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ......

. Perceptual features in Ticuna demonstratives .

Amalia Skilton

University of California, Berkeley

Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas • January 5, 2018

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ......

Section 1

Why study demonstratives?

...... Diversity: Number of demonstratives (Ticuna: 6, English: 2) Morphological and syntactic properties Semantic contrasts

Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Why study demonstratives?

Universals: All languages have demonstratives (Diessel 1999:2) Key (spoken) language tool for joint attention Syntactic/semantic reflex of embodiment

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Why study demonstratives?

Universals: All languages have demonstratives (Diessel 1999:2) Key (spoken) language tool for joint attention Syntactic/semantic reflex of embodiment Diversity: Number of demonstratives (Ticuna: 6, English: 2) Morphological and syntactic properties Semantic contrasts

...... Traditional analysis: Exophoric Demonstratives = Space. Distance from speaker or addressee Location relative to speaker in absolute frame of reference (e.g. uphill/downhill) (Fillmore 1973; Lyons 1977; Anderson and Keenan 1985; Diessel 1999)

Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... What do demonstratives mean?

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... What do demonstratives mean?

Preliminary: Demonstratives have two major categories of uses, endophoric and exophoric. Exophoric: Dem picks out referent from surround of discourse. Endophoric: Dem picks out referent from set of referents introduced in discourse. Traditional analysis: Exophoric Demonstratives = Space. Distance from speaker or addressee Location relative to speaker in absolute frame of reference (e.g. uphill/downhill) (Fillmore 1973; Lyons 1977; Anderson and Keenan 1985; Diessel 1999)

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Problem: Visibility

Many languages are said to have visibility contrasts in exophoric demonstratives or deictic determiners. My current list: 34 languages with explicit visibility claims in published sources 23/34 in Americas But also 7 Austronesian languages (van Kranenburg 2016) Problem: Visibility is not a function of distance/location in absolute space. (Recognized since at least Anderson and Keenan 1985; Diessel 1999)

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Problem: Visibility

It's hard to know how seriously to take visibility. Some authors skeptical that visibility contrasts exist at all Most empirical studies with visibility claims don't go into detail Even with details, hard to distinguish visibility from other indexical meaning components (Enfield 2003:96) Visibility entails: direct evidentiality Visibility is implicated by: identifiability/strong epistemic modality (Levinson 2004:192)

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Goals of this talk

I will argue that: 3 of the exophoric nominal demonstratives of Ticuna (a language of Peru, Brazil, and Colombia) have a perceptual component. The perceptual component conveys the speaker's mode of perceptual/sensory access to the referent. The perceptual component is encoded. In support of the position that: Exophoric deictics can encode perceptual and cognitive/attentional features, not just spatial ones. (Hanks 2011; Peeters and Özyürek 2016)

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Roadmap

Background on Ticuna language, data, and demonstrative system in general Perceptual features exist Perceptual features are encoded Conclude

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... The Ticuna language

Isolate/orphan (Carvalho 2009) spoken by 41,500-69,000 people in Colombia, Brazil, and Peru At least 3 identifiable dialect groups (Montes 2004)

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Fieldwork

Data in this talk: from 8 months of my own fieldwork in Cushillococha/Caballococha, Loreto, Peru, 2015-2017 Cushillococha is a titled Ticuna community Caballococha is a multiethnic town The towns are one continuous populated area, pop. ∼15,000 Most people who live in Cushillococha are dominant in Ticuna No claims here about varieties spoken in other towns. No prior work about semantics or pragmatics in any variety of Ticuna.

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Field methods

Five kinds of data: 1. Wilkins (1999) demonstrative questionnaire -- set up arrays, ask for demonstratives; consultant is in context. (8 speakers) 2. Semantic elicitation per Matthewson (2004); consultant imagines context (5 speakers) 3. Staged discourses (e.g. monolingual interviews), audio- and video-recorded 4. Spontaneous discourses (e.g. conversations), audio- and video-recorded 5. Overheard speech Elicitation was monolingual and bilingual (with Spanish)

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... The nominal demonstrative inventory

Ticuna has 5 semantically based noun classes. All nominal demonstratives agree for noun class with the noun that they modify/replace. Numbers represent lexical tones.

Table : Nominal Demonstrative Inventory Lexical Item Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Series 1 da³¹-ʔe² da²-a² da³¹-a¹ ɲa⁴-a² ɲa⁴³-a² Series 2 ɟi³¹-ʔe² ɟi²-a⁴ ɟi³¹-a¹ ŋe³-a² ŋe⁴³-a² Series 3 gu³¹-ʔe² gu²-a⁴ gu³¹-a¹ ɟe⁴-a² ɟe⁴³-a² Series 4 DNE do²-ma⁴ do³¹-ma² ɲo⁴-ma⁴ DNE Series 5 ɟi³¹-ʔe²ma⁴ ɟi²-ma⁴ ɟi³¹-ma² ŋe³-ma² ŋe⁴-ma² Series 6 gu³¹-ʔe²ma⁴ gu²-ma⁴ gu³¹-ma² ɟe⁴-ma⁴ ɟe⁴-ma²

I refer to demonstratives with the Class IV form: 'Series 1 ɲa⁴a²'

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Nominal demonstrative uses

Only some of the demonstratives can be used in exophoric reference to individuals: Series 1, 2, 3, and 5.

Table : Nominal Demonstrative Uses

Lexical Item Uses Series 1 ɲa⁴a² exophoric to individuals Series 2 ŋe³a² exophoric to individuals Series 3 ɟe⁴a² exophoric to individuals Series 4 ɲo⁴ma⁴ exophoric to time periods and regions of space Series 5 ŋe³ma² exophoric and endophoric to individuals Series 6 ɟe⁴ma⁴ endophoric to individuals (remote past temporal meaning)

I will ignore Series 4 and 6 here: Series 4 not for individuals,

...... Series 6 only endophoric ...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Spatial meaning components

All of the exophoric demonstratives have at least one use with a spatial component. Lexical Item Spatial Component Series 1 ɲa⁴a² Immediate to speaker (body part, on body, handling, in reach) Series 2 ŋe³a² Inside perimeter with speaker Series 3 ɟe⁴a² Distal to speaker Series 5 has two exophoric uses: Addressee-Centered Use: Immediate to addressee Invisible Use: No spatial component

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ......

Section 3

Perceptual meanings exist

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Evidence for perceptual meanings

Suppose morpheme X conveys visual mode of access. X could be a predicate marker (visual evidential) or an argument one (visible demonstrative or determiner). Predictions: It should be bad in all contexts to use X in talking about entities that can never be seen (necessarily invisible). Sounds, smells, tastes, body sensations... For entities that can be seen (contingently invisible), acceptability of X should depend on context If X is rejected for necessarily invisible entities, strong evidence it conveys specifically visual mode of access.

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Evidence for perceptual meanings

Series 2 and 3 display the predicted properties: Always bad for necessarily invisible referents Other referents: Good if speaker sees referent at moment of speech Bad otherwise (i.e. also bad if contingently invisible) Series 1 is more complicated Bad for necessarily invisible referents, but not as bad Good for some contingently invisible referents

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 2 and 3: Bad for necessarily invisible entities

(1) Context: You and I notice a bad smell on the breeze. You tell me it is the smell of gasoline. We cannot see any gasoline stain or container of gasoline. #ŋe³a² / #ɟe⁴a² / ŋe³ma² pa³¹a¹ne³ʔɨ̃⁴ rɨ¹ gasolina=e¹ma³ ni⁴¹ʔĩ⁴.

#ŋe³a² / #ɟe⁴a² / ŋe³ma² Ø= #dnom2(IV) / #dnom3(IV) / dnom5(IV) 3.a.sc= pa⁴³ =a¹ne¹ =ʔɨ̃⁴ rɨ¹ gasolina +e¹ma³ issue.smell(A) =areal.sbj =nmlz(IV) top Sp:gasoline +vapor ni⁴¹= ĩ⁴ 3.i= cop(I)

'That smell, it's gasoline vapors.' (DGG 2017.2.82)

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 2 and 3: Bad for necessarily invisible entities

Judgments on (1): 4/4 consultants volunteered Series 5 ŋe³ma² 4/4 consultants rejected Series 2 ŋe³a² 3/4 consultants rejected Series 3 ɟe⁴a²; 1/4 accepted

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 2 and 3: Bad for necessarily invisible entities

(2) Context: We hear a recorded song playing at the neighbor's place. We cannot see the radio that is playing the song. You tell me you like the song. #ŋe³a² / #ɟe⁴a² / ŋe³ma² wi³ɟa³e³ i⁴ ŋe⁵ma² nɨ³¹ʔɨ̃³ tʃa¹ʔĩ³nɨ²ʔɨ̃⁴ rɨ¹ tʃo³¹ʔrɨ³ me⁴³ ni⁴¹ʔĩ⁴

#ŋe³a² / #ɟe⁴a² / ŋe³ma² wi³ɟa³e³ i⁴ #dnom2(IV) / #dnom3(IV) / dnom5(IV) song(IV) det(IV) ŋe⁵ma² nɨ³¹ =ʔɨ̃³ tʃa¹= ĩ³nɨ² =ʔɨ̃⁴ rɨ¹ dloc5:all 3 =acc 1sg.a= hear(A) =nmlz(IV) top tʃo³¹ʔrɨ³ me⁴³ ni⁴¹= ĩ⁴ 1sg.al.poss good(noun) 3.i= cop(I) 'That song that I hear there, I like it.' (LWG 2017.2.86)

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 2 and 3: Bad for necessarily invisible entities

Judgments on (2): 3/5 consultants volunteered Series 5 ŋe³ma²; 2/5 accepted 5/5 consultants rejected Series 2 ŋe³a² 4/5 consultants rejected Series 3 ɟe⁴a²; 1/5 accepted

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... What (1) and (2) are not

The anomaly in (1) and (2) is: Not morphosyntactic Not due to spatial features Not due to epistemic modality Not due to a general direct/indirect evidential contrast Conclusion: Anomaly reflects perceptual features = Series 2 and 3 require visual mode of access.

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 2 and 3: Bad for contingently invisible entities

There are 5/25 scenes of Wilkins (1999) where the referent is invisible to the speaker: scenes 1, 11, 15, 18, and 25. Referents were baskets, pots, etc. Speaker knows where referent is but doesn't perceive it via any sense (contingently invisible) Series 2 and 3 bad in all of these scenes: never volunteered, usually rejected.

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ......

Wilkins (1999) Scene- 1------

THE 25' DEMONSTRATIVE SCENES

1. SPKR Speakerda³¹a¹ points tʃo¹pɨ¹ta¹ to own body"part. rɨ¹ na⁴ŋṵ¹ In this case one of hislher teeth. " __da³¹a¹ tooth hurts."tʃo¹ ''The+pɨ¹ta¹ ball hit merɨ¹ on na⁴= ŋṵ¹ __- . . dnom1(III) 1sg +tooth(III) top 3.a= hurt(A) • Does close pointing versus touching make a difference? .', • Does'This it make tooth a difference of mine, if Addr it hurts.' (DGG: already has attention on tooth vs. attention2017.1.163) being drawn? [In some languages teeth are more · alienable body parts, so you may also want to try fingers, hands, shoulders.]

2. Spkr points to Addr's body part. In this SPKR ADDR case one of Addr' s teeth. "Did you know _ too,th is chipped?" "Your right, __ tooth is yellow." ...... • Does close pointing versus .touching...... make a difference? ...... • Does it make a difference if Addr already has attention on tooth vs. attention being drawn? [In some cultures, index finger pointing at someone else is impolite. Check whether there is any natural form of indexical reference for this situation.] 3. Spkr notices a movable object in . SPKR contact with hislher body. In this case, a bug on hislher shoulder. "_ bug is bothering me." • Does it make a difference, if spkr' s attention has just gone to bug, or has .been on it for a while? • Does it make a difference if Addr already has attention on bug vs. attention being drawn? '

4. SPKR ADDR Spkr points to movable object in contact with addr's body. In this case a bug on Addr's shoulder. "Look at __ bug on your shoulder." "What kind of bug is ?" • Does degree of closeness of point to referent make a difference? • Does it make a difference if Addr already has attention on bug vs. attention being drawn? 5

9. SPKR ADDR The referent is just in front of. Addr, and visible to Spkr (but not within Spkr's reach). . "Is _'_ your book/radio?" "I like book/radio." "Do you want to borrow _ book?" • Does it make a difference if Addr already has attention on object vs. attention being drawn? • Must Spkr point?

10. SPKR ADDR The referent is just beside Addr (within easy reach), on side away from Spkr. The object is difficult, if not impossible for Spkr to see, but Spkr knows where object is. "Is __ your book/radio?" "I like book/radio." "Do you want to borrow _ book?" • Does it make a difference if Addr already has attention on object vs. Introduction Background Percept meanings exist attentionPercept meanings being are encoded drawn?Conclusions References ...... • Must...... Spkr point?. . . Wilkins (1999) Scene 11 • What if object was more visible?

11. da²a² pa³ne⁴ra¹Referent rɨ¹ḛ̃¹ʔna⁵ object ku³¹rɨ³ is just ni⁴¹ʔĩ⁴ behind the Spkr. ADDR The Addr is at some distance away, but da²a² pa³ne⁴ra¹ rɨ¹ḛ̃¹ʔna⁵ ku³¹rɨ³ dnom1(II)canmetal.pot(II) readilyalt see object2sg.al.poss (although it is ni⁴¹= ĩ⁴ well out of arm's reach). The Spkr 3.i= cop(I)knows where the object is; even if she/he cannot see it. The Spkr never 'Is this pot, turns yours?' to look (ECG: at 2017.2.45) the object. . "Is __ your book/radio?" "I like book/radio." "Do you want to borrow _ book?" • Does it make a difference if the Spkr points or not? • Must Spkr point? • Does it make a difference if object has SPKR been mentioned before? ...... • Does it .make...... a.. difference...... if.. Addr.. .. already has attention on object vs. attention being drawn? Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Wilkins (1999) Scene 15

15 .. SPKR ADDR. Spkr and Addr are sitting next to each otherku³¹rɨ³ at one end ni⁴¹ʔĩ⁴of a large cleared i⁴ ŋe³ma² pe⁴ʔtʃi¹ space. The area of the space is about the sizeku³¹rɨ³ of a football field.ni⁴¹= Thereĩ⁴ is i⁴ ŋe³ma² anoth.er person at the other end of the space-facing2sg.al.poss away from3 spkr/addr.i= cop and(I) det(IV) dnom5(IV) the referentpe⁴ʔtʃi¹ is in front of him. The referent is not visible to Spkr/Addr, but the Spkrbasket(IV) knows about object and its location. " __ balllradio is a good one." "I wonder'Is that if _ basketball/radio is yours?' his" (ECP: 2017.1.183) "Did you see _ ball/radio he has?" • Does it make a difference if Addr knows the object is there vs. doesn't know? • Does it make a difference if object has been mentioned before? • Does it make a difference if Spkr does not know of existence of specific object, but conjectures existence from action of other ("He's really getting stuck into __ thing."). • Is pointing natural in this situation? ......

16. SPKR 'Spkr is sitting at one end of a large cleared space, and Addr is sitting at the other. The space is about. the size of a football field. The Spkr has to shout to the Addr. The referent is in front of the Addr, and visible to speaker. " __ ball/radio is a good one." "Is _ ball/radio yours?" • Does it make a difference if Addr already has attention on object vs. attention being drawn? • Is pointing natural? • Does it make a difference if object has been mentioned before?

17. SPKR Spkr is sitting at one end of a large cleared space, and Addr is .sitting at the other. The space is about the size of a football field. The Spkr has to shout to the Addr. The referent is in the center of the space, equidistant from Spkr and Addr. " __ ball/radio is a good one." "Is _ ball/radio yours?" • Does it make a difference if Addr already has attention on object vs. attention being drawn? • Is pointing natural? • Does it make a difference if object has been mentioned before? Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Wilkins (1999) Scene 18

18. SPKR Spkr is sitting at one end of a large clearedŋe³ma² space, and na⁴ʔpa⁴ɨ̃² Addr is sitting rɨ¹ at ku³¹rɨ³the ni⁴¹ʔĩ⁴ other. The space is about the size of a footballŋe³ma² field. The Spkrna⁴ has to shout to the The Addr is facing away fromdnom Spkr and5(IV) the referentdef.poss is in front of him.+ʔpa⁴ɨ̃² The referent is not visible to Spkr, rɨ¹ ku³¹rɨ³ but the Spkr knows about object and its location.+straight.sided.container(IV) top 2sg.al.poss " __ni⁴¹= ball/radioĩ⁴ is a good one." "Is _ ball/radio yours?" • Is 3pointing.i= copstill natural?(I) • Does it make a difference if object has been mentioned before? • Does'That it make bucket, a difference is if Spkr it yours?' does (SSG: not know2017.1.186) of existence of specific object, but conjectures existence from action of Addr? ("What's __ thing your playing with?").

19. Spkr is standing outside a home looking in through window. Addr is at other end of room away from window...... Referent is near window and visible.. to...... Spkr (and Addr). [So object is physically closer to Spkr than Addr.] "Is __ your book/radio?" "I like book/radio." • Does it make a difference if the Spkr points or not? Must Spkr point? • Does it make a difference if object has been mentioned before? • Does it make a difference if Addr AD DR already has attention on object vs. attention being drawn?

20. Spkr and Addr are inside a house looking out of (open) door. They are near the doorway. The referent is just outside of door (near it). The referent is easily reached by both Addr and speaker (and equidistant from both). "I like book/radio." "Who's book/radio is ?" • Does it make a difference .if the Spkr points or not? Must Spkr point? • Does it make a difference if object has been mentioned before? • Does it make a difference if Addr already has attention on object vs. attention being drawn? • Does term change with change in closesness of Spkr/ Addr to door? Closeness of object to door? 10

24. ale space. and next to one another looking out across a river into some hills (several kilometers away). Spkr is pointing to Introduction Background Percept meaningsreferent exist which is visiblePercept up in the meanings hills. are encoded Conclusions References ...... "I've·climbed to black rock." "Have you been to __' cave?" -

SPKR "See __ bicycle." Wilkins (1999) Scene• Does 25it make a difference if Addr already has attention on object vs. attention being drawn? • Does it make a difference if object has been mentioned before? '

25. <::''''-,'''''CL.L''' geograp space. Addrma³rɨ³ next to onenɨ³¹ʔɨ̃³ another looking ku¹dau²ʔɨ̃⁴ out a¹ ɟi³¹ma² ĩ³¹a¹ne¹ acrossa¹ a river Galilea into some hills (several kilometers away). Spkr is pointing to referent which is not visible because -it's inma³rɨ³ the hills nɨ³¹on the=ʔɨ̃³ other side.ku¹= dau² =ʔɨ̃⁴ "I've perfclimbed over3 to= accblack2 sgrock.".a. sc= see(A) =sub SPKR "Have you been to __ cave?" "Youra¹ father madeɟi³¹ma² statue." ĩ³¹a¹ne¹ a¹ Galilea • Does it make a difference if Addr knowsdet the (III)objectdnom is there vs.5(III) doesn'ttown(III) det(III) G know? • Does it make a difference ifobject has been mentioned'Have youbefore? been to that town, Galilea?' • Must(ABS: Spkr point? 2017.2.32)

Some comments on intended parameters of distinction encoded in these scenes It is impossible to present a simple grid of distinctions within which each of these scenes can be fitted. However, the following comments may help the researcher to ...... better understand some of the parameters involved......

• Although there is no fixed order in which scenes should be presented, they have been ordered for the convenience of the researcher. Basically they pass through the various physically and socially determined "distance domains" that are given in Discussion Note #1 in the appendix to this section. That is, the scenes move from Personal Space through Interactional Space through Horne Range Space through Large-Scale (Geographic) Space.

• If we only consider speaker-based then we can identify as many as seven distinct distances at which objects are located: object is body part (scene 1); object is in , contact with body (scene 3); object is within arm's reach of speaker (scenes 6, 7,8); object within easy access (a few steps frorI}. speaker) (scene 12,9,20,22); object tens of meters away (scenes 14, 17,21,23), object 100+ meters away (scenes 13, 15, 16, 18), and object some kilometers away (scenes 24-25).

• A very simj.lar scale also holds if we consider only addressee-based distance (i.e., as many as seven distinct distances obtain): is body part (scene 2); object is in Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 2 and 3: Bad for contingently invisible entities

Table : Consultant responses to Wilkins (1999) scenes with referent invisible to speaker

Scene Best Ser 1 Ser 2 Ser 3 Ser 5 1 Ser 1 ɲa⁴a² Best Degraded Bad Good (8/8) 11 Ser 1 ɲa⁴a² Best Degraded Degraded Unclear (6/8) 15 Ser 5 ŋe³ma² Bad Degraded Degraded Best (6/8) 18 Ser 5 ŋe³ma² Degraded Degraded Degraded Best (8/8) 25 Ser 5 ŋe³ma² Bad Bad Degraded Best (7/8)

...... 'Bad': 7/8 or 8/8 rejected, 'degraded': 4-6/8.. .. rejected...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 2 and 3: Bad for contingently invisible entities

Why is the judgement data on these scenes not binary? It is acceptable to use Series 2 and 3 for a contingently invisible referent if you are in motion toward the referent Part of larger pattern where motion goals treated as immediate for deictic purposes (deictic transposition) May influence speakers to accept Series 2 and 3 even in absence of motion

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 2 and 3: Bad for contingently invisible entities

Why is the volunteered data not binary? 1 trial where speaker did not volunteer a demonstrative 3 trials where speaker volunteered a form with the clitic =ã⁴ma⁴

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 2 and 3 meet =ã⁴ma⁴

The clitic =ã⁴ma⁴ appears on various kinds of constituents besides nominal demonstratives: Locative adjuncts and predicates Other predicates Quantifiers On nominal demonstratives, =ã⁴ma⁴ has two uses: Contrast Licenses use of Series 1-3 demonstrative with contingently invisible referent

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 2/3=ã⁴ma⁴ good with contingently invisible referent

15 .. SPKR ADDR. Spkr and Addr are sitting next to each other at one end of a large cleared space. The area of the space is about the size of(3) a footballɟi²a⁴ã⁴ma⁴ field. There is / gu²a⁴ã⁴ma⁴ pe⁴ʔtʃi¹ rɨ¹ anoth.er person at theku³¹rɨ³ other end ni⁴¹ʔĩ⁴ of the space-facing away from spkr/addr and the referent is in front of him. The referent is not visibleɟi²a⁴ to Spkr/Addr, =ã⁴ma⁴ but / gu²a⁴ the Spkr knows aboutdnom object2(II) and =its ã⁴ma⁴ / dnom2(II) location. " __ balllradio is=ã⁴ma⁴ a good one."pe⁴ʔtʃi¹ rɨ¹ ku³¹rɨ³ "I wonder if _ ball/radio=ã⁴ma⁴ is his"basket(II) top 2sg.al.poss "Did you see _ ball/radio he has?" • Does it make a differenceni⁴¹= ĩ⁴if Addr knows the object is there vs. doesn't know? 3(I)= cop(I) • Does it make a difference if object has been mentioned before?'That basket, is it yours?' • Does it make a difference if Spkr does not know of existenceLWG: of specific 2017.1.172 object, but conjectures existence from action of other ("He's really getting stuck into __ thing."). • Is pointing natural in this situation? ......

Series 1 ɲa⁴a² is not quite like Series 2 ŋe³a² and Series 3 ɟe⁴a²: Series 1 has discourse deictic uses, 2 and 3 don't Series 1 can be used in deixis to time periods, 2 and 3 can't → Not specialized exclusively to exophoric deixis to individuals Another difference from Series 2/3: Perceptual features of Series 1 are not solely about vision.

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 1 bad for necessarily invisible referents

Series 1 is bad in some necessarily invisible contexts, but not in others. Gas example above (1): 4/4 volunteer Series 5 ŋe³ma² 2/4 accept Series 1 ɲa⁴a², but suggest deferred reference 2/4 reject Series 1 But cf. song example above (2): 3/5 volunteer Series 5 ŋe³ma² 2/5 volunteer Series 1 ɲa⁴a², 2/5 reject, 1/5 accepts → However: Conversational examples always have Series 5 (invisible).

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 1 and contingently invisible referents

Series 1 is acceptable for contingently invisible referents if: Referent is part of speaker's body - Wilkins (1999) scene 1 Referent is inside speaker's close personal space - Wilkins (1999) scene 11 Otherwise degraded for contingently invisible referents, even if very close by

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ......

Wilkins (1999) Scene- 1------

THE 25' DEMONSTRATIVE SCENES

1. SPKR Speakerda³¹a¹ points tʃo¹pɨ¹ta¹ to own body"part. rɨ¹ na⁴ŋṵ¹ In this case one of hislher teeth. " __da³¹a¹ tooth hurts."tʃau¹ ''The+pɨ¹ta¹ ball hit me rɨ¹on na⁴= ŋṵ¹ __- . . dnom1(III) 1sg +tooth(III) top 3.a= hurt(A) • Does close pointing versus touching make a difference? .', • Does'This it make tooth a difference of mine, if Addr it hurts.' (DGG: already has attention on tooth vs. attention2017.1.163) being drawn? [In some languages teeth are more · alienable body parts, so you may also want to try fingers, hands, shoulders.]

Can account for acceptability of Series 1 ɲa⁴a² with contingently invisible referents via tactual access Speaker can or does perceive referent via touch Includes both haptic touch and proprioception (awareness of own body) Cf. Hanks (1990:265), Bohnemeyer (2012) on =aʔ vs. =oʔ presentatives in Yucatec Maya

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 1 and contingently invisible referents

Evidence for the tactual access analysis: (4) I am watching 5 boys fish with hook and line off ofa bridge. 4 older boys are on the bridge; a younger boy is running around on the creek bank underneath it. He casts a fishing line into the water. When a fish bites the line, he starts yelling, dɨ¹ʔka⁴, da²a²

dɨ¹ʔka⁴ da²a² pres dnom1(II) 'Hey, here it is!' (OS 2017/06/30) The fish was under the water, strictly invisible, and several meters from the boy; not inside his close personal space. But 4/4 adult speakers agreed: Series 1 da²a²

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Postscript: Series 5

Recall that Series 5 has two uses: Addressee-centered use Not sensitive to perceptual features Invisible use Not sensitive to location in space -- acceptable both for my own teeth and for referents 10+km away Is it a coincidence that addressee-centered and invisible overlap? Conversational data suggests not

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Summary: Perceptual features of Series 1-3 and 5

Speaker sees Speaker can Acceptable demonstratives ref touch ref Yes Yes Ser 1, 2, 3; addressee-centered Series 5 Yes No Ser 1, 2, 3; addressee-centered Series 5 No Yes Ser 1; invisible Series 5 (speaker's body parts) No No Invisible Series 5

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ......

Section 4

Perceptual meanings are encoded

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Status of perceptual meanings

What kind of meaning do the perceptual meanings of demonstratives represent? Entailments Conversational implicatures Other types of content (presuppositions, conventional implicatures) The stakes: Are the perceptual meanings of demonstratives the same as the meaning of open-class sensory words like visible?

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Projection

The perceptual meanings of nominal demonstratives are projective. If a sentence S with a nominal demonstrative is unacceptable for perceptual reasons, then all of the 'family of sentences' related to S are also unacceptable. Negation of S Polar question realization of S Conditional with S as antecedent Possibility modal with S as complement This means the perceptual meanings are not entailments (entailments don't project) or conversational implicatures (calculated from entailments).

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Status of perceptual meanings

Types of projective content (Tonhauser et al. 2013): Classical presuppositions -- existence presupposition of pronouns 'Informative'/'Strong' presuppositions -- implication of =ĩ¹ka⁵ 'only' that prejacent is true Conventional implicatures -- non-restrictive relative clauses; content of definite descriptions; honorifics The visibility meanings are most like conventional implicatures on semantic tests. But they are not exactly like them -- i.e. Series 3 is not just English that + English visible

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Status of perceptual meanings

Two important differences between perceptual meanings and (other) conventional implicatures. Perceptual meanings cannot scope under modals Familiar types of conventional implicatures can Perceptual meanings have rigid temporal interpretation Familiar types of conventional implicatures have contextually determined temporal interpretation

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Scope relative to modals

(5) Regular conventional implicature: Property implication of definite description (with anaphoric demonstrative) can scope under conditional antecedent a. ɲa⁴a² nãĩ³¹ rɨ¹ na⁴do⁴³ʔo⁵tʃi². 'This wood, it's really soft.' b. ku¹na³wãĩ³ʔku²ʔgu², ta²ʔu²ta⁴ma³ na⁴me⁴³ i⁴ ŋe³ma² mɨ³ra³pe³wa¹. ku¹= na³= wãĩ³ʔ -ku² =ʔgu² 2sg.a= 3.obj= cut.sawing(A) =sub -dir:inward:PlO ta²ʔu²ta⁴ma³ na⁴= me⁴³ i⁴ ŋe³ma² mɨ³ra³pe³wa¹ neg+fut 3.a= good(A) det(IV) dnom5(IV) plank(IV)

'If you cut it, the planks will not be useful.' (LWG: 2017.3.180) ...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Scope relative to modals

(6) Perceptual meaning: Cannot scope under conditional antecedent Context: There is a box containing some marbles across the table from you. You cannot see the marbles because the box is closed. ŋẽ⁴ʔgu²ma³ caja tʃi⁴ wa⁴ʔna¹gu², rɨ¹ #gu³¹ʔe² / #ɟi³¹ʔe² pe³tɨ³ka¹ʔɨ̃³ tʃa³dau².

ŋẽ⁴ʔgu²ma³ caja tʃi⁴ Ø= wa⁴ -ʔna¹ =gu², rɨ¹ conn Sp:box cntf 3.sc.rɨ= open(rɨ) -dir:open =sub top #gu³¹ʔe² / #ɟi³¹ʔe² pe³tɨ³ka¹ =ʔɨ̃³ tʃa³= dau² #Dnom3(I) / #dnom2(I) marble(I) =acc 1sg.a= see

Attempted: (If the box were open, I would see thosevisible marbles.) (LWG: 2017.3.154)

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Temporal interpretation

(7) Regular conventional implicature: For property implication of noun phrase, not necessary that UT = time of property Context: All the political leaders in our community decided to become doctors in order to make more money. They will never be in politics again. gu⁵ʔɨ̃⁴ma³ i⁴ a³ḛ̃¹ʔga³kɨ³ rɨ¹ ɲṵ¹ʔma⁵ rɨ¹ du³tu³ru¹ ni⁴¹ʔĩ⁴

gu⁵ʔɨ̃⁴ma³ i⁴ a³ḛ̃¹ʔga³kɨ³ rɨ¹ ɲṵ¹ʔma⁵ rɨ¹ du³tu³ru¹ ni⁴¹= all(IV) det(IV) chief(IV) top now top doctor 3.i= ĩ⁴ cop(I) 'Now all the political leaders are doctors.' (DGG: 2017.3.100) TNP < UT = TT ...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Temporal interpretation

(8) Perceptual meaning: Referent must be visible at UT Context (my actual actions in elicitation): I show you a bag of marbles. You clearly see the marbles in the bag; then I close the bag and place it on the other side of the table from you. #gu³¹ʔe² pe⁴³tɨ³ka³ Bi³tu⁵a¹rɨ³ ti⁴¹ʔĩ⁴.

#gu³¹ʔe² pe⁴³tɨ³ka³ Bi³tu⁵ =a¹rɨ³ ti⁴¹= ĩ⁴ dnom3(I) marble(I) Victoria =al.poss 3.i(I) =cop(I)

Attempted: (Thatvisible marble is Victoria's.) (DGG: 2017.3.177) Tvisibility < UT = TT

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Conclusions: Deixis and Space

Some demonstratives have perceptual features. Series 2 ŋe³a², Series 3 ɟe⁴a²: Speaker sees referent Series 1 ɲa⁴a²: Speaker sees or can touch referent The perceptual features are not reducible to literal 'visibility' (role of touch). The perceptual features are not synchronically derived from spatial features. → Exophoric deixis in (at least) Ticuna does not hinge on space.

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Conclusions: Deixis as Projective Content

Perceptual meanings are projective content. Like presuppositions and conventional implicatures But have important differences from other types of projective content: scope relative to modals, temporal interpretation. → Deictic meanings are different from non-deictic ones, but not irreconcilably different.

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Thank you!

Many thanks to: My official Ticuna consultants Angel Bitancourt Serra, Ling Candido Serra, Yaneth Candido Guerrero, ECP, Marcelo Farías Caetano, Deoclesio Guerrero Gomez, Katia Salate Candido, Sotil Suarez Gonzalez, and LWG My Ticuna friends Hortensia, Magdalena, Betsabe, Mavis, Ursula, Keni, and others Other Ticuna speakers who allowed me to videotape them, talked to me, and otherwise made the research possible Thanks also to: Lev Michael, William F. Hanks, audiences at UC Berkeley and the University of Sydney Oswalt Endangered Language Grants (2015, 2016, 2017) NSF GRFP (2014-), NSF/DEL DDRIG (2017-2018)

...... All errors and omissions are my own...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Anderson, Stephen R. and E.L. Keenan. 1985. Deixis. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 259--308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bohnemeyer, Jurgen. 2012. Yucatec demonstratives in interaction: Spontaneous vs. elicited data. In Andrea C. Schalley (ed.), Practical theories and empirical practice, 99--128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carvalho, Fernando de. 2009. On the genetic kinship of the languages Tikúna and Yurí. Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Antropológica 1(2). 247--268. Chierchia, Gennaro and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: form, function and grammaticalization. John Benjamins Publishing. Enfield, N.J. 2003. Demonstratives in space and interaction: data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic

analysis. Language 79(1). 82--117...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Fillmore, Charles. 1973. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club / CSLI. Hanks, William F. 1990. Referential practice: language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hanks, William F. 2011. Deixis and indexicality. In Wolfram Bublitz and Neal R. Norrick (eds.), Foundations of pragmatics, 315--346. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Levinson, Stephen C. 2004. The language of space in Yelî Dnye. In Stephen C. Levinson and David Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(4). 369--415. Montes, M.E. 2004. Fonología y dialectología del tikuna...... Amerindia 29/30. 97--116...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Peeters, David and Aslı Özyürek. 2016. This and that revisited: a social and multimodal approach to spatial demonstratives. Frontiers in Psychology 7.

Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, Craige Roberts and Mandy Simons. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89(1). 66--109.

van Kranenburg, Nelly. 2016. A sketch of the demonstrative system of Amarasi. Master's thesis, Leiden University.

Wilkins, David. 1999. The 1999 demonstrative questionnaire: `this' and `that' in comparative perspective. In David Wilkins (ed.), Manual for the 1999 field season. Nijmegen: Max Planck ...... Institute for Psycholinguistics...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Summary: Perceptual features of Series 1-3

Isn't it confusing to have just one demonstrative for invisible referents? No, because Ticuna also has other indexical resources: Nominal demonstratives with =ã⁴ma⁴ Locative demonstratives Indexical locative descriptions ('near me/you')

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Invisible/addressee-centered bridging contexts

U says to M: ɟi³¹ʔe²ma⁴, tɨ³¹ʔɨ̃³ na¹ɟa¹ʔu²

ɟi³¹ʔe²ma⁴ tɨ³¹ =ʔɨ̃³ dnom5(I) 3(I) =acc na¹= ɟa¹ʔu² imp.a= get(A)

'There it is (invisible/near you), grab it!'

...... Introduction Background Percept meanings exist Percept meanings are encoded Conclusions References ...... Series 2/3=ã⁴ma⁴ bad with necessarily invisible referent

(9) Context: You and I notice a bad smell on the breeze. You tell me it is the smell of gasoline. We cannot see any actual gasoline stain or container of gasoline. (Same as 1) #ɟe⁴a²ã⁴ma⁴ / ŋe³ma² pa³¹a¹ne³ʔɨ̃⁴ gasolina=e¹ma³ ni⁴¹ʔĩ⁴.

#ɟe⁴a² =ã⁴ma⁴ / ŋe³ma² pa⁴³ =a¹ne¹ #dnom3(IV) =ã⁴ma⁴ / dnom5(IV) issue.smell =areal.sbj =ʔɨ̃⁴ gasolina +e¹ma³ ni⁴¹= ĩ⁴ =nmlz(IV) Sp:gasoline +vapor 3.i= cop(I) 'That smell is gasoline vapor.' (LWG: 2017.2.86)

ɟe⁴a²ã⁴ma⁴ OK only in deferred reference to contingently

invisible object......